Editorial
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
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) (1349 Reads)
