Forestry projects cannot be considered independantly of the land use and social context within which they take place. Taking into account land use and social systems in the land encompassing and surrounding the forest is a major factor in the success, or failure, of the project objectives. There are many people who will be affected by the project to a greater or lesser extent, in other words they have a “stake” in the project and so are called “stakeholders”.
Standard techniques of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) or Socio-economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) have been developed to consider the impacts of projects on stakeholders, and would consider such issues as:
who will be affected by the project?
how will the land use and land tenure system be affected by the project?
what is the institutional framework within which the local communities function (see Section 2.3)?
These studies would normally be undertaken simultaneously with the assessment of environmental (and economic) effects of projects. Here we are not concerned with SIA or SEIA but rather with the role of social issues within EA itself.
We can consider two social issues of primary concern to EA. First, forestry projects which involve overutilization of forest resources, degrade the local natural resource base or reduce local people's access to the forest resources they are accustomed to using, will result in negative social impacts. These must be considered somewhere within the project evaluation process, whether as part of the EA or a SIA. Planners charged with the task of assessing environmental impacts of forestry projects should ensure that such impacts are ‘picked up’ through one or the other process. More importantly, the way in which local communities respond to a new forest project may be an important determinant of environmental impacts arising from the project. For example, if a new policy denies local communities access to traditional forest lands, they may be forced to overharvest on those now limited lands to which they retain access.
If social issues are to be properly taken into account within an EA, then information about the social systems, communities and local institutions must be gathered (either independently or as part of a broader SIA). This can be achieved through various means, including broad-based, formalized survey studies, referred to as Socio-economic and Production Systems Studies (SEPSS) or more informally via Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), or its close relation, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). Each technique has its own protocols and situations where it is preferred over alternative approaches, the latter depending on the circumstances (ie. time, budget, severity of potential impacts, complexity of social system, etc.). However, one theme can be found to run through all techniques for social assessment: the importance of including local stakeholders in the project design and evaluation process, in a fundamental way, and right from the beginning of the process.
Regardless of the social appraisal technique selected, certain key information must be collected from the local communities themselves. For instance, planners must gain an understanding of the structure of the social systems involved; how are they stratified by age, gender, socio-economic and tribal or ethnic affiliations. What institutions exist for governing access to forest resources and for resolving conflicts. For example, although formally owned by the state and managed by a specialized agency of government, a forest may be used by local communities, which determines to a great extent what happens to the forest. Rights of access to the forest may be vested customarily in a kin group or village, but such rights may not be recorded or registered outside the area (see Section 2.3.2).
Critical to assessing the social issues arising with forestry projects is the way in which communities both view and use trees, and this information is best obtained from discussions with the villagers themselves. Box 5.1 describes some of the uses made of trees in India. Ownership and tenure arrangements (ie. property rights) governing trees are vital information to be collected during field visits (see Section 2.3.2), and attention needs to be given to both natural forests and planted areas. Examples from India suggest that domestic planting of trees through on-farm afforestation programmes can reduce the risks of land degradation in lean cropping periods by providing a form of income security which decreases reliance on cropping alone. Such opportunities constitute a social and economic benefit of these programmes, one which is not always properly counted in EAs.
| Box 5.1 | The Importance of Trees to Rural Livelihoods in India |
“The livelihood effects of trees have not been a focus for comparative study. Like irrigation, they have a counterseasonal quality and role in livelihoods. Their deep roots tap soil moisture or groundwater long after rainfed surface crops dry up, and they can photosynthesize and be productive and useful in various ways for much more of the year. They are less vulnerable than ground crops to bad years of rainfall. Trees are perennials but some produce seasonal crops, and all trees accumulate biomass year by year until they die. They are thus partly drought-proofed, and many can provide both crops and assets. Their livelihood effects can be examined under the same headings as for lift irrigation.
Source: Chambers et al. (1989) - text references have been omitted. | |
Obtaining information directly from local communities may serve another purpose. Local environmental knowledge is often much more detailed than realized, and such information can be useful in undertaking an EA. For example, a study of the Hanunóo people of the Philippines, who practice swidden agriculture, found that:
“More than 450 animal types and over 1600 plant types are distinguished … of some 1500 ‘useful’ plant types over 430 are cultigens (most of which are swidden-grown), existing only by virtue of the conscious domestication of the Hanunóo. Partly as a result of this intensified interest in plant domestication and detailed knowledge of minute differences in vegetative structures, Hanunóo plant categories outnumber, by more than 400 types, the taxonomic species into which the same local flora is grouped by systematic botanists.” (Conklin 1969, quoted in Chambers 1983, p 87)
The challenges of obtaining correct social information should not be underestimated. Outsiders (including officials normally residing in national or provincial capitals) attempting to understand complex social mores and local institutional structures are prone to systematic biases, whether as a result of questioning only the better off, more accessible or ‘show piece’ farmers, or from preconceived notions about poverty conditions and an unwillingness to ‘rock the boat’ by asking embarassing but important questions. Such biases can be overcome but first they must be recognized. Sufficient time must also be committed to undertaking field visits to enable more in-depth questioning and to allow travel to more remote areas. Finally, it must be recognized that large entourages, consisting of many vehicles and offical escorts, many in uniforms, can initimidate villagers and thereby reduce the effectiveness of any discussions carried out. It is best to travel in small groups, split up to hold discussions and whenever possible make unscheduled visits.
As earlier noted, one of the key questions addressed by any social assessment is the identification of gainers and losers, and this information is equally important to EA. All too often in the past, the gainers have been industry, contractors and sometimes even forest officials, while the losers have been women, the poor and forest dwellers (see Table 5.1). The way in which local stakeholders are affected by a project will determine their response, and depending on the circumstances, further environmental damages or social disruption may result. For example, alienation of land from traditional usage usually affects those members of the community who are least able to represent themselves, often the poor and those without privately owned land. If traditional usage is prevented, increased pressure on natural resources and social conflict can result, severely affecting the long term, or even short term, sustainability of the project and achievement of environmental objectives. Furthermore, a natural resource which might have been protected and tended for centuries can become rapidly overexploited when the community feels it is no longer under their traditional management and has been appropriated by another owner or for some other use. Alternatively, a community may be severely disadvantaged by a change in access rights, leading to overuse of the remaining resource base and the risk of social disintegration. Both these problems can be avoided with sufficient consideration of social issues.
Table 5.1 Main Gainers and Losers from Afforestation Programmes in India
| Land | Programme | Gainer | Loser | Reasons | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forest | Production forestry | Industry, local officials | Forest dwellers, artisans | • | Deforestation increased the distance to be travelled for collection of livelihood goods. |
| • | Mixed forests which provided livelihood goods were rteplaced by plantation crops. | ||||
| • | Industries were supplied cheap raw material at the cost of artisans. | ||||
| Community land | Social forestry | Panchayat elite, urban consumer | Graziers, weaker sections | • | Grazier lands were taken over by government and were planted with non-browsable species. |
| • | Species like cauarina and eucalyptus were classified as fuelwood species, although these provided cash to the rural panchayats, and fuelwood/poles to the urban consumer, thus bypassing rural consumers. | ||||
| • | Distribution arrangements were not properly worked out allowing the powerful to walk away with the ‘cake’. | ||||
| Private land | Farm forestry | Rich farmers, absentee landowners, contractors, petty officials | Women, landless labourers, small farmers | • | Tree farming on agricultural lands reduced employment, esp. for women. |
| • | Stringent felling and sale restrictions helped intermediaries and petty officials at the cost of small producers. | ||||
| • | Serious efforts were rarely made to reach the resource-poor farmer. |
Source: Chambers et al. (1989)
Ill-planned forest projects may well lead to environmental harm where local communities have not been properly consulted, or where new forest production activities are not economically or technically viable. In the latter case, existing income-generating or subsistence activities which rely upon forest access may be displaced, leaving local communities with neither their traditional resource access nor the promised benefits of a planned forest project intervention. Instead, villagers may be forced to turn to other activities, such as collection of fuelwood for marketing or charcoal production, to replace the lost income. Such activites often serve as an employment of last resort and where large numbers of individuals are forced to shift into these activities, degradation of the resources involved may result. Chapter 3 pointed out that tropical forest ecosystems are especially fragile and vulnerable to erosion and other manifestations of overexploitation. Since tropical forests are sensitive ecological areas subject to intensive use in many parts of Asia, changes in the patterns of use may quite easily lead to degradation.
In the face of risks to the environment stemming from social impacts of a forest project, it is important to consider steps for mitigation of these impacts (see also Section 3.3). Mitigation plans must be sensitive to the social groups involved, especially where these are indigenous peoples, and must carefully consider replacement activites, where forest access has been reduced (perhaps because of designation of a new national park). In the latter case, new lands made available to local communities must have the capacity for sustainable agriculture and the area should be sufficient to meet demand so as to avoid rapid loss of fertility. Mitigation planning must be certain to consider the potential for increased pressure on alternative resources. This is best achieved by using participatory methods to assess how communities will respond to the project.
One social issue of particular concern for certain types of forest projects is involuntary resettlement. Where an area is to be extensively logged or a national park is to be designated, it may be necessary to relocate whole communities if a project is to proceed. While such radical action is nowadays rarely justified, there may be occasions when it is contemplated. Involuntary resettlement involves a host of EA issues, relating to the creation of new communities (ie. urban environmental impacts), as well as the sustainability of planned agriculture and other natural resource activities in the receiving area. Most agencies recommend that a detailed Resettlement Plan be prepared since too often resettlement schemes have failed, ending up as relief efforts rather than development initiatives. A World Bank document cites the following examples where resettlement has resulted in increased forest degradation:
“For example, studies of tribal relocated in India without provision of agricultural land to replace that lost indicate that almost half resorted to cutting and selling firewood after construction opportunities ceased. In the Philippines resettlement without provision for means to support themselves turned farmers into loggers and charcoal manufacturers, resulting in degradation of the watershed, reservoir siltation and reduction of the estimated useful life of the reservoir from 100 years to 30 years.” (World Bank, 1991)
Again, ensuring local people are involved in project planning from its initiation and ensuring they can benefit directly from project activities without increasing pressure on their remaining resource base, is the best policy. Mitigation planning can seek to establish mechanisms whereby local communities share in the financial benefits of a forest project, thereby compensating them for opportunities lost. Sometimes this is best pursued through establishment of a Village Development or Compensation Fund into which a share of forest production revenues is paid and subsequently used as desired by the community.
