3 What rewards community forestry? - S. Appanah^[3]

INTRODUCTION

The world is steadfast about one fact - that trees and forests are good for us, and should be maintained as much as possible. If all good things have a cost, why must trees and forests be an exception? On this we demur as much as possible. Right, somebody has to pay for planting trees and maintaining forests. A variety of funding methods can be devised, from direct government grants, private donations, carbon bonds, services for watershed protection, and so on. But nothing can beat a system that allows those doing such good work to sell the product of their work. This way the tax payers and beneficiaries of the ‘good earth’ need not cough up with additional funds, and all parties are happy. If only it was that simple, we would have solved quite a bit of our problems: the poorest communities would have gained directly from their efforts, and proof that forests can alleviate poverty would have gained currency. However, things being not so sanguine, let us look at how we can work things out.

WHAT OPPORTUNITIES?

Clearly, one of the most touted cases for rescuing the poor out of poverty and conserving forests is that presented for harvesting non-timber forest products. Scientists went as far as to claim that the non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in every hectare of a tropical Amazonian forest exceed the value of the timber, and this bonanza would save the poor people and the forests (Peters et al. 1989). Unfortunately, nothing close to that has come to realization, sanity prevailed soon after, and we still are trying to make NTFPs worth something.

There is no question; NTFPs play a critical role in meeting the daily needs of forest-bound communities in the form of food, material for shelter, medicine, etc. Certainly some portion gets into the market for small cash earnings. Lest we underestimate the importance of NTFPs, A.B. Ella (Chap. 6) reminds us that some 18 million indigenous people depend on the collection and sale of NTFPs in the Philippines. These activities have an important linkage to the handicraft and furniture industry in the country. V.T. Vo (Chap. 4) explains how a displaced minority ethnic group in Viet Nam is still unable to adapt to lowland farm practices, and relies on NTFP collection to supplement their livelihoods. W.C. Woon (Chap. 5) reviews the potential of NTFPs, reiterates the concern about overexploitation of some produce, domestication and cultivation on a commercial scale which may not be viable in most cases, and calls for policy revision which will support their development.

The forests, particularly the tropical moist forests, are also being heralded as crucibles for important medicinal plants. Despite such grand claims, so far only about 40 tropical species have been incorporated into modern medicine (Lewington 1993). While huge fortunes have been made by the pharmacies, they have not made an equivalent impact on the conservation of the ecosystems, nor enriched the denizens of these biologically rich ecosystems. But some change has come. For example, Merck, Sharpe & Dome has paid US$1 million for research rights in Costa Rica and has agreed to contribute 25 percent of the profits made from the prospecting for conservation of the forests (Sittenfeld and Gamez 1993). Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that some 35 000 plant species are used as medicines by various human cultures around the world. Such traditional healing systems represent a huge monetary value to the people, which otherwise represents a heavy cost if they were to be replaced with western style of medicine.

Farm forestry is another case cited for increasing wealth to poorer communes. The types of farm forestry can range, as reported for Viet Nam by D.H. Vo (Chap. 15), can range from pure forestry units managed for special raw materials, agroforestry, pure woodlots, and integrated tree planting combined with animal husbandry, fishery, etc. These trends point towards turning away from natural forest exploitation towards multi-purpose tree plantations. The scale of the farm is small, traditional experiences and techniques are generally used, and farmer communities can gain from the labour opportunities, and the sale of intermediate and final products. Then again, tree-based farming may be the only means under stressful conditions. C. Doreswamy (Chap. 20) describes circumstances where tree-based farming systems are attractive alternatives for farming communities where conditions for agriculture are risky due to uncertainty of rainfall.

Reforestation and afforestation programmes too bring temporary benefits to the poorer communities. S. Rehman (Chap. 18) describes the technology needed to combat salinity through reforestation in Pakistan. T. Ravishankar and R. Ramasubramanian (Chap. 21) provide an example where rehabilitation of mangroves has provided income for the fishing populations, while at the same time improving their fish catch. This latter example reminds us how irresponsible forestry practices by state departments have led to impoverishment of forest-dependent communities, and brings into debate the issue of individual profit versus public costs for rehabilitation of both forest resources and people. More often than not, we are talking of bringing wealth to poorer communities after having robbed them of the only means of livelihood, the forest. Related work in afforestation brings about another issue - Is the government the best agency to undertake such work? C.D. Dai and L.J. Jiang (Chap. 23), based on the Sino-German Afforestation Project in China, argue that government agencies may not be equipped to manage large-scale forest projects, and for better efficiency they should be delivered to the market. This is exemplified further by A.B. Exconde (Chap. 10), in his report on communitybased resources management project in the Philippines. He points out that poverty reduction is a problem concerning social change and empowerment. Considering the party who controls the process is likely to benefit most from the outcomes, poverty reduction is less likely to take place if government agencies control the definition, initiation, and implementation of any project. The poor should be given more direct control of such schemes.

Despite the initiatives so far, the question of how to generate wealth through community forestry will remain a recurrent one. In an advancement of the thinking, C. Sutthisrisilapa (Chap. 22) reported on how Thailand has come up with a "one village - one product" scheme. The example given is the development of ecotourism as a package by the villagers. On the other hand, M.R. Moktan (Chap. 16) provides new concepts such as payments to villagers for protecting watersheds used for generating hydroelectric power.

Despite the importance attached to community forestry, it still seems to be very much an NGO and donor-driven approach. Few governments have given much emphasis to this approach. One example is the case made by C.B. Ly and S. Lao (Chap. 8) for community forestry in Cambodia. Although communities are becoming proactive, the central government has not backed this interest with adequate policies. Many issues remain unclear such as taxation, benefit sharing, co-management and other approaches. The situation described here may perhaps be true for many other countries in the region as well. This brings home the question - Why are state authorities reluctant to promote community forestry? On the positive side, there will be increase in forest resources, and the chance to alleviate poverty among these communities, and relieve the burden on the state budgets. This reluctance appears mainly to be a historical one-the state is reluctant to give up control and even ownership of once-rich forest lands. Today, lands being available for community forestry are usually very degraded or timber-poor sites. Yet the inertia remains when it comes to giving up ownership. Most state forestry agencies have not made the change from regulators to service-oriented agencies.

Nevertheless, the trend towards transferring management rights of lands to forest dependent people has taken root. F.M. Eslava (Chap. 9) indicates such a trend for the Philippines-timber operators manage 1.4 million ha while forest communities have been given 5.3 million ha. However, we still have to ask whether forest communities have the wherewithal to manage the forests in a sustainable manner. Guiang et al. (2001) point out that despite the investments, many communities need support and assistance in organizational management, enterprise development, financial management, technical forestry practices, and planning. Neither have the community forestry schemes generated enough profits to undertake the annual work plans and community resource management framework. All in, there are still many problems holding back the development of community forestry.

GENDER ISSUES-CRITICAL FOR COMMUNITY FORESTRY?

In forestry, nowhere would the issue of gender be more pertinent than with the case of community forestry. Women’s role in community forestry and access to such resources would have a bigger impact on improving livelihoods for the resource-poor communities. A.B. Ella (Chap. 6) points out that women and children constitute the majority of NTFP gatherers in the Philippines. W.M. Mamoona (Chap. 7) points out how the choice of tree species differs between the genders, fruit trees, fuelwood and fodder species being favoured by the women. Such differences give emphasis to the attention women pay to the daily needs of the family over the mediumterm cash incomes. Besides the technical and marketing issues, these differences in the choice of plant species should be carefully incorporated into the design of community forestry.

SUPPORTIVE POLICIES NEEDED!

Repeatedly, one facet stands out clearly-in most countries community forestry schemes have failed or been held back from lack of supportive policies. This is captured by Zuo (1999) in his study on community forestry in Sichuan Province, China. He states that "The people of Lian-chi village have carried out community forestry activities for many years. In 1963, the villagers planted trees on a large scale in response to the call of the government. However, because of ambiguity concerning duties, rights and benefits, there has been excessive and indiscriminate logging and the forest was damaged. In 1983, the forest belonging to the village collective was divided between each household... The forest still belongs to the nation but each household has the right to manage and utilize its own demarcated forest plots. Due to clearer duties, rights and benefits, the villagers have been planting trees voluntarily and successfully since 1983." He further cites one villager who claimed that "the forest has been getting better and better since the management was changed to each household in 1983."

The above statement encapsulates all that needs to be stated about supportive policies. This is perhaps the most neglected area. The technical aspects, species, products and marketing have received considerable attention from researchers, and many advances have been made. However, this has not brought about the expected growth in community forestry in the region. The one major obstacle appears to be policies that can accommodate or enhance the development. For several reasons stated earlier, governments have been slow to adopt new policies to bring about the growth in community forestry. Until ownership, tenure and usufruct rights are clear, and the profits are generally favourable, community forestry will have little chance beyond theoretical constructs. The realization has begun. For example, L.Zhang and G.C. Dai (Chap. 25) point out the ‘three fixes’ policy in China, which aims to clarify the rights to forests. The reform began in 1981, and increasingly much of the barren and degraded lands are being transferred to village communes for planting trees.

CONCLUSION-COMMUNITY FORESTRY CAN MAKE MONEY!

The potential for community forestry to bring additional income to the forest-dependent communes exists. Proof that it can alleviate poverty of rural populations can be adduced quite easily. But the real challenge appears to be convincing the governments to pursue this avenue as a viable option, with many built-in advantages. There are many factors in favour of such an approach. For one, the state-led management systems have performed dismally, with both the resource and environmental considerations. Next, the approach favoured the rich more than the forest-dependent communities. With community forestry, it can be argued that sustainable forest management is more likely to be adhered to, since the survival of the communities is directly tied to the resource base. Then again, local communities have developed knowledge systems and institutions that regulate well the use of forest resources. It would therefore be appropriate that governments should maximize this opportunity to bring about dual goals, one of conservation and poverty alleviation. The stumbling block still remains the governments’ inertia to change. The history of state forestry is indeed one of social conflict than that of technical inadequacy. On the one side, professional foresters still hold the view that timber production can only be attained through exclusion of humans from the forests. The disaffected communities have responded with encroachment and arson. Considering the forest areas delineated for community forestry are mostly depauperate, such conflicts need not be revisited. However, the forest policies in most countries have to be revised to support community forestry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guiang, E. S., Borlagdan, S.B. & Pulhin, J.M. 2001. Community-based forest management in the Philippines: a preliminary assessment. Project Report. Quezon City, Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University.

Lewington, A. 1993. Medicinal plant and plant extracts: a review of their importation into Europe. Cambridge, UK, Traffic International.

Peters, C.P., Gentry, A.H. & Mendelsohn, R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian forest. Nature 339: 655-656.

Sittenfeld, A. & Gamez, R. 1993. Biodiversity prospecting by INBio. Biodiversity Prospecting, pp. 69-97. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.

Zuo, Wenxia. 1999. Community forestry assessment in Lian-chi village, Sichuan Province, China. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter No. 38, March 1999. pp. 21-24.