Thedesignationandpresentationofmaterialinthispublicationdoesnotimplytheexpressionofany opinionwhatsoeveronthepartoftheRegionalCommunityForestryTrainingCenterforAsiaandthe Pacific(RECOFTC),theFoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,ortheNetherlands DevelopmentOrganisation(SNV)concerningthelegalstatusofanycountry,territory,cityorareaofits authorities,orconcerningthedelimitationofitsfrontiersandboundaries.
Allrightsreserved.Reproductionanddisseminationofmaterialinthisinformationproductforeducational orothernon-commercialpurposesisauthorizedwithoutanypriorwrittenpermissionfromthecopyright holdersprovidedthesourceisfullyacknowledged.Reproductionofmaterialinthisinformationproduct forsaleorothercommercialpurposesisprohibitedwithoutwrittenpermissionofthecopyrightholders. ApplicationsforsuchpermissionshouldbeaddressedtoDrYamMalla,ExecutiveDirector,RECOFTC, KasetsartUniversity,POBox1111,Bangkok10930,Thailand(yam.malla@recoftc.org).
Citation: RECOFTC,2007.SharingtheWealth,Improvingthedistributionofbenefitsandcostsfrom CommunityForestry:PolicyandLegalFrameworks.SynthesisofdiscussionsattheSecondCommunity ForestryForum,21-22March2007,Bangkok,Thailand,RECOFTC,FAOandSNV,Bangkok.
©RECOFTC,FAOandSNV ISBN978-974-8062-23-5
CoverdesignandlayoutbySomchaiSingsa
Photo contributions:
Bangladesh –IklilMondal,ForestDepartment Bhutan–HansBeukeboom,Helvetas/SFD Cambodia –BFDK
China–LiWeichang,ChineseAcademyofForestry Indonesia –ThorstenHuber,RECOFTC
Laos PDR–JoostFoppes,SNV&BounsouanePhongphichith,MAF Mongolia–PatrickEvans,FAO
Nepal–ThorstenHuber,RECOFTC Philippines–RemediosEvangelista,FMB Sri Lanka–SteveHunt,SLANRMP Thailand–HannahPerkins,RECOFTC Vietnam –RonnakornTriraganon,RECOFTC
Communityforestryhasgreatpotentialtoimprovethewelfareoftheestimated450million impoverishedpeoplelivinginandaroundforestsinAsia1.Buttheextenttowhichthispotentialis realizeddependsstronglyuponwhethercommunitiesareabletosecurethebenefitsthatcommunity managedforestsgenerate,andwhethertheseactuallyreachthepoorestatthecommunitylevel. Therealbenefitsobtainedinreturnforthetimeandenergyexpendedbycommunitiesinforest managementhelpstogaintheirlong-termcommitmenttosustainableforestmanagement.
TheSecondCommunityForestryForumwasconvenedwiththepurposeofsharingexperiences amongpeersonhowtodistributethebenefitsandcostsofcommunityforestrymoreequitably. Policymakersfrom14countriesinAsia(Bangladesh,Bhutan,Cambodia,China,India,Indonesia, LaoPeople’sDemocraticRepublic,Mongolia,Nepal,Philippines,SriLanka,Thailand,Timor-Leste andVietnam)gatheredinBangkokfrom23-24March2007tosharelessonslearned,challengesand innovationsonthepressingissueofbenefitdistributionfromcommunityforestry.
Acarefullydesignedandfacilitatedprocesshelpedtomaintaineffectiveinteractionbetweencountry delegationstodiscusskeyquestionsrelatedtobenefitsandcostsincommunityforestry.TheForum aimedtofostermeaningfulexchangeamongstpeersdealingdailywithpoliciesandlawsimpinging oncommunityforestry,andinanenvironmentthatsupportedfrankreflection,supportandlearning. Duringtheprocess,manyopportunitiesemergedforthosecountriesnewertocommunityforestryto ‘leapfrog’onthelessonsofothers.
Thisreportpresentsasynthesisofthediscussionsthatoccurredoverthetwodays.Itprovidesauseful resourceforthosewithinandoutsidegovernmentwhoshareaninterestinharnessingcommunity forestrytosupportpovertyreductionandsustainableforestmanagement.
DrYamMalla DrHeChangchui RobUkkerman
Foreword
Executive Director RECOFTC
Regional Forestry Network Leader SNV
Assistant Director-General FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
TheSecondCommunityForestryForumwasmadepossiblethroughtheeffortsofacoregroupof peoplewhojointlydevelopedandorganisedtheevent,including:NoelleO’Brien,PeterStephen, RonnakornTriraganon,JohnGuernier,SangoMahantyandYamMalla(RECOFTC),PatrickDurst, KenichiShonoandSimmathiriAppanah(FAO),andNguyenVanSanandRobUkkerman(SNV). DonGilmourprovidedconceptualleadershipandfacilitatedactivediscussionandreflectionon keythemesduringtheForum.LeelaWuttikraibunditandJudithHenzelookedafterlogisticsfor theevent.
TheForumdiscussionsweregreatlyenrichedbythepresentationsandcontributionsofJuan Pulhin(UniversityofPhilippines,LosBanos),RajendraLamichhane(CARENepal)andBharat Pokharel(Interco-operationNepal).These,togetherwiththeactiveparticipationofcountry delegationsfromBangladesh,Bhutan,Cambodia,China,India,Indonesia,LaoPDR,Mongolia, Nepal,Philippines,SriLanka,Thailand,Timor-LesteandVietnamhelpedtocreateaconducive environmentforstimulatingdiscussionandusefulexchangeoncountryexperiencesand challenges.
ThissynthesispaperwaspreparedbySangoMahanty,withcontributionsfromDonGilmour, NoelleO’Brien,JulianAtkinsonandDuncanMcLeod.Usefulfeedbackonthepaperandits contentswerereceivedfrom:JamesBampton,TonyDjogo,SokhHeng,StephenHunt,Rajendra Lamichhane,ChaerudinMangkudisastra,BharatPokharel,JohnPulhin,KenichiShonoand NguyenQuangTan.HannahPerkins(AYAD-RECOFTC)assistedwithfinalpublication.
TheSecondCommunityForestryForumwasmadepossiblethroughfinancialsupportfrom RECOFTC’scoredonors(SDC,SIDAandtheNorwegianMinistryofForeignAffairs),FAOand SNV.
Acknowledgements
Tableofcontents
Acronyms
CBFM CommunityBasedForestManagement CF CommunityForestry
CFM CommunityForestManagement CFUG CommunityForestUserGroups FAO FoodandAgricultureOrganization NGO NonGovernmentOrganization NTFP Non-TimberForestProduct
RECOFTC RegionalCommunityForestryTrainingCenterforAsiaandthePacific
SAGUN StrengthenedActionforGovernanceinUtilizationofNaturalResourcesProgram SDC SwissAgencyforDevelopmentandCooperation
SIDA SwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperationAgency WWF WorldWideFundforNature
Foreword i
Acknowledgement ii
Acronyms iii
ExecutiveSummary 1
Introduction 2
Communityforestry:whatbenefitsandforwhom? 3
Definingkeyquestionsonbenefitflowandbenefitsharing 4
Benefitflow:communitiessecuringbenefitsfromcommunityforestry 6
Definingclearandsecurepropertyrights 8
Equitablerevenuedistributionmechanisms 10
Clearandsimpleproceduresandinstitutionalarrangements 12
Benefitsharingwithincommunities 15
Localgovernancestructuresandprocesses 17
Monitoringtolearnandimprove 18
Equityandbenefits:wheretofromhere? 19
Conclusion 20
Notes 21
Executivesummary
Thepotentialbenefitsfromcommunityforestry aremanyandinclude:thedevelopmentofsocial capital,politicalempowerment,employment opportunities,capacitydevelopment,financial returnsfromsaleoftimberandNTFPs,direct useofthesameresources,themaintenanceof environmentalservicesandmore.However, communitymanagementofforestsalsoinvolves costsintheformoftime,moneyandopportunities foregonebycommunitymembers.TheSecond CommunityForestryForumfocusedonhowthe balanceofbenefitsandcostscanbetippedinfavor ofsustainableforestmanagementandpoverty reduction.Thespecificfocuswasonlegaland policyframeworkswhichinfluencewhatbenefits communitiescansecurefromforests(benefitflow), aswellasthedistributionofsuchbenefitsatthe communitylevel(benefitsharing).
Participantsflaggedanumberofpriorityareasfor futureattentiontoimprovetheflowofbenefitsto communities.Theseinclude:
• Consistentlawsandpoliciesfromthenational tothelocallevel.Nationallawsandpolicies shouldbeinclusivelydeveloped,andprovide broadguidanceandguaranteecertainrights. Additionallymoredetailedrulesandguidelines arebetterformulatedatthelevelofprovincial orlocalgovernment,toenablegreaterflexibility andresponsivenesstolocalconditions,
institutionsandpractices,butalsoanchored onthenationalframework.Governance arrangementsatdifferentscalesneedtobe connectedandcomplementary.
• Strongemphasisshouldbegiventominimizing proceduralcomplexityandtransactionalcosts inimplementinglaws.
• Monitorsocialandenvironmentaloutcomes forcontinuouslearningandimprovement. • Considercommunityforestrywithinthewider
contextoftheintegrateddevelopmentof communities.Communityforestryinstitutions couldpotentiallyserveasanodalpointto channelandcoordinateothercommunity developmentactivities.
• Exploremoremarket-orientedapproachesto communityforestry,includingopportunities forcommunitiesinvolvedincommunity forestrytobenefitfromenvironmentalservice markets.Governmentscanfacilitatethis throughbetterinformation,capacitybuilding onvalueadditionandenterprisemanagement, andbyfacilitatinglinkageswithothermarket actors.
Benefitsharingatthelocallevelneedstobe improvedby:
• Improvedunderstandingofthesocial structuresofcommunities.Institutionalizing strongerinvolvementofthepoorand
disadvantagedincommunityforestry
initiatives,togetherwithcapacitybuildingand mentoringtogivethemarealvoice.
• Helpinglocalcommunityforestrybodiesto functionwithgoodparticipation,transparency andaccountability.
• Providingalegalframeworkforcommunity forestrycommitteestoactasademocratic, decentralizedlocalinstitution.
• Developingcriteriaandindicatorsfor monitoringbenefitsharingandbuildingthe capacityoffieldstaffandcommunitygroupsto assessbenefitsharingoutcomes.
• Developingeffectiveconflictmanagement mechanismstomediateconflictwithin communitiesandbetweencommunitiesand otherstakeholders.
Introduction
Withthegrowthofcommunityforestry2inAsia, manychallengesareemergingforpolicy-makers taskedwithdevelopingandimplementingthe rulestogoverncommunityinvolvementinforest management.Asaregionalorganizationthat buildscapacityandsupportseffectiveknowledge sharingandpracticeforcommunityforest
management,RECOFTCdecidedin2005tobring togetherhighlevelactorsfromforest
administrationsintheregiontodiscussthese challengesinanopenforumofpeers.ThisFirst CommunityForestryForumfocusedonlegal frameworksforcommunityforestry3.Responding tothedesireofthefirstForumparticipantsto continuethisdialogue,asecondCommunity ForestryForumwasorganizedtotakepolicy makersfurtherinexaminingthebenefitsand costsofcommunity-basedforestmanagement, andtheroleofgovernmentinsupporting equitabledistributionofthese.
Oneimportantreasonforthegrowthin communityforestry,apartfromaninterestin sustainableforestmanagement,istheconcernto improvethewelfareoftheestimated450million impoverishedpeoplelivinginandaroundforests inAsia4.Generatingarangeofbenefitsfrom communityforestsandensuringthatthesereach thepoorisonecrucialwayinwhichcommunity forestrycancontributetopovertyreduction.So far,theexperiencewiththishasbeenmixed. Establishedcommunityforestryprograms,for exampleinSouthAsia,havehadtocounter tendenciestowardselitecaptureofsuchbenefits5.
Countriesnewertocommunityforestry,onthe otherhand,areatthepointofestablishingthe rightsandresponsibilitiesneededfor
communitiestocapturethevaluegeneratedby
communityforests6.SriLankaandTimor-Leste, forexample,whichareintheprocessof
developingforestlegislation,havethepotentialto includesocialequitysafeguardsinnew
regulationsandguidelines.Insuchcasesthereis avitalopportunityto‘leapfrog‘onthelessons learnedbypioneeringcommunityforestry countriesbyaddressingdistributionalissuesat theoutset.Supportingthiskindofshared learningwasakeyobjectiveoftheForum.
Governmentdelegationsfromatotalof14 countriesparticipatedinthesecondCFForum andincluded:Bangladesh,Bhutan,Cambodia, China,India,Indonesia,LaoPDR,Mongolia, Nepal,Philippines,SriLanka,Thailand,Timor-LesteandVietnam.Thesecountriesareatvarious pointsonthecommunityforestryspectrum,with differentlevelsofexperience,anddifferentlegal andpolicyframeworksguidingcommunity forestry,whichinsomecasesalsoextendto benefitsharingissues(AnnexA).
TheForumcombinedshortpresentations,case studies,andworkinggroupstoexplorethepolicy andlegalissuesthatshapethepotentialfor communitiestoextractbenefitsfromcommunity forests,andthekeyissuesthatneedtobetaken uptoensureequitablesharingofbenefitsatthe communitylevel.Participantswere
predominantlyfromgovernmentbutalso includedresourcepeoplefromtheresearchand NGOcommunities.Theemphasishastherefore beenontheroleofgovernmentinbenefit
distributionprocessesfromcommunityforestry, aswellascriticallinkageswithotheractors. Unlessotherwisereferenced,theexamplesand issuesdiscussedinthispaperdrawdirectlyon Forumdiscussions.
Communityforestry:
whatbenefitsandforwhom?
Astartingpointinanydiscussiononbenefitsisto clarifywhatkindsofbenefitsareactually
emergingfromexistingcommunityforestry initiatives.Basedonexperiencesinthe14
countriesrepresentedattheForum,anumberof specificbenefitswereidentified.
Box 1: What benefits flow from
community forestry?
Social benefits:strengtheningand
developmentofcoordinationandgovernance mechanisms,relationshipsandnetworks (socialcapital);politicalempowerment; creationoflocalworkopportunities;
institutionalenhancement,tenure,capacities, welfareandsecurity.
Economic benefits: accesstoNTFPsand timberfordirecthouseholduse,incomefrom thesaleofNTFPs,agro-forestryyields,timber andenvironmentalservicemarkets,and employmentinCFactivities.
Environmental benefits: maintenanceof environmentalservices(biodiversity,soil health,agriculturalproductivity,carbon sequestration,airandwaterquality),and enhancedandwell-managedforestresources.
Thesecouldbroadlybegroupedintosocial, economic(directandindirect),andenvironmental benefits(Box1).Itwasclearthatfinancialbenefits areonesmallsubsetofwhatcommunitiescan gainfromplayinganactivepartinforest management.Thevalueinlookingbroadlyat benefitsinthiswayisthatwhileincomeis important,povertyreductionultimatelydepends onbuildingawidersetofassetsforimpoverished individualsandcommunities7.Additionally, processesofpoliticalempowerment,capacity buildinganddevelopmentofsocialcapital,canbe assignificanttothedevelopmentofcommunities inthelongtermasimmediatefinancialreturns. Theanalysisofbenefitsalsohighlightedthatitis notjusttheproductsfromcommunityforeststhat areimportanttodifferentstakeholders,butalso theservicesprovidedbyforests.
Benefitsarecounteredbycostsintimeand opportunitieswhichmightbebornedifferently byvariousgroupswithincommunitiesandby differentactorsfromthelocaltotheinternational level.Participantshighlightedthatforcommunity forestrytoworkasalongtermundertaking, thebenefitsneedtooutweighthecostsfromthe perspectiveofthesekeyactors(Box2).Atthe communitylevel,therewouldbelittleincentive toengageincommunityforestryifthecostswere highandthebenefitssmall.Forgovernmenttoo, tangibleimprovementsinenvironmental
conditionsandtheachievementofwiderpoverty reductiongoalswereimportantforthemto sustainacontinuedinvestmentincommunity forestry.
Someofthebenefitsidentifiedwerequantifiable, forexample,therevenuegainedfromthesaleof timberorNTFPsoragroforestryyields,while others,suchaspoliticalempowermentand capacitydevelopment,arequalitativeinnature.
Inthecaseofquantifiablebenefits,thequestion aroseofwhetherthebenefitsaresufficientto fostercontinuedcommitmenttocommunity forestry.Theparticipantsfoundthatthisdepends stronglyontheresourceendowmentfor
communities.Forexample,whetherforestsarein goodconditionorheavilydegradedinitially, whichresourcescanbeused,andwhatshareof thereturnsareabletobecapturedbythe
community.Theseissuesarediscussedfurtherin thenextsection.
Box 2: What are the costs of community
forestry?
8
Time,moneyandopportunitiesforegone: • Negotiatingpropertyrights.
• Gatheringinformationformanagement planning.
• Negotiatinganddesigningmanagement arrangements.
• Regeneratingdegradedresources. • Monitoringcompliancewithrules. • Foregoingalternativeusesoftimeandof
Definingkeyquestionson
benefitflowandbenefitsharing
Drawingonearliercollaborativeworkby RECOFTC,WWFandSNV9,twomainaspects ofbenefitdistributionweredefinedforanalysis anddiscussionduringtheworkshop(seeFigure 1).Firstly,withanaudienceofpolicymakers,it wasimportanttolookatgovernance10
arrangementsforcommunityforests,including policyandregulatoryfactorsthatimpingeon whetherornotcommunitiesareabletocapture anybenefitsfromtheseforestsinthefirstplace. Forexample,theconditionoftheforestresources allocatedtocommunitiesdetermineshowlong theymustwaitbeforetimberorotherproducts areavailableforharvest.Lawsandpoliciesaffect whatresourcescanbeaccessedandforwhat purpose,andrevenuesharingarrangements affectwhatproportionoftheincomegainedfrom differentresourcescanactuallybeheldby
communitiesandhowmuchissharedwiththe State.Thisaspectofthebenefitpicturewas definedasbenefit flow.
Atthesametime,itisimportanttoconsiderequity atthecommunitylevelinincomedistribution, accesstogovernanceprocesses,workopportunities, andresourcesfordirecthouseholdconsumption. Thesubjectofbenefit sharingatthecommunity levelwasthesecondkeyareaofdiscussioninthe Forum.
Externalgovernanceconditionsplayakeyrolein determiningthetypeandlevelofbenefitsthat communitiescangain.Twocriticalareasofconcern thathaveemergedfrompreviousresearch11arethe roleofpropertyrightsinenablingcommunitiesto accessresourcesinthefirstplaceand,secondly, whatproportionoftheincomeorresources communitiesareentitledtofromcommunity forests.Anotherimportantfactoristheresource endowmentincommunityforests.Thisinfluences thelevelofresourceusepossibleandhowlongit takesforbenefitstoaccruetocommunities,
comparedwithcostsinregeneratingandmanaging theresource.
Figure 1: Benefit flow and benefit sharing
Intermsoflocalsharingofbenefits,criticalfactors toexploreincludethelocalinstitutionsand
processesinvolvedingoverningcommunity forests,whoparticipates,howdecisionmaking processeswork,andwhoholdsthepower.Allof whichinfluencewhogetswhatfromcommunity forestryinitiatives.Inthisforum,theparticular focuswasontherolethatgovernmentcouldplay atbothoftheselevels.
Whiletheframeworkraisesanumberofkeyareas fordiscussion,italsohaslimitations.Theline betweenwidergovernanceprocessesandlocal governanceisnotassharpasissuggestedinthe figure.Forexample,Statelawsandguidelines maydirecttheestablishment,structureand functioningoflocalgovernancebodies(e.g. guidelinesspecifyrequirementsforaproportion ofusergroupcommitteestorepresentwomen ordisadvantagedgroupsinNepalandIndia). Inothercases,communitybodiesmayface challengesbecausetheylacklegitimacyunder nationalpoliciesandlaws(e.g.inVietnam,the LawonForestProtectionandDevelopment enablesvillagecommunitiestoholdforestrights orforestland,butthecivillawdoesnotrecognise anylocalgovernanceentitybelowthelevelof communewhichmakesitchallengingforvillage levelCFbodiestogainformalrecognition12). Thus,localgovernanceisintegrallyconnectedto nationalgovernancearenas,andinteractswith national,state/provincialanddistrictlevelsof government.
Anotherissuethatspanslocalandnational boundariesisthedevelopmentand
implementationofnationalorprovincialpolicies andlaws.Althoughpoliciesandlawsareinsome respectsagivenwithinwhichlocalgovernance arrangementsmustoperate,theyarealso
undergoingconstantevolutionanddevelopment. Theprocessesofdevelopingandinterpreting policiesandlawsinvolvenegotiation,
interpretationandexchangebetweenthese variouslevels13.
Benefitflow:communitiessecuring
benefitsfromcommunityforestry
“Equitable access to benefits is not at the mercy of the government; it is the right of the people. A rights-based approach is the way forward”.
Bharat Pokharel, Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project
Enablingcommunitiestosecurebenefitsfromthe foreststheymanageisimportantbothto
sustainableforestmanagementandlocalsocial andeconomicdevelopment.Drawingonthe analyticalframework,threekeyquestionswere exploredinrelationtothisissueofbenefitflow: propertyrights,revenuesharing,and
implementationofpoliciesandlaws.
Securepropertyrightsthatenablecommunitiesto accessandmanageforestsareafoundational requirementforcommunityforestry,andenable communitiestodrawdirectandindirectbenefits fromsuchforests.Thepropertyrights
underpinningcommunityforestryvaryacross Asia,andsomekeydifferencesmayincludebut arenotlimitedto:whatrightsaregained(e.g. management,use,exclusion,conversion,sale), whatresourcescanbeusedortraded(e.g.NTFPs, timber,agroforestryyields,forestland),andby whom(e.g.individualhouseholds,usergroups), andthedurationoftheagreement(AnnexA).
Thesecondissue,onceresourceaccessissecured, iswhathappenstoanyrevenuethatisgenerated fromcommunityforests?Canitbedistributed
withincommunitiesorusedbycommunity bodies?DoesasharehavetobepaidtotheState and,ifitdoes,whatproportion?
Thirdly,whilelawsandpoliciesmayenable benefitstoflowtothecommunityonpaper, thereareoftengapsandchallengesin implementation.Itisthereforeimportantto considerhowworkableexistingpoliciesandlaws oncommunityforestryandbenefitfloware implementedinpractice.
AcasefromthePhilippines,presentedbyDrJohn Pulhin,setthesceneandhighlightedtheinterplay betweenthesefactorsinachievingtheflowof benefitstocommunities(seeBox3).Inthe Philippinescase,thereisasupportivepolicy environmentforcommunitymanagementof forests,andforcommunitiestodrawa
Box 3: Simple tools versus complex policies for forest harvesting in community
managed forests in the Philippines
14
Community-basedForestManagementwasadoptedin1995asamajornationalstrategyinthe Philippinestoachievesustainableforestmanagementandsocialjustice.Thisprogramis
consideredamongthemoreprogressiveintheworldfromastructuralpolicyreformperspective, andareasunderCBFMhavegrownsteadilytoaroundsixmillionhain2004.
ThetimberintheseCBFMareasconstitutesasubstantialresource,withconservativeestimatesof 217.5millionm3andUS$13billioninvalue(basedonamarketrateofUS$60perm3).
Exploitationthroughsimpletechnologiesthatareaccessibletocommunities,togetherwithsound managementoftheresourcewouldenablethoseinvolvedtodrawanestimatedincomeof
US$7.50perpersonday,aroundUS$5higherthanthecurrentaveragedailyincomeinrural Philippines.Yetinpractice,thispotentialisnotbeingrealized,eventhoughtheneededskillsand resourcestocutthetimberarealreadyinplace.
Why? Akeyreasonisthatthesamerulesthatwereoriginallydesignedforcorporatelogging operationsareappliedtocommunityloggingoperations.Communitieshavetosubmit
comprehensivemanagementplanspreparedbyprofessionalforestersthattheycannotaffordto hire;theythenneedtoobtainseparatepermitsforharvesting,transportandotheroperations. Thecomplexityofprocedureshasfuelledcorruptionaseachpermitcreatestheopportunityfor officialstoextractmoneyfromcommunities.Furthermore,thelegalbasisforCBFMisweak,asit isbasedongovernmentpolicyratherthanlaw(oftenreferredtoas‘softlaws’).Recently,
harvestingprivilegesinCBFMshavebeencancelled,oftenwithoutdueprocess,duetothe infractionsofafewcommunities.
Anumberofstrategiescouldhelptoaddressthesebarriers.Simplearea-basedcriteriato determinetheannualallowablecutcouldbedeveloped,therebyreducingtheneedfor
professionalforesteradviceonmanagementplans.Legalreformtoderegulatetheharvestingof plantedtimberonprivatelandswouldreducetheneedforcomplexapprovals.Therulesand regulationsfortimberharvestingalsoneedtobesimplifiedtomakethemmoreworkable. AnotherkeyissueistheneedforstablepolicyontimberutilizationinCBFMareas.
Definingclearand
securepropertyrights
Theconceptofcommunityforestryimpliesan agreedlevelofcommunityaccesstoforest resourcesandacommunityroleinmanaging these.The14countriesparticipatingintheForum areatdifferentpointsinthedevelopmentof communityforestryarrangements,andthe specificbundleofrightsthatappliesto communitymanagedforestsmayvary. Furthermore,communityforestryandthe propertyrightsthatunderpinitarenotalways supportedbylaw.Insomecountries(e.g. Philippines,India),astatementofpolicy underpinscommunityforestry.
Countrieswhererightstocommunityforestsare supportedbysoftlawsarefindingthatsuch rightsaremorefragileintheeventofpolitical changeandshiftsinpolicyorpersonnelwithin government.InthePhilippinesforexample,the legalbasisforcommunityforestryisanExecutive Order,whichdoesnothavethesamelegal
standingasalaw.ASustainableForest
Managementbillhasbeenunderdiscussionfor manyyears,butneedstopassintolawtoprovide astablelegalframeworkforCBFMandassociated benefitflowandsharingmechanisms.Inother cases,suchasSriLankaandTimor-Leste,thelegal arrangementsarestillunderdevelopment.
Firminguprightsbasedonsoftlawsand developingnewlegalframeworksprovidethe opportunitytomakerightstocommunityforests clearer,morerobust,andlegallyenforceable.
Ingeneral,communityforestryhasappliedto barelands,productionforestsandbufferzone areas.Theownershipofforestlandgenerally remainswithgovernment,exceptinChinaand Vietnam.InthecaseofChina,substantialuseand managementrightsovercollectiveforestshave beenallocatedtoindividualhouseholdsandlocal collectivesfor30-100years15.InVietnam,similar longtermleaseswithextensiverightsarebeing providedthroughtheGovernment’sForestLand Allocationprogram,initiallytoindividual householdsandnow,atapilotlevel,to
communities16.Morecommonly,community forestrybringsrightstospecificforestresources only,ratherthanforestland.InNepal,for example,fulluseandextractionrightsare conferredforNTFPsandtimberresourcesin communityforestareas,whileinIndia,thisis onlytrueforNTFPs.Furthermore,accessrights maybesubjecttofurtherpermitsandregulatory arrangements.InthecaseofthePhilippines,for example,additionalpermitsarerequiredtouse somecommunityforestresourcessuchastimber.
Thegeneralpatternwithcommunityforestsinthe 14countriesrepresentedattheForumisforaccess toNTFPstobefreerthanaccesstohighervalue commercialtimberresources.Timberharvesting iseitherhighlyregulatedor,inThailandand manyprovincesofChina,notallowedatalldue tologgingbansinnaturalforests.Asshownin Box3,theoutcomeofthisfurtherregulatorylayer forhighervalueresourcesmeansthattheflowof benefitsfromcommunityforestsisquitelimited comparedwithwhatitcouldbe,consideringthe availabletimberresources.Forumparticipants agreedthatoncearrangementsforsustainable managementofharvestareinplace,itis importanttoreducethecomplexityofpermit systemsinordertoopenuptimberharvesting opportunitiesincommunityforestsandincrease benefitflowtocommunities.
Thedurationofrightsenabledthrough communityforestryvaries.InVietnam,for
example,rightsareconferredfora50yearperiod, inthePhilippines25years,andinIndonesia arrangementsrangefrom25-35years.The durationofrightshasimplicationsforthe
willingnessofcommunitymemberstomakelong terminvestmentsinforestmanagement,and ultimatelythedurationofbenefitflowfrom communitymanagedforests.
investmentsthatmaybeneededtoachievea productiveresourcebase.Ingeneral,participants feltthattheforestresourcesallocatedfor
communitymanagementhavebeenpoor.In countriessuchasIndia,forexample,community forestryhasremainedaninterventionfor
degradedlands,althoughareasadjoining
protectedareasarealsobeingconsidered.Others haveexperimentedwiththeallocationofhigher valueforestresources.InPhilippines,Bhutan, NepalandMongolia,forexample,community managedforestsalsoencompasssomeareaswith substantialforestresources.
Forumparticipantsrecognizedthattheallocation ofdegradedresourcesconstrainbenefitflow. Howeverthereweremixedviewsonwhether communitiescouldexpecttohaveaccesstohigh valueforestsforuseandmanagement,andthe higherlevelofbenefitsthatthesecouldbring. Resourcepersonshighlightedthatsignificant casesexistwherecommunitiesaremanaginghigh valueforestsinAsiaandelsewhere.Examples includeMexico,wherecommunitiesareactively managingandsustainablyharvestingcommercial timberfromsubstantialareasofforests17,and Nepal’svisibleimprovementsinforestcondition andcoverthroughcommunityforestry,aswellas currenteffortsinthehighvalueforestsofthe Terai.TheIndiandelegationfeltthatgovernment supportforcommunitymanagementofhigher valueforestswouldbemoreforthcomingif governmentactorswereexposedtothiskindof compellingevidenceofcommunitiessustainably usingandmanaginghighvalueforests.
Animportantconsiderationintheallocationof highqualityforestlandforcommunity
managementisthegeographicaldisparityin accesstohighvalueresourcesbycommunities.In Bhutan,forexample,thedelegationsharedthat thescarcityofforestinsomeareascould
eventuallybeexpectedtocreatedisparitiesas communitiesgainaccesstodifferentqualityforest areas.Anissueemergingfromthis,alsorelevant inothercountries,isthescopeforconflict
betweencommunitiesreceivingdifferentlevelsof forestendowment.InNepal,thehightimber valuesintheTeraiforests,andtheintenttoshare returnswithdistantusersofhighvalueforests, hasledgovernmenttomanagetheseareas throughanewmodalitycalledCollaborative ForestManagement(CFM).CFMsharesforest managementresponsibilitiesandbenefits betweenthecentralGovernment,Village DevelopmentCommittees,andelectedCFM committees,whichrepresentbothnearbyand distantforestusers.Unlikethelong-established CFarrangementsinthehillswhereCommunity ForestUserGroups(CFUG)retain100%of revenuesgeneratedfromcommunityforests,two keytimberspeciesintheTerai(Shorearobusta andAcaciacatechu)aretaxedat15%whensold outsideoftheusergroup.Thisdisparityinbenefit flowfromCFandCFMareashasledtoconflict betweenusergroupsandgovernment,
particularlyasthecostsofmanagementby CFUGsarenotfactoredintorevenuedistribution inCFM18.
Finally,participantsrecognizedthatclearand securepropertyrightsareanecessarycondition forbenefitflow,butthatthescaleofbenefits securedbycommunitiesalsodependsupontheir abilitytoaccessmarketsforforestproductsand services.Inthisregard,therewasstronginterest inexploringmoremarket-orientedapproachesto communityforestry,includingopportunitiesfor communitiespracticingcommunityforestryto benefitfromenvironmentalservicemarkets. Governments,aswellasnon-governmentactors, couldsupportcommunitiesthroughfacilitating betterinformationflowandcapacitybuilding. Subsidizingforestenterprises,however,wasnot seenasaneffectiveroleforgovernment,asit wouldfosterdependenceandinefficiencyinthe longrun.
Althoughmostofthecountriesparticipatingin theForumhaveanexistingoremerging
governanceframeworkforcommunityforestry, thesamedoesnotapplytorulesforrevenue distributionfromcommunityforests(seeAnnex Afordetailsofrevenuesharingrulesinthe14 countries).Someexamplesinclude:
• InIndiatheprovincialgovernmentsset revenuesharesfromJointForestManagement areas.Althoughthereisvariationbyprovince, communitiesgenerallyretainupto100%of revenuesfromNTFPsandotherintermittent yieldproducts(e.g.thinningfromtimber crops),and10-15%ofrevenuefromtimber productsheldbygovernment.
• InNepal,communitiescankeep100%of resourcesandincomeassociatedwithtimber andNTFPsinCommunityForests.IntheTerai however,accordingtotheCollaborativeForest Managementmodalityoutlinedearlier,15%of revenuefromShorearobustaandAcacia catechusoldoutsidetheusergroupsmustbe paidtothecentralGovernment.
• InthePhilippinestheGovernmentreceives 25%fromthesaleoftimberharvestedfrom plantationsthathavebeenestablishedwith governmentinvestment.
• InVietnam,revenuesharesdependon
whethertheforestlandhasbeenreplantedby the‘owners’,isofpoorquality,ornatural forest.Inthelattercase,therevenueshareis basedoncalculationsofincrementalgrowth fromabaselineyear(AnnexA).
• InIndonesiaandparticularlyinJava,
communitieswillreceiveamaximumof25% ofthestandardpriceoftimberproducts-dependingontheparticipationlevelof communitiesinthetimbermanagement
process-while75%oftherevenuefromtimber productsisallocatedtothecompany.Ofthis 75%,aproportionispaidastimbertaxtothe government.Foragroforestry,wherethe communityisactivelyinvolvedin
management,theykeep100%oftheyield.
Participantsfeltthatsuchlawsandguidelinescan playanimportantroleinimprovingtransparency regardinglevelsofharvestandpaymentstothe Stateversusthecommunity.Thisinturncould helptobuildtrustandreduceopportunitiesfor corruption.Theyalsoprovidesomecertaintyand aminimumsetofguaranteestocommunities abouttheirexpectedlevelofreturnfromdifferent resources.However,thequestionremainson whatisanappropriatelevelofreturnto communitiesversustheState?
Amongstpioneeringcountriesforcommunity forestryinSouthAsia,aswellasanumberof newlyemergingcommunityforestryinitiativesin VietnamandChina,thetrendistowards
liberalizingreturnsfromcommunityforestsin favorofthelocalcommunities.Thishascomefirst withthedirectandcommercialuseofNTFPs, whileinmostcasesaproportionoftimber
revenueisheldbytheGovernment.Thesituation withNepal’scommunityforestryinthehillsisan importantexceptiontothis;thefactthat
communitiesintheseareascanhold100%of revenuesfromcommunityforestsprovidesa strongincentiveforeffectivemanagement.As wellasminimizingtaxes,severalForum participantsalsosuggestedthatsubsidiesfor
Equitablerevenuedistribution
forestmanagementshouldgraduallybe
minimizedtoencouragecommunityforeststobe managedasacommercialenterprise.
Whererevenuesarecollectedbygovernment,the methodforcalculatingtherevenueleveland governmentproceduresforcollectionare important.SomeworkinggroupsintheForum proposedthatthecalculationofappropriate sharesforrevenuesshouldtakeaccountofthe costsincurredbycommunitiesinmanagingthe resource.TheTeraicasediscussedearlier highlightsthedisincentivescreatedfor communitiesiftheyareinvestinginforest
management,buttheircostsarenotrecognizedor factoredintobenefitdistribution.Another
exampleofanattempttofactorincostsisthe applicationofdifferentialratesofrevenuebeing allocatedforplantedcomparedwithnatural forests.Inadditiontopurefinancialcosts,a slightlymoresophisticatedapproachmightalso
factorinopportunitycoststocommunitiesandthe costsandsavingstogovernment,includingforany non-forestryinfrastructureandservicesprovided throughthecommunityforestryinitiative.Where governmentproceduresforcollectingrevenueare verycomplex,thecostsofcollectioncaneasily outweightherevenueraised.Inpurefinancial terms,thereisvalueinkeepingtheprocedures simple.
Anotherimportantpointrelatestotheuseof revenuesfromcommunityforestry.Forum participantsemphasizedthatanyrevenues collectedbytheStatefromcommunityforests shouldbereinvestedbackintoforestmanagement, ratherthandisappearingintocentralrevenue.In generalthislinkagebetweenroyaltiestakenby governmentandreinvestmentbackintoforestry and,morespecifically,communityforestry,was felttobeveryweak,andthemanagementofthese fundslackedtransparency.
Clearandsimpleproceduresand
institutionalarrangements
Havingawelldesignedpolicyandlegal
frameworkisonlyonepartofafunctioningforest governancesystem;effectiveimplementationis another.Forumparticipantshighlightedthat implementationoflawsandpoliciesfailif: • peopledon’tknowaboutthem.Inmost
countries,thelanguageofpolicyandlawwas notreadilyunderstoodbytheruralpeople whoweremostaffectedbythetheselaws,or evenattimesbythefieldlevelstaffresponsible fortheirimplementation.
• thedirectandopportunitycostsoffollowing themaretoohigh.ParticipantsfromChina,for example,highlightedthatthehighcosttolocal forestusersinfollowingthepermit
requirementsforcommercialforestusemeant thatoftenusersdidnotfollowthese.
• theydonotaddresslocalrealities,orthey clashwithinstitutionalarrangementsatthe community,localgovernmentandprovincial levels.Indonesianparticipantshighlightedthat suchdisjunctureisoftenfoundbetweenlaws andrulesoperatingatdifferentlevelsintheir country.
Forumparticipantsagreedthat,ingeneral, communityforestryarrangementsneededto improveinalloftheseareas.Theyalsoagreed thatthiswouldbehelpedbydevelopingpolicies andlawsinamoreinclusiveway,sothatlocal conditionsandperspectivescouldbeaddressedat theoutset,orinrevisionstorulesandregulations atthenationallevel.
WiththedecentralizationtrendinmanyAsian countries,thequestionaroseastothemost appropriatescopeforlawsandpoliciesat
differentlevelsofgovernment.Participantswere oftheviewthat,incountrieseffecting
decentralization,itwasmoreappropriatefor nationallawstofocusatthelevelofbroad policiesandframeworks,guaranteeingcertain rightsinrelationtocommunityforestryand benefitflow.Anotherimportantrolefornational institutionswasinprovidingamonitoringand
guidingroleforthecontinuingdevelopmentof communityforestry.
However,particularlyinlargecountrieswith diverselandscapeandcommunityconditions, specificoperationalguidelinesneedtobe developedclosertotheground,sothattheycan addressthisdiversity.Indeeddecentralization givesprovincialandlocalgovernmentatthe districtorsub-districtlevelanincreasingly importantroleinsettingsuchlocalregulations andrules.Anexampleofthisisthedelegationof manyspecificpowerstodevelopcommunity forestryrelatedrulestotheprovincelevelin India.
legallyincorporatedbody,whichcanenterinto legalagreementswiththeForestDepartmentto managegovernmentforests.
Communityforestrybodiesatthevillagelevel arethefinalcriticallinkinthegovernancechain, andplayacriticalroleinlocalforestgovernance. Designingappropriateandcomplementarylaws andrulestofunctioneffectivelyacrossthese levels(village,sub-district,district,province, national)wasthereforeflaggedasakeyareafor futureattention.InIndia,onewayof
strengtheningthelinkagebetweenJointForest ManagementCommitteesandpanchayatshas beentoincluderepresentativesfromthe panchayatonJointForestManagement
Committees.Thisisseenasausefulapproach becauseitenableschecksandbalancesonvillage levelgovernancearrangements,aswellas
providingaccesstowiderdevelopmentresources throughpanchayats.InthecaseofIndiaand Nepal,communityforestrybodiesaregradually takingonarolebeyondcommunityforestryto negotiateandmediatewiderruraldevelopment activities,andbecominganodalpointfor developmentalactivities.Thebenefitsof
improvingsuchlinkageswerewidelyrecognized byForumparticipants(Table1).
Implementinglawsinvolvescosts,bothtothe authorityresponsibleforimplementingthemand tothoseneedingtocomply.Thesecostsincrease withthecomplexityoflegalprocesses.An importantissueforbenefitflowrelatedtothisis therelativemagnitudeofcostscomparedwith benefits.Whereprocessesareoverlycomplexand
requirelargeinvestmentsofmoneyandtimeto meetrequirements,withmanyhurdlestojump,it becomesmoredifficultforthecommercial
benefitsofcommunityforestrytooutweighcosts. Iftheprocessisverycomplexandthebenefitsat theendaresmall,communityforestrymaynot provearationalchoiceforcommunities.Inthe Philippines,forexample,theprocessforobtaining permitsforcommercialuseofresourcesisas onerousasthoseimposedonlargescale commercialforestryoperations19.Thisweighs heavilyonsmallscaleforestproducersin comparisonwiththeexpectedreturns.
Inadditiontotheconstraintsposedbylawsthat areverycomplextoimplement,peoplecannot embracetheirrightsandresponsibilitiesiftheydo notknowaboutorunderstandrulesand
regulationsrelatingtocommunityforestry.Two dimensionswereidentifiedforthisissueoflegal fluency.Firstly,abarrierisoftenposedbythe languageofnationallevelpoliciesandlaws, whichistypicallyquitelegalisticortechnical. Thereisaneedforkeydocumentsandrulestobe translatedintoplainlanguagethatisaccessibleto non-technicalpeople.Arelatedissueistheneed toimproveawarenessatthecommunitylevel,as wellasamongstfieldbasedstaffinvolvedin implementingcommunityforestryfrom
governmentandnon-governmentorganizations, astheyoftenlackinformationonrightsand responsibilities.
Apartfrominformation,theotherkeyingredients foreffectiveimplementationofcommunity forestrypoliciesaresufficientresources,capacity, andasupportiveinstitutionalculturein
government.Forumparticipantsrecognizedthat capacityisoftenalsolowamongstfieldstaffand localgovernmentoncurrentrulesandregulations andhowtoimplementtheseinpractice.
Operationalregulationsandguidelinesthatare clearandeasytounderstandbystaffatthislevel couldhelptobuildcapacityonpolicy
implementation.ParticipantsfromBangladesh highlightedtheneedforattitudinalandcultural changewithingovernmentagenciesfor
coordinationandsynergybetweendifferentlevels ofgovernment,aswellasbetweengovernment actors,communitiesandthenon-government sector.
Anotherkeyrolefornationalgovernmentwasas afacilitatorofmonitoringprocessesthatengage thevariousstakeholdersinvolvedincommunity forestryfromcommunitiesthroughtolocal governmentandcivilsociety.Thiscouldbedone moresystematicallythanatpresentthroughthe collaborativedevelopmentofcriteriaand indicators,anduseoftheseinmonitoring processestoassessbenefitoutcomesatdifferent levels.
Thekeyareasforactiontoimprovebenefitflow tocommunitiesfromcommunityforestryare summarizedinBox4.
Box 4: Ways to improve the performance of laws and policies to imcrease the flow of
benefits to communities
• Anestedlegalframeworkisneededfromthenationaltothelocallevel.Broadpoliciesand lawscanbeframedatthenationallevel(basedonparticipationbykeystakeholders),together withcriteria,indicatorsandstandardstomonitorimplementation.Moredetailedrulesand guidelinesarebetterformulatedatthelevelofprovincialorlocalgovernment,toenablegreater flexibilityandresponsivenesstolocalconditions,butalsoanchoredtothenationalframework. Operationalprocessesneedtobedeterminedatthelocallevel,toreflectandbuildonlocal needsandinstitutions,againwithlinkagestotheothergovernancelevels.Itisimportantfor governancearrangementsatdifferentscalestobeconnectedandcomplementary.
• Nationallawsandpoliciesneedtoavoidbeingoverlyprescriptiveandhavetoaddresslocal perspectivesandneeds.Strongemphasisshouldbegiventominimizingproceduralcomplexity andtransactionalcostsassociatedwithcompliance-lawsshouldbesimpletounderstandand toimplement.
• Ensurethatlegalframeworksworkwithandcomplementlocaltraditions,practicesand institutions,includingthoserelatedtobenefitsharingatthelocallevel.
• Developstrongerlinkagesbetweenlocalinstitutionsresponsibleforcommunityforest managementandlocalgovernment.
• Monitorsocialandenvironmentaloutcomesforcontinuouslearningandimprovement. • Considercommunityforestrywithinthewidercontextoftheintegrateddevelopmentof
communities.Communityforestryinstitutionscouldpotentiallyserveasanodalpointto channelandcoordinateothercommunitydevelopmentactivities.
• Exploremoremarket-orientedapproachestocommunityforestry,includingopportunitiesfor communitiesinvolvedincommunityforestrytobenefitfromenvironmentalservicemarkets. • Governmentcanhelpcommunitiestoreceiveahigherpriceforforestproductstoexpandthe
benefitbasebyfacilitatingbetterinformation,capacitybuildingonvalueadditionand enterprisemanagement,andfacilitatinglinkageswithothermarketactors.
Benefitsharingwithin
communities
“As a result of the active participation of women, dalits and the poor, the SAGUN Program has been largely successful in creating an aware, influential mass of
disadvantaged communities, and the formation of critical mass for positive influence, enabling them to claim and exercise their rights, and expedite policy implementation”.
Rajendra Lamichhane and Maksha Ram Maharjan, CARE Nepal
Thecommunitiesengagingincommunityforestry aremicrocosmsofthewidersocietiesinwhich theyoperate.Individualsandgroupswithin communitiesareunequalintermsoftheirassets, theiropportunities,andtheirabilitytoinfluence governanceprocessesandoutcomes20.Inmany earlycommunityforestryinitiatives,theproblem ofelitecapturewasobserved,wheretheresources andopportunitiesrelatedtocommunityforestry wenttotherelativelybetteroffhouseholdsor groupsratherthanthepoorest.Elitecaptureis alsoanemergingissueincountriesmorerecently adoptingcommunityforestry21.Apartfrom diminishingthescopeforpovertyreduction,elite capturecancontributetocommunityconflict.As thePhilippinesdelegationnoted,equitablebenefit sharingthroughcommunityforestrybodiesisa waytoharnessthepotentialofbetteroff
communitymemberstosupporttheinterestsand needsofpoorermembers.
Counteringtheissueofelitecapturehasbecomea preoccupationformanypractitionersaswellas governmentintheearlyadoptingCFcountries suchasNepalandIndia,inordertomakeCFa
moreeffectivetoolforimprovingthewelfareof thepoorest,aswellasimprovingthesocial sustainabilityofCFbypromotinggreaterequity andavoidingconflict.Twokeyfactorsthat influenceequityinbenefitsharingincludethe ‘socialendowment’(theconditions,leveland natureofdisparityexistingatthecommunity levelwithinwhichcommunityforestryis
implemented),andarrangementsforlocalforest governance.
DiscussionintheForumfocusedonthesecondof thesepoints.Explicitly,howlocalgovernance arrangementscanbetterengagedisadvantaged groupsincommunityforestryprocessesandthe roleofdifferentstakeholders,including
Box 5: Fostering equitable benefit sharing from community forestry in Nepal through a
pro-poor approach
22
Nepalesesocietyisstratifiedbycasteandgenderinequities,whichalsopervadethelocalforest governanceinstitutionsassociatedwithcommunityforestry.Nepal’slongandrichexperiencein communityforestryhasbeenmarredbythefactthatCommunityForestUserGroups,thekey decisionmakingbodyformanagingcommunityforestsandsharingthebenefitsfromtheseatthe locallevel,haveoftenbeencapturedbythehigh-casteelite,withexclusionofthepoor,women,and dalits(‘untouchable‘castes).
CARENepalinitiateditsSAGUNprogramin200223recognizingthatwithoutaddressingsuch inequities,sustainableandequitablecommunityforestmanagementcouldremainapipedream. Anumberofmajorbarrierswereidentifiedtoequitablebenefitsharingincludingtheweak institutionalcapacityofusergroups,inequitableinternalgovernancearrangements,andsocial exclusionofdalitsandwomen.Althoughthepolicyenvironmentwasconducivetocommunity-centeredforestmanagement,thesepolicieswerenotpoor-centered.Furthermore,thewider economicempowermentofthepoorwasnotonthecommunityforestryagenda.Throughthe SAGUNprogram,aprocessofcapacitybuildingwasinitiatedtofostergoodgovernancepractice (participation,transparency,accountability,predictability),andtosupporttherightsofexcluded groupsandeconomicempowermentofthepoor.
Afirststepinthispro-poorapproach,alsotakenupbyanumberofothercommunityforestry programsinNepal,wastoidentifypoorhouseholdsthroughaparticipatorywell-beingranking processaccordingtotheirphysicalproperty,socialstatus,employmentandincome.Thiswasa basisfordesigningandimplementingactivitiestoproactivelysupportthepooresthouseholds.
TheSAGUNprogramthenestablishedmechanismsandprocessestoensuretheactiveparticipation bythepoorincommunityforestmanagementprocesses,andtogaintheiradequaterepresentation inCFUGs.
Womenanddalitsweresupportedthroughaffirmativeactiontoobtainhigherratesofparticipation andtheirinclusiononexecutivebodiesofCFUGs.Thiswasbackedupwithcapacitybuilding activitiestodevelopleadershipandgroupmanagementskillsinusergroups,governanceliteracy classesandpolicyadvocacycampaigns.Theoutcomehasbeenthecreationofamorepolitically awareandinfluentialmassofdisadvantagedcommunitymembersthataremoreabletoclaimand exercisetheirrightslocallyandinrelationtopolicyprocesses.Overall,therehasbeenasubstantial increaseinthenumberofwomen,poor,anddalitstakingonkeydecisionmakingrolesin
communityforestrybodies.
ThetransparencyandaccountabilityofCFUGsisanothercriticalconsiderationinsharingbenefits equitably.TheSAGUNprogramhasusedapublichearingandauditingprocesstoimprove
transparency,whichenablesmembersofusergroupstocriticallydiscuss,questionandexaminethe day-to-daybusinessofexecutivecommitteesovertheyear.Thishashadapositiveimpactonthe accountabilityofexecutivebodiesandreducedcorruption.
Localgovernance
structuresandprocesses
ExperienceinSouthAsiaandelsewhere highlightsthatimprovingthetransparency, structureandfunctioningofusergroupsisan importantavenueforavoidingelitecapture24.One importantwayinwhichforestadministrations interactwithsuchlocalinstitutionsisthrough communityforestryrulesandregulationsthat providethelegalbasisforsuchbodiestofunction asdecentralizedlocalinstitutions.Integrating equityconsiderationsinsuchrulescansupport thedemocratizationoflocalinstitutions.InIndia, forexample,nationalguidelinesspecifythatthe presidentofthelocalbodyshouldbeawomanin everysecondyearandthathalfofthe
representativesarewomen.InSriLankawhere communityforestryregulationsareunder development,anopportunitywasflaggedto includesocialequitysafeguardsaspartofthese.
Theinstitutionalizationofequityrequirementsin communityforestryinstitutionsprovidesa supportiveframework,buttheCARENepal examplehighlightsthatthisonitsownmaynot besufficienttoachievegreaterequityforthe disadvantaged.Paralleleffortsarerequiredto raiseawarenessandbuildcapacitybothamongst governmentactorsandatthecommunitylevel. TheCARENepalinterventionincludedcapacity buildingandawarenessraisingamongststaffand communities(especiallyforestusergroupsor equivalentbodies)onequityissues,aswellas nurturingparticipatoryandtransparentmodesof operationinlocalgovernancebodies,including financialmanagement.ParticipantsintheForum recognizedthatsuchcapacitybuildingwasa pressingneedinallofthe14participating
countries(Table1),andwouldhelptobuildbetter
understandingoftheimportanceofequitable benefitsharingarrangements,aswellasof specificinterventionstrategiesthatcould strengthentheequityoflocalforestgovernance structuresandprocesses.
Suchcapacitybuildingisnotthetaskofnational governmentalone,butdependsalsoupon effectivelinkagesbetweencommunities,local governmentandcivilsociety.Localgovernment, forexample,canplayaroleinsupportinglocal communityforestrybodiestoanalyzewhich groupsmayneedspecialinterventionatthe communitylevel,andinmonitoringequityissues ina‘watchdog‘role.Localgovernmentalso providesacruciallinktowiderrural
developmentopportunities,asnotedearlier.
Civilsocietyorganizations,astheSAGUNcase andtheworkofotherNGOsinNepalshow,are crucialactorsintestingandspreadingeffective strategiesandmechanismstoimproveequityin communityforestrythroughpartnerships, capacitybuildingactivitiesandeffectivelinkages withgovernment.Indeedtheinstitutionalization ofeffectivestrategieswasidentifiedasoneofthe objectivesoftheSAGUNcase.
Finally,untilwefindwaystoimprovebenefit sharing,conflictisanongoingissuethatneeds effectivestrategiestomanageit.Attimesconflict overbenefitsharingissueshasbeeninternalto communitiesandatothertimesconflicthas emergedbetweencommunitiesandotheractors regardingissuesofbenefitflow.Forexample,in thecaseofNepal,itwasnotedthatsometimes localgovernmenttriestoraiseitsowntaxincome andtakeasharefromthecommunityforest, whichbringsitintoconflictwithCommunity ForestUserGroups.Conflictbetweenpanchayats andJointForestManagementcommitteeswas alsonotedinIndia.Findingeffectivemechanisms tomanagesuchconflicthasemergedasan
importantareaoffutureaction.Theseare importantbothfromtheperspectiveofbuilding effectivelinkagesandpartnershipstosupportCF, aswellassecuringthesocialsustainabilityofCF initiativesinthelongrun.
Monitoringtolearn
andimprove
Continuousmonitoringandlearningcan contributetomoreeffectivestrategiesfor equitablebenefitsharing.Tosupportthis,
participantshighlightedtheneedforcriteriaand indicatorstobedevelopedthatcouldprovidea frameworkformonitoringefforts.Theneedfor collaborationbetweenstakeholdersindeveloping thesewasrecognized,ascollaborationwould enrichindicatorswithknowledgegatheredata numberoflocalitiesandscales,andaddresslocal realities.Theinvolvementofstakeholdersin indicatordevelopmentandmonitoringprocesses haspreviouslyalsobeenflaggedasanimportant wayofembeddinglearningaboutequityissues intopractice25.Thelessonsfrommonitoring wouldprovidevitalinformationtofurther developstrategiesforbenefitsharingatthe communitylevel.Monitoringanddocumentation oftheimpactsofcommunityforestryin
environmentaltermsisalsoimportanttofoster ongoinggovernmentcommitmenttocommunity forestry,andopenupthescopetoextend
communityforestrytohighvalueforestareas.
Themainactionsneededtoimprovebenefit sharingatthecommunitylevelidentifiedduring theForumaresummarizedinBox6.
Box 6: Ways to improve benefit sharing
at the local level
• Understandthesocialstructureof communitiesandworkwith
communitiestoidentifywhoarethepoor anddisadvantagedinCFinitiatives. • National,provincialandlocal
governmentaswellascivilsocietyassists forestusergroupsorequivalentbodiesat thelocalleveltofunctionwithgood participation,transparencyand
accountability.Thiswillcontributetothe widersocialcapitalofcommunitiesand enablethesegroupstotakea
coordinatingroleinwiderdevelopment activities.
• Positivediscriminationneedstobe accompaniedbycapacitybuildingand mentoringofdisadvantagedgroupsto givethemarealvoiceinlocal
governanceinstitutionsandimproved accesstocommunityforestry.
• ProvidealegalframeworkforJFM committeestoactasademocratic, decentralizedlocalinstitution. • Institutionalizeeffectivepro-poor
approachesinusergroupconstitutions, operationalplansandguidelineshelpsto improveuptake.
• Developcriteriaandindicatorsfor assessingbenefitsharingoutcomesby forestusergroupsandlocalgovernment. • Buildcapacityofprojectstaff,fieldlevel
governmentstaff,communityuser
groups,disadvantagedCUGmembersin: -Monitoringbenefitsharing
-Financialmanagement
-Transparent,accountableand participatorygovernance
• Developeffectiveconflictmanagement mechanismstomediateconflictwithin communitiesandbetweencommunities andotherstakeholders.
Equityandbenefits:whereto
fromhere?
Indiscussingcurrentissuesandchallenges, countrygroupsidentifiedanumberofpressing challengeswithintheirowncountriesthatneeded tobeovercomeforbenefitdistributiontobecome moreequitable(Table1).
Takentogetherwiththeearliersummaryboxes onkeyareasforaction,Table1providesan indicationofwhichissuesmatterwhere.Itshows thatoneofthemostwidelyflaggedareasfor actionisthestrengtheningoflinkagesbetween levelsofgovernment,civilsocietyandlocal communityforestryinstitutions.Asnotedearlier, suchlinkagesarecriticalnotonlytoimprovethe practiceofcommunityforestryandthebenefits thatcanflowfromthis,butalsotoenable communitiestoaccesswiderdevelopment opportunitieswhichcancontributetopoverty reduction.
Capacitybuildingatalllevelsonissuesrelatedto benefitdistributionwasalsounanimouslyflagged asacrucialneed.Ashighlightedearlier,this spannedissuesasdiverseasattitudesto
communityparticipation,knowledgeoflawsand policies,strategiesfortransparentanddemocratic governancebycommunityforestrybodies,
proceduresandpracticesforimplementation, andmore.
Theothertwoissuesofwideconcernwere monitoringofcommunityforestryandproviding asoundlegalbasisforpropertyrightsin
communityforestry.Thesecondpointclearly dependsonwheredifferentcountriesareinthe processofdevelopingandimplementing
communityforestrypoliciesandlaws(AnnexA).
Table 1: Key Challenges and areas for future work identified by countries
Issue Countries identifying the issue
Developalegalandpolicyframeworkforcommunityforestry. Thailand,Timor-Leste, Mongolia,SriLanka Effectivelyimplementexistingcommunityforestrylawandguidelines. Cambodia,LaoPDR
Clarifypropertyrightsandcommunityforestboundaries. China,Philippines
Assessmentandinventoryofforestresourcestoimprovetransparencyofbenefitflow Vietnam,Cambodia,Lao PDR
Improvelinkagesbetweennational,provincialandlocalgovernment,civilsocietyand localcommunityforestryinstitutionstoensurecomplementaryrulesandsupportive practices
All
Improvemulti-stakeholderparticipationindevelopmentoflawsandpolicies Philippines,LaoPDR India,SriLanka
Providealegalframeworkforcommunityforestrybodiestoactasdemocraticand decentralizedlocalinstitutions
India,SriLanka
Institutionalizeeffectivepracticestoensureequitablebenefitsharing Nepal,SriLanka Buildcapacityandawarenessofgovernmentandcivilsocietyorganizationsand
communityforestrybodiesonbenefitdistributionissues
All
Takecommunityforestrybeyondthesharingoflimitedresourcestomobilizeadditional resourcesforpovertyreductionthroughbetterlinkagestomarketsandwiderrural developmentopportunities
India,Vietnam, Philippines,LaoPDR, Indonesia,
Developagreedcriteriaandindicatorsonbenefitdistributiontoenablemonitoringby differentstakeholders.
Philippines,Thailand, India,Indonesia Source: Country briefing papers and working group discussions
Conclusion
Inreviewingtheroleofpolicyandlegal
frameworksinguidingbenefitflowandbenefit distribution,theForumraisedanumberofkey issuesforfuturepolicies,lawsandprograms. Firstandforemost,discussionsreinforcedthatthe benefitsofcommunityforestmanagementneedto outweighthecostsforittobeenvironmentally andsociallysustainable.Althoughmanybenefits havealreadyemergedfromcommunityforestry, asignificantandsecureflowofbenefitsto communitiesprovidestheincentiveneededfor themtocontinuetomanagetheirforests sustainablyandhelpstorecompensetheir managementefforts.Lawsguidingforestrights andtenure,andthedistributionofrevenuesfrom forestresourcesarecentraltobenefitflow.These needtobedevelopedinconsultationwith stakeholders,andexistinglawsclarified, simplifiedandcommunicatedclearlyto
communitiesandfieldstaff.Atthecommunity level,governmentandothersupport
organizationsneedtofacilitatetransparentand
“Forums like this enable us to share experiences and learn from each others’ mistakes. This is necessary…”.
K.B. Thampi, Inspector General of Forests Ministry of Environment and Forestry, India.
democraticgovernancewithincommunity institutions,andthusimprovebenefitsharing outcomeslocally.
TheparticipantsattheForumexpressedashared commitmenttolearnandcontinueworkonthese issuestopromotegreaterequityindistributing thebenefitsandcostsofcommunityforestry. Giventhedifferentcircumstancesofthe14
countriesparticipatingintheForum,therewillbe sharedaswellasseparateagendasintaking forwardthiswork,anddifferentkindsofaction andcollaborationwillbeneeded.Atthenational level,theinteresttoimprovecollaborationamong keystakeholdersandbodiesandbuildcapacity onbenefitsharingwillremainimportant. Regionally,knowledgemanagement,involving documentationandexchangeoneffective
Notes
16Nguyen,Q.T.,2005.Trendsinforestownership,forestresourcestenureand
institutionalarrangements:Aretheycontributingtobetterforest managementandpovertyreduction?TheCaseofVietnam,paper preparedforFAOWorkshoponForestOwnershipandResource,18-21 October2005,FAO,Bangkok.
17ConsejoCivilMexicanoparalaSilvliculturaSustentable,2002.Community
Forests of Mexico: achievements and challenges,SierraMadre,MexicoCity.
18Bampton,J.andB.Cammaert,2007.“HowCanTimberRentsBetter
ContributetoPovertyAlleviationThroughCommunityForestryinthe TeraiRegionofNepal?”inR.Oberndorf,P.Durst,S.Mahanty,K.Burslem andR.Suzuki(eds),ACutforthePoor:CapturingOpportunitiesinForest HarvestingandWoodProcessingfortheBenefitofthePoor.HoChiMinh City,Vietnam3-6October2006.FAO,RECOFTCandSNV,Bangkok:85-100.
19
Dugan,P.andJ.Pulhin,forthcoming.“ForestHarvestinginCommunity-basedForestManagementinthePhilippines:SimpleToolsVersus ComplexProcedures”,inOberndorf,R.,P.Durst,S.Mahanty,K.Burslem andR.Suzuki(eds),2007.A Cut for the Poor. Proceedings of the International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing
Opportunities in Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing for the Benefit of the
Poor. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 3-6 October 2006,FAO,RECOFTCand
SNV,Bangkok:38-46.
20Hobley,M.2007.Where in the World is there Pro-poor Forestry and Tenure
Reform?RightsandResourcesInitiative,WashingtonDC.
21Mahanty,S.,M.Nurse,M.Rosander,C.Greenwood,M.HalleyandB.
Vickers,2007.“BenefitSharingintheMekongRegion–Lessonsand EmergingAreasforAction”,inS.Mahanty,K.BurslemandE.Lee(eds),A Fair Share? Experiences in benefit sharing from community managed resources
in Asia,RECOFTC,WWFandSNV,Bangkok:91-110.
22BasedonpresentationbyRajendraLamichhaneattheCFForum;
Lamichane,R.P.andM.R.Maharajan,2007.“EquitableBenefitSharingin CommunityForestry:experienceoftheSAGUNprogram”unpublished paperbyCARENepal;Maharajan,M.R.andB.Shrestha,2006.“Public HearingandPublicAuditinginCommunityForestryUserGroups”, Insight:NotesfromtheField,1(1):28-41.
23TheSAGUNprogramisoneamongstmanyCFprogramsinNepalthathave
attemptedtoaddressthe‘secondgeneration’issueofelitecapturethrough targetedpro-poorstrategiestoimproveequityoutcomes.
24Hobley,M.2007.Where in the World is there Pro-poor Forestry and Tenure
Reform? RightsandResourcesInitiative,WashingtonDC.
25Leeuwis,C.andPyburn,R.,2002.‘SocialLearningforRuralResource
Management’,InC.LeeuwisandR.Pyburn(eds.),Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs: Social learning in rural resource management,KoninklijkeVan Gorcum,Assen,Netherlands:11-24.
26Hyde,W.F.,J.XuandB.Belcher,2003.“Introduction”inW.Hyde,B.
BelcherandJ.Xu(eds),China’sForests:GlobalLessonsfromMarket Reforms.ResourcesfortheFutureandCIFOR,WashingtonDCand Bogor;Guangping,M.andR.A.West,2004,“ChineseCollective Forestlands:contributionsandconstraints”,International Forestry Review,6 (3-4):282-298;Zhang,Y.andS.Kant,2005.“CollectiveForestsand Forestland:physicalassetrightsversuseconomicrights”inP.Ho,(ed),
Developmental Dilemmas: Land Reform and Institutional Change in China, Routledge,LondonandNewYork:283-307.
27Liu,J.andN.Landell-Mills,2003.“TaxesandFeesintheSouthernCollective
ForestRegion”inW.Hyde,B.BelcherandJ.Xu(eds),China’s Forests:
Global Lessons from Market Reforms.ResourcesfortheFutureandCIFOR,
WashingtonDCandBogor;Lu,W.,N.Landell-Mills,J.Liu,J.XuandC. Liu,2002.Getting the Private Sector to Work for the Public Good: Instruments
for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry in China,IIED,London;Miao,G.and
R.A.West,2004.“ChineseCollectiveForestlands:contributionsand constraints”,InternationalForestryReview,6(3-4):282-298.
28NguyenQuangTan,Personalcommunication,27June2007;Nguyen,Q.T.,
2005.Trendsinforestownership,forestresourcestenureandinstitutional arrangements:Aretheycontributingtobetterforestmanagementand povertyreduction?TheCaseofVietnam,paperpreparedforFAO WorkshoponForestOwnershipandResource,18-21October2005,FAO, Bangkok;MinistryofAgricultureandRuralDevelopmentForestrySector Manual(Chapter5).
1WorldBank,2002.Forestry Strategy and Appendices,WorldBank,Washington
DC.
2RECOFTCdefinescommunityforestryasthegovernanceandmanagement
offorestresourcesbycommunities,incollaborationwithother stakeholders,forcommercialpurposes,subsistence,timberproduction, non-timberforestproducts,wildlife,conservationofbiodiversityand environment,andforsocialandreligiousreasons.Thearrangementsfor communityforestryinthecountriesparticipatingintheCFForumvaryin termsofthespecificrightsandresponsibilitiesofcommunitiesand government,thetypesofrightsheldbyacommunityoveraforestarea andthetypesofforestscovered,potentiallyrangingfromdegradedto highvalueforests(seealsoPoffenberger,M.,R.SoriagaandP.Walpole, 2006.Communities and Forest Stewardship.AFN:Bohol,Philippines).
3RECOFTC,2005.First Regional Community Forestry Forum – Regulatory
Frameworks for Community Forest Management in Asia,Proceedingsofa
RegionalForumheldinBangkok,Thailand,August24-152005, RECOFTC,Bangkok.
4WorldBank,2002.Forestry Strategy and Appendices,WorldBank,Washington
DC.
5Hobley,M.2007.Where in the World is there Pro-poor Forestry and Tenure
Reform?RightsandResourcesInitiative,WashingtonDC.
6S.Mahanty,K.BurslemandE.Lee(eds),A Fair Share? Experiences in benefit
sharing from community managed resources in Asia,RECOFTC,WWFand
SNV,Bangkok:3-9.
7FAO,2006.Better Forestry, Less Poverty: a practitioner’s guide,FAO:Rome. 8Adhikari,B.andJ.C.Lovett,2006.TransactionCostsandCommunity-based
NaturalResourceManagementinNepal,Journal of Environmental
Management,78(2006):5-15.
9Mahanty,S.andM.Nurse,2007.“IntroductiontoBenefitSharingin
Community-basedNaturalResourceManagement”,inS.Mahanty,K. BurslemandE.Lee(eds),A Fair Share? Experiences in benefit sharing from
community managed resources in Asia, RECOFTC,WWFandSNV,Bangkok:
3-9.
10Wedefinegovernancehereas‘whogetstodecidewhat,andhow’inrelation
toforests,asdiscussedbyMacQueen,D.andJ.Mayers,inpress. Environmentalgovernance:implicationsfordonorsfromthepracticeof governanceinagriculture,forestryandurbandevelopment,IIED: London.
11SummarisedinMahanty,S.andM.Nurse,2007.“IntroductiontoBenefit
SharinginCommunity-basedNaturalResourceManagement”,in S.Mahanty,K.BurslemandE.Lee(eds),AFairShare?Experiencesin benefitsharingfromcommunitymanagedresourcesinAsia,RECOFTC, WWFandSNV,Bangkok:3-9.
12Vickers,B.andC.Dickinson,2007.“ReportofaNational-levelWorkshop:
Hue,Vietnam”inS.Mahanty,K.BurslemandE.Lee(eds),A Fair Share? Experiences in benefit sharing from community managed resources in Asia, RECOFTC,WWFandSNV,Bangkok:69-78.
13Tyler,S.andH.Mallee,2006.“ShapingPolicyfromtheField”,inin
S.R.Tyler(ed).Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: action
research and policy change in Asia
.ITDGPublishingandIDRC,Ottawa:347-372.
14BasedonpresentationbyJohnPulhinattheCFForum;seealsoDugan,P.
andJ.Pulhin,forthcoming.“ForestHarvestinginCommunity-based ForestManagementinthePhilippines:SimpleToolsVersusComplex Procedures”,inOberndorf,R.,P.Durst,S.Mahanty,K.BurslemandR. Suzuki(eds),2007.A Cut for the Poor. Proceedings of the International Conference on Managing Forests for Poverty Reduction: Capturing Opportunities in Forest Harvesting and Wood Processing for the Benefit of the Poor.HoChiMinhCity,Vietnam3-6October2006,FAOandRECOFTC, Bangkok.
15Hyde,W.F.,J.XuandB.Belcher,2003.“Introduction”inW.Hyde,B.
2
2
Annex A
Laws and Policies guiding benefit distribution from Community Forestry
Country Property rights regarding community forests Policies or guidelines regarding revenue from community forests
Bangladesh • Forests are state owned.
• Joint management by state and community through Social Forestry program, mainly for plantationestablishment.
• Access to timber and NTFPs.
• Participatory Benefit Sharing Agreements for Social Forestry programs allocaterevenueasfollows:forSalCoppiceForestConsandDevt:FD 65%,beneficiaries25%,TreeFarmingFund10%;forstripplantations, FD10%,landowningagency20%,beneficiaries55%,LocalUnionCouncil 5%,TreeFarmingFund10%.
• Apart from timber revenues, villagers able to use thinnings, fruit, and growothercropsinthewoodlotsuchaspeanut,ginger,turmericetc). Detailedinfoonrevenuesgeneratedinpaper.
Bhutan • Forests are state owned.
• Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995 enables management and use of community forests,conditionaloncontinuedcareforforest(canberevokedforunsustainableuse)
• No royalties paid for direct use.
• All forest products sold are subject to a market sales tax of 5%.
Cambodia • Forests are state owned.
• Rights to manage and use community forests enabled by the Sub-Decree on Community Forestryadoptedin2003andtheGuidelineforCommunityForestryImplementation, adoptedin2006.
• No royalties paid on NTFPs or timber for direct use.
• Commercial use of timber and NTFPs requires permits and the level of royaltyistobesetbyajointPrakas(Decree)bytheMinistryof Agriculture,ForestryandFisheriesandtheMinistryofEconomyand Finance.
China • Forests are owned either by the state of have been transferred to collectives under the ForestLawofPRC(enacted1984,amended1998).
• Collectives can lease the forest areas to households, agricultural cooperatives, and privatecompanies.Althoughextensiverightstouse,manageandtransferplotsare allowedintheory,inpracticetheserightsareoftenlimitedthroughregulationsthat determinewhatspeciescanbeplanted,harvestquantities,transferofleasetitlesandso on.26.
• Revenue sharing depends upon local management regimes (i.e. whether landmanagementiscommunalorallocatedtoindividualhouseholds). • Taxation rates and regulatory fees for forest products vary across counties
andprovincesandaredependentontypesofforestproducts.Thecentral Governmentismakingeffortstoclarifythesystemoftaxesandfeesand therebyreducethefinancialburden(onaverage50%ofgrossrevenueof forestproducts)itplacesonruralpopulations.27
India • Forests are state owned.
• Joint Forest Management under national government policy enables use and managementofcommunityforestsbyusergroups.
• Revenue levels set at provincal level.
• Usually 100% of NTFPs and other intermittent yield products (e.g. thinnings)gotothecommunity.
• For commercial timber, a portion is paid to the province government (typicallybetween10-25%,dependingontheprovince).
Indonesia • Forests are state owned.
• Use and management rights of community managed forest areas are on three terms: partnershipbetweenforestcompanyandcommunityforestgroup,communityforest developmentandvillageforestdevelopment(GovernmentRegulationNo.6/2007). • The implementing regulation (Ministerial Decree on CF) is being drafted with public
consultation.
• In Java where the forest area managed by Government Company (PERHUTANI),thesharerevenueforpartnermaximum25%oftotal revenuefromstandardpriceoftimberproduct,whiletimbertax(forest productprovision)paidbythecompany.
