Introduction - beyond community forestry

S. Appanah^[2]

Our tragedy with forestry began the day we started using market forces to make management decisions. The arguments then looked straightforward. Which will bring more wealth-selling the timber and saving the money in a bank, or leaving the timber stand to grow some more? Such a procedure, generally in practice among owners of private forest lots in temperate countries, was thoughtlessly transplanted into the tropics. Although the conditions in tropical countries differed substantially, forests being mostly state-owned, and their values going considerably beyond that of timber, it nevertheless captured the minds of the policy-makers who readily promoted cashing in the timber in a market that was generally underpriced and unpredictable.

Of course with hindsight, some of us now concede that we did go off the mark. We now recognize that while forests are a source of timber with market value, their values go far beyond, into influencing local and regional climate, protecting soil, providing potable water and mitigating floods to mention a few. Over and above, forests remain a significant source of livelihood for people living inside or in neighboring villages. All these functions were not taken into account or given a fiscal value, remained outside the production boundary, and distorted our decision-making when it came to logging or converting forests. Not that there was no enthusiasm to do so-we would have done the same even if we had all the information on the true values of forests as well as all the cautionary notes.

What single predominant factor propelled us along this direction? Before the colonization of many tropical countries, forests were mainly “owned” by the local villages or forest communities. Colonial governments transferred the forestlands from the communities to national control, under the jurisdiction of government agencies. Starting in the mid-1960s, when tropical timbers began to enter the international timber trade in a big way, the newly independent countries began to harvest forests for generating foreign exchange. This was argued as a means to underwrite economic growth. Did that really take place? For example, Indonesia’s natural forests declined from 150 million ha in the 1950s to 90 million ha in 1990 with aggressive logging policies. However, government income from timber tariffs and royalties never exceeded 0.1 percent of the government’s annual budget over the same period (World Bank Report on Indonesia 1993). What happened?

Under heavy political pressure, forestry agencies had to give timber contracts to politically well-connected individuals at highly subsidized rates. Short-term leases, inappropriate technologies, and undervaluation of resources led to forest mining practices. The losses go beyond failure to collect the true value of the timber. Bad harvesting practices also include environmental and social costs. Reduced vegetation cover has heightened the extent of erosion, flooding, poorer agriculture and unprecedented forest fires. But perhaps the most serious consequence of bad forest management is the loss that forest-dependent communities have begun to face.

So, we are finally confronted with the reality. The forests have gone, mostly, the governments are not richer, the environment has deteriorated, and people impoverished. So is there a way out of these problems. Sustainable development is the mantra that the international community is currently pushing. Concerns are no more puritanical, mainly revolving around environmental issues. The focus is becoming more balanced, and increasing attention is given to poverty issues along with environmental problems. In this respect, foresters are also looking askance into forestry-poverty linkages and how the resource can used for ameliorating poverty. One clear proposition is to transfer more of the forest resources to be managed by the communities themselves. The shift has begun, and community forestry is beginning to show more promise-it is far less expensive to empower local communities to protect and benefit from the forests they have traditionally depended on. This was the subject of a workshop in Beijing (FAO RAP Publication 2004/04).

This brings us into the next step in the move to making rural communities increase their earnings from forestry. Besides community forestry, what else is there or can be done? Perhaps the best lead into the discussions is to start with the penetrating analysis by M. Palo (Chapter 3) in his evocatively titled essay “Poverty reduction by tropical forests: rhetoric or a viable option?” His main question is why forest industries have succeeded in creating economic growth in countries such as Finland, while they failed miserably in most tropical countries. His analysis clearly shows that in many tropical countries, there is a good correlation between high poverty and low relative forest area. A vicious cycle may be present here - the higher population density at low-income levels can become overdependent on forest goods and services, thereby accelerating deforestation and degradation. Poorer forest environment can increase poverty. But the real problem is why the industrial model based on forestry could take off in countries like Finland, but have stuttered and sent countries in the tropics backwards. In the past, there was the tendency to explain away these problems with explanations such as the “horizontal expansion of the different forms of agriculture, since it is responsible for 85 percent of deforestation.” But these days, many experts are much more prepared to admit the truth for the lack of development and the causes of deforestation. It is squarely blamed on the countries’ “policy, economic, institutional, distributional, and demographic factors.” In reality, we have to look at the relationship of the forest and the rich or the elite. In plainer words, it is corruption - the factor behind the continued decline of tropical forests and impoverishment of its people.

So much so, it is easy to become cynical about attempts to use forestry as a means to alleviate poverty, and dismiss all discussions on the subject as rhetoric. But many involved in sustainable development are not prepared to give up on forestry, and are continuously seeking for solutions. They believe the process is an aggregate of several changes, including good governance, democratization, decentralization and greater participation in the decision-making activities. They are convinced that there are many approaches possible and deserve investigation.

What approaches are available? A number of cases were presented for Clean Development Mechanism and carbon credits (e.g. M. Satyanarayana, Chapter 5; P. Kant, Chapter 6). Payments for afforestation and reforestation activities to mitigate climate change offer a potential. Many NGOs have begun to persuade industries from developed countries to subsidize tree-planting activities of poor communities. While the potential is huge, it has yet to yield the anticipated benefits. There are still many problems holding back the process; these include the problems of administration and policy that need to be cleared for the projects to have a bigger impact. Contributing to the field are studies such as the one by R. Lasco and F.B. Pulhin (Chapter 8) who examined how much carbon is found in various tropical forest ecosystems. These studies would form the foundation upon which to calculate the payments, and so the methodologies developed to measure carbon would prove valuable.

But researchers usually like tests and trials-these give deeper insights into what works and why. Just that is being tested out by F.J.C. Chandler (Chapter 4) with a RUPES (Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services) project. The argument is that upland communities have to forgo opportunities if prevented from cutting trees and keeping the ecosystem as pristine as possible. The beneficiaries are mostly downstream. So, why not pass on the environmental benefits in terms of cash to upland communities. The idea is simple and appealing, but when converted to a field situation, it can be nightmarish. Who in the upland communities should benefit, and how much? Don’t be surprised if here too the beneficiaries are large landowners and concessionaires with the muscle and the organization. The RUPES project will be looking into the contractual arrangements, who should be rewarded, and by how much. For once, we will have scientifically credible information to approach the beneficiaries downstream and make a case for paying the deprived.

Although the interest in environmental services and transfer of environmental payments is gaining currency, one big obstacle remains. That is how to assess the environmental services, what kind of market mechanisms is available, and how can all these be organized and accessed by the private forest owners. R.J. Keenan and colleagues (Chapter 7) describe a systematic approach that has been developed in Australia. In this nascent area, experience is critical, and would provide valuable guidance for other environmental payment schemes.

Environmental services are generally easier to perceive, and therefore making payments for them usually more convincing. But how can one pay communities that are playing a role in biodiversity conservation. That takes a stretch. Nevertheless, T. Ravishankar (Chapter 11) bravely explores the difficult question, “What is biodiversity worth to developing countries?” He uses the “productive-use value, consumptive-use value, and indirect or intrinsic value” approach. Admittedly, there is no uniform currency for biodiversity valuation, and it is highly location-specific, and some aspects will remain outside the economic frontier. Nevertheless, the approaches are beginning to provide a basis to handle the field. Others like Z.M. Shi (Chapter 15) go beyond to actually give value to biodiversity conservation in China. The values cited are stupendous. But why shouldn’t they be? With our concentration on timber, we never really appreciated the value of the daffodil hidden in the woods.

There again, much of what has been discussed may seem to be mere rhetoric but for the actual demonstrated cases for environmental services. The day was saved with the cases from Japan (S. Nagata, Chapter 13) and Korea (Y.C. Youn and J.K. Chun, Chapter 14) for watershed protection. One would think that giving value to watershed protection role would be elementary. But the situation, as described by Nagata, and Youn and Chun is apparently not so straightforward. Mere market mechanism cannot deal with environmental functions and long-term elements of resource management. Special arrangements such as government intervention are needed.

Finally, it must be said that the day we began to use market mechanisms to make decisions about forest management will remain a cursed one. The question now is how to manage the situation and live with economics. We cannot deny the need to use the valuation system, and should make good use of it as much as possible. We, however, cannot allow it to overpower every decision we make. There are decisions that require moral and ethical judgments over monetary ones. As we have learned all along, bureaucrats will resist transfer of assets to the village communities. But the process is beginning to gain momentum. If we are into poverty alleviation, that would indeed be the first rule - give people access to some of the state’s resources. We are seeing community forestry is not the cure-all solution. There are other opportunities that can be explored as well, and need to be pursued. This has been the subject of the workshop. But as always, we will have to return to the issue of corruption that was raised at the start. All our efforts will not work without good institutions, supporting policies and legislation that can be enforced to ensure people are protected and not denied access to resources that are rightfully theirs. More mechanisms have to be found to return the forests to those who own it. Community forestry and harnessing other opportunities that go with forestry offer a good starting point.