2.4 The background to the link between people and forests: Some important issues
2.4.2 Community forestry in practice
Among the early initiatives that characterized the focus of community forestry, fuelwood provision became by far the most important (Casson, 1997). This is not surprising because the fuelwood crisis, as it has already been mentioned, was initially one of the major global environmental issues that ultimately enforced the link between people and forests. The perception about the persistence of a fuelwood crisis in Third World countries emanated from the concerns for energy shortages that plagued most parts of the world in the early 1970s (Hobley, 2005; Mearns, 1995; Van Gelder and O'Keefe, 1995). This was further perpetuated by the drought conditions that were already witnessed in many parts of the world, particularly in Africa (Shepherd, 1990). A huge number of rural households in the developing world were identified as relying indefinitely on fuelwood for the bulk of their energy needs (Hobley, 2005; Van Gelder and O'Keefe, 1995). It was assumed therefore that because of population growth, there was a likelihood of a widening gap between the demand for fuelwood and sustainable supplies. This would lead to the unprecedented levels of deforestation (Mearns, 1995). Moreover, it was deduced that due to the growing fuelwood scarcity, people were spending much of their time searching for fuelwood and at times, would divert to crop and animal residues as an immediate alternative (Arnold, 1992).
Based on this analysis, a general view was that the principal means of averting the growing fuelwood shortages and the anticipated impacts was to initiate widespread planting of additional trees (Arnold, 1992; Shepherd, 1990; Mearns, 1995). Thus much of the early initiatives in many parts of the world were mainly characterized by widespread afforestation programs in which rural communities grew timber and fuelwood to meet their own needs, and thereby plugging the widening fuelwood gap (Arnold, 1992; Shepherd, 1990).
This move marked a positive intervention of forestry in rural development. However, despite such a remarkable contribution and massive investment, there is widespread evidence that the early community forestry projects and programs failed to deliver intended outcomes (Van Gelder and O'Keefe, 1995; Arnold, 1992; Shepherd, 1990;
Mearns, 1995). This was witnessed through the widespread and common resistance,
18
by local communities, of afforestation projects in many areas. For instance, there are cases where communities uprooted and destroyed the saplings in communal lands (Van Gelder and O'Keefe, 1995). The failure of these projects, however, did not come as a surprise to many people. For instance, Mearns (1995) blames the failure on the initial analysis about the fuelwood crisis with a view that the problem was widely misunderstood. He identifies four serious flaws that are associated with the tree growing approach to traditional community forestry. These are outlined below.
• First, woodfuel consumption patterns defy generalization.
. • Second, the data on which the analysis rests are generally very poor.
• Third, it is unrealistic to assume that consumption will continue to rise in line with population, even while supplies dwindle to a vanishing point. As scarcity worsens and wood prices or the labour costs of gathering fuels increase, people are likely to respond in various ways, whether by planting trees, using fuel more economically, switching to more abundant fuels such as crop residues, or intensifying efforts to encourage the natural regeneration of
woody vegetation. * s
• Fourth, and most fundamental, it is agricultural land clearance and not woodfuel consumption that is the principal cause of deforestation.
On the other hand, Arnold (1992) submits that the focus on woodfuel (plantations) was basically a narrowed view of the existing relationship between forests and people.
He asserts that: .
There was little in the first generation of projects which was concerned with outputs from existing forests, or with the food, employment and income dimensions. Indeed, the concern with meeting subsistence needs for fuelwood even led, on occasion, to attempts to exclude income generation activities from the project design on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the perceived subsistence aims of community forestry.
r (Arnold, 1992: no page no.)
Another major concern regarding the failure of the early projects is the lack of community participation. There is a widespread concern that much of the failure is attributed to the ignorance about the projects by local communities. This is largely because people were initially not given a chance to voice out their concerns about
19
their priorities in development. By focusing on fuelwood trees, it appears that the projects were not geared to respond to the complexity of rural development problems.
Fuelwood is only one of the many problems rural people face, and is frequently not a priority concern. Van Gelder and O'Keefe (1995: 11) cite examples regarding this assertion:
In an area of Malawi which was experiencing growing fuelwood scarcity, a study found that the priority concern, as articulated by the community, was a shortage of construction timber, suitable poles for house building were even more difficult to find than fuelwood. Similarly, a study in Nepal showed fodder to be the principal concern.
In assessing the outcomes of the early community forestry projects, it was clear that a number of significant issues were not considered in the initial planning of the projects.
These are elaborated by Arnold (1992) as indicated below:
• One is that production and use of tree products at the village level is in practice often embedded in complex resource and social systems, within which most of the factors that affect our ability to intervene with forestry solutions are of a non-forestry nature. They are primarily human factors, connected with the ways women and men organize the use of their land and other resources.
They therefore require situation-specific approaches and are unlikely to be successfully tackled by generalized solutions or approaches that address only a single element of the situation.
• A second insists that earlier analysis of the nature of women's and men's dependence on trees and tree products was in some respects incorrect or incomplete and the solutions identified were consequently inappropriate.
• A third is that even projects which have sought to identify local needs, aspirations and possibilities have in practice done so more on the basis of the views of planners and others from outside that on the local people themselves.
Dialogue to achieve local participation has all too often started only after the project design has been finalized and is in place. Though the concept of participation took root quickly, in practice it has been, and still is, more frequently preached than practiced. • ' •• *>
20
• A fourth is that "community forestry" has suffered from considerable confusion and lack of clarity as to its nature and purpose. The use of this umbrella term seems on occasion to have obscured the fact that the objectives set for projects to support community forestry have varied considerably.
Project design, and performance, have frequently suffered from a lack of clarity as to which of these objectives were being pursued or had priority.
Although some among multiple goals may be congruent or reinforce each other, others may be in conflict. Planting trees to meet environmental objectives such as soil protection is unlikely to produce sufficient output of saleable products as to be economically attractive to the farmer. Similarly, tree growing designed to generate income is unlikely itself to benefit those with little or no land. Production to meet both subsistence and market needs is unlikely to be achieved with a single production model. Projects originally designed to meet a production goal are unlikely to be equally successful at achieving a subsequently added social goal, such as favouring the poor, unless they are appropriately restructured.
It is now apparent that the objectives of early community forestry were precisely based on generalizations about the link between people and forests. The failure of most of the projects clearly shows that traditional community forestry was initially thought of as a simple initiative that can be easily accepted in every context and in all villages. Although there might have been signs of fuelwood shortages and deforestation, this was not the case in every village (Mearns, 1995; Van Gelder and O'Keefe, 1995). This shows therefore that the analysis of the problem and the implementation of the projects thereafter were carried-out by classical or conventional foresters who retained their conventional approaches and familiar scientific methods about forestry and failed to understand the social dimensions of a community within which the projects were implemented. Besides social dimensions, the planners brushed out the reality of the complex land-use system in the rural areas. More importantly they lacked the understanding of the link that exists between forests and people. Mainly, they failed to acknowledge the use of the non-timber forests products (NTFPs) that form part of the livelihood network of most rural communities.
t •'•
21
Fuelwood is only one of many end uses of trees (Van Gelder and O'Keefe, 1995);
therefore focusing solely on fuelwood trees was widely a misleading initiative.
The most striking part and a visible loophole in the failure of most projects is that of a lack of community participation (Arnold, 1992; Hobley, 2005). This implies that the conventional planners and policy makers were not well acquainted on how forestry can be adjusted to respond to the new demands of the forest sector and the paradigm shifts that took place in the lexicon of development. From the onset, community forestry was described as an integral part of rural development, with a focus on people- centred development (Roberts and Roper, 2005). However, Arnold (1992) argues that the outcomes of the projects portrayed a scenario that is in variance with the initial plans. Van Gelder and O'Keefe (1995) assert that much of the interventions reflected the top-down approach with only few individuals participating and forestry professionals playing a major role. It is important to note here that if forestry is to respond to the broader framework of rural development, the involvement of multiple stakeholders must be acknowledged. More importantly, the intervention in the community projects should not be conceptualized as a sole responsibility of the foresters working with the communities, rather there is a need to incorporate development planners or social foresters who would demonstrate a good understanding of the community dimensions as well as the complexity of rural development agendas and that of development in general.
The most important point, however, is that contemporary thinking in development emphasizes that local groups or communities should, in any local development intervention, play a significant participatory role with the outsiders or initiators taking a facilitative role (Chambers, 1995; Muraleedharan, 2005). It is therefore pertinent to clearly define what is meant by community participation in such initiatives. Based on the outcomes of the early community forestry projects, one can perhaps deduce that the forestry that is geared to respond to the needs of the rural communities should significantly be embedded on the principles of participatory development which accords the local groups and communities a better position to voice out their development goals and priorities in as far as forestry is concerned (Hobley, 2005).
However, the success of the projects that embrace the concept of participation is dependent on how participation is interpreted or understood by the project initiators.
22
'£.. ..,,. »• , - . ^
In communal areas for instance, the promotion of participation remains an integral component which determines the strength and commitment of the community members in building a prosperous community. However, the success in the promotion of participation in communal areas also depends on how community institutions understand or perceive the role of community members in decision making.
The emphasis on the use of the concept of participation in contemporary development policies and practices marks the reaction on the failure of the conventional macro- economic approach in filtering down the benefits of development to the poor communities particularly in developing countries (Muraleedharan, 2005). The move has been characterized by a shift towards a new perspective which emphasizes the need to promote a people-centred approach in development thinking and intervention with a view that through popular involvement, poverty and inequality can be effectively addressed in development. Participation, therefore, forms one of the new perspectives in development thinking and practice.