Editorial
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2010, 3(2):81-187
EDITOR’S NOTE
Four years ago, in June of 2008, UNMUL’s* Center for Social Forestry launched an ambitious effort to reduce the gap of knowledge for improved practice in social forestry. We are pleased that our continuation through the medium of this Journal has been keenly supported by not only the initiators, but as well by you: readers and contributors, theorists and field practitioners from the world of science, development and academe. We try to compile articles from authors with considerable applied experience so as to give credence to insights from practical involvements. We sincerely hope that you would pass on and adapt many of the interesting findings.
Starting this issue is a case study on the “Status of Joint Forest Management in India: Socio-economic Determinants of Forest Participation in Dynamic Optimization Setting”. The authors, Datta and Sarkar, use a “dynamic optimization model” to seek a clearer view of the socio-economic determinants of participation in forest management, noting that the litany of historical obstacles to effective and ethical management hamper effectiveness and point to the increasing need for policy interventions. In this article (like in Kobbail’s), “trust” arises as a factor which could lead to improved cooperation between forest dwellers and government authorities, with the additional intervention of non-government agents. Clarification is also made regarding Joint Forest Management and Community-based Forest Management.
The following article is “Collaborative Management for Sustainable Development of Natural Forests in Sundan: Case Study of Elrawashda and Elain Natural Forests Reserves” by Amani Abdel Rahim Kobbail. His paper touches on two immensely important elements in conflict reduction—even though that is not the prime focus of this piece—namely, “collaborative management” and the “concept of trust”. By throwing light on the benefits of interdependence in Sudanese communities using forests for subsistence and livelihood needs, the author makes a good case for linking benefits of permitted use and sustainable development. An oft neglected aspect which is also brought to our attention is the application of that nation’s 1989 Forest Act: as we all realise too well, many fine policies around the world are neglected; to have demonstrations of an Act being successfully used is, indeed, gratifying!
An essential underscoring aspect of all social forestry efforts is the integration and mainstreaming of gender. Thus it is heart-warming to see two articles investigating enhancement of women’s involvement.
In the first one, Abugre et al have examined equity issues in their study of “Gender Equity Under the Modified Taungya System (MTS): A Case of the Bechem Forest District of Ghana”. Looking into three gender role aspects, namely in seedling nurseries, access to resources and services and, lastly, in the division of labour, rights and control over land, products and income by MTS farmers, the authors conclude that while gender roles are not optimized, there were not any glaring, deliberate inequities; nonetheless some recommendations are proffered for facilitating women’s increased involvement in decision-making and communicative abilities.
Following this is a very practical oriented, longer term investigation on how to enhance women’s effectiveness in the marketplace. In Awono et al, their “Empowering Women’s Capacity for Improved Livelihoods in Non-Timber Forest Product Trade in Cameroon” not only pinpoints impediments to women’s advancement in trading, but through linkages between research and recommendations provides follow-up concrete strengthening strategies for women and then illustrates the effectiveness of that follow-up capacity building. This programme’s obvious success has been noticed internationally and expanded to other parts of Cameroon.
Our final selection for this issue is by Azeez et al, who in their detailed “Land Use Activities among Forest Environments’ Dwellers in Edo State, Nigeria: Implications for Livelihood and Sustainable Forest Management” provide backup for the importance of rural dwellers becoming aware of and properly exploiting of forest reserves as well as willing to plant trees, as these practices would influence their participation in the management of forest reserves. Basically, farming, tree cropping, NTFPs gathering and establishing tree plantations by planting and tending tree seedlings together with food crops are the land use activities which sustain the population and influence participation in sustainable forest management. It follows, therefore, that increased knowledge of land-use patterns of forest edge communities will provide a basis for seeking their participation in forest and woodland management. Considering that over 75% of Nigerians are still living in rural areas, insights to more effective management of forest reserves shall inevitably help influence the way and the extent of the rural dwellers’ involvement in management.
Retrospectively in this issue, in the first two articles the same entity that is seen to be cause of many deficiencies—i.e. the government—is touted as the organ which need institutionalise required changes in order to improve participatory management. In a way this is natural: governments in many instances need to become more flexible, more updated, less bureaucratic, increasingly reaching out and listening. And certainly, government need remain involved and proactive whenever feasible. However, this cannot be a one-sided affair, as forest dwellers also need more cohesiveness, coordination and advocacy to hold governments accountable. Looking at the gender issues of the subsequent two articles, we see that several aspects of facilitating women’s involvement could be done by non-government facilitators as well. If we can then consider the salient points in all of our articles as a whole, we can discern a pattern showing a strong need for more consistent, planned cooperation between government and non-government entities so that recommendations implied or described by research could be immediately pursued for the upliftment of forest-dependent communities.
Ivan G. Somlai
Managing Editor,
International Journal of Social Forestry
Director - Global Collaboration
Ivan.Somlai@alumni.INSEAD.edu
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2010, 3(1):1-80
EDITOR’S NOTE
Although started in the 70s, the global development of community forestry systems is very dynamic and varies from place to place. One point that should be underlined, however, is that political decisions in many countries are significantly influencing forestry development, which of course impacts community managed forests. In the first article, based on their assessment in Akure, Ondo State of Nigeria, a research team of the Federal University of Technology identified 4 ways by which forestry can benefit more from democratic rule, such as more realistic budget and prompt release of fund to the forestry, encouraging forestry staff to go for more training, enacting legislation for more investment in timber plantation development and giving tax relief to those who plant trees.
Over and above political aspects, correct technical approaches will also influence sustainable development of community forestry, as it has been observed by Sharma in Nepal and reported in the second article. According to Sharma, inequality in the distribution of community forestry increased because there was no threshold used. The provision of Initial Environmental Examination has acted positively as a solution to determine fixed minimum and maximum limits to the size of community forestry as well as to facilitate monitoring of its development.
Sustainability of community forestry development does not only depend of equality of area distribution, but as well on diversification of its products, especially so as to avoid focusing strictly on timber utilization. Research on non-timber forest products or even more on services that can be derived from the natural or artificial forests will contribute primarily to the development. The three last articles in this volume of the International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF) have tried to address the topic.
Acharya and Acharya mentioned a long list (including local name, habitat and geographical distribution) of wild edible plants found in Rupandehi District of Central Nepal, based on indigenous knowledge of local communities. However, the knowledge tends to decline since the younger generation is not anymore interested in utilizing wild edible plants. It can threaten not only existing valuable empirical knowledge of communities for further scientific endevours, but also the potential use of wild edible plants.
Besides diversification in terms of different products of various species, there is also possibility for optimum, multi-purpose uses of just one specie. Erakhrumen, Ogunsawo and Ajewole have assessed some fuelwood species found in Akinyele and Ido Local Government Areas of Oyo State, Nigeria. Based on the assessment, it was concluded that various parts of those species are actually useable for other purposes, especially foods and medicines. It was, therefore, recommended that management strategies should be considered for balancing different or multi-purpose uses.
The last article from Osemeobo was focused on medicinal plants of the rain forests of Nigeria, where complicated land tenure, intensive logging and poor harvesting practices have hampered sustainable management of products, especially for commercial purposes. On the other side, medicinal plants have played significant roles in offering jobs, social stabilization, poverty reduction and indeed sustenance of local ecological knowledge. The author recommended to take immediate actions such as rehabilitation of the natural forests, determining rule of law on any forest management, ex-situ conservation of species in high demand, and financial as well as technical support to key related stakeholders, both government and non-government (including private) organizations.
Those five articles are localized illustrations of a larger community forestry scope, since hundreds or even thousands practices in other regions of Africa, Asia and other regions have yet to be assessed. At the same time it reflects flexibility of community forestry strategy development in order to optimize relationships between community welfare and resource sustainability interests.
Mustofa Agung Sardjono
Editor-in-Chief,
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2009, 2(2):101-208
EDITOR’S NOTE
Our forests are “melting pots” of various goals, interests, concerns, and ideologies of their stakeholders. With the forest, its inhabitants can survive and maintain their belief systems and culture; companies can accumulate wealth, continue to pursue their greed or contribute to harmony; the government can collect taxes and levies to generate revenues to finance development projects or establish the elite’s patron-client system to prolong its power in office; and the state can strengthen its grip on its citizens, forest companies, and its territory through so-called forest policies. In some cases their interests, concerns, goals, or ideologies can go hand in hand, but in many, if not most cases they are conflicting. Conflicts have occurred for hundreds of years, with a resulting overexploitation of forest resources at a staggering deforestation rate. In recent accounts, one compromise solution that has been promoted or exercised has been the introduction of a diversity of social or community forestry programs with their variegated results.
In this edition, five articles highlight some aspects of such issues. Nepal has been widely knows as a country successfully promoting social forestry programs through the establishment or the recognition of community forests. However, this country cannot free itself from problems related to community forestry. Two articles discuss this kind of problem. In the first, Ambika P. Gautam highlights equity and sustainable livelihoods problems in Nepal. The author observes that although community forestry programs have been successfully implemented across the country, equity problem still persists, and sustainability issue of people’s livelihoods are questionable, particularly among disadvantaged and marginalized groups. In the second article, Bhubaneswor Dhakal and Binod Bhatta examine the utilization problem of community forest products such as firewood, timber, and fodder. It was found that institutional factors hamper the utilization of community forest products. To strengthen the access of rural people to such products, improving the performance of institutional factor is required through the provision of technical support according to the authors.
As one of the important stakeholders of the forest, the majority of states in the world today still attempt to monopolize that resource. Although attempts are made to humanize their face by introducing social or community forestry programs, a state’s genuine face in monopolizing the forest is impossible to conceal. Some still use the rigid ideology of the state’s centralisation in forest management, some accommodate people’s participation. The study of Mahbubul Alam in analyzing the evolution of forest policies in Bangladesh, in the third article of this edition, is important not only in its documentation but, as well, in the sense of the wave of pro-people forest policies. Alam’s findings show that in the earlier period of the policy (1894 to 1994) the policy emphasized the commercialization of forest products. In the new policy (1994-present), policies recognized the importance and role of people’s participation in forest resource management; however, policies have not been properly implemented due to a variety of reasons. The author suggests that rather than making a new policy, dealing with hurdles should be given top priority.
Other important stakeholders are companies which have been given rights to cut the forests on a massive scale through forest concessionaires’ schemes. Two articles—the fourth and fifth of this edition—discuss this issue. Eric Lartey examines the impact of the award of timber rights to the socio-economic wellbeing and land use of forest fringe communities in Ghana. The finding shows that although forest companies contributed in improving the provision of social services to the surrounding communities, forest fringe communities have been marginalized in the making of Social Responsibility Agreements (SRAs). According to the author, “most timber firms in the region have not performed responsibly in the area of reforesting logged out areas.”
In the last article, Eli Nur Nirmalasari discusses change in community’s land use pattern due to the expansion of forest concessionaires. It is widely known that the indigenous people of Punan in East Kalimantan have practiced forest product collection in a remote forest area and live nomadically. Recently, the government’s resettlement program makes them stay in designated villages and practice shifting cultivation in the jakau forest, but for survival they still cannot leave the practice of forest product collection in a remote forest area. The change continues to occur, and most recently, the forest company took the initiative to carry out the so-called interactive planning for land use through the concessionaire-developed Social Forestry Program, aiming at improving the well being of the Punan communities in the studied areas. Some obstacles were identified and the author challenges the companies to demonstrate more effort towards the success of the program.
From the articles published in this edition, one can learn that forests continue to be a meting pot of various interests. Some policies and programs have been introduced, albeit with many challenges. Thus, creative efforts are needed to cope with such long standing impediments.
Ketut Gunawan
Deputy Editor-in-Chief,
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2009, 2(1):1-100
EDITOR’S NOTE
We feel fortunate in being able to have Africa as our thematic focus in this edition because of the diversity of issues and approaches.
Phil René Oyono starts off this issue with “New Niches of community rights to forests in Cameroon: tenure reform, decentralization or something else?” His provocative piece highlights some of the inherent decentralization issues which resonate across many sectors—not just social forestry—and which can therefore afford insights that could be adapted across boundaries and disciplines. In “Community based management of a protected area: the case of GEPRENAF in Burkina Faso” by Elena Vallino, we read about a seminal study outlining the interplay between donor support, socio-economic impacts, as well as the quandary between traditional and more contemporary land management issues.
The next article is a unique examination of coffee forests by Till Stellmacher and Peter P. Mollinga, entitled “The institutional sphere of coffee forest management in Ethiopia: local level findings from Koma Forest, Kaffa Zone”. Contrary to our first article, here we read about centralization and, ironically, the emergence of governance problems similar to those experienced in inadequately planned decentralization schemes.
Cameroon is again in focus in “The potential of Irvingia Gabonensis: Can it contribute to the improvements of the livelihoods of producers in Southern Cameroon?”, authored by A. Awono, A. Djouguep, L. Zapfack and O. Ndoye. Their detailed examination of a Non Timber Forest Product recommends improvements in production and marketing so that more viable work opportunities arise for local youth.
Our final article, by Christopher P.I. Mahonge, analyzes the impact of incentives on development of social forestry in Tanzania in “Impact of incentives in the development of social forestry: a case of the Matengo highlands in Tanzania”. As in organizational development, the role of tangible and intangible incentives is shown to have multifarious effects, including potentially initiating conflict, depending on how they are introduced as well as how they may be received.
Each of the articles, in its own way, elicits issues and ideas that have interdisciplinary applicability and, inherently, could therefore contribute to the examination and solution of similar issues in other domains. An interdisciplinary theme might well be in the books for one of our later issues!
Ivan Gyozo Somlai
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(2):96-194
EDITOR’S NOTE
A new study by the Resource and Rights Initiative (2008) looks at whether the trend in forest reform and tenure from government control to more communities, individuals, and businesses ownership has continued. The trend was first highlighted in the publication, “Who Owns the World’s Forests” (White & Martin 2002). The study shows mixed results and an overall slow transition. Land under industrial concessions still far exceeds the land designated for use or ownership by local communities; nevertheless national reforms in the forestry sector continue, and governments confer statutory rights to local people. So, there is reason to remain mildly confident that the forestry sector will move towards more sustainable and community-based management.
The reasons for promoting a more people-centered management of forest and natural resources, whether for production, management and/or conservation, are numerous and well recognized. These include: reduction of social conflicts often triggered by dispossession and exclusion; tenure security which encourages higher sense of responsibility and accountability in management on the part of local people; creation of enabling social conditions to attract more investment; and recognition of local ecological knowledge and practices that are crucial to biodiversity conservation and sustainable management (White & Martin 2002; Gibson, McKean & Ostrom 2000).
The publication of IJSF Volume 1 Number 2 highlights the beneficial and positive relationship between forests and resource-dependent communities. A set of case studies, relying on descriptive and quantitative analyses of governance types and practical experiences, explore the various dimensions of forest management as practiced, participated in, and perceived by local people.
With regard to Asia, Soriaga and Mahanty confirm that the current status of the rights of forest dwellers is still weak but improving in their article, “Strengthening Local Forest Governance: Lessons on the Policy-Practice Linkage from two Programs to Support Community Forestry in Asia.” By reflecting upon two programs aimed at supporting the implementation of community forest management practices in Asia, they highlight the importance of infusing forest policy and planning with local perspectives, and of recognizing existing community level initiatives for effective CFM. They highlight the value of peer support and networking, formalized community forestry agreements, and monitoring of driving forces in the forest sector. The outcomes of the two programs clearly suggest the benefits that can be reaped from long-term investment in building the capacity of communities and local governments to sustainably manage the forests, and fostering strong partnerships of local communities, local government and civil society.
The article by Guthiga is a valuable attempt at systematically measuring the factors that are likely to impinge on the perceptions about forest management and conservation by local people living around the Kakagema forest in Kenya. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the author finds that involvement in decision-making turns out to be the most important factor in shaping perceptions of forest management. The author also points out that involvement and membership in social groups can substantially help collective power and local peoples’ leverage in forest decision-making.
The authors of the article, “History of Social Forestry in Pakistan: An Overview,” argue that more sustainable forest management can be achieved by involving, rather than alienating, local people. The involvement of local people in all phases of a social forestry project can ensure a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility among local people. The article offers a very detailed review of social forestry projects in Pakistan since the 1970s.
The experience of PROSHIKA, a grass-root development organization in Bangladesh, also provides good evidence of the importance of organizing poor and marginalized people to build awareness of their needs, rights, and collective actions. According to Montosh Kumar Das, the author, afforestation can become a socially and economically empowering experience as much as an important contribution to re-building forest coverage and biomass in Bangladesh.
If no simple conclusions can be drawn with regard to the relationship between forests and livelihoods, it is however certain that when communities depend on forest resources for a living, clear tenure rights over natural resources represent powerful incentives, affect income stream, and contribute to improved livelihoods for local residents. All the articles indicate that this is the case. In particular, the article by Sapkota and Oden, “Household Characteristics and Dependency on Community Forests in Terai of Nepal,” alerts us to the existence of heterogeneity or socio-economic inequalities within communities, and the importance of taking into consideration how these dynamics could affect the sustainable extraction of resources like fuel-wood from common pool forest areas. Dependency on forest resources, access to and benefits from the forest are not necessarily equal among local people.
Deep appreciation and thanks to the authors and contributors to this volume. The Editors believe that the papers are an important and valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue and advocacy process pushing for forest reform in many countries and completing the transition from exclusion to tenure security for local people.
Cristina Eghenter
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
References cited
Gibson, C., McKean, M., and Ostrom, E. (eds.). 2000. People and Forests. Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press.
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J., and Liddle, M. 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. The Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington (DC).
White, A., and Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests?: Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition. Washington (DC): Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(1):1-95
EDITOR’S NOTE
After almost a half decade of planning and preparation it is indeed our great pleasure to launch the International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF). This great moment is expected to be able to enhance awareness and accelerate dissemination of critical lessons on the global development of social and community forestry. This is in line with international spirit to achieve the goal of “forest for people” declared during the Eight World Forestry Congress in Jakarta thirty years ago. The journal will play a significant role in circulating and exchanging experiences and ideas related to social or community forestry especially among foresters and experts, practitioners and activists in different countries to support the implementation of programs in combating rapid deforestation and increasing local community welfare.
This first issue consists of five articles, of which four are based on empirical lesson-learned from different Asian countries. However, it is interesting to note that the three first articles attempt a general review of forest governance in the respective countries. Those articles are providing not only a more general picture of the overall challenges in social forestry but also reflecting the common trends of forest management in the tropical countries. Another article is more on local lessons (swidden agriculture) and its significance for the development of a better strategy to promote social/community forestry at the grass root level following more accessible markets and commercial orientation.
In Chapter 1, Juan Pulhin and Makoto Inoue analyse the long-term dynamics of devolution of natural forest management in the Philippines, going from centralized and commercial oriented forestry to decentralized and community based management. The authors have examined the complexity of the process and roles of the numerous key stake-holders. The authors, through a detailed description and sharp analysis of the situation, provide a valuable understanding of forestry in the Philippines, where community based forest management development has relatively faster than in other South-East Asian countries.
In Chapter 2, Mangala de Zoysa and Makoto Inoue examine the development of forest governance towards incorporating more community based management in Sri Lanka. The authors discuss in comprehensive ways the future perspectives of that development in a country where full implementation of innovative policies can be affected and conflicting regulations, and still limited culture of good governance. The case of Srilanka can be a useful lesson for other countries in how to try to ensure sustainability of limited resources under different ecological constraints and, at the same time, increase welfare of the local communities in the forestry sector.
In Chapter 3, Keshav Raj Kanel and Ganga Ram Dahal look at the direct and indirect economic benefits from community forestry policy in Nepal. In the conclusion they underlined some of the important issues that should be followed-up to guarantee better results, foremost, how to harmonize inter-sector policies and create better enabling policy conditions for community forestry.
In Chapter 4, Ndan Imang, Makoto Inoue and Mustofa Agung Sardjono take the swidden agriculture case in East Kalimantan (Indonesia) to exemplify how local traditional community practices have shown resilience and adaptation under the pressure of economic development. Swidden agriculture has been widely known as an original system and even as an integral part of different local forest management practices in Indonesia. In the conclusions, the authors draw attention to the fact that development of social/community forestry even among traditional communities nowadays has to consider the important of monetary economy and cash income for land users and forest managers.
The last article, Chapter 5, by Ivan Gyozo Somlai, is a more methodological expose concerning the issue of conflict management in social forestry. In his article, the author refers to his experiences in many countries to highlight that a significant part, if not the most significant, in resolving conflicts is to correctly identify key actors or stakeholders. The chapter promotes the importance of better situational analysis and offers ideas to minimize the risk of failures for social forestry programs. This is especially relevant in countries with high risk of conflicts related to unclear or contested land and natural resource tenure.
The publication of the first issue of the International Journal of Social Forestry was made possible by the supports of the authors and the hard works of the Board of Editors as well as all the reviewers, especially Ketut Gunawan. All staffs of the Center for Social Forestry (CSF) have been actively involved in the realization of this journal. Finally, special acknowledgements go to the Ford Foundation (USA) and University of Tokyo (Japan) for their support.
I sincerely hope that the first volume and this first number of IJSF will be one of a long series of publications in either printed form of printing and/or digital edition. And I do hope that the IJSF will be able to contribute significantly to the sustainable management of the remaining forests and reduction of poverty for a sustainable future in tropical countries.
Mustofa Agung Sardjono
Editor-in-Chief
International Journal of Social Forestry
(2126 total words in this text) (906 Reads)
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2009, 2(1):1-100
EDITOR’S NOTE
We feel fortunate in being able to have Africa as our thematic focus in this edition because of the diversity of issues and approaches.
Phil René Oyono starts off this issue with “New Niches of community rights to forests in Cameroon: tenure reform, decentralization or something else?” His provocative piece highlights some of the inherent decentralization issues which resonate across many sectors—not just social forestry—and which can therefore afford insights that could be adapted across boundaries and disciplines. In “Community based management of a protected area: the case of GEPRENAF in Burkina Faso” by Elena Vallino, we read about a seminal study outlining the interplay between donor support, socio-economic impacts, as well as the quandary between traditional and more contemporary land management issues.
The next article is a unique examination of coffee forests by Till Stellmacher and Peter P. Mollinga, entitled “The institutional sphere of coffee forest management in Ethiopia: local level findings from Koma Forest, Kaffa Zone”. Contrary to our first article, here we read about centralization and, ironically, the emergence of governance problems similar to those experienced in inadequately planned decentralization schemes.
Cameroon is again in focus in “The potential of Irvingia Gabonensis: Can it contribute to the improvements of the livelihoods of producers in Southern Cameroon?”, authored by A. Awono, A. Djouguep, L. Zapfack and O. Ndoye. Their detailed examination of a Non Timber Forest Product recommends improvements in production and marketing so that more viable work opportunities arise for local youth.
Our final article, by Christopher P.I. Mahonge, analyzes the impact of incentives on development of social forestry in Tanzania in “Impact of incentives in the development of social forestry: a case of the Matengo highlands in Tanzania”. As in organizational development, the role of tangible and intangible incentives is shown to have multifarious effects, including potentially initiating conflict, depending on how they are introduced as well as how they may be received.
Each of the articles, in its own way, elicits issues and ideas that have interdisciplinary applicability and, inherently, could therefore contribute to the examination and solution of similar issues in other domains. An interdisciplinary theme might well be in the books for one of our later issues!
Ivan Gyozo Somlai
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(2):96-194
EDITOR’S NOTE
A new study by the Resource and Rights Initiative (2008) looks at whether the trend in forest reform and tenure from government control to more communities, individuals, and businesses ownership has continued. The trend was first highlighted in the publication, “Who Owns the World’s Forests” (White & Martin 2002). The study shows mixed results and an overall slow transition. Land under industrial concessions still far exceeds the land designated for use or ownership by local communities; nevertheless national reforms in the forestry sector continue, and governments confer statutory rights to local people. So, there is reason to remain mildly confident that the forestry sector will move towards more sustainable and community-based management.
The reasons for promoting a more people-centered management of forest and natural resources, whether for production, management and/or conservation, are numerous and well recognized. These include: reduction of social conflicts often triggered by dispossession and exclusion; tenure security which encourages higher sense of responsibility and accountability in management on the part of local people; creation of enabling social conditions to attract more investment; and recognition of local ecological knowledge and practices that are crucial to biodiversity conservation and sustainable management (White & Martin 2002; Gibson, McKean & Ostrom 2000).
The publication of IJSF Volume 1 Number 2 highlights the beneficial and positive relationship between forests and resource-dependent communities. A set of case studies, relying on descriptive and quantitative analyses of governance types and practical experiences, explore the various dimensions of forest management as practiced, participated in, and perceived by local people.
With regard to Asia, Soriaga and Mahanty confirm that the current status of the rights of forest dwellers is still weak but improving in their article, “Strengthening Local Forest Governance: Lessons on the Policy-Practice Linkage from two Programs to Support Community Forestry in Asia.” By reflecting upon two programs aimed at supporting the implementation of community forest management practices in Asia, they highlight the importance of infusing forest policy and planning with local perspectives, and of recognizing existing community level initiatives for effective CFM. They highlight the value of peer support and networking, formalized community forestry agreements, and monitoring of driving forces in the forest sector. The outcomes of the two programs clearly suggest the benefits that can be reaped from long-term investment in building the capacity of communities and local governments to sustainably manage the forests, and fostering strong partnerships of local communities, local government and civil society.
The article by Guthiga is a valuable attempt at systematically measuring the factors that are likely to impinge on the perceptions about forest management and conservation by local people living around the Kakagema forest in Kenya. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the author finds that involvement in decision-making turns out to be the most important factor in shaping perceptions of forest management. The author also points out that involvement and membership in social groups can substantially help collective power and local peoples’ leverage in forest decision-making.
The authors of the article, “History of Social Forestry in Pakistan: An Overview,” argue that more sustainable forest management can be achieved by involving, rather than alienating, local people. The involvement of local people in all phases of a social forestry project can ensure a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility among local people. The article offers a very detailed review of social forestry projects in Pakistan since the 1970s.
The experience of PROSHIKA, a grass-root development organization in Bangladesh, also provides good evidence of the importance of organizing poor and marginalized people to build awareness of their needs, rights, and collective actions. According to Montosh Kumar Das, the author, afforestation can become a socially and economically empowering experience as much as an important contribution to re-building forest coverage and biomass in Bangladesh.
If no simple conclusions can be drawn with regard to the relationship between forests and livelihoods, it is however certain that when communities depend on forest resources for a living, clear tenure rights over natural resources represent powerful incentives, affect income stream, and contribute to improved livelihoods for local residents. All the articles indicate that this is the case. In particular, the article by Sapkota and Oden, “Household Characteristics and Dependency on Community Forests in Terai of Nepal,” alerts us to the existence of heterogeneity or socio-economic inequalities within communities, and the importance of taking into consideration how these dynamics could affect the sustainable extraction of resources like fuel-wood from common pool forest areas. Dependency on forest resources, access to and benefits from the forest are not necessarily equal among local people.
Deep appreciation and thanks to the authors and contributors to this volume. The Editors believe that the papers are an important and valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue and advocacy process pushing for forest reform in many countries and completing the transition from exclusion to tenure security for local people.
Cristina Eghenter
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
References cited
Gibson, C., McKean, M., and Ostrom, E. (eds.). 2000. People and Forests. Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press.
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J., and Liddle, M. 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. The Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington (DC).
White, A., and Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests?: Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition. Washington (DC): Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(1):1-95
EDITOR’S NOTE
After almost a half decade of planning and preparation it is indeed our great pleasure to launch the International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF). This great moment is expected to be able to enhance awareness and accelerate dissemination of critical lessons on the global development of social and community forestry. This is in line with international spirit to achieve the goal of “forest for people” declared during the Eight World Forestry Congress in Jakarta thirty years ago. The journal will play a significant role in circulating and exchanging experiences and ideas related to social or community forestry especially among foresters and experts, practitioners and activists in different countries to support the implementation of programs in combating rapid deforestation and increasing local community welfare.
This first issue consists of five articles, of which four are based on empirical lesson-learned from different Asian countries. However, it is interesting to note that the three first articles attempt a general review of forest governance in the respective countries. Those articles are providing not only a more general picture of the overall challenges in social forestry but also reflecting the common trends of forest management in the tropical countries. Another article is more on local lessons (swidden agriculture) and its significance for the development of a better strategy to promote social/community forestry at the grass root level following more accessible markets and commercial orientation.
In Chapter 1, Juan Pulhin and Makoto Inoue analyse the long-term dynamics of devolution of natural forest management in the Philippines, going from centralized and commercial oriented forestry to decentralized and community based management. The authors have examined the complexity of the process and roles of the numerous key stake-holders. The authors, through a detailed description and sharp analysis of the situation, provide a valuable understanding of forestry in the Philippines, where community based forest management development has relatively faster than in other South-East Asian countries.
In Chapter 2, Mangala de Zoysa and Makoto Inoue examine the development of forest governance towards incorporating more community based management in Sri Lanka. The authors discuss in comprehensive ways the future perspectives of that development in a country where full implementation of innovative policies can be affected and conflicting regulations, and still limited culture of good governance. The case of Srilanka can be a useful lesson for other countries in how to try to ensure sustainability of limited resources under different ecological constraints and, at the same time, increase welfare of the local communities in the forestry sector.
In Chapter 3, Keshav Raj Kanel and Ganga Ram Dahal look at the direct and indirect economic benefits from community forestry policy in Nepal. In the conclusion they underlined some of the important issues that should be followed-up to guarantee better results, foremost, how to harmonize inter-sector policies and create better enabling policy conditions for community forestry.
In Chapter 4, Ndan Imang, Makoto Inoue and Mustofa Agung Sardjono take the swidden agriculture case in East Kalimantan (Indonesia) to exemplify how local traditional community practices have shown resilience and adaptation under the pressure of economic development. Swidden agriculture has been widely known as an original system and even as an integral part of different local forest management practices in Indonesia. In the conclusions, the authors draw attention to the fact that development of social/community forestry even among traditional communities nowadays has to consider the important of monetary economy and cash income for land users and forest managers.
The last article, Chapter 5, by Ivan Gyozo Somlai, is a more methodological expose concerning the issue of conflict management in social forestry. In his article, the author refers to his experiences in many countries to highlight that a significant part, if not the most significant, in resolving conflicts is to correctly identify key actors or stakeholders. The chapter promotes the importance of better situational analysis and offers ideas to minimize the risk of failures for social forestry programs. This is especially relevant in countries with high risk of conflicts related to unclear or contested land and natural resource tenure.
The publication of the first issue of the International Journal of Social Forestry was made possible by the supports of the authors and the hard works of the Board of Editors as well as all the reviewers, especially Ketut Gunawan. All staffs of the Center for Social Forestry (CSF) have been actively involved in the realization of this journal. Finally, special acknowledgements go to the Ford Foundation (USA) and University of Tokyo (Japan) for their support.
I sincerely hope that the first volume and this first number of IJSF will be one of a long series of publications in either printed form of printing and/or digital edition. And I do hope that the IJSF will be able to contribute significantly to the sustainable management of the remaining forests and reduction of poverty for a sustainable future in tropical countries.
Mustofa Agung Sardjono
Editor-in-Chief
International Journal of Social Forestry
EDITOR’S NOTE
Four years ago, in June of 2008, UNMUL’s* Center for Social Forestry launched an ambitious effort to reduce the gap of knowledge for improved practice in social forestry. We are pleased that our continuation through the medium of this Journal has been keenly supported by not only the initiators, but as well by you: readers and contributors, theorists and field practitioners from the world of science, development and academe. We try to compile articles from authors with considerable applied experience so as to give credence to insights from practical involvements. We sincerely hope that you would pass on and adapt many of the interesting findings.
Starting this issue is a case study on the “Status of Joint Forest Management in India: Socio-economic Determinants of Forest Participation in Dynamic Optimization Setting”. The authors, Datta and Sarkar, use a “dynamic optimization model” to seek a clearer view of the socio-economic determinants of participation in forest management, noting that the litany of historical obstacles to effective and ethical management hamper effectiveness and point to the increasing need for policy interventions. In this article (like in Kobbail’s), “trust” arises as a factor which could lead to improved cooperation between forest dwellers and government authorities, with the additional intervention of non-government agents. Clarification is also made regarding Joint Forest Management and Community-based Forest Management.
The following article is “Collaborative Management for Sustainable Development of Natural Forests in Sundan: Case Study of Elrawashda and Elain Natural Forests Reserves” by Amani Abdel Rahim Kobbail. His paper touches on two immensely important elements in conflict reduction—even though that is not the prime focus of this piece—namely, “collaborative management” and the “concept of trust”. By throwing light on the benefits of interdependence in Sudanese communities using forests for subsistence and livelihood needs, the author makes a good case for linking benefits of permitted use and sustainable development. An oft neglected aspect which is also brought to our attention is the application of that nation’s 1989 Forest Act: as we all realise too well, many fine policies around the world are neglected; to have demonstrations of an Act being successfully used is, indeed, gratifying!
An essential underscoring aspect of all social forestry efforts is the integration and mainstreaming of gender. Thus it is heart-warming to see two articles investigating enhancement of women’s involvement.
In the first one, Abugre et al have examined equity issues in their study of “Gender Equity Under the Modified Taungya System (MTS): A Case of the Bechem Forest District of Ghana”. Looking into three gender role aspects, namely in seedling nurseries, access to resources and services and, lastly, in the division of labour, rights and control over land, products and income by MTS farmers, the authors conclude that while gender roles are not optimized, there were not any glaring, deliberate inequities; nonetheless some recommendations are proffered for facilitating women’s increased involvement in decision-making and communicative abilities.
Following this is a very practical oriented, longer term investigation on how to enhance women’s effectiveness in the marketplace. In Awono et al, their “Empowering Women’s Capacity for Improved Livelihoods in Non-Timber Forest Product Trade in Cameroon” not only pinpoints impediments to women’s advancement in trading, but through linkages between research and recommendations provides follow-up concrete strengthening strategies for women and then illustrates the effectiveness of that follow-up capacity building. This programme’s obvious success has been noticed internationally and expanded to other parts of Cameroon.
Our final selection for this issue is by Azeez et al, who in their detailed “Land Use Activities among Forest Environments’ Dwellers in Edo State, Nigeria: Implications for Livelihood and Sustainable Forest Management” provide backup for the importance of rural dwellers becoming aware of and properly exploiting of forest reserves as well as willing to plant trees, as these practices would influence their participation in the management of forest reserves. Basically, farming, tree cropping, NTFPs gathering and establishing tree plantations by planting and tending tree seedlings together with food crops are the land use activities which sustain the population and influence participation in sustainable forest management. It follows, therefore, that increased knowledge of land-use patterns of forest edge communities will provide a basis for seeking their participation in forest and woodland management. Considering that over 75% of Nigerians are still living in rural areas, insights to more effective management of forest reserves shall inevitably help influence the way and the extent of the rural dwellers’ involvement in management.
Retrospectively in this issue, in the first two articles the same entity that is seen to be cause of many deficiencies—i.e. the government—is touted as the organ which need institutionalise required changes in order to improve participatory management. In a way this is natural: governments in many instances need to become more flexible, more updated, less bureaucratic, increasingly reaching out and listening. And certainly, government need remain involved and proactive whenever feasible. However, this cannot be a one-sided affair, as forest dwellers also need more cohesiveness, coordination and advocacy to hold governments accountable. Looking at the gender issues of the subsequent two articles, we see that several aspects of facilitating women’s involvement could be done by non-government facilitators as well. If we can then consider the salient points in all of our articles as a whole, we can discern a pattern showing a strong need for more consistent, planned cooperation between government and non-government entities so that recommendations implied or described by research could be immediately pursued for the upliftment of forest-dependent communities.
Ivan G. Somlai
Managing Editor,
International Journal of Social Forestry
Director - Global Collaboration
Ivan.Somlai@alumni.INSEAD.edu
*Universitas Mulawarman (Mulawarman University in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia)
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2010, 3(1):1-80
EDITOR’S NOTE
Although started in the 70s, the global development of community forestry systems is very dynamic and varies from place to place. One point that should be underlined, however, is that political decisions in many countries are significantly influencing forestry development, which of course impacts community managed forests. In the first article, based on their assessment in Akure, Ondo State of Nigeria, a research team of the Federal University of Technology identified 4 ways by which forestry can benefit more from democratic rule, such as more realistic budget and prompt release of fund to the forestry, encouraging forestry staff to go for more training, enacting legislation for more investment in timber plantation development and giving tax relief to those who plant trees.
Over and above political aspects, correct technical approaches will also influence sustainable development of community forestry, as it has been observed by Sharma in Nepal and reported in the second article. According to Sharma, inequality in the distribution of community forestry increased because there was no threshold used. The provision of Initial Environmental Examination has acted positively as a solution to determine fixed minimum and maximum limits to the size of community forestry as well as to facilitate monitoring of its development.
Sustainability of community forestry development does not only depend of equality of area distribution, but as well on diversification of its products, especially so as to avoid focusing strictly on timber utilization. Research on non-timber forest products or even more on services that can be derived from the natural or artificial forests will contribute primarily to the development. The three last articles in this volume of the International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF) have tried to address the topic.
Acharya and Acharya mentioned a long list (including local name, habitat and geographical distribution) of wild edible plants found in Rupandehi District of Central Nepal, based on indigenous knowledge of local communities. However, the knowledge tends to decline since the younger generation is not anymore interested in utilizing wild edible plants. It can threaten not only existing valuable empirical knowledge of communities for further scientific endevours, but also the potential use of wild edible plants.
Besides diversification in terms of different products of various species, there is also possibility for optimum, multi-purpose uses of just one specie. Erakhrumen, Ogunsawo and Ajewole have assessed some fuelwood species found in Akinyele and Ido Local Government Areas of Oyo State, Nigeria. Based on the assessment, it was concluded that various parts of those species are actually useable for other purposes, especially foods and medicines. It was, therefore, recommended that management strategies should be considered for balancing different or multi-purpose uses.
The last article from Osemeobo was focused on medicinal plants of the rain forests of Nigeria, where complicated land tenure, intensive logging and poor harvesting practices have hampered sustainable management of products, especially for commercial purposes. On the other side, medicinal plants have played significant roles in offering jobs, social stabilization, poverty reduction and indeed sustenance of local ecological knowledge. The author recommended to take immediate actions such as rehabilitation of the natural forests, determining rule of law on any forest management, ex-situ conservation of species in high demand, and financial as well as technical support to key related stakeholders, both government and non-government (including private) organizations.
Those five articles are localized illustrations of a larger community forestry scope, since hundreds or even thousands practices in other regions of Africa, Asia and other regions have yet to be assessed. At the same time it reflects flexibility of community forestry strategy development in order to optimize relationships between community welfare and resource sustainability interests.
Mustofa Agung Sardjono
Editor-in-Chief,
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2009, 2(2):101-208
EDITOR’S NOTE
Our forests are “melting pots” of various goals, interests, concerns, and ideologies of their stakeholders. With the forest, its inhabitants can survive and maintain their belief systems and culture; companies can accumulate wealth, continue to pursue their greed or contribute to harmony; the government can collect taxes and levies to generate revenues to finance development projects or establish the elite’s patron-client system to prolong its power in office; and the state can strengthen its grip on its citizens, forest companies, and its territory through so-called forest policies. In some cases their interests, concerns, goals, or ideologies can go hand in hand, but in many, if not most cases they are conflicting. Conflicts have occurred for hundreds of years, with a resulting overexploitation of forest resources at a staggering deforestation rate. In recent accounts, one compromise solution that has been promoted or exercised has been the introduction of a diversity of social or community forestry programs with their variegated results.
In this edition, five articles highlight some aspects of such issues. Nepal has been widely knows as a country successfully promoting social forestry programs through the establishment or the recognition of community forests. However, this country cannot free itself from problems related to community forestry. Two articles discuss this kind of problem. In the first, Ambika P. Gautam highlights equity and sustainable livelihoods problems in Nepal. The author observes that although community forestry programs have been successfully implemented across the country, equity problem still persists, and sustainability issue of people’s livelihoods are questionable, particularly among disadvantaged and marginalized groups. In the second article, Bhubaneswor Dhakal and Binod Bhatta examine the utilization problem of community forest products such as firewood, timber, and fodder. It was found that institutional factors hamper the utilization of community forest products. To strengthen the access of rural people to such products, improving the performance of institutional factor is required through the provision of technical support according to the authors.
As one of the important stakeholders of the forest, the majority of states in the world today still attempt to monopolize that resource. Although attempts are made to humanize their face by introducing social or community forestry programs, a state’s genuine face in monopolizing the forest is impossible to conceal. Some still use the rigid ideology of the state’s centralisation in forest management, some accommodate people’s participation. The study of Mahbubul Alam in analyzing the evolution of forest policies in Bangladesh, in the third article of this edition, is important not only in its documentation but, as well, in the sense of the wave of pro-people forest policies. Alam’s findings show that in the earlier period of the policy (1894 to 1994) the policy emphasized the commercialization of forest products. In the new policy (1994-present), policies recognized the importance and role of people’s participation in forest resource management; however, policies have not been properly implemented due to a variety of reasons. The author suggests that rather than making a new policy, dealing with hurdles should be given top priority.
Other important stakeholders are companies which have been given rights to cut the forests on a massive scale through forest concessionaires’ schemes. Two articles—the fourth and fifth of this edition—discuss this issue. Eric Lartey examines the impact of the award of timber rights to the socio-economic wellbeing and land use of forest fringe communities in Ghana. The finding shows that although forest companies contributed in improving the provision of social services to the surrounding communities, forest fringe communities have been marginalized in the making of Social Responsibility Agreements (SRAs). According to the author, “most timber firms in the region have not performed responsibly in the area of reforesting logged out areas.”
In the last article, Eli Nur Nirmalasari discusses change in community’s land use pattern due to the expansion of forest concessionaires. It is widely known that the indigenous people of Punan in East Kalimantan have practiced forest product collection in a remote forest area and live nomadically. Recently, the government’s resettlement program makes them stay in designated villages and practice shifting cultivation in the jakau forest, but for survival they still cannot leave the practice of forest product collection in a remote forest area. The change continues to occur, and most recently, the forest company took the initiative to carry out the so-called interactive planning for land use through the concessionaire-developed Social Forestry Program, aiming at improving the well being of the Punan communities in the studied areas. Some obstacles were identified and the author challenges the companies to demonstrate more effort towards the success of the program.
From the articles published in this edition, one can learn that forests continue to be a meting pot of various interests. Some policies and programs have been introduced, albeit with many challenges. Thus, creative efforts are needed to cope with such long standing impediments.
Ketut Gunawan
Deputy Editor-in-Chief,
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2009, 2(1):1-100
EDITOR’S NOTE
We feel fortunate in being able to have Africa as our thematic focus in this edition because of the diversity of issues and approaches.
Phil René Oyono starts off this issue with “New Niches of community rights to forests in Cameroon: tenure reform, decentralization or something else?” His provocative piece highlights some of the inherent decentralization issues which resonate across many sectors—not just social forestry—and which can therefore afford insights that could be adapted across boundaries and disciplines. In “Community based management of a protected area: the case of GEPRENAF in Burkina Faso” by Elena Vallino, we read about a seminal study outlining the interplay between donor support, socio-economic impacts, as well as the quandary between traditional and more contemporary land management issues.
The next article is a unique examination of coffee forests by Till Stellmacher and Peter P. Mollinga, entitled “The institutional sphere of coffee forest management in Ethiopia: local level findings from Koma Forest, Kaffa Zone”. Contrary to our first article, here we read about centralization and, ironically, the emergence of governance problems similar to those experienced in inadequately planned decentralization schemes.
Cameroon is again in focus in “The potential of Irvingia Gabonensis: Can it contribute to the improvements of the livelihoods of producers in Southern Cameroon?”, authored by A. Awono, A. Djouguep, L. Zapfack and O. Ndoye. Their detailed examination of a Non Timber Forest Product recommends improvements in production and marketing so that more viable work opportunities arise for local youth.
Our final article, by Christopher P.I. Mahonge, analyzes the impact of incentives on development of social forestry in Tanzania in “Impact of incentives in the development of social forestry: a case of the Matengo highlands in Tanzania”. As in organizational development, the role of tangible and intangible incentives is shown to have multifarious effects, including potentially initiating conflict, depending on how they are introduced as well as how they may be received.
Each of the articles, in its own way, elicits issues and ideas that have interdisciplinary applicability and, inherently, could therefore contribute to the examination and solution of similar issues in other domains. An interdisciplinary theme might well be in the books for one of our later issues!
Ivan Gyozo Somlai
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(2):96-194
EDITOR’S NOTE
A new study by the Resource and Rights Initiative (2008) looks at whether the trend in forest reform and tenure from government control to more communities, individuals, and businesses ownership has continued. The trend was first highlighted in the publication, “Who Owns the World’s Forests” (White & Martin 2002). The study shows mixed results and an overall slow transition. Land under industrial concessions still far exceeds the land designated for use or ownership by local communities; nevertheless national reforms in the forestry sector continue, and governments confer statutory rights to local people. So, there is reason to remain mildly confident that the forestry sector will move towards more sustainable and community-based management.
The reasons for promoting a more people-centered management of forest and natural resources, whether for production, management and/or conservation, are numerous and well recognized. These include: reduction of social conflicts often triggered by dispossession and exclusion; tenure security which encourages higher sense of responsibility and accountability in management on the part of local people; creation of enabling social conditions to attract more investment; and recognition of local ecological knowledge and practices that are crucial to biodiversity conservation and sustainable management (White & Martin 2002; Gibson, McKean & Ostrom 2000).
The publication of IJSF Volume 1 Number 2 highlights the beneficial and positive relationship between forests and resource-dependent communities. A set of case studies, relying on descriptive and quantitative analyses of governance types and practical experiences, explore the various dimensions of forest management as practiced, participated in, and perceived by local people.
With regard to Asia, Soriaga and Mahanty confirm that the current status of the rights of forest dwellers is still weak but improving in their article, “Strengthening Local Forest Governance: Lessons on the Policy-Practice Linkage from two Programs to Support Community Forestry in Asia.” By reflecting upon two programs aimed at supporting the implementation of community forest management practices in Asia, they highlight the importance of infusing forest policy and planning with local perspectives, and of recognizing existing community level initiatives for effective CFM. They highlight the value of peer support and networking, formalized community forestry agreements, and monitoring of driving forces in the forest sector. The outcomes of the two programs clearly suggest the benefits that can be reaped from long-term investment in building the capacity of communities and local governments to sustainably manage the forests, and fostering strong partnerships of local communities, local government and civil society.
The article by Guthiga is a valuable attempt at systematically measuring the factors that are likely to impinge on the perceptions about forest management and conservation by local people living around the Kakagema forest in Kenya. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the author finds that involvement in decision-making turns out to be the most important factor in shaping perceptions of forest management. The author also points out that involvement and membership in social groups can substantially help collective power and local peoples’ leverage in forest decision-making.
The authors of the article, “History of Social Forestry in Pakistan: An Overview,” argue that more sustainable forest management can be achieved by involving, rather than alienating, local people. The involvement of local people in all phases of a social forestry project can ensure a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility among local people. The article offers a very detailed review of social forestry projects in Pakistan since the 1970s.
The experience of PROSHIKA, a grass-root development organization in Bangladesh, also provides good evidence of the importance of organizing poor and marginalized people to build awareness of their needs, rights, and collective actions. According to Montosh Kumar Das, the author, afforestation can become a socially and economically empowering experience as much as an important contribution to re-building forest coverage and biomass in Bangladesh.
If no simple conclusions can be drawn with regard to the relationship between forests and livelihoods, it is however certain that when communities depend on forest resources for a living, clear tenure rights over natural resources represent powerful incentives, affect income stream, and contribute to improved livelihoods for local residents. All the articles indicate that this is the case. In particular, the article by Sapkota and Oden, “Household Characteristics and Dependency on Community Forests in Terai of Nepal,” alerts us to the existence of heterogeneity or socio-economic inequalities within communities, and the importance of taking into consideration how these dynamics could affect the sustainable extraction of resources like fuel-wood from common pool forest areas. Dependency on forest resources, access to and benefits from the forest are not necessarily equal among local people.
Deep appreciation and thanks to the authors and contributors to this volume. The Editors believe that the papers are an important and valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue and advocacy process pushing for forest reform in many countries and completing the transition from exclusion to tenure security for local people.
Cristina Eghenter
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
References cited
Gibson, C., McKean, M., and Ostrom, E. (eds.). 2000. People and Forests. Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press.
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J., and Liddle, M. 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. The Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington (DC).
White, A., and Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests?: Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition. Washington (DC): Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(1):1-95
EDITOR’S NOTE
After almost a half decade of planning and preparation it is indeed our great pleasure to launch the International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF). This great moment is expected to be able to enhance awareness and accelerate dissemination of critical lessons on the global development of social and community forestry. This is in line with international spirit to achieve the goal of “forest for people” declared during the Eight World Forestry Congress in Jakarta thirty years ago. The journal will play a significant role in circulating and exchanging experiences and ideas related to social or community forestry especially among foresters and experts, practitioners and activists in different countries to support the implementation of programs in combating rapid deforestation and increasing local community welfare.
This first issue consists of five articles, of which four are based on empirical lesson-learned from different Asian countries. However, it is interesting to note that the three first articles attempt a general review of forest governance in the respective countries. Those articles are providing not only a more general picture of the overall challenges in social forestry but also reflecting the common trends of forest management in the tropical countries. Another article is more on local lessons (swidden agriculture) and its significance for the development of a better strategy to promote social/community forestry at the grass root level following more accessible markets and commercial orientation.
In Chapter 1, Juan Pulhin and Makoto Inoue analyse the long-term dynamics of devolution of natural forest management in the Philippines, going from centralized and commercial oriented forestry to decentralized and community based management. The authors have examined the complexity of the process and roles of the numerous key stake-holders. The authors, through a detailed description and sharp analysis of the situation, provide a valuable understanding of forestry in the Philippines, where community based forest management development has relatively faster than in other South-East Asian countries.
In Chapter 2, Mangala de Zoysa and Makoto Inoue examine the development of forest governance towards incorporating more community based management in Sri Lanka. The authors discuss in comprehensive ways the future perspectives of that development in a country where full implementation of innovative policies can be affected and conflicting regulations, and still limited culture of good governance. The case of Srilanka can be a useful lesson for other countries in how to try to ensure sustainability of limited resources under different ecological constraints and, at the same time, increase welfare of the local communities in the forestry sector.
In Chapter 3, Keshav Raj Kanel and Ganga Ram Dahal look at the direct and indirect economic benefits from community forestry policy in Nepal. In the conclusion they underlined some of the important issues that should be followed-up to guarantee better results, foremost, how to harmonize inter-sector policies and create better enabling policy conditions for community forestry.
In Chapter 4, Ndan Imang, Makoto Inoue and Mustofa Agung Sardjono take the swidden agriculture case in East Kalimantan (Indonesia) to exemplify how local traditional community practices have shown resilience and adaptation under the pressure of economic development. Swidden agriculture has been widely known as an original system and even as an integral part of different local forest management practices in Indonesia. In the conclusions, the authors draw attention to the fact that development of social/community forestry even among traditional communities nowadays has to consider the important of monetary economy and cash income for land users and forest managers.
The last article, Chapter 5, by Ivan Gyozo Somlai, is a more methodological expose concerning the issue of conflict management in social forestry. In his article, the author refers to his experiences in many countries to highlight that a significant part, if not the most significant, in resolving conflicts is to correctly identify key actors or stakeholders. The chapter promotes the importance of better situational analysis and offers ideas to minimize the risk of failures for social forestry programs. This is especially relevant in countries with high risk of conflicts related to unclear or contested land and natural resource tenure.
The publication of the first issue of the International Journal of Social Forestry was made possible by the supports of the authors and the hard works of the Board of Editors as well as all the reviewers, especially Ketut Gunawan. All staffs of the Center for Social Forestry (CSF) have been actively involved in the realization of this journal. Finally, special acknowledgements go to the Ford Foundation (USA) and University of Tokyo (Japan) for their support.
I sincerely hope that the first volume and this first number of IJSF will be one of a long series of publications in either printed form of printing and/or digital edition. And I do hope that the IJSF will be able to contribute significantly to the sustainable management of the remaining forests and reduction of poverty for a sustainable future in tropical countries.
Mustofa Agung Sardjono
Editor-in-Chief
International Journal of Social Forestry
(2126 total words in this text) (906 Reads)
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2009, 2(1):1-100
EDITOR’S NOTE
We feel fortunate in being able to have Africa as our thematic focus in this edition because of the diversity of issues and approaches.
Phil René Oyono starts off this issue with “New Niches of community rights to forests in Cameroon: tenure reform, decentralization or something else?” His provocative piece highlights some of the inherent decentralization issues which resonate across many sectors—not just social forestry—and which can therefore afford insights that could be adapted across boundaries and disciplines. In “Community based management of a protected area: the case of GEPRENAF in Burkina Faso” by Elena Vallino, we read about a seminal study outlining the interplay between donor support, socio-economic impacts, as well as the quandary between traditional and more contemporary land management issues.
The next article is a unique examination of coffee forests by Till Stellmacher and Peter P. Mollinga, entitled “The institutional sphere of coffee forest management in Ethiopia: local level findings from Koma Forest, Kaffa Zone”. Contrary to our first article, here we read about centralization and, ironically, the emergence of governance problems similar to those experienced in inadequately planned decentralization schemes.
Cameroon is again in focus in “The potential of Irvingia Gabonensis: Can it contribute to the improvements of the livelihoods of producers in Southern Cameroon?”, authored by A. Awono, A. Djouguep, L. Zapfack and O. Ndoye. Their detailed examination of a Non Timber Forest Product recommends improvements in production and marketing so that more viable work opportunities arise for local youth.
Our final article, by Christopher P.I. Mahonge, analyzes the impact of incentives on development of social forestry in Tanzania in “Impact of incentives in the development of social forestry: a case of the Matengo highlands in Tanzania”. As in organizational development, the role of tangible and intangible incentives is shown to have multifarious effects, including potentially initiating conflict, depending on how they are introduced as well as how they may be received.
Each of the articles, in its own way, elicits issues and ideas that have interdisciplinary applicability and, inherently, could therefore contribute to the examination and solution of similar issues in other domains. An interdisciplinary theme might well be in the books for one of our later issues!
Ivan Gyozo Somlai
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(2):96-194
EDITOR’S NOTE
A new study by the Resource and Rights Initiative (2008) looks at whether the trend in forest reform and tenure from government control to more communities, individuals, and businesses ownership has continued. The trend was first highlighted in the publication, “Who Owns the World’s Forests” (White & Martin 2002). The study shows mixed results and an overall slow transition. Land under industrial concessions still far exceeds the land designated for use or ownership by local communities; nevertheless national reforms in the forestry sector continue, and governments confer statutory rights to local people. So, there is reason to remain mildly confident that the forestry sector will move towards more sustainable and community-based management.
The reasons for promoting a more people-centered management of forest and natural resources, whether for production, management and/or conservation, are numerous and well recognized. These include: reduction of social conflicts often triggered by dispossession and exclusion; tenure security which encourages higher sense of responsibility and accountability in management on the part of local people; creation of enabling social conditions to attract more investment; and recognition of local ecological knowledge and practices that are crucial to biodiversity conservation and sustainable management (White & Martin 2002; Gibson, McKean & Ostrom 2000).
The publication of IJSF Volume 1 Number 2 highlights the beneficial and positive relationship between forests and resource-dependent communities. A set of case studies, relying on descriptive and quantitative analyses of governance types and practical experiences, explore the various dimensions of forest management as practiced, participated in, and perceived by local people.
With regard to Asia, Soriaga and Mahanty confirm that the current status of the rights of forest dwellers is still weak but improving in their article, “Strengthening Local Forest Governance: Lessons on the Policy-Practice Linkage from two Programs to Support Community Forestry in Asia.” By reflecting upon two programs aimed at supporting the implementation of community forest management practices in Asia, they highlight the importance of infusing forest policy and planning with local perspectives, and of recognizing existing community level initiatives for effective CFM. They highlight the value of peer support and networking, formalized community forestry agreements, and monitoring of driving forces in the forest sector. The outcomes of the two programs clearly suggest the benefits that can be reaped from long-term investment in building the capacity of communities and local governments to sustainably manage the forests, and fostering strong partnerships of local communities, local government and civil society.
The article by Guthiga is a valuable attempt at systematically measuring the factors that are likely to impinge on the perceptions about forest management and conservation by local people living around the Kakagema forest in Kenya. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the author finds that involvement in decision-making turns out to be the most important factor in shaping perceptions of forest management. The author also points out that involvement and membership in social groups can substantially help collective power and local peoples’ leverage in forest decision-making.
The authors of the article, “History of Social Forestry in Pakistan: An Overview,” argue that more sustainable forest management can be achieved by involving, rather than alienating, local people. The involvement of local people in all phases of a social forestry project can ensure a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility among local people. The article offers a very detailed review of social forestry projects in Pakistan since the 1970s.
The experience of PROSHIKA, a grass-root development organization in Bangladesh, also provides good evidence of the importance of organizing poor and marginalized people to build awareness of their needs, rights, and collective actions. According to Montosh Kumar Das, the author, afforestation can become a socially and economically empowering experience as much as an important contribution to re-building forest coverage and biomass in Bangladesh.
If no simple conclusions can be drawn with regard to the relationship between forests and livelihoods, it is however certain that when communities depend on forest resources for a living, clear tenure rights over natural resources represent powerful incentives, affect income stream, and contribute to improved livelihoods for local residents. All the articles indicate that this is the case. In particular, the article by Sapkota and Oden, “Household Characteristics and Dependency on Community Forests in Terai of Nepal,” alerts us to the existence of heterogeneity or socio-economic inequalities within communities, and the importance of taking into consideration how these dynamics could affect the sustainable extraction of resources like fuel-wood from common pool forest areas. Dependency on forest resources, access to and benefits from the forest are not necessarily equal among local people.
Deep appreciation and thanks to the authors and contributors to this volume. The Editors believe that the papers are an important and valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue and advocacy process pushing for forest reform in many countries and completing the transition from exclusion to tenure security for local people.
Cristina Eghenter
Managing Editor
International Journal of Social Forestry
References cited
Gibson, C., McKean, M., and Ostrom, E. (eds.). 2000. People and Forests. Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press.
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J., and Liddle, M. 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. The Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington (DC).
White, A., and Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests?: Forest Tenure and Public Forests in Transition. Washington (DC): Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.
International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF), 2008, 1(1):1-95
EDITOR’S NOTE
After almost a half decade of planning and preparation it is indeed our great pleasure to launch the International Journal of Social Forestry (IJSF). This great moment is expected to be able to enhance awareness and accelerate dissemination of critical lessons on the global development of social and community forestry. This is in line with international spirit to achieve the goal of “forest for people” declared during the Eight World Forestry Congress in Jakarta thirty years ago. The journal will play a significant role in circulating and exchanging experiences and ideas related to social or community forestry especially among foresters and experts, practitioners and activists in different countries to support the implementation of programs in combating rapid deforestation and increasing local community welfare.
This first issue consists of five articles, of which four are based on empirical lesson-learned from different Asian countries. However, it is interesting to note that the three first articles attempt a general review of forest governance in the respective countries. Those articles are providing not only a more general picture of the overall challenges in social forestry but also reflecting the common trends of forest management in the tropical countries. Another article is more on local lessons (swidden agriculture) and its significance for the development of a better strategy to promote social/community forestry at the grass root level following more accessible markets and commercial orientation.
In Chapter 1, Juan Pulhin and Makoto Inoue analyse the long-term dynamics of devolution of natural forest management in the Philippines, going from centralized and commercial oriented forestry to decentralized and community based management. The authors have examined the complexity of the process and roles of the numerous key stake-holders. The authors, through a detailed description and sharp analysis of the situation, provide a valuable understanding of forestry in the Philippines, where community based forest management development has relatively faster than in other South-East Asian countries.
In Chapter 2, Mangala de Zoysa and Makoto Inoue examine the development of forest governance towards incorporating more community based management in Sri Lanka. The authors discuss in comprehensive ways the future perspectives of that development in a country where full implementation of innovative policies can be affected and conflicting regulations, and still limited culture of good governance. The case of Srilanka can be a useful lesson for other countries in how to try to ensure sustainability of limited resources under different ecological constraints and, at the same time, increase welfare of the local communities in the forestry sector.
In Chapter 3, Keshav Raj Kanel and Ganga Ram Dahal look at the direct and indirect economic benefits from community forestry policy in Nepal. In the conclusion they underlined some of the important issues that should be followed-up to guarantee better results, foremost, how to harmonize inter-sector policies and create better enabling policy conditions for community forestry.
In Chapter 4, Ndan Imang, Makoto Inoue and Mustofa Agung Sardjono take the swidden agriculture case in East Kalimantan (Indonesia) to exemplify how local traditional community practices have shown resilience and adaptation under the pressure of economic development. Swidden agriculture has been widely known as an original system and even as an integral part of different local forest management practices in Indonesia. In the conclusions, the authors draw attention to the fact that development of social/community forestry even among traditional communities nowadays has to consider the important of monetary economy and cash income for land users and forest managers.
The last article, Chapter 5, by Ivan Gyozo Somlai, is a more methodological expose concerning the issue of conflict management in social forestry. In his article, the author refers to his experiences in many countries to highlight that a significant part, if not the most significant, in resolving conflicts is to correctly identify key actors or stakeholders. The chapter promotes the importance of better situational analysis and offers ideas to minimize the risk of failures for social forestry programs. This is especially relevant in countries with high risk of conflicts related to unclear or contested land and natural resource tenure.
The publication of the first issue of the International Journal of Social Forestry was made possible by the supports of the authors and the hard works of the Board of Editors as well as all the reviewers, especially Ketut Gunawan. All staffs of the Center for Social Forestry (CSF) have been actively involved in the realization of this journal. Finally, special acknowledgements go to the Ford Foundation (USA) and University of Tokyo (Japan) for their support.
I sincerely hope that the first volume and this first number of IJSF will be one of a long series of publications in either printed form of printing and/or digital edition. And I do hope that the IJSF will be able to contribute significantly to the sustainable management of the remaining forests and reduction of poverty for a sustainable future in tropical countries.
Mustofa Agung Sardjono
Editor-in-Chief
International Journal of Social Forestry
6757 total words in this text
|
1355 reads
