Required citation:

FAO and RECOFTC. Community-based forestry assessment – A training manual. Forestry Working Paper No. 16. Bangkok. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0570en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and RECOFTC concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO or RECOFTC in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO or RECOFTC.

ISSN 2664-1062 [Print]
ISSN 2664-1070 [Online]

ISBN 978-92-5-133148-4
E-ISBN 978-92-5-133822-3 (MOBI)
© FAO, 2020

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for noncommercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

About the FAO framework

About this manual

How to use this manual

Flow of the learning process

Pretraining assignment

Learning block 1 Setting the stage

Learning block 2 Criteria for assessing extent and type of CBF

Learning block 3 Criteria for assessing overall effectiveness of CBF

Optional sessions

How to customize your training

Learning block 1 Setting the stage

Session 1 Welcome and introduction

Session 2 Introduction to training objectives, learning flow and training norms

Learning block 2 Criteria for assessing CBF – Criterion 1: Extent and type of CBF

Session 3 CBF objectives

Handout 1 CBF objectives

Session 4 Forest tenure regimes and the bundle of rights

Exercise 1 Case study: Forest management rights in Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest in Kanchanaburi, Thailand

Handout 2 Forest tenure regimes and the bundle of rights

Session 5 Types of CBF

Exercise 2. Slides and Ladders game

Handout 3 Types of CBF

Session 6 Institutionalization of CBF

Exercise 3 Case study: The Nepane community in Nepal

Handout 4 Institutionalization of CBF

Session 7 Bringing it together for Criterion 1: Summary of key indicators to assess level of enabling environment for CBF regimes

Learning block 3 Criteria for assessing CBF – Criterion 2: Effectiveness of CBF and overall effectiveness

Session 8 Assessing natural capital

Handout 5 Natural capital

Session 9 Assessing social/institutional and human capital

Handout 6 Social/institutional and human capital

Session 10 Assessing financial capital

Handout 7 Financial capital

Session 11 Bringing it together for Criterion 2 and overall CBF effectiveness

Optional sessions Field trip and reflection

Introduction

Do no harm

Session 12 Field trip preparation

Example of field trip note

Session 13 Field trip presentation and reflection

Annexes CBF assessment criteria, indicators and tables for the training

Annex 1 Criteria and indicators

Annex 2 Tables

References

Acknowledgements

Community-based forestry (CBF) has the potential to restore forests, scale upsustainable forest management and improve the livelihoods of local people.

In 2019, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) published a framework to provide important insights into the successes and shortcomings of community-based forestry at the country level. A framework to assess the extent and effectiveness of community-based forestry also helps national governments determine and track the extent and effectiveness of the wide array of CBF initiatives.

This training manual is written for forestry practitioners who want to learn how to use FAO’s framework. It will help them assess how effective CBF programmes are in achieving target objectives set by countries or organizations. It can also assist practitioners design a process to gather and use relevant information and data regarding various CBF initiatives they may be working on.

The manual was developed by Rejani Kunjappan, Marie Ngoddo and Ronnakorn Triraganon from RECOFTC. Jean Claude Nguinguiri, Andrew Taber and Safia Aggarwal of FAO’s Social Forestry Team provided technical and process instruction on the content and flow. During a test-training event organized by FAO and RECOFTC in October 2019 in Bangkok, participants from India, Fiji, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Malaysia and Viet Nam provided valuable feedback.

The authors acknowledge the contributions from experts and institutions that directly and indirectly provided information, data and support.

Introduction

Millions of people around the world are dependent on forests. Community-based forestry (CBF) has been identified as a way to strengthen local communities’ rights to engage in and benefit fairly from forest activities. CBF was implemented in countries to help improve governance of forests and local livelihoods. During the last four decades, the amount of land under CBF has grown significantly, with a broad array of initiatives that allow people’s participation in forestry.

Considerable attention has been paid to CBF and related forest tenure transformations. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Rights and Resources Initiative are two of the organizations that have carried out regional and global assessments to chart these changes. They have reported a substantial increase in forest land under various types of CBF regimes. There is also an associated transfer of power to local people inherent in these regimes. This involves various combinations of user rights, responsibilities and decision-making in a broad array of initiatives that allow people’s participation in forestry.

Despite its growth, there has not been a systematic assessment of the extent and effectiveness of CBF regimes around the world. Most assessments are carried out as case studies, few of which provide national-level results. Fewer still offer regional or larger-scale results. One exception is a comprehensive assessment of 14 countries in the Asia and Pacific region (FAO, 2019).

Lack of reliable data on the effectiveness of CBF hinders analysis at the national, regional and global scales. It also makes it difficult to guide policy dialogue and to make informed decisions. Studies on CBF effectiveness that do exist indicate mixed performance. Some show major successes in improved forest governance and livelihoods of local communities. Most of them deliver significantly below the potential.

To address this lack of reliable data, FAO published A framework to assess the extent and effectiveness of community-based forestry (the FAO framework). It is a tool that can be used at any point of time to assess performance of all or specific CBF regimes or initiatives at the national level, and can be adapted for analysis at sub-national levels.

About the FAO framework

The FAO framework can provide important insights into the successes and shortcomings of CBF at the country level. It is a tool that can help practitioners track the extent and effectiveness of the broad spectrum of CBF initiatives.

The FAO framework categorizes the range of CBF regimes into participatory conservation, joint forest management, community forestry and smallholder private forestry. It explains how to carry out an assessment of:

• the institutionalization of CBF regimes in government and civil society;

• the level of empowerment of local stakeholders involved in the CBF regime;

• the range and strength of rights and responsibilities;

• the constraints to implementing CBF; and

• the changes in natural, social, institutional and human capital and the financial capital of CBF participants.

The FAO framework provides indicators that may be used across countries. It focuses on formal CBF initiatives recognized by statutory law, as the informal CBF arrangements not recognized by statutory law will likely be too diverse to allow for a national assessment.

About this manual

This manual is to be used in conjunction with the FAO framework. Trainers must have a solid knowledge of both documents. The FAO framework assesses national-level CBF, but the criteria and process can be adapted for regional, landscape or project level.

The manual was developed for trainers and facilitators who design, implement, monitor and assess training and learning programmes that support CBF programmes and activities. This includes:

• CFB facilitators and consultants;

• forestry agencies at national and regional levels;

• programmes and project developers for CBF interventions;

• civil society representatives working on CBF; and

• CBF consultants from academia or development agencies.

It describes:

• theoretical concepts and current thoughts on CBF and related issues, including CBF categories, forest tenure and indicators for natural, social and financial capitals;

• tools, templates, matrices and tables needed to conduct an assessment; and

• methods to analyse and evaluate data collected during an assessment to get a meaningful insight into CBF programmes.

After completing the training, participants will be able to:

• explain the main theoretical concepts and principles of CBF;

• describe components of the Framework;

• collect and analyse qualitative and quantitative data on national CBF programmes and initiatives; and

• Apply the FAO framework to their own context and make an informed assessment of the extent and effectiveness of CBF. Trainers may adapt sessions according to participant compositions, duration, venue and available resources. Materials, process and instructions may also be adapted to fit circumstances.

The manual provides guided experiential learning exercises, materials and resources. It will help trainers systematically analyse the elements of the FAO framework with their training participants.

How to use this manual

The training methodology should be participatory, interactive and collaborative. Mutual respect, confidence-building, cooperation and shared learning should be encouraged throughout the training. Learning occurs when participants and trainers share their experiences, knowledge and skills with one another.

Make the sessions action-oriented, relevant and linked through systematic processdesign. You can use various methods and approaches to achieve this.

There are three learning blocks in this manual, each consisting of several sessions. Each session directly corresponds to the criteria, indicators and tables presented in the FAO framework. The relevant tables and their page reference in the FAO framework are reproduced in the Annex. Trainers are advised to refer to the FAO framework closely when conducting their training. There are also two additional sessions for a field trip component.

Each session organized in the following sequence:

• learning objectives of the session;

• estimated time to run the session;

• method used for the session;

• materials needed;

• directions to facilitate the main activity of the session;

• questions for reflection that help the trainer draw out key learning;

• conclusion of the key learning points based on objectives;

• a note to the trainer providing additional guidance on how to prepare and run the session;

• exercise sheets that can be reproduced, such as case studies, role play scenarios, templates and tables; and

• handouts that include key learning points and detailed information for further reading by the participants and provide a focus for the session.

All sessions are designed to respond to the participants’ backgrounds and training needs. See “How to customize your training” in the introduction to the manual. It is important to include all the components to ensure that a full experiential learning cycle is applied for maximum learning.

Flow of the learning process

The manual is arranged in the following sequence to follow a logical learning process:

• Learning block 1 Setting the stage

• Learning block 2 Criterion 1 assessing extent and type of CBF

• Learning block 3 Criterion 2 assessing overall effectiveness of CBF

• Optional sessions Field trip and reflection.

Pretraining assignment

Participants will prepare two pretraining assignments to be used as resource materials in specific sessions:

• A one-page overview of the history and objectives of CBF in their country

• A one-page analysis of their country’s international frameworks and national policies and laws related to CBF.

Ask the participants to complete and return the assignments to you at least five days before the date of the training. Review the assignments to gain a good understanding of the participants’ background.

Learning block 1 Setting the stage

In this block, participants and trainer get to know one another. Participants come to understand and collectively agree on the training content, design and methodology. This block also sets the norms for the training (Session 2).

At this stage, the trainer should already begin creating a learning environment that is safe and conducive to open and meaningful discussions, interaction and participation.

• Session 1 Welcome and introduction

• Session 2 Setting training objectives, learning flow and training norms

Learning block 2 Criteria for assessing extent and type of CBF

This learning block explains the concepts and templates used to assess Criterion 1: Enabling conditions for effective CBF.

• Session 3 CBF objectives

• Session 4 Forest tenure regimes and the bundle of rights

• Session 5 Identifying types of CBF

• Session 6 Institutionalization of CBF

• Session 7 Bringing it all together for Criterion 1: Summary of key indicators to assess level of enabling environment for the CBF regimes

Learning block 3 Criteria for assessing overall effectiveness of CBF

This learning block discusses in detail the concepts and criteria for assessing the expansion and effectiveness of a country’s CBF programme.

• Session 8 Assessing natural capital

• Session 9 Assessing social/institutional and human capital

• Session 10 Assessing financial capital

• Session 11 Bringing it together for Criterion 2 and overall CBF assessment

Optional sessions

This learning block provides the opportunity for participants to apply in a real context the concepts, criteria and templates discussed during the regular training sessions.

• Session 12 Field trip preparation

• Session 13 Field trip presentation and reflection

How to customize your training

The training can be adapted based on objectives, target participants, number of days, conducting a field trip and venue. After developing the training objectives, decide on sessions that should be delivered. A field trip will allow participants to understand the concepts and practise using the tables they have learned in real time.

Table 1 provides some examples for customizing the training. The session plans can also be adapted according to needs. However, the sessions have been developed according to the experiential learning model and follow a logical and systematic flow. You should carefully consider how to modify the flow and session plans without losing any of the learning stages.

Learning block 1 Setting the stage

Session 1 Welcome and introduction

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Know each other.

• Formulate expectations about the training.

• Reflect on their interest in, and knowledge and views of, CBF assessments in their own contexts.

Time

60 minutes

Method

Pair interviews, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip chart, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, printed copies of pre-training assessment

Steps

1. Welcome the participants and introduce the training team.

2. Allow some time for welcoming speeches, depending on the various stakeholders involved in the training course.

3. Explain that participants will get to know each other through an informal exercise. Divide them in pairs. Give participants 5 minutes to learn their partner’s name, organization or institution, job title and one expectation they have for the training.

4. Go around the room and ask participants to share this information. Record the expectations.

5. Ask participants to discuss their initial thoughts about CBF. Remind them that they all come from different backgrounds and everyone’s experience will be different.

6. Give them half a flip chart paper and ask them to divide it into three areas with a marker and label the sections as follows:

- one special feature of CBF in your country;

- one specific challenge; and

- one reason why assessing CBF is important.

7. Give participants 10 to 15 minutes to fill in their thoughts for each section.

8. Invite all the participants to join a circle and ask each of them to share their thoughts. Allow approximately 5 minutes per participant.

9. Distribute the self-assessment questionnaires. Give them 15 minutes to fill them in and collect them. Explain that the same questionnaires will be distributed at the end of the training to identify progress in the areas of knowledge and skills.

10. Conclude the session. Explain that it was an informal way to get to know each other and create a friendly environment in which everybody should feel free to speak out and share ideas. It was also a starting point for exploring some of our ideas about the topic of the training.

Session 2 Introduction to training objectives, learning flow and training norms

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Discuss the objectives of the training and learning flow.

• Agree on the rules and expectations of the training.

• Understand how they can participate fully and constructively.

Time

30 minutes

Method

Presentation, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip chart with training objectives, flip chart with learning flow and agenda, flip chart with rules of the training, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers

Steps

1. Hang the flip chart with training objectives on the wall and explain each of them.

2. Go back to participants’ expectations and clarify what the training will and will not cover and whether adjustments can be made to meet expectations.

3. Briefly present the learning flow and agenda for each day of the training.

4. Explain to participants that for the duration of the training, the group members must work closely together and support each other to achieve the training objectives. Everyone should agree on common norms that each person will follow.

5. Hang the flip chart on the wall so that it stays visible to all throughout the training.

6. Before ending the session, take a few minutes to discuss and agree on:

- logistics arrangements;

- daily tasks for the participants to support the training course, such as volunteers to conduct energizers throughout the training, distributing handouts, time keeping; and

- feedback teams.

7. Conclude the session by allowing time for questions and clarifications.

Trainer’s note

Ensure that the learning flow is displayed prominently in the room. It will be referenced throughout the training to give participants an idea of where they are in the learning process. It is also a useful reminder of what they have learned and what they will learn throughout the training.

Learning block 2 Criteria for assessing CBF – Criterion 1: Extent and type of CBF

Session 3 CBF objectives

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Discuss some of the definitions of CBF in the region and highlight the specific focus of these definitions.

• Compare CBF objectives of different countries.

• Explain some of the important considerations of why CBF projects are developed.

Time

90 minutes

Method

Small group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip chart, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of three tables:

• Table 1. Policy objectives for each community-based forestry regime (Annex 2)

• Table 2. Area and proportion percent of forest land under different tenure regimes (Annex 2)

• Table 3. Number of people and groups involved in a CBFommunity-based forestry regime (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Explain to participants that in this session, the group will explore various aspects of CBF that are being implemented globally.

2. Place one definition of CBF on five separate flip chart sheets at different parts of the room. Each definition focuses on a different aspect of CBF. See Handout 1 CBF objectives.

3. Ask participants to walk around the room and read the definitions. Ask them to then stand by the definition that most resonates with them. Ask participants standing by each flip chart to discuss their reasons for joining that group.

4. Ask participants to share their group’s discussion with the others. Document their points on a flip chart. Make sure to note down two main aspects regarding the description and objective of CBF.

5. Initiate a plenary discussion on these two aspects and look for commonalities in the examples.

6. Introduce the three tables. Clarify questions about the tables. Organize the participants in groups by country, regional landscape, project or stakeholder group. Allow them some time to fill in the tables.

7. Ask participants to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Encourage them to consider challenges beyond the usual ones, such as lack of up-to-date data, bureaucratic constraints to obtain data or lack of human resources and budget.

8. Summarize the session with the following points:

- There is no ‘one size fits all’ or universal definition and objective of CBF. Each country or organization has particular focus or priorities to undertake CBF. Examples include biodiversity conservation, livelihood development, recognition of community rights, participatory forest management and reducing conflicts over rights and resources. There are some common issues in the region. These include an emphasis on participatory processes, recognition of rights and tenure and the need for agreements, certificates or titles for CBF practitioners.

- The FAO framework is intended to be used for formal, national-level CBF programmes. It also makes provisions to include smallholders’ activities as part of the scope of an assessment.

Trainer’s note

Before attending the training, participants will be given a pre-course assignment. It asks them to describe:

• How CBF is defined in their country in laws or policies.

• What the objectives of CBF are or what their country hopes to achieve through CBF.

• The number of hectares covered by CBF initiatives.

Remind the participants that there might not be an explicit definition provided for CBF in their country or area. . They can come up with a definition based on the objectives. There can be more than one definition and objective for CBF depending on how many CBF models and regimes that a country has.

Handout 1 CBF objectives

Definitions of community forestry and CBF community-based forestry vary. Researchers, organizations and countries adopt different definitions based on their research findings, global trends and national needs and development. These definitions emphasize different social, economic and ecological goals and levels of local participation and autonomy in forest management. RECOFTC’s 2013 definition of community forestry is used in the FAO framework. It is a comprehensive umbrella description of all initiatives that fall under the generic term CBF. It reads:

Community forestry includes all aspects, initiatives, sciences, policies, institutions and processes that are intended to increase the role of local people in governing and managing forest resources. It includes informal, customary and indigenous initiatives as well as formal, government-led initiatives. Community forestry covers social, economic and conservation dimensions in a range of activities, including indigenous management of sacred sites of cultural importance, small-scale forest-based enterprises, smallholder forestry schemes, company–community partnerships and decentralized and devolved forest management (RECOFTC, 2013).

The following definitions by researchers, organizations and countries are found in a 2014 publication by RECOFTC.

A condition where the local community controls a clearly and legally defined area of forest; the local community is free from governmental and other outside pressure concerning the utilisation of that forest; if the forestry involves commercial sale of timber or other products, then the community is free from economic exploitation of markets or other pressure from outside forces; the community has long-term security of tenure over the forest and sees its future as being tied to the forest (Rainforest Information Centre, 1992).

Activities that engage communities living in and around forests in sustainable forest use and management; empowers communities through through awareness-raising, capacity-building, participatory policy development and recognition of their rights and systems of knowledge; and provides communities with benefits and access to forest resources for their participation in sustainable forest management (ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry, 2019).

Community forestry is forestry operations involving the local community. Community forestry means afforestation and the establishment of woodlots where there is a lack of fuelwood or other products for community use as well as the planting of trees and the extraction and use of forest products to obtain food supplies, consumer products and incomes at the farmer level (Myanmar’s community forestry Instructions, Forest Department, 1995 revised in 2019).

While acknowledging that informal initiatives not recognized by statutory law can be very effective locally, the FAO framework only examines the extent and effectiveness of formal CBF initiatives in rural areas recognized in statutory law. This is because informal initiatives are often diverse, their extent may be unknown and their effectiveness may be difficult to generalize.

Smallholders are also included in this FAO framework as part of the CBF, which may not be the case in many countries. The cut-off point between smallholders and large forest owners tends to be country- or region-specific. For example, in Thailand, a smallholder is someone who has access to less than 16 hectares of land (Boulay, Tacconi and Kanowski, 2010). In Austria, small-scale farm forestry applies to land holdings of between 1 and 200 hectares (Harrison, Herbohn and Niskanen, 2002). In Uganda, forest plantations that fall between 25 and 500 hectares are considered medium-scale plantations and any forest below 25 hectares is considered small scale or smallholder (Turyomurugyendo, 2016). In general, smallholders tend to be families rather than corporate entities, and are referred to as households in many countries.

Objectives of CBF

Many countries base their objectives for CBF programmes on their national development policy directions and on global and national forestry guidelines.

The following CBF objectives appear in Gilmour’s Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness.

Hans Pretzsch et al. (2014):

• sustain forest resources and environmental services, including the conservation and rehabilitation of forest land;

• contribute to local livelihoods, including poverty alleviation;

• protect the property rights of local dwellers; and

• maintain public property rights and public control via state and government institutions.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines (2004):

• sustainable management of forest resources;

• social justice and improved well-being of local communities; and

• strong partnerships among local communities and various institutional agencies related to natural resources and environment management.

Adcharaporn Pagdee, Yeon Su Kim and Peter Daugherty (2006):

• global fulfilment of local needs;

• improvement of forest conditions;

• capability to address environmental issues; and

• enhancement of equitable benefit sharing.

Session 4 Forest tenure regimes and the bundle of rights

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Describe forest tenure regimes.

• Explain the bundle of rights framework.

• Explain how clarity on bundle of rights can promote effective CBF.

Time

90 minutes

Method

Pair work, small group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of case study, copies of two tables:

• Table 6. Rights associated with CBF regimes (Annex 2)

• Table 7. Responsibilities associated with CBF regimes (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Explain that the group will now discuss forest tenure regimes. Effective CBF depends on tenure regimes, community rights and resources.

2. Explain that a regime can be systems of rights, rules, institutions and processes under which resources are held, used, managed and transacted.

3. Divide participants into four groups, and ask each group to visualize and draw a forested landscape that they know well on a flip chart. It can be either a formal jurisdictional area or a geographic one. Give them 20 minutes for this exercise. Tell participants that they do not need to worry about drawing skills. They should just concentrate on presenting their context as accurately as possible. The pictures should illustrate:

- which types of resources are available, such as timber, fuelwood, bamboo or wild fruit;

- who can access the resources;

- who can use the resources;

- who can participate in the management of the area;

- who makes decisions about how to manage the area and who implements the decisions;

- who the area belongs to either by statutory law or customary right; and

- what claims they have over the area and what they can do with these claims.

4. Invite the groups to do a "gallery walk", moving clockwise from one station to the next. They can comment or ask questions about the other teams’ results using Post-its. The groups have 5 minutes at each station. Once they have completed the gallery walk, they should return to their own station. Each group can discuss the comments provided by other participants. If there is an interesting point made, the trainer can highlight it.

5. Introduce this definition of tenure on a flip chart:

Tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to natural and other resources. Tenure arrangements determine who can use what resources for how long and under what conditions (FAO, 2002).

6. Facilitate a short discussion on some of the key words in the definition. Clarify questions. There are numerous tenure arrangements that fall between the spectrum of public lands and private lands. Public lands are those under total control of the government. Private lands are those in which full authority is given to citizens, individually or collectively. Each CBF modality or type can belong to a specific forest regime. In each modality, there can be a prescribed number of given rights regarding land and resource use. These rights are usually prescribed in various legal documents of the country.

7. Referencing Handout 2, introduce the bundle of rights framework. Describe the roles and responsibilities of smallholders and community groups. Discuss which of these can have positive or negative impacts on forest resource management based on the allocation of rights in each category. Ask the participants for examples of these in the context of where they live.

8. Divide participants into three groups and give them Exercise 1 the case study on Kanchanaburi, Thailand. Allow them time to read it, and then clarify questions they have on the content.

9. Introduce the two tables. Clarify any questions about the tables. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as the previous session and fill in the tables according to their own country context.

10. Once they are done, participants present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Spend some time discussing the ratings that were given and the justification they had for the rating. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

11. Discuss these questions to reflect on the exercise:

- Is the bundle of rights framework useful in terms of assessing the rights that communities have over their resources? How?

- How do the bundle of rights and the responsibilities of the community affect CBF management in your own context?

- What are some of the similarities and differences with your own country contexts?

- What are some of the challenges of filling in the two tables to assess the level of empowerment of local stakeholders?

12. Wrap up the session by reviewing these learning points:

- CBF will have a greater chance of contributing to policy objectives when all the rights in the bundle of rights are strong. This means that the given rights exist, are recognized by relevant agencies and those who have the rights are supported to exercise the rights.

- Consider how certain roles and responsibilities of stakeholders may be factors that constrain forest management and protection initiatives. The CBF assessment exercise may be useful in suggesting ways to reduce constraints so that barriers can be removed.

- The bundle of rights framework is a useful CBF assessment tool. It systematically explains who is allowed to do which activities in a certain area. This can help assessors identify criteria.

Trainer’s note

Remind participants that when identifying responses and completing tables responding to indicators, a yes or no answer is usually not sufficient to provide the clarity needed. Wherever possible, responses should be qualified with additional information. For example, if a tenure regime provides withdrawal rights, qualify it with examples such as rights to harvest timber or non-wood forest products (NWFPs), for subsistence use or commercial use. This can be done either in the table or in accompanying text.

Prior to the training, prepare some examples of rights and responsibilities from cases where the participants come from, in the event participants are not sure. These illustrations of rights and responsibilities can offer participants ideas for more in-depth discussion and for developing their own examples.

Exercise 1 Case study: Forest management rights in Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest in Kanchanaburi, Thailand

Since the 1940s, deforestation has been a major issue in the Kanchanaburi area of western Thailand. In the 1970s, sugar refineries, tapioca and many other factories were built in the area. The owners encouraged local people to convert forest lands for growing sugar cane and cassava. Consequently, the forest became significantly degraded in quality and quantity.

New related tenure issues were also introduced. Local people were prevented from using the communal forest as grazing land for their cattle. Local communities also witnessed the effects of unregulated logging, construction and plantation development in their forested area.

They sought ways to increase their capacity to better manage and protect their available resources. They tried to gain a better understanding of the law and organized meetings to discuss ways to manage their forest resources and handle forest fires. They also wrote up some simple rules to be followed by the forest users. Today, forested areas have been partially restored due to these initiatives, strong relationships with other communities in the region and improved government support.

There are four local communities belonging to the Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest (BHSS), located in Phanom Thuan District of Kanchanaburi Province. This community forest user group (CFUG) has 2 460 members and manages 380 hectares of forests from which they benefit in numerous ways.

Members collect forest resources on a daily basis, including a variety of mushrooms, flowers and herbs. Some harvested resources are used for subsistence and some for commercial purposes. To increase their benefits from the forest The BHSS has established various enterprises related to NWFP production, packaging, marketing and ecotourism. Through these enterprises, many of the CFUG members are self-employed. For example, some are engaged in ecotourism activities. Visitors pay entrance fees, buy local products and hire local people as resource persons and guides.

Poor and marginalized members have especially benefited from newly established enterprises. However, women still bear a disproportionate amount of the workload, particularly when it comes to collecting various forest products.

Everyone can enter the BHSS community forest but only registered members are allowed to withdraw and manage forest resources. The BHSS entered into an agreement with the Royal Forest Department (RFD), the legal body with the authority to formalize user groups. The agreement allows BHSS user groups to construct buildings inside the forest boundary. It also lets them carry out other landscape-changing activities that improve forest management from an ecological perspective.

Despite BHSS reaping benefits from forest management, it does not own the land. This is linked to some long-standing unresolved rights issues. One issue is the difficulty BHSS user groups have ensuring that resources are maintained sustainably. They still lack capacity to exclude others from taking advantage of the forest.

CFUG members also face a complicated procedure to claim compensation if state authorities want to reclaim the land. Although they do not expect to have their land taken from them any time soon, they are not clear about how long they will be able to use the land for their activities. They are not certain about what rights they have to grow new types of plants. These combined issues have made members hesitant to encourage their children to work in a business that is perceived as risky and uncertain.

The four communities have established several user groups, leading to more efficient use of forest products. The CFUG committee has regular and mostly positive discussions with the RFD and the subdistrict government office. It engages with NGOs, such as the Resource Protection Center, and partners with locally based stakeholders, including two schools, a monastery and a packaging company. It also maintains good relationships with neighbouring user groups to share experiences. On several occasions, it has participated in a provincial user group volunteer network.

CFUG representatives have met with other stakeholders to discuss ways to increase the sustainability of resource management. The monastery and schools work with forest users to teach them the importance of forests for health and livelihoods. The Rights for All Agency has attempted to support the user groups to increase awareness of rights and establish new communication platforms. The companies are interested in helping select crops and how to be a part of the supply chain.

The RFD’s objective has been to maintain a good relationship with the BHSS and other user groups and work towards making boundary issues transparent. However, the RFD has so far lacked the funds to participate in on-the-ground events, such as patrolling and monitoring. BHSS objective of participating in multi-stakeholder activities is to increase financial support and gain skills to grow a wider variety of plants.

The multi-stakeholder meetings are led by the RFD. All participants have the opportunity to speak if they want. Decisions are made by consensus but are strongly influenced by national policy and mandates. For this reason, BHSS representatives have had difficulties getting their own agenda items passed. The private sector companies discuss market-related issues that BHSS finds difficult to understand. The monastery and schools are mainly observers and have little influence on the decisions.

Questions to consider

Based on the case study, consider these questions before you fill in the tables. With the bundle of rights you have, what can you do in your landscape in terms of:

• Resources: Do people harvest forest products? If yes, what types? What would their harvest level be? From which part of the forest do they harvest trees? What methods do they use for harvesting and extracting forest products?

• Decision-making processes: Who participates in the decision-making? How do they make their decisions? Does having more or fewer rights from the bundle change their decision?

Handout 2 Forest tenure regimes and the bundle of rights

Land tenure is the legal or customary relationship among individuals or groups with respect to land and other natural resources, such as water and trees. Land tenure arrangements determine who can use which resources for how long and under what conditions. The basic rules of tenure define how the rights to use, control and transfer land are to be allocated within societies. Land tenure relationships are often defined through statutory or customary laws. They may be well defined in these systems or they may be ambiguous and open to misinterpretation and exploitation (FAO, 2002).

Forest management activities under CBF regimes vary from country to country and also within countries, depending on a host of factors. In most countries, the government does not relinquish ownership of the land but may devolve management rights to communities. In some places, such as Mexico and Melanesia, communities are recognized for their long-standing ownership rights.

Bundle of rights

The collection of property rights is known as the bundle of rights. The bundle of rights is a form of authority to perform the action of access, use or control of resources on a property, such as in a forest area. However, it may not necessarily be the full ownership or the sole authority of the resource. Rights usually come as a bundle of rights, which describes a number of actions the community can legally take under specific conditions in a defined area of forest land. For example, a CBF in Thailand may have the right to access forest areas to harvest NWFP for subsistence use. This means the bundle of rights they have are to be able to access the forest, and take some products for their own household use.

The FAO framework uses the Schlager and Ostrom (1992) and the Rights and Resources Initiative (2012) definitions of bundle of rights to discuss tenure in CBF types.

Schlager and Ostrom cited access, withdrawal, management, exclusion and alienation as the five elements of rights over property or resources in the bundle of rights. The Rights and Resources Initiative identified two more types of rights: duration and due process and compensation.

The following definitions are adapted from Schlager and Ostrom and the Rights and Resources Initiative:

• Access allows a community and its members to enter a forest area. It is the most basic property right. Access rights appear to be simple, but the person who holds the authority to decide who has access makes it complicated. In forestry, access can mean simply enjoying the pristine environment or livestock grazing rights.

• Withdrawal is the right to benefit from forest products, for subsistence or commercial purposes. It is an extremely important right, especially for the local communities that depend on forests for livelihoods. Withdrawal indicates the right to benefit from the forest for subsistence and commercial purposes. It may include the right to harvest for subsistence and the right to harvest for commercial purposes. They can also differentiate between the right to harvest timber or only NWFPs. Withdrawal of NWFPs for commercial purposes are forbidden in many countries. For example, the harvest of NWFPs from sustainable-use zones is prohibited in community-protected areas in Cambodia (Table 3).

• Management can be defined by the legal limits of other rights. It can also be used to empower a community to articulate its rights to alienation or the exclusion of particular resources. It is a broad right, as rights holders, to regulate and make decisions about the designated area. This may include the right to regulate internal access, amount and patterns of resource withdrawal.

• Exclusion is the ability to refuse another individual, group or entity access to and use of a particular resource. It is sometimes considered both a defensive and offensive right. It enables the rights holders to protect their resources from external abuse. It can also allow a strong party to weaken or fully take away other people’s access to the resources. Exclusion rights have rarely been extended to underground resources, such as natural gas, oil and minerals. Exclusion rights depend on people’s ability to enforce them. The rights holders should be able to enforce them or they must receive support from more powerful and legitimate authorities to enforce them on their behalf. For example, Nepal’s 1993 Forest Act recognized this right for local communities that manage their forests. It has empowered them with authority to take legal action if someone fails to respect their exclusion right.

• Alienation is the right to transfer one’s rights to another entity. It is important for enabling local communities to seek financial resources to invest in resource development. It could also allow the sale or disposal of their common property resources to other stakeholders. As a result, this right is legally denied to local communities under most of the community-based forestry models in Asia (see Table 3 for Cambodia). There are some exceptions. For example, Viet Nam allows rights holders to rent, transfer and mortgage their forest under community forestry management (RECOFTC, 2014).

• Duration measures the permanence of allocated rights. It refers to the allocated time that has been given to manage and make decisions about the land and its resources. Duration of a particular right may vary according to country and is usually categorized as limited or unlimited. Typically, those who are granted short-term rights make decisions that will maximize the benefits from the forest in the short term. Those with longer-term rights are more likely to make decisions about their land use that consider sustainability and extended use of the forest resources. Increasing duration of rights provides clear incentives for communities to invest in their forests. For example, Myanmar’s revised 2016 community forest Instruction awarded clear long-term tenure rights. As a result, local communities became more interested in enterprise development in the country.

• Due process and compensation is the right to due process and compensation in cases of eminent domain. It refers to whether communities are accorded a proper legal process and due compensation if their rights are revoked or extinguished. It demands that laws that govern land and resource use constitutionally guarantee the rights. The rights cannot be extinguished unless the government follows the due process of law and provides adequate compensation. However, even when due process and compensation is guaranteed by the law, it can be hampered by lengthy and bureaucratic processes. This makes it very challenging for local communities to exercise this right and can result in communities being less secure in their rights.

Table 3 provides a simple but useful assessment of the bundle of rights, based on types of CBF models in Cambodia. The nature of rights is usually more complicated, but this table provides a good example of the bundle of rights of forest users within different forest modalities in Cambodia.

Research on CBF around the world has shown that when local communities have more rights, they have more choices for forest management. They are also more likely to consider sustainability of their resource management (Gilmour, 2016). For example, if a local community has long-term, clear tenure rights over a forest, they would then have the right to sell the timber from their community forest. This will more likely motivate them to consider long-term sustainability. They then would manage and protect their community forest better and wait to harvest when the trees reach optimal commercial size.

Similarly, rights to commercialize forest products legalize the trade of forest products and allow access to premium markets and increase the return. Local communities want to increase their investment by developing the forest and adding value to the forest products.

Alienation rights give space for partnership between the rights holders and the private sector. For example, a financial institution usually needs security when it invests. Alienation rights allow the forest owners to use their forests as collateral when they borrow money to plant valuable timber species in their forest.

Many rights holders globally are able to manage their resources, yet the enjoyment of corresponding rights remains an ongoing challenge. For example, although rights may be recognized by a country’s constitution, there is immense difficulty in implementing them in practice. This is due to constraints like lack of implementing regulations and unhealthy power balances between the state, companies and rights holders. In some areas, certain conditions in the law may place restrictions on, or even criminalize, the traditional practice of harvesting and using certain forest resources.

Using the bundle of rights framework to understand tenure rights can be complicated. Land rights in many countries are complex and multifaceted and are influenced by historical, social, economic and political factors. There are contradictory provisions in laws, complicated procedures or restrictions stipulated by other legal instruments for withdrawal for subsistence and commercial purposes.

Governments may also set an expiry date on the rights or put a limit on tenure rights. In Cambodia, the tenure is set for a period of 15 years for community-protected areas, but local communities are not able to harvest trees for five years. Until 2017 in Myanmar, formalizing property rights over forests was often slow. Local communities were granted community-based forestry rights to 919 000 hectares over 30 years between 2001 and 2030. However, less than 15 percent of the target was met in the first 15 years (RECOFTC, 2013).

Session 5 Types of CBF

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Describe the different types of CBF in the region.

• Relate CBF types to the objectives and tenure rights in a spectrum of CBF regimes.

Time

90-120 minutes

Method

Slides and Ladders game, small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, Slides and Ladders game sheet, notes on types of CBF, copies of table:

• Table 8. Characterization of CBF regimes by generic type (Annex 2).

Steps

1. Review some of the points of the previous session on tenure and bundle of rights. Clarify any questions participants may still have. Explain that you will further explore various CBF models in the region through the Slides and Ladders game.

2. Divide participants into two groups. Ensure that participants coming from the same countries, department or organizations are grouped together.

3. Introduce the game. The first group rolls the dice. One person from the group moves the game piece according to the number that appears on the dice.

4. Once they land on a square with the car “CBF model”, the group member reads the name of the country of the card they have landed on. Ask any of the group to explain the objectives, roles and responsibilities of the people involved in that model. Then the person on the square reads out the card they land on.

5. If none of the group members can talk about the CBF model they landed on, provide a short summary of the model on the card.

6. The next group rolls the dice. They move down if they land on a slide and move up if it’s a ladder. The group that reaches the top square wins.

7. After the game, ask the following questions:

- What did you notice about the different CBF models?

- Is there a CBF model in other countries that particularly caught your interest? Why?

- Are there differences between the CBF models on the upper squares and those on the lower squares? What are these differences?

8. Draw the spectrum of CBF regimes on a flip chart (see Diagram 1). Explain that the different CBF models have different focus and objectives. Some focus on protection and rehabilitation of forest land (the left side of the spectrum). Some focus on livelihood development and recognition of the rights of local communities (the right side of the spectrum). Some can be a mix of protection and livelihood (somewhere in the middle).

Ask participants to place their country along the spectrum, explain their reasons for the placement and give examples from their experience. Encourage discussion among the group, comparing the placing of the CBF models.

9. Introduce the table. Clarify questions about the table. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as the previous session. Ask them to fill in the tables according to their own country context.

10. Request the groups to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

11. Wrap up the session by discussing the following learning points:

- CBF models differ in their focus and objective. Some focus on protection and rehabilitation of forest land. Some focus on livelihood development and recognition of the rights of local communities. Some can be a mix of protection and livelihood.

- One model is no better than the other. Models should be assessed on the institutional and legal objectives of the country. In some cases, a country may want a CBF to provide communities with opportunities to develop enterprises that increase their income. However, communities still face many restrictions about the type of products they can harvest and commercialize. It is important to understand why CBFs are unable to achieve those objectives.

- There are considerations that must be in place before a CBF can achieve its objectives and priorities. This will be further discussed in the next session.

Exercise 2. Slides and Ladders game

Handout 3 Types of CBF

The responsibilities, tenure rights and level of empowerment in CBF regimes differ from country to country. However, most countries have one or more CBF systems operating in parallel and involving different sets of people and different forest types.

There are five generic types of CBF regimes (O’Hara, 2013). They range from passive participation of communities in forest governance and management to active control over forest resources. Under each of these regimes, communities may have a specific associated bundle of rights. An example of the rights recognized in a type of CBF regime can be seen in Table 4.

These five types of regimes share some things in common but differ when it comes to community members’ rights to forests and forest resources. See Annex 2 of the FAO framework for further information.

The following features some examples of different CBF models from various regions around the globe.

India’s joint forest management

India’s Forest Department sets up committees with forest protection as the primary objective. The committees are required to protect the forest against unlicensed logging, forest product collection, cultivation, grazing and fires.

Membership in the forest protection committees is a form of employment. The members are paid for protection and silvicultural activities. However, the other villagers may lose prior customary-use rights because the primary objective is protection. They may not be allowed to use the forest for grazing, to harvest fuelwood or to cultivate agricultural land within the forest. Furthermore, the committees do not have many decision-making powers. The Forest Department makes plans that are then imposed on the committees.

There is no specified time frame for the committees to operate. The Forest Department can dissolve them at any time without prior warning.

Malaysia’s social forestry

Forest concessionaires have an important role in community forestry in Sabah, Malaysia. A logging company can allocate land within a concession area for community livelihood projects and basic community infrastructure. The allocation of land is part of the forest management licence agreement between the concessionaire and the Government.

There is no full devolution of forest management given to local communities. Their participation is often restricted by government requirements or dependent on the rules and regulations regarding activities that can be done in the concessions set up by the company. There is no tenure security in this model because it is tied to the concession.

Thailand’s community forestry

Thailand’s new community forest Bill came into effect in May 2019. It provides legislation to legalize customary rights. The bill defines community forests as those that sit outside conservation areas managed by the state. After villagers who live in these forests register their communities with the Government, they will be allowed to use and manage the forest resources.

Community forestry management committees are set up and registered at the Royal Forest Department. They develop management plans in accordance with the objectives and plans approved by the Provincial community forestry Committee. Commercialization of NWFP is allowed under the new law. There is no time limit on community forestry as long as the committees comply with the rules and can prove they are managing the forest well.

Viet Nam’s forest land allocation

The Government of Viet Nam created strong foundations for the development of community forest management through tenure reform known as Forest Land Allocation. In 1993, the Government enacted groundbreaking legislation that mandated the transfer of forest tenure from state forest enterprises to local people. Since then, Forest Land Allocation has transferred tenure rights to 26 percent of the total forest area to local communities including individual households, household groups and whole villages.

The land-granting scheme allocates production forest land to individual households. Households receive a Land Use Certificate for an average of 3 hectares that is valid for 50 years. The household develops a land-use plan for five years. Households can transfer, exchange, inherit, lease and mortgage the land.

The objective of land grants is to increase forest resource protection and improve livelihoods by encouraging communities to invest in perennial plantations. It is an example of commercial smallholder forestry. The households establish plantations, mostly acacia, and benefit from its sale come harvest time.

Cambodia’s community-protected areas

Community-protected areas (CPAs) are established in specific zones in protected areas that have been allocated for sustainable use by communities. They usually function as a community forest. The objective of CPAs is to involve local communities with recognized customary rights in managing and monitoring protected areas.

CPAs give local communities access and withdrawal rights of NWFP for noncommercial purposes. Timber harvesting is not included in the withdrawal rights. Management rights are limited. Local communities prepare management plans agreed upon by communities and the state. However, the state has most of the decision-making powers.

Nepal’s community forestry

Forest user groups are established to manage forests in the middle hills of Nepal. Each group is governed by a general assembly of all the members and an executive committee. The state remains the owner of the forests. The forest user groups can make collective decisions on forest use and management through the general assembly and the executive committee.

The objective of community forestry is to protect forests and improve livelihoods. User groups are involved in forest protection and also in silvicultural operations. They can collect timber and NWFP. They are exempt from government taxes on forest products for commercial uses. The user groups collectively decide how to use revenues collected from forest products.

User groups can manage their community forest indefinitely. They are required to update their operational plan within 5 to 10 years. The plans are subject to approval and oversight by the Forest District Office.

Philippines’ Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act in the Philippines recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral land. A Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) is issued to indigenous cultural communities whose ancestral land has been delineated by law.

The CADT is an official recognition of the rights of possession and ownership. It recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to develop and benefit from land and natural resources. It recognizes the right of indigenous communities to regulate the entry of others and resolve conflicts according to customary law.

The tenure rights provided in the CADT are given in perpetuity.

China’s collective forestry

Village committees are in charge of governing forests in Xinqi, China. The chair and members of the committee are elected, which provides greater accountability.

The village has long-term use rights, including alienation rights. This high level of rights means that communities are free to collect NWFP. The village committee is also given substantial management rights over the forest. If it decides to establish tree plantations, the Government provides funding. They decide on the amount of timber to be harvested from the collective forest each year. Forest officials provide quotas and do an initial inspection before the timber is harvested. The villagers are entitled to retain the entire payment from the sale.

Indonesia’s village forest

The village forest model grants far-reaching management powers and use rights to communities. They can harvest timber from natural and planted forests as long as the forest is zoned for production purposes. They can extract NWFPnon-timber forest products and are entitled to claim payments for environmental services.

The forest communities have management powers and are allowed to exclude others from their forests. All these rights extend over a period of 100 years, effectively giving communities ownership rights to the forest. However, the rights are circumscribed by overriding government powers. Communities can only sell forest products if they have obtained a business license. Forest management has to comply with the management plan approved by forest officials. The government can revoke the concession at any point without compensation.

Uganda’s community forestry

There are two types of CBF that are recognized by Uganda’s laws. These are the collaborative community forestry models and smallholder forestry. Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) and Collaborative Resource Management (CRM) are the most common collaborative type of CBF. CFM is practiced in Forest Reserves (CFRs). CRM is implemented in Wildlife Conservation Areas (WCAs).

The tenure rights communities have in CFRs and WCAs relate to access to harvest forest products. Communities have access rights through a series of regulations that regulate and define the species to harvest, locations where to harvest, the times to harvest, the quantities to extract at any given time, description of harvest methods, description of the sizes and age of what to harvest, and defining the dos and don’ts while in the forest.

During a review of CFM and CRM every three to five years, the rights may be withdrawn without compensation. Duration of access rights for these two models usually do not exceed ten years except where the communities have planted trees, and in such cases, the duration is 20 years.

The Gambia’s community forestry

Gambia is a pioneer in the implementation of community-based forestry in Africa through the transfer of forest ownership from the Government to local communities and smallholders. In exchange for the rights transferred, communities and smallholders are required to accept a range of responsibilities.

The roles and responsibilities of the smallholders, for example, are specified in the management agreement signed with the Department of Forestry. The owner of a private forest is obliged to pay for development of the management plan. There is also need the owner to carry out periodic forest inventories to enable strategic development of a management plan.

The utilization of both NWFPs, including wildlife, is obtained from the Department of Forestry and Department of Parks and Wildlife Management respectively as long as it is described in the developed management plans. The owner approves grazing of livestock and can regulate the harvesting of fuelwood. Private owners are required to obtain approval to harvest timber from government officials usually on the basis of a valid management plan. The same applies for approval to transport forest products into open markets, requiring a movement permit that allows owners to facilitate marketing.

Sierra Leone’s community-based forestry

In Sierra Leone, CBF is legally supported by the 2010 Forestry Policy and 1990 Forest Act and Regulation frameworks. Currently, four different regimes exist, including community forestry (CF), Co-management in Gazetted Forest Reserves (CM), Private Forest Smallholders (PF) and Community Based Protected Area Management (CBPAM).

Among these four regimes, the CBPAM has a good track record in terms of bio-physical condition and for reducing threats from uncontrolled wildfires, illegal activities and hunting, followed by CFs and PF, while CM faces a number of threats from unsustainable forest development activities. In many cases the PF and CBPAM regimes have developed community-based enterprises that support the improvement of livelihoods of the groups and communities in their entirety.

Peru’s community-based forestry regimes

There are two recognized CBF regimes in Peru. One type allows native and rural communities to harvest products from the forests. The other prescribes the utilization of resources in communal reserves. CBF is principally devoted to the conservation of flora and fauna, but provisions in the policy allow for specific resources to be used and marketed for the benefit of local communities. The objective of the regimes is to ensure that local communities use sustainable forest management practices in their forest territories.

In communal reserves, the harvesting and commercialization of resources should be performed directly by the beneficiaries but supervised by authorities. Communities are required to develop a government-approved management plan. The management plan lays out specific conditions, such as:

• plans for zoning, strategies and policies for the management of the area;

• the organizational structure of the CBF committee;

• an approved workplan to achieve the objective of the CBF; and

• frameworks for cooperation, coordination and participation of stakeholders in the area and its buffer zones.

Session 6 Institutionalization of CBF

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Explain what institutionalization of CBF means.

• Identify the indicators that show national CBF initiatives are being institutionalized within the country’s governance systems.

• Demonstrate how institutionalization within government policy and civil society helps implement CBF objectives.

Time

90 minutes

Method

Case study, small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of case studies, copies of two tables:

• Table 4. Institutionalization of CBF regimes into government policy, legislation, planning and programmes (Annex 2)

• Table 5. Civil society organization (apart from CBF membership groups) to represent CBF stakeholders (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Ask participants what they understand about the words “institutions” and “institutionalization”. Ask for some examples of institutionalization of CBF in their own contexts. For definitions see Handout 3 Institutionalization of CBF.

2. Divide the participants into four groups. Two groups will discuss institutionalization of the CBF in government policy, legislation, planning and programmes. The other group will look at institutionalization of CBF in civil society. Both groups will use the case of CBF in Nepal as a reference.

3. Hand out the case study of CBF in Nepal. Ask them to read and discuss it using these guiding questions:

- How were the roles of the stakeholders decided? Examples: mandate, policies, regulations, national plans, power and influence, cultural norms, gender and social context.

- How do stakeholders plan and implement their activities? Examples: systems in place for planning, operational procedures, monitoring and evaluation.

- How did the stakeholders develop collaborative relationships? Examples: meetings, multi-stakeholder processes, coordination and communication and trust.

- How are decisions made and implemented in these collaborations? Examples: meetings, multi-stakeholder processes and majority votes.

4. Ask the groups to come up with some of the indicators to consider when assessing institutions in relation to CBF. They can discuss formal (government and civil society) and informal (CSO and communities) arrangements. Ask the groups to present and write down the points and fill in some examples. See Handout 3. Institutionalization of CBF.

5. Ask participants to present their analysis and answer the following questions:

- Did you consider both formal and informal institutions? Why do we need to consider both?

- Were informal institutions or institutions concerning CSOs easy or difficult to identify? Why?

- Which institutions would you prioritize in your country’s context to ensure more effective CBF implementation?

6. Introduce the tables. Clarify questions about the tables. Ask them to remain in the same groups as the previous session. Ask the groups to fill in the tables according to their own country context.

7. Ask participants to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Spend time discussing the ratings participants gave and their justification for the rating. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

8. Summarize the session with the following points:

- Institutionalization of formal and informal CBF, in government or in civil society, points towards better forest governance.

- Countries may have adequate policies, institutions and processes in place for better CBF, but there may be challenges to implement them. When policies, institutions and processes are inadequate, forest tenure reforms can help ensure better forest governance and equitable benefits for those in CBF initiatives.

Trainer’s note

The identification of institutions can sometimes become superficial and be dominated only by official or legal institutions. Ensure that the groups also consider customary or non-formal institutions.

Provide at least a few case examples of institutionalization of CBF that have led to better forest governance. The idea is to offer context for participants so the discussion is not too abstract. The case studies have some gaps in information. This provides an opportunity to have a deeper discussion with the participants and to draw out new examples and suggestions from them.

Exercise 3 Case study: The Nepane community in Nepal

The Nepane CFUG is located in Sindhupalchok, a central northern district of Nepal. It is one of more than 19 000 user groups in the country. The Nepane user group has 146 households who collectively manage 91 hectares of forest. The user group was registered in 1995 with the District Forest Office (DFO), a government forest agency at the district level. The DFO approved the user group’s forest management operational plan.

The CFUG members have been using the forest for many purposes. They practise subsistence agriculture, including growing crop and raising livestock. They collect livestock fodder and fuelwood for cooking and heating purposes from the forest. The forest is the only source of timber the community has for constructing and repairing buildings and manufacturing furniture for domestic use. The entire community depends on the forest for drinking water. They also believe that the forest houses a benign deity who protects them from evil. The villagers gather in the forest several times every year for spiritual purposes.

The Forest Act (1993) and the Forest Regulation (1995) allow communities like Nepane to practise community forestry. They grant rights to access manage and harvest forest products sustainably. The community can exclude outsiders from using its forest. However, ownership of the forest rests with the Government, which forbids the communities to sell or use its products and services as collateral. The communities prepare a valid five- to ten-year forest management plan that must be approved by the DFO.

The CFUG has received substantial help and guidance from the Government and its local representative. However, discussions with the Government about the user group exercising its rights are not always easy. The DFO often delays approval of the management plans prepared by local communities by questioning their quality and processes. Local communities feel they do not get enough support from the DFO as mandated by the 1995 Forest Regulation and suggested by the 2008 Community Forestry Development Guideline. Exercise of rights to commercialize forest products, particularly timber, is also inhibited. Although the right is recognized by law, there are many obstacles.

The focus of legal documents is mainly limited to meeting the subsistence needs of local communities in relation to their community forests. For example, the lengthy process of obtaining harvesting and transportation permits is too costly for small-scale operations with limited reserves of valuable timber. Contrary to the policies, many of the forest officers perceive that the main objective of community forestry is forest and biodiversity conservation. They often attempt to restrict harvesting by using their discretionary power in approving plans and issuing permits. Local community members report that weak governance allows some officers to demand graft from local communities or buyers. The Nepane CFUG feels that it does not have the capacity to fulfil all demands. Buyers do not see the value in purchasing small amounts of timber from the community forest.

The inability to optimally commercialize forest products can be attributed to limited forest development in Nepane. Because the forest fulfils subsistence needs only, the CFUG does not invest much time or resources in it. This has caused the dwindling interest of youth who want tangible economic benefits, such as employment elsewhere. Unable to generate needed resources by themselves, the CFUG must rely on the Government for regular management of the community forest. That also gives the government officers space to exert their influence in user group decision-making.

Another challenge is the wide range of capacity among the CFUG members. Examples include uneven spending power for purchasing forest products, unbalanced physical labour available for forest management operations and varying household needs for forest products. Wealthier members have multiple sources of energy, such as gasoline, electricity and biogas, in addition to fuelwood. Poorer members are totally reliant on fuelwood, making them more dependent on the community forest than others. Poor people and women, who are most dependent on the forest, have fewer opportunities to speak at decision-making forums. This sometimes causes more forest-dependent villagers to receive fewer benefits as they do not speak up and leaders fail to take this into account.

The Nepane CFUG uses different approaches to ensure that the forest management rights of the members are respected, protected and fulfilled. The CFUG is part of the Federation of community forest Users, Nepal (FECOFUN), which has representation from local, district and national levels. This allows the user groups to obtain help from other local communities and stakeholders.

If a problem arises from a decision by the Sindhupalchok DFO, the user group can ask the FECOFUN district chapter for help from other communities. In these cases, FECOFUN conducts dialogue with the DFO to claim their rights granted by the law. The approach has been effective in most cases. When the dialogues failed, FECOFUN ramped up their campaigns. They have voiced their concerns at district-level multi-stakeholder platforms with journalists, forest product traders and representatives of political parties, CSOs, the DFO and FECOFUN. If necessary, the central committee of FECOFUN takes the issue to the national level for discussion with the government and other organizations.

Local communities from Nepane believe that their granted rights are not adequate and that many rights-related decisions are made by the Government alone. They are concerned that not all CFUG members have equal opportunity to exercise their forest management rights due to their differing capacities. They will continue to work with the government, NGOs, the private sector, nearby communities and FECOFUN to extend their forest management rights.

Source: Adapted from RECOFTC, 2016. Capacity development needs assessment of community forestry in Nepal. An unpublished study, RECOFTC.

Handout 4 Institutionalization of CBF

There are many definitions of institutions. They are broadly defined as systems and procedures of rules, both government and non-government and practices. They can be considered as a cluster of rights, rules and decision-making procedures that determine social practices, assign roles to actors or stakeholders and govern interactions among them (McFadden, Priest and Green, 2010).

Institutions can also be considered as the “rules of the game”, and these rules affect social structures (Gräbner and Ghorbani, 2019). Uphoff (1992) concluded that institutions are the “complexes of norms and behaviours that persist over time serving collectively valued purposes. In accordance with this definition, laws and unwritten social norms in a community for instance can be called instructions”.

In the forestry context, institutional settings are impacted by legal regulations and laws or various traditional uses of management practices. Institutions operate their mandate through processes that can be governed by the very same legislation or by customary practices that can include religious and cultural influences.

Assessing institutionalization means considering the arrangements of stakeholders, including their distribution of power and influence. Institutional arrangements refer to how policies, systems and processes in a country can plan and manage their activities in an efficient and effective way and ensuring responsibilities of all relevant stakeholders are fulfilled, according to what has been mandated by law (United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management, 2017).

The indicators for institutionalization of CBF are described below.

Institutionalization of CBF by government through policy, legislation, planning and programme development:

• regulatory support for the CBF: whether it is specifically mentioned in forest and other policy or legislation.

• incorporation of CBF in government plans and institutions;

• whether the government has a particular division or unit dealing with CBF;

• intergovernmental coordination mechanism;

• number of government staff working in CBF;

• capacity of government staff; and

• budget allocated to CBF implementation.

Institutionalization of CBF by civil society:

• representation of CBF stakeholders by civil society organizations (CSOs);

• type of CSO, such as network, alliance, association or federation; membership, such as household, committees or user groups; and

• type of engagement of CSOs, such as service provision to members, policy advocacy with government or support to communities to implement CBF.

Session 7 Bringing it all together for Criterion 1: Summary of key indicators to assess level of enabling environment for the CBF regimes

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Analyse all the indicators for Criterion 1: Extent and type of CBF.

• Provide a summary of the enabling conditions for CBF regimes based on the indicators.

Time

45 minutes

Method

Small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of a table:

• Table 9. Summary of enabling environment for the community-based regime (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Examine all the indicators and tables the participants have discussed so far regarding Criterion 1. Summarize all the data collected so far, which will inform the current conditions that enable the different CBF models in the country.

2. Introduce the table. Clarify questions about the table. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as the previous session and fill in the tables according to their own country context.

3. Allow 15 minutes for the groups to complete the table. Ask participants to present some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Spend time discussing the justification for the ratings they have filled in. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

4. Wrap up the session with learning points and reiterate some of the key points from the previous sessions. Tell participants that the next learning block will focus on Criterion 2 of the FAO framework, which is assessing the effectiveness of CBF.

Learning block 3 Criteria for assessing CBF – Criterion 2: Effectiveness of CBF and overall effectiveness

Session 8 Assessing natural capital

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Identify elements and categories that constitute changes under natural capital according CBF types.

• List examples of natural capital categories and know where to access the information on natural capital.

• Appreciate the value of assessing the natural capital and how it assists in achieving specific CBF objectives.

Time

90 minutes

Methods

Small-group discussion, visualization, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, coloured pencils or crayons, four A3-size photos representing different CBF types or models, copies of three tables:

• Table 10. Change in area and condition of forest for CBF regime (Annex 2)

• Table 11. Change in level of threats for CBF regimes (Annex 2)

• Table 12. Change in quantity of forest products harvested for CBF regime (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Explain that this learning block will focus on the next criterion of the FAO framework, which is the effectiveness of CBF. This criterion is measured through the biophysical and socio-economic outcomes that collectively contribute to sustainable forest management (SFM) and enhanced livelihoods. The session will focus on changes in natural capital as a result of CBF activities.

2. Ask participants if they are clear what “natural capital” means in this context. Present this definition and clarify any questions:

Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stock from which resource flows and services, such as nutrient cycling and erosion protection useful for livelihoods, are derived. There is a wide variation in the resources that make up natural capital from intangible goods, such as the atmosphere, and biodiversity to assets used directly for production, such as trees and the products that are derived from trees and lands (DFID, Sustainable livelihood guidance sheets cited in Gilmour, 2016).

3. Remind participants about the spectrum of CBF types from the earlier session. Ask them to briefly review the CBF objectives in each type. Mention that in this session they will identify indicators to measure changes in natural resources.

4. Divide participants into four groups. Label photos to describe the CBF model. For example: community conservation area, community productive forest, community forest, agroforest or private forestry farm. Distribute one photo to each group.

5. Allow 20 minutes for each group to come up with as many qualitative and quantitative indicators as possible that are used to assess natural capital. Clarify if participants are unclear about the types of CBF. Each group should then agree on the top-five important indicators. Remind participants to write down one indicator on one meta card.

6. Ask each group to share their indicators against the given CBF objectives. Initiate discussion on the following points:

- How well do these indicators reflect the objectives of the given model or type of CBF?

- Which ones are most important in each of the CBF type?

- Are there any missing indicators we should consider? Why?

- What potential sources of information should we consider?

- Do you think the natural capital identified is helping to reach the CBF objectives? How is it doing so?

7. Introduce the three tables. Clarify questions about the table. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as the previous session. Ask them to fill in the tables according to their own country context.

8. Ask participants to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Spend time discussing the ratings that were given and the justification for each rating. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as the lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

9. Summarize points from the discussion and highlight the following points:

- Natural capital refers to the changes in the forest in terms of its condition and biodiversity.

- We should consider the effectiveness of CBF by looking at changes in natural resources compared with other capitals, and in relation to the national CBF objectives and reduction of threats to the forest.

Trainer’s note

Check the participants’ basic understanding of the elements that constitute changes under natural capital. Some participants may know this information, but some may not. Prior to this session, you should conduct some background research so that you have a good understanding of indicators for natural capital.

When considering the capitals and benefits, remind the participants to consider these in relation to the CBF objectives that a country has set.

Handout 5 Natural capital

Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which resource flows and livelihood services are derived. There is wide variation in the resources that make up natural capital. Examples include intangible public goods, such as the atmosphere and biodiversity, and assets used directly for production, such as land and trees and tree products.[1]

The most important indicators of changes to the natural capital relate to the forest itself, its condition and biodiversity. Changes in forest condition since the commencement of a CBF regime can be judged from indicators like changes in area of forest, wood volume or biomass and regeneration. Changes in biodiversity can be judged from changes in species diversity over time.

When the overall management of CBF improves, there will be a reduction in the level of threats to the forest. This is also another indicator of the effectiveness of CBF that should be assessed. Changes in the quantity of forest products harvested offers an indication of the extent to which CBF is able to meet the forest product needs of communities and smallholders. The most common forest products accessed by communities and smallholders include timber, wood fuel, poles, fodder, wildlife and NWFPs.

To assess the effectiveness of CBF in terms of natural capital, it is necessary to compare the current stage with the baseline data from when the CBF started.

Session 9 Assessing social/institutional and human capital

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Identify elements and categories that constitute changes under social/institutional and human capital in CBF.

• List examples of social/institutional and human capital categories and know where to access the information on social capital.

• Appreciate the value of assessing the social/institutional and human capital and how it helps achieve specific CBF objectives.

Time

90 minutes

Method

Small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of table:

• Table 13. Change in key social indicators of social/institutional and human capital, equity and inclusiveness of CBF regimes (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Refer to the previous session in which participants discussed natural capital. In this session, the group will consider another indicator of effectiveness of CBF: social/institutional and human capital.

2. Ask participants what they understand about social/institutional and human capital. Generate some examples in the forestry context from the participants. Spend some time discussing some of the elements that may be overlooked: for example, customary learning systems and processes on traditional forest management practices, and community conflict resolution and grievance mechanisms.

3. Present the following definitions on a flip chart and spend time discussing points related to them:

Social capital refers to the social resources which individuals rely on to achieve certain objectives relating to their livelihoods. These may include networks and connections, participation in more formal groups with certain rules, norms and sanctions and relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchanges that facilitate cooperation, reduce transaction costs and may provide the basis for informal safety nets amongst the poor (UNDP, 2017).

Human capital is a collection of resources possessed individually and collectively in a population. It includes knowledge, talents, skills, abilities, experience, intelligence, training, judgment and wisdom. These resources are the total capacity of the people and represent a form of wealth that can be directed to achieve goals and objectives (Becker cited in FAO, 2019).

4. Present some of the elements of social, institutional and human capital: social institutional arrangement, capital, human capital, equity and inclusiveness. Discuss each of these elements separately with the participants and ask them for examples in the context of forestry in their own countries. See Handout 5 Social capital.

5. Divide the participants into four groups. Ask one member of the group to be a “case holder”, a resource person who knows about one case well. They can use an example of CBF in their country to analyse this criterion. The case holder should start by presenting an introduction of the case. This can include landscape, activities, how many members or other important elements.

6. Introduce the table. Clarify questions about the table. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as the previous session. Ask them to fill in the tables according to their own country context.

7. Ask participants to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Spend some time discussing ratings that were given and the justification for them. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

8. Discuss with these questions:

- Was it easy to identify social/institutional and human capital?

- Which of the indicators were easy and which were difficult to assess? Why?

- What are other indicators not included in the matrix that you think can be considered as social capital?

- Provide some examples of how this social/institutional and human capital assists in the effective implementation of CBF.

- Do you think the social/institutional and human capital identified are helping to reach the CBF objectives of the case? How is it doing so?

9. Summarize the session with learning points:

- Improvements in social/institutional and human capital are one of the most important objectives of CBF for many countries. There is much emphasis given to participatory social processes that increase cohesiveness and go beyond group formation.

- Social/institutional and human capital, equity, inclusiveness and recognition of traditional knowledge are indicators. They can be used to gauge whether CBF objectives are being achieved

- Ideally, social/institutional and human capital should be mainstreamed into local governance institutions to improve the overall governance of the landscape. A strong indicator for improved governance is when there is a high level of inclusion of forest communities, especially vulnerable groups such as women and Indigenous Peoples.

Handout 6 Social/institutional and human capital

Social/institutional and human capital consider the value of social connection and networks and how collective action can achieve more than individuals can achieve alone. As a cornerstone of CBF management, it is a necessary requirement for empowering groups to take control of their own agenda. It captures the idea that social bonds and social norms are an important part of the basis for sustainable livelihoods.[2]

Description of social indicators

Social capital

Social capital is also referred to as institutional capital. Because presence of social capital lowers the costs of working together, social capital facilitates cooperation. People have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will also do so. They are less likely to engage in unfettered private actions that result in negative impacts, such as resource degradation. Social capital comprises four central aspects: relations of trust; reciprocity and exchanges; common rules, norms and sanctions; and connectedness, networks and groups.

An example of social capital in action is where a CBF management group is able to work together to manage a forest sustainably and to ensure that the benefits are distributed equitably. Individuals acting alone would not be able to achieve this. Hence, the building of social capital (which enhances social cohesion) is a requisite for sustainable forest management by community groups.

Human capital

Human capital is a collection of resources – all the knowledge, technical and traditional, talents, skills, abilities, experience, intelligence, training, judgment and wisdom possessed individually and collectively in a population. These resources are the total capacity of the people and represent a form of wealth that can be directed to achieve goals and objectives. Examples include formal and informal training that builds the knowledge and skills related to forest silviculture, community development, organizational management, leadership development and entrepreneurship.

Equity

Equity refers to having a fair share but not necessarily an equal share. Equity is understood as fairness in the decision-making processes and fair outcomes of such decisions. Equity can vary according to different situations and different cultures, but an important point is that an equitable system should not further marginalize the poor.

An example of equity in benefit-sharing would be a situation where poor households are explicitly identified and given special consideration, such as payment of reduced, or no CBF membership fees; allocation of land to cultivate NWFPs for sale; charging rates for forest products that are lower than those that apply to wealthy households; and providing low-interest loans to engage in income-generating activities.

Inclusiveness

Social inclusion in CBF is the process of removing barriers and promoting incentives to increase the access of marginalized individuals and groups to the development process so that they receive an equitable share of the benefits. Among the most common marginalized individuals and groups are the poor, indigenous peoples, women and others with limited administrative and decision-making power. Improvement in inclusiveness can come about by, for example, ensuring that marginalized people are included in decision-making bodies and, if necessary, supporting them to obtain the skills needed to carry out their functions.

Adapted from FAO: A framework to assess the extent and effectiveness of community-based forestry, 2019.

Session 10 Assessing financial capital

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Identify elements and categories that constitute changes under financial capital in CBF.

• List examples of financial capital categories and know where to access information on it.

• Appreciate the value of assessing financial capital and how it helps achieve specific CBF objectives.

Time

90 minutes

Method

Small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of table:

• Table 15. Change in availability of forest goods and services for subsistence use, income generation to households and community groups in CBF regime (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Refer to the previous sessions in which participants discussed natural and social capital. This session examines financial capital, which will provide the information needed to complete the picture of the effectiveness of a CBF regime to achieve its objectives. Ask participants what they understand about financial capital. Generate some examples of financial capital in the context of CBF. Spend time discussing elements that may be overlooked, such as traditional barter systems or village loan systems.

2. Present the following definition for financial capita on a flip chart and spend some time discussing the definition:

Financial capital denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives (DFID cited in Gilmour, 2016).

3. Present the two key sources of financial capital: available stocks and regular inflows of money. Discuss each of the elements and participants for examples in the context of forestry in their own experience. See Handout 5. Financial capital.

4. Introduce the table. Clarify questions about the table. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as in the previous session and ask them to fill in the tables according to their own country context.

5. Ask participants to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Spend some time discussing ratings that were given and the justification for the rating. Discuss some of the challenges of filling in the tables. Highlight those that are different from the previous session, such as lack of up-to-date data or bureaucratic constraints to obtain data.

6. Discuss with these questions:

- Was it easy to identify financial capital?

- Which of the indicators were easy and which were difficult to assess? Why?

- Which other indicators not included in the matrix can be considered as financial capital?

- How does financial capital assist in reaching CBF objectives in the case you discussed?

7. Summarize the session with learning points:

- Changes in financial capital are hard to assess because community members may be reluctant to share information about their earnings and savings.

- When assessing financial capital, it is important to consider tangible indicators. It is also important to examine those that are less clearly defined and may be different based on specific contexts.

- Financial capital tends to be one of the aspects that is prioritized when assessing the effectiveness of CBF. However, changes in financial capital should always be considered in terms of the objectives that have been set for CBF. For example, assessing changes in financial capital is important if one of the objectives of national CBF programme is to increase the income of forest communities.

Handout 7 Financial capital

Financial capital refers to the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives. The definition used here includes income and savings and can refer to consumption as well as production. It relates to the availability of cash or equivalent that enables people to adopt different livelihood strategies.

There are two main sources of financial capital:

• Available stock: Savings are the preferred type of financial capital because they do not have liabilities attached and usually do not entail reliance on others. They can be held in several forms: cash, bank deposits or liquid assets, such asjewellery, livestock and sometimes timber. Financial resources can also be obtained through credit-providing institutions.

• Regular inflows of money: Excluding earned income, the most common types of inflows are pensions or other transfers from the state, payments for environmental services and remittances. To make a positive contribution to financial capital, these inflows must be reliable (while complete reliability can never be guaranteed, there is a difference between a one-off payment and a regular transfer on the basis of which people can plan investments).

Some communities may not be able to make adequate use of their financial resources for several reasons. They may lack the skills needed to do so and do not have the financial resources to obtain these skills. They may be limited by underdeveloped markets or policy environments that do not support microenterprises They may not be operating at a scale that allows them to leverage on their business to acquire a loan from mainstream financial organizations.

What can be done to help increase access to financial capital for the most disadvantaged households?

Access to financial capital is best understood as indirect support, which can take the following forms:

• Organizational: Increase the productivity of existing savings and financial flows by developing effective, tailored financial services organizations for the poor.

• Institutional: Increase access to financial services, including the removal of barriers that prevent access to these services. Certain groups, such as women and indigenous communities, cannot provide sufficient guarantees (whether this is by providing the required guarantee or by identifying mechanisms that will allow other forms of assets to act as guarantees).

• Legislative/regulatory: Here, it is provided via reforms in the environment in which financial services operate or via supporting government-led networks to protect the most disadvantaged (such as ten pensions, for example).

Some communities may not be able to make adequate use of their financial resources for several reasons. They may lack the skills needed to do so and cannot obtain these with small amounts of money. They may be limited by underdeveloped markets or policy environments that do not support microenterprises.

What kind of information is required to analyse financial capital?

When considering the information needed to analyse financial capital, it is important to have a clear understanding of the following factors:

• Which kinds of formal and informal financial service organizations already exist,?

• Which kinds of services are offered and under what kind of conditions, such as interest rates or required guarantees?

• Which population groups or subgroups have access to these resources? In what way is access limited for groups that don’t?

• What are the current levels of loans and savings? What is the preferred savings form used by local populations? Examples can include cattle, jewels, precious metals and bank savings.

• What are some of the risks related to these options?

• What is their level of liquidity and how might this affect their value at the moment of liquidation?

• How many households include members who live outside the local community and send money home?

• How do these remittances reach these households?

• How reliable are these remittance flows? Are they subject to seasonal change? What levels of finance are involved?

• Who has control over these payments once they arrive? How are they used and are they reinvested?

Adapted from UNDP (2017).

Session 11 Bringing it together for Criterion 2 and overall CBF effectiveness

Objectives

At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Analyse all the indicators for Criterion 2: Effectiveness of CBF.

• Provide a summary of overall effectiveness of CBF regimes in promoting sustainable forest management and enhancing livelihoods and compared to other forest tenure regimes.

Time

60 minutes

Method

Small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of three tables:

• Table 15. Summary of effectiveness of CBF (Annex 2)

• Table 16. Comparative effectiveness of all CBF regimes in a country in moving towards sustainable forest management and enhancing livelihoods; Comparative effectiveness of all CBF regimes (Annex 2)

• Table 17. Perceptions of overall effectiveness of CBF regimes compared with other forest tenure regimes in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods (Annex 2)

Steps

1. Discuss with participants all the indicators and tables regarding Criterion 2. Summarize the data collected so far that will inform the current conditions that enable CBF models in the country.

2. Introduce Table 15 and Table 16. Clarify questions about the tables. Ask participants to remain in the same groups as the previous session and them to fill in the tables according to their own country context. After that, introduce Table 17 regarding overall effectiveness. Allow 30 minutes for this exercise.

3. Ask participants to present at least one highlight from the tables they filled in. Spend time discussing the ratings and the justification for them.

4. Discuss with the following questions:

- Was there adequate data from all the tables that were filled in to make the final assessment in Table 16 and Table 17?

- Which tables were the most challenging to obtain data on? Why was that?

- What are some of the gaps in data that are still needed?

- Is there any need to adapt the process and the tables of the assessment? What are some of these adaptations? What is the rationale for the adaptation?

5. Wrap up the session with learning points and discuss some of the steps moving forward for participants after the training. The steps will depend on the country priorities and current availability of data on CBF.

6. Participants now know what information on which indicators are needed before they undertake a full assessment of CBF in their country. Some participants may want to set up a team to assess the data gaps on CBF they are facing. Others who already have the data may want to present a proposal to their department for such an exercise.

Optional sessions Field trip and reflection

Introduction

The field trip is used to illustrate concepts, principles and approaches presented in this manual related to CBF development. It allows participants to practise the application of frameworks and participatory tools and techniques with local stakeholders, such as communities, governments and NGOs. During the field trip, participants will test their understanding of the knowledge and skills presented in the training.

Learning to fully apply the frameworks and tools to research or develop CBF initiatives takes several months or longer. It is an iterative process that requires critical reflection and review. During the field trip, participants will not be conducting a full data collection or assessment of the CBFs they will be visiting. They should not make recommendations to the stakeholders or the host communities. Possible interventions can be discussed during the post-field trip plenary reflection.

Do no harm

One important element to highlight to participants is the principle of “do no harm”. It is meant to ensure that actions taken during the field exercise do not intentionally or unintentionally cause more harm than good in the communities they visit. This includes being mindful of sensitive topics and asking questions in a respectful way and with the intention of learning from the communities. It also means following cultural and social norms that will be shared during the field exercise briefing.

It is important that participants learn from stakeholders and communities involved in CBF. These people are known as resource persons and should be invited to participate in the field study session. The stakeholders, host communities and CBFs should have clarity about the purpose, objectives and process of the visit. As the trainer, you have a responsibility to ensure that direct, two-way communication flows and information have been accurately and adequately shared with both parties.

The example of the site chosen here is a community forest in Thailand. Consider other types of CBF testing sites in which participants can use the knowledge and skills they have learned.

Session 12 Field trip preparation

Objective

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

• State the purpose of the field trip and their own roles in it.

• Use the secondary information, including printed documents provided by the resource person to prepare for the field assignment.

• Discuss and present the task assigned to them for the field trip.

Time

90 minutes

Method

Presentation, small-group discussion, focus group discussions in the field

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers, copies of field trip note

Steps

1. Explain the purpose of the field exercise and take questions for clarification. Mention that the visit is not necessarily a showcase of best practices in CBF development. It is an opportunity for participants to examine the concepts, frameworks, criteria, indicators and tables with the direct and indirect CBF stakeholders. They will also be able to apply their knowledge in a real situation.

2. Explain the principles of do no harm.

3. Divide participants into mixed teams. You will need to decide in advance the composition of groups that will encourage optimum critical thinking, reflection and learning.

4. Present the teams and tasks for the teams.

5. Do a presentation on background information about the field site by going through the field trip note step by step: purpose, objectives, approaches, advice and methods used for field work. The field note will provide added information and context to help groups prepare for the field trip and their assignments.

6. Ask participants if they have any questions related to the assignment.

7. Ask participants to prepare the tools, process and questions they would like to use in the field trip.

Example of field trip note

Training on the Community-based Forestry (CBF) Assessment Framework Guide for field trip

9–13 December 2019

Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest

Phanom Tuan District, Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand

This guide provides the following information for the field trip:

• learning objectives;

• agenda;

• groups and tasks;

• description of field site;

• background of community forest development in the area;

• community forest management through partnerships;

• rules and regulations for community forest use and protection; and

• the Alternative Livelihood Initiatives.

Learning objectives

At the end of the field trip, participants will be able to:

• Apply the FAO framework to assess Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest.

• Explain how the challenges and lessons learned from the field exercise can be applied in their own country context.

Agenda

Groups and tasks

Participants will work in groups to collect insights from stakeholders invited to the meetings. In response to the learning objectives, participants in each group are given tasks to support the group in achieving field trip objectives.

All groups will be assigned one translator for Thai–English translations.

Participants must take care to adhere to the principles of do no harm while they are in the field. This includes recognizing the sensitivity of issues that will be discussed.

The Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest is located in the communal forest land in the Nong Rong Subdistrict, Phanom Thuan District, Kanchanaburi Province. The total area of the community-managed forest is approximately 2253 rai or 360.48 hectare (1 hectare = 6.25 rai. Rai is a Thai Unit). The forest is located in Village 2. The community forest is located in a plains area.

The forest was originally covered by mixed deciduous trees. The forest suffered from continuous degradation and encroachment, resulting in significant loss of biodiversity. Thanks to several initiatives of the community and various government agencies, the area has been restored. It is now covered mainly by dry dipterocarps, stall forest trees used for resins and timber for the export trade.

Four villages contribute and share the benefits of the community forest: Baan Huay Sapan, Ban Nong Krachan, Ban Mai and Ban Don Charoen.

Background of community forest development in the area

In the past, the forest in Nong Rong Subdistrict was integrated as a larger part of the Nong Rong National Reserved Forest. When Japanese troops invaded areas in Thailand during World War II, railroad construction and charcoal production resulted in a high level of deforestation in Kanchanaburi Province.

Deforestation was worsened by unsustainable felling of trees by communities for their own use and the conversion of forest lands for cultivation and settlement areas. Forests declined further when the pulp and paper industry cut down a huge amount of timber. This situation was made worse by droughts and is a big concern in the Nong Rong forest area. Land conversion threatened the sustainability of protected animal and plant species.

From 1972 to 1973, sugar refineries and tapioca starch factories were built in Kanchanaburi Province. Local people were encouraged to convert forest lands to grow sugar cane and cassava. Private investors would not allow local people to use the communal forest for cattle grazing. Conflicts and violence occurred frequently and fractured the social relationship between local people and investors.

Community members became increasingly concerned about the escalating environmental and social conflicts. A group of village leaders decided to find solutions to the challenges affecting their forest and their society. They met with private investors to negotiate for local communities to resume the use of communal forest land. They established ways to protect the forest and prohibit any more encroachment into the communal forest, which was one of the main reasons for the conflict and violence situations previously.

Later on, this lead community group used live trees to define forest boundaries and prevent encroachment. In 1974, they formalized this effort using concrete poles and soil dikes as permanent boundary lines. Due to these efforts, the situation gradually improved. Local people from the four villages continue to restore their forest by replanting and by managing and monitoring activities.

Community forest management through partnerships

In 1974, leaders from the four villages committed to restore and manage their forest, which later became the community forest. Villagers worked together to define the community forest boundary, plant trees and establish patrol teams to report illegal logging and forest conversion.

In 1998, the Forest Office of Kanchanaburi Province created the community forest Development Project for the four villages. The project focused on generating knowledge on and building capacity for forest management. The office facilitated training for local people and provided seedlings. In April 2000, representatives from the four villages met and agreed to name their forest communal land Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest.

The community forest committee (CFC) was later formed and the members were chosen from representatives from the four villages. In 2019 there were 68 committee members, 27 of whom are women. The CFC received training from the Local Volunteer for Forest Protection Programme, supported by the Royal Forest Department. They formed the Group of Local Volunteers for Forest Protection to manage the Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest and the Nong Rong National Reserve Forest.

As the result of their efforts, Baan Huay Sapan Samakkee community forest has been officially registered. In 2000, the CFC was granted a certificate of community forest management from the Royal Forest Department, which is renewed every five years. It also has an advisory group with representatives from the community’s temple and schools, the Subdistrict Administrative Organization, the Local Government Administration, the provincial university, the Provincial Forestry Office and the Siam Forestry Co. Ltd.

The community’s youth group has also had a crucial role in managing forests. The youth formed their own committee, consisting of 40 – 50 young people with good gender representation. They have learned about nature and environment conservation based on traditional knowledge and practices. In addition to managing the forests, the community forest Committee also extended their effort by setting up the Community Network of Kanchanaburi Province. This initiative helped strengthen community forest management together throughout the province.

The Royal Forest Department gave the community forest an award for Excellent Community Forest and Food Sources at provincial and regional levels in 2000. They also won the Green Globe Award of Thailand in 2005. In 2011, the CFC was asked by the Royal Forest Department to manage additional forest area of 235.85 hectares of the Nong Rong National Reserved Forest.

Rules and regulations for community forest use and protection

The community forest is the common property of local people who live around the boundary and beyond. It is accessible to everyone who values the forest for the tangible and intangible benefits it provides. The CFC developed regulations for those who need to collect NWFP or perform any activities that might affect the forest area. The rules include:

• No encroachment inside the community forest area.

• No tree species except Eucalyptus may be cut down. The fine is 500 baht per tree.[3]

• No ground lizard hunting. The fine is 300 baht per lizard.

• No causing fires in the forest. The fine is 5 000 baht and the offender will be prosecuted.

• No littering inside the community forest. The fine is 300 baht per time.

• No bamboo-shoot harvesting for five years. The fine is 100 baht per shoot.

• No causing any damage on existing infrastructure or construction inside the community forest. The offender will be prosecuted.

• No tarantula hunting. The fine is 500 baht per tarantula.

• No natural bee hunting. The fine is 1 000 baht per honeycomb.

• No digging, pulling, cutting down damaging regeneration of NWFP, especially wild vegetables. All residents of four villages are permitted to collect and harvest NWFP but non-residents must request permission from the CFC.

The Alternative Livelihood Initiatives

The community forest provides many products for household consumption or income generations for local people in the four villages. They are allowed to collect forest product, especially NWFPs throughout the year. In research conducted by a university in the area, the community earned 5 million baht in 2015 by selling mushroom products, wild vegetables and herbs.

Residents of the four villages understand the value of the community forest and participate in keeping it healthy. It is known for its achievements and has become a learning centre for visitors from Thailand and other countries.

Session 13 Field trip presentation and reflection

Objective

By the end of the session, participants will be able to:

• Present key findings and assessment from the field site visit.

• Synthesize and apply principles introduced throughout the course of the training.

• Reflect on their learning experience and relate it to their own CBE contexts.

Method

Presentation, small-group discussion, plenary discussion

Materials

Flip charts, meta cards, Post-it Notes, markers

Time

160 minutes – 60 minutes for preparation, 40 minutes for presentation and clarification, 60 minutes for plenary reflection

Steps

1. Review the purpose and components of the field trip. Tell participants that groups will now give their prepared brief presentation outlining observations, lessons learned and analysis on the basis of the field site visit.

2. Invite the first group to present, allowing a maximum 15 minutes. Encourage questions from the plenary and seek differences in observations and conclusions based on the tasks given to them.

3. Proceed until all groups have presented.

4. Lead a discussion in plenary asking participants to reflect on the presentations and how this relates to their own context. Encourage and challenge some of the assumptions they may have made during the field trip, the presentations and reflection exercise. Ask questions and present insights that have not been addressed in the presentations.

Trainer’s note

This is the final session before the action planning and wrap-up of the training session.

Annexes CBF assessment criteria, indicators and tables for the training

Annex 1 Criteria and indicators

Annex 2 Tables

Session 3 The aim of CBF

Criterion 1 Extent and type of CBF

• Indicator 1.1 Context of CBF

• Indicator 1.1a Policy objectives for each community-based forestry regime (Table 1), p. 20

• Indicator 1.1b Area and percent of forest land under different tenure regimes (Table 2), p. 21

• Indicator 1.1c Number of people and groups involved in community-based forestry regime (Table 3), p. 22

Session 4 Forest tenure regime and bundle of rights

Criterion 1 Extent and Type of CBF

• Indicator 1.3 Level of empowerment of local stakeholders for CBF regime

• Indicator 1.3 Rights associated with CBF regime (Table 6), p. 27

• Indicator 1.3b Responsibilities associated with CBF regimes (Table 7), p. 29

Session 5 Types of CBF

Criterion 1 Extent and type of CBF

• Indicator 1.3 Level of empowerment of local stakeholders for CBF regime

• Indicator 1.3c Characterization of CBF regimes by generic type (Table 8), p. 30

Session 6 Institutionalization of CBF

Criterion 1 Extent and type of CBF

• Indicator 1.2 Institutionalization of CBF in government and civil society

• Indicator 1.2a Institutionalization of CBF regimes in government policy (Table 4), p. 24

• Indicator 1.2 Civil society organizations (apart from CBF membership groups) to represent

Session 7 Bringing it together for Criterion 1: Overall summary of enabling environment for CBF regimes

Summary of indicators assessing the enabling environment for CBF regime (Table 9), p. 31

Session 8 Assessing natural capital

Criterion 2 Effectiveness of CBF

• Indicator 2.1 Natural capital

• Indicator 2.1a Change in area and condition of forest for CBF regime (Table 10), p. 33

• Indicator 2.1b Change in level of threats for CBF regimes (Table 11), p. 34

• Indicator 2.1c Change in quantity of forest products harvested for CBF regime (Table 12), p. 35

Session 9 Assessing social, institutional and human capital

Criterion 2 Effectiveness of CBF

• Indicator 2.2 Social/institutional and human capital

• Indicator 2.2a Change in key social indicators of social/institutional and human capital, equity and inclusiveness of CBF regimes (Table 13), p. 36

Session 10 Assessing social/institutional and human capital

Criterion 2 Effectiveness of CBF

• Indicator 2.3 Financial capital

• Indicator 2.3a Change in availability of forest goods and services for subsistence use, income generation to households and community groups in CBF regime (Table 14), p. 36

Session 11 Bringing it together for Criterion 2 and overall CBF effectiveness

• Summary of effectiveness of CBF regimes in enhancing natural, social, institutional, human and financial capital and overall effectiveness (Table 15), p. 39

• Comparative effectiveness of all CBF regimes in a country in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods (Table 16), p. 40

• Perceptions of overall effectiveness of CBF regimes compared with other forest tenure regimes in moving towards SFM and enhancing livelihoods (Table 17), p. 41

References

Alkali J., 2015. Community- based forestry regimes assessment in the Gambia. Pilot Testing Report. Rome, FAO internal document.

Boulay, A., Tacconi L. & Peter Kanowski. 2010. “Financial performance of contract tree farming for smallholders: the case of contract eucalypt tree farming in Thailand”. Small-scale forestry 12, 165-180.

Dahal, G.R., Atkinson, J. & Bampton, J. 2011. Forest tenure in Asia: Status and trends. Kuala Lumpur, EU FLEGT Facility.

FAO and MRLG. 2019. Challenges and opportunities of recognizing and protecting customary tenure systems in Cambodia. Policy brief. Bangkok, FAO.

FAO. 2002. Land Tenure and Rural Development. In FAO Land tenure studies 3 [online]. Rome [cited 20 February 2020]. www.fao.org/3/y4307e/y4307e00.htm#Contents.

FAO. 2019. A framework to assess the extent and effectiveness of community-based forestry. Forestry Working Paper no. 12. Rome, FAO. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca4987en/CA4987EN.pdf).

Feurer, M., Gritten, D. & Than, M.M. 2018. Community forestry for livelihoods: Benefiting from Myanmar’s mangroves. Forests, 2018: 9, 1-15. (also available at doi:10.3390/f9030150).

Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176, Rome.

Gräbner, C. and Ghorbani, A. 2019. Defining Institutions – A Review and a Synthesis. ICAE Working Paper Series No. 89 [online]. [cited 20 February 2020]. www.jku.at/fileadmin/gruppen/108/ICAE_Working_Papers/wp89.pdf.

Harrison, S., Herbohn, J. & Niskanen, A. 2002. “Non-industrial, Smallholder, Small-scale and Family Forestry: What’s in a Name?”. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1): 1–11.

McFadden, L., Priest, S. and Green, C. 2010. Introducing institutional mapping: A guide for SPICOSA scientists. SPICOSA project report. London, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.

Muhammed J., 2016. The extent and effectiveness of community based forestry in Sierra Leone. Assessment Report. Rome, FAO internal document.

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2008. Rules and regulations implementing Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as The Indigenous Peoples’Rights Act of 1997. Philippines Office of the President (available at www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph083en.pdf).

O’Hara, P. 2013. From delegation to devolution: Key lessons from 10 years of PFM. Implementation in SW Ethiopia Briefing Note 7. Addis Ababa. [cited 20 February 2020] http://wetlandsandforests.hud.ac.uk/forests/ntfp_pfm/publications/Briefing%20Notes/Key%20Lessons%20from%2010%20Years%20of%20PFM%20in%20SW%20Ethiopia.pdf.

Ramirez, M.A., Lecciones, A. & Capiña, X. G. 2019. Social forestry in the ASEAN Region: Gaps and strategic interventions. Los Baños, Philippines: Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA).

RECOFTC, SDC & ASFN. 2014. Current status of social forestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation in the ASEAN region: Situational analysis. Bangkok, RECOFTC.

RECOFTC. 2013. Community forestry in Asia and the Pacific Pathways to inclusive development. Bangkok, RECOFTC.

RECOFTC. 2018. Training manual: Applying a Rights-based Approach (RBA) in Forest Governance. Bangkok, RECOFTC.

To, X.P., Tran, H.N. & Zagt, R. 2013. Forest Land Allocation in Viet Nam: Implementation processes and results (Info brief – May, 2013). Hue City, Vietnam: Tropenbos International Viet Nam.

Turyomurugyendo, L. 2016. The extent and effectiveness of promotion of community-based forestry in Uganda. Pilot Testing Report. FAO internal document, Rome.

UNDP. 2017. Guidance note for the application of the sustainable livelihoods framework in development projects. Panama City, Panama, United Nations Development Programme.

United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management. 2017. Definition proposal for national institutional arrangements. United Nations. (also available at http://ggim.un.org/documents/140605%20NATIONAL%20%20INSTITUTIONAL%20ARRANGEMENTS%20definition_con%20comentarios.pdf).

Uphoff, N. 1992. Local Institutions and Participation For Sustainable Development. IIED Gatekeeper Series, London.

1 DFID. Sustainable livelihood guidance sheets (London, U.K 1999) 14.

2 Don Gilmour, 2016:78.

3 100 baht = approximately USD 3 in April 2020.