1. GLOBAL ISSUES: MECHANISMS FOR RESPONSE
An FAO meeting in Antalya in October 1997 provided an opportunity for AFN members to examine key issues to be discussed at the next IFF meeting in Geneva next year. The following are the highlights of the discussion that focused on four key areas: donor-government agency relations, mechanisms for change, community empowerment, and international policy concerns.
DONOR - GOVERNMENT AGENCY RELATIONS
In the past, little attention was paid to relations with forest-dwelling communities. However, there has been a substantial shift by some agencies towards acknowledging the importance of process, in-country capacity, and local community participation. These agencies see their role as facilitators of long-term processes that are led by the host country. But not all agencies share this view. There needs to be developed a broader understanding of why most forestry aid doesn't work and of which processes will work. A change in power relations is needed between the parties involved, namely the agencies, the donors, and the communities. But this will depend on the degree of trust that each has in the others' capabilities to do the job.
Accountability to the donors will still remain. However, in order to be able to report levels of success that support processes of change, the practitioners need to develop process-type indicators and identify specific benefits that relate to evolving transitions at the field level and within ministries. By facilitating these processes, the balance of power will be altered in a manner that benefits the community and costs the taxpayers less.
MECHANISMS FOR CHANGE
Mechanisms must first be put in place at the national level before processes can yield results. National land-use planning is being used as a tool to coordinate donors. With priorities clearly defined through programs, government can then invite donors to support specific parts of the programs and consequently, proactively direct a coordinated response to community forest management. In many countries, mechanisms for learning, for influencing donors, and for ensuring participation in policy formulation are still lacking.
Although it can be difficult to deal with governments that are resistant to change, the civil service has to be involved in sustaining the learning process. Going around the forest bureaucracies in order to work directly with communities is not viable on a long-term basis. Mechanisms are needed to channel the ground level learnings back to the communities.
It is important to assess what is working in order to accelerate an understanding of the obstacles and pitfalls in the process of change, to pinpoint the obstacles that need to be removed, to identify emerging solutions, and to find ways to facilitate community-based means of solving problems.
Feedback loops that examine these processes have to be strengthened so that learnings can be responded to at the different levels. Key to the process of policy development is the flexibility to keep revising policies and the ability to set new goals based on needs identified through experience. The complexity of the issues involved require deeper understanding of the commonalities emerging in many places as a result of the devolution of forest management authority.
In order to effect a transfer in the management of forests from agencies to communities, there is a need to create linkages between those who deal with field-level realities and those who set policy goals, and to engage a broad cross-sector of stakeholders in on-going processes.
National teams could play a role in mapping the processes of change and in the interactions between the community, the national governments, the donors, and others. They could document emerging patterns, identify what types of partnerships are needed with donors, and define process-type indicators which demonstrate that support being given is achieving donor objectives. The greater feedback of learnings to donors will improve their responsiveness.
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Community Forest Management implies the empowerment of communities for broader goals, such as improved rural livelihoods, secure tenure systems, and more sustainable power relationships. There is a need for community empowerment to counter the weight of the state, both in terms of forest management and in terms of asserting the broader needs of communities in planning the process of forest management transitions.
Policies are usually formulated in order to effect change at the grassroots. However, these often do not reflect the field realities. In some cases, it's the other way around - policy responds to changes at the grassroots. This is an indication of empowered communities. A range of obstacles prevent effective community empowerment, since community empowerment requires the relinquishment of power by some agency, which in most cases is the government.
The transfer of authority varies depending on the historical context of the region. Many communities have become marginalized because of state dominance over traditional community authority for resource control. For both agencies and communities, the benefits of community-based forest management need further documentation that indicates the areas where more change is needed. If not distributed optimally, benefits derived from forest resources gained at the community level through community forest management systems can create conflicts with communities and result in the breakdown of the management system. Empowerment requires that communities use problem-solving approaches. Clarifying the roles and relationships among the community, the private sector, and the state, can fortify rural livelihoods and ensure that resources are more optimally distributed. However, communities must first have a more powerful bargaining position.
In India, self-empowerment of communities and their growth into federations is proving to be important in influencing to provide greater economic freedoms in government policies. However, events are unfolding differently in other regions. Self-empowerment, as a process, cannot be assumed. In the regions, processes with clear indicators are needed to track where communities are in terms of empowerment.
It is also important to understand why community involvement does not work and the processes that have contributed to this. Communities living within forests have different value systems and consequently regard the forest differently from outsiders. Management systems developed from this relationship tend to have a positive impact on the forest resources. If these communities are given adequate management authority, they can then demonstrate the logic and benefits of this process. But if these communities continue to be marginalized, forest resources will continue to erode.
INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONCERNS
To facilitate transitions in the forestry sector, the following would be needed:
- Concrete and practical learning mechanisms.
- Further growth in environmental concerns with emphasis on forest management towards ecosystem management and environmental restoration, service delivery (water, etc.), local employment, and recreation.
- Further moves towards decentralization to facilitate more vocal responses from the local electorate, thus providing the basis for greater accountability.
- Economic restructuring that could result in agency downsizing and a certain level of privatization of some functions. The private sector has the potential to generate funds which can help communities move away from always relying on handouts.
- An acknowledgement that mechanisms which encourages demographic expansion have increased pressure for the conversion of forests into agricultural lands in the struggle to alleviate poverty. It has also resulted in an increase in the industrial use of timber in order to meet consumer demands. Alternatives are being sought, but the demand remains and in some cases, even increases.
A globalizing economy has serious local implications for sustaining forests:
- There has been a dismantling of barriers that used to protect local resources and community rights against exploitation by politically and financially powerful interests. One example is mining in the Philippines.
- The freedom of capital movement has undermined private sector accountability to a particular place so that companies can hit and run.
- Larger private sector operations are favored. This places local producers at a disadvantage, even in their local markets that before offered a measure of security and livelihood stability.
Forest Agency Transitions . Several forces are driving and constraining necessary change:
- In order to understand the impact and effectiveness of these changes across regions, benchmarks that would indicate direction and rate of change need to be developed.
- Valuable benchmarks would include improved regulations and transaction costs, greater participatory planning systems, and the creation of meaningful linkages with community and local government.
- A redefinition of roles is required in the light of a new sense of professionalism that is oriented towards providing quality service.
- Greater accountability of agencies to the communities and to the electorate is critical.
CRITICAL ELEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
- Tenure security that provides primary forest users with access to and control of resources is the first step to ensure economic independence. Otherwise communities are simply subjected to perpetual poverty.
- Recognition of local management systems and processes that reflect different values and priorities is important. Marginalized communities have a different world view from those working within the political structures. These world views need to be respected.
NEW ROLES FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
The following would guide meaningful feedback to donors: - What are the policy constraints?- Who are the change agents?- How are change agents doing?- How does the process in your country work?- Where does the information go?- Is there a strategic mechanism in dealing with learnings?
- Overseas development assistance has been declining. Since 1990, it has fallen from $60 billion per year to $40 billion. With this decline comes the need to be more effective with what remains.
- Effectiveness has been seen to increase with the application of process-oriented activities. A shift from project to process is needed by agencies themselves.
- Responsiveness to local initiatives can be increased if more field-driven agendas are given priority.
- Collaboration can accelerate learnings between players and can influence policy.
- New roles are required such as facilitation and mediation.
- Old problems have to be addressed. These include responses to politics at home, donor-driven agendas, and rigid operational frameworks. At the moment, bi- and multi-lateral activities still operate through contractors and full-time non-resident consultants.
2. THAILAND: NEW RESPONSES SUPPORTING COMMUNITY FOREST INITIATIVES
A new constitution in Thailand, written in response to the economic downturn of 1997, gives communities the right and the duty to protect and rehabilitate forests in their area. The Royal Forestry Department (RFD) has the mandate to support the communities. However, the implementation of this provision in the constitution depends upon the political will of those in the cabinet.
 Hoary bamboo rat - a regular source of food collected from the forest. |
Progressive policy shifts that support decentralization have occurred with the creation of the Tambon council, which is now the OBODOR. The OBODOR is an elective body drawn from the village level where two representatives are chosen. The organization plans activities by which the taxes it is mandated to collect are spent. It is hoped that part of the collected taxes go towards resource management and protection activities. The Tambon council, although its members can sit with the OBODOR, is a separate body and cannot decide how taxes are spent locally at the district and sub-district levels. Only 3% of the revenue collected by the OBODOR will go to the central government; the rest is to be used locally.
A new community forest management act is being drafted. However, three versions are said to exist: two written by NGOs and one by government. This reflects a split among the NGOs. The hard-core environmental protectionist NGOs feel that relocation of communities is justifiable in order to retain pure protection zones, while the second group, being more supportive of communities staying in the forest, are finding ways to pro-actively involve them in planning and protection activities.
There seems to be a general lack of agreement on what is community forestry. The situation will be further complicated as the economic downturn bites and as those from the cities return to the rural areas, once again increasing the demands on the degraded resource base. How these policy initiatives will be implemented remains subjected to the budget allocations and to the ability of the Royal Forestry Department to re-orient itself and respond to the local needs.
A strategy being considered is the creation of a community forest office. But without a supporting budget, the proposed initiatives are, for the moment, as good as dead. Even with very positive policy initiatives at the top level, the signals are still mixed when it comes to coordinating the implementation activities. Moves to increase the number of protected areas and wildlife sanctuaries are creating a deep sense of uncertainty for the affected communities as it is not clear how much involvement these communities will be allowed in the management of their old areas.
Even though forest protection communities have been active and successful in rehabilitating forest areas, the tenure uncertainty due to the lack of clarity in the National Park Policy is undermining previous efforts of the RFD at the local level. Processes are needed to facilitate greater understanding of the local implementation realities and to help central government representatives develop more flexible and responsive policies.
3. VOICES FROM THE FOREST - THAILAND: FOREST PROTECTION IN NAN PROVINCE
AFN went to Thailand in November 1997 to understand sustained community protection activities. In 1995, research was being undertaken in the Sun Mun watershed of Chiang Mai, and much work was conducted to develop and support emerging forest protection committees. As the project came to an end, activities were supported through normal RFD programs.
FOREST PROTECTION COMMITTEES IN NAN, THAILAND - Communities are experiencing real benefits through an increase in resource availability by combining river protection, zoning, and traditional trapping methods.- Community forest protection committees, if initiated too quickly by members who are not respectful of the process, may soon break down and stop functioning.- Ineffective financial management can threaten the continuity and self-sustainability of protection activities.- In theory, full forest protection zones are considered worthwhile but are not favored policies by communities, as they do not understand the potential benefits of wildlife and its link to sustained resource extraction.
Some of the learnings from the Sun Mun watershed were then transferred to a new project site in the Nan Valley in 1995. The pilot project brought together a foundation supported by a group of investment companies and by a counterpart from DANCED in support of the RFD. The project aimed to rehabilitate degraded forest, watersheds, and streams, by promoting ecological stability and diversity through the participation of local indigenous communities. One of the processes proposed to enhance participation was the construction of a three-dimensional model. This highly technical approach was difficult for some of the communities to work with, but when they drew the location of their resources using paper and pens, they responded better. These maps and models enabled the community to identify the different types of activities in the forest.
The project has been running for about three years and has focused on four villages. Although both the foundation and the RFD activities aimed at providing support through inputs by hiring people to plant trees, the foundation initially developed its methods to use slower processes. This encouraged a deeper community understanding of the purpose of the plans and of the importance of forest protection.
The foundation is now trying to build the financial management capabilities of the community protection committees that were formed by allowing them to manage the project finances. However, there remains confusion, as the RFD/DANCED team has their own approach. If communities ask for assistance to plant trees or do activities that match the "official plan", they receive immediate support. The foundation's approach of assisting committees to develop their own plans and schedules of activities takes much longer time. Once finished, the plans are submitted for approval and the finances to support their proposed activities are requested for.
The two processes confuse the communities. The opportunity to use process to deepen a sense of responsibility in managing forest resources and in building a spirit of independence is being lost when members of a committee receive seemingly easy support.
Sixty percent of the committees set up by the foundation have achieved success, as indicated by:
- an increase in awareness of the importance of forests in relation to the watershed
- the establishment of a local source of funds
- the ability to manage the generated funds
- the establishment of a community forest
- the management and maintenance of fire breaks
Further progress is being undermined by uncoordinated activities of the RFD. Recently, a survey team was sent to establish the boundary of a proposed protected area. The community forests were included, and this resulted in feelings of insecurity amongst the community in terms of who owns the forest that they planted and protected. Communities know they have no legal proof of ownership, and past policies that relocate communities from protected areas are well known and feared.
It is hoped that the proposed community forestry bill will prove to be a basis for these communities, some with a 100-year history of forest interaction, to participate in the management planning and implementation of activities in protected areas. The community forestry act is expected to provide rights to extract and market non-timber products. This is seen as a progressive policy step to meet field realities.