The impacts of forest policy and programs on risks and vulnerability for forest dependent people are considerable. Policies and programmes typically marginalise those people in favour of State or Corporate interests – often mediated through business models involving large-scale industrial forest concessions, or large-scale agricultural land allocations. However, there is little evidence that the large-scale industrial model either protects forests reduces poverty (Mayers, 2006).
Much rarer are models of investing in locally controlled forestry (ILCF) which allow local people to: (i) secure commercial resource rights; (ii) gain access to technical extension and finance; (iii) develop business capacity and market access; and (iv) strengthen organisations that allow them market power and political influence. Any forest farmer needs these four preconditions to engage in farm forestry – and would need to answer yes to the following four questions: If I plant or manage this tree / crop, will I be able to sell it? (rights); will I be able to protect it from pests and diseases and process it to market specification? (technical extension); will I be able to access markets on fair terms? (market access); will I have an organisation to defend these prior conditions during the tree / crop cycle?
Good progress is being made towards ILCF in countries such as Gambia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal – but progress is painfully slow. Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that ILCF delivers better forest protection and poverty reduction than State or Corporate models (Nepstad et al. 2006; Pagdee et al., 2006; Molnar et al., 2007; Bowler et al. 2010; Persha et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2011; Porter-Bolland et al. 2012; Seymour et al. 2014; WRI and RRI, 2014 – the list goes on…).
A valid question, therefore, is ‘why do the former sets of policies still persist’ – and the answer is probably mostly simply stated as ‘elite vested interests’. So how can such policies and vested interests be tackled or realigned with social protection for forest-dependent people? The best approach, in my view, is to strengthen the organisation of forest and farm producer groups so that they can hold government to account and break into markets. This is exactly the approach of the Forest and Farm Facility that was designed by representatives of alliances of Indigenous Peoples, community forestry and smallholder family forestry – see http://www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility/en/ . The major sources of vulnerability for forest dependent people to my mind lie in their isolation: from each other, from markets, from service providers and from decision-makers. Alliances of supporters of small forest enterprises such as Forest Connect have sought to tackle such isolation – and are now aligned with the approach of the Forest Farm Facility based around ILCF.
So how might social protection policies be aligned with ILCF? Well, firstly there is a need to role out social insurance to support forest farm producers in times of shock. Many forest farm producer organisations already invest in this, by establishing rotating loan funds that can (i) meet critical short term cash needs for members while also (ii) preventing needs based tree cutting that threatens sustainable forest management planning.
Second, there is a need to provide social assistance to those unable to engage directly in such forest farm producer organisation (because they are ill, or in school, or landless etc). Again forest farm producer organisation almost always make such investments in social assistance within the distribution of profits from their businesses.
Third, there is a need to develop labour policies to protect forest workers (minimu wages, safety standards etc). But this is much less of an issue if the business model is based on collective ownership and profit distribution between members structured in some form of informal or formal association or cooperative. One of the best ways to provide labour assurance is to preferential support and procure from such business collectives where labour not capital drives benefit distribution.
Fourth, in terms of subsidies, there are ways of reducing the administrative costs of establishing collective forest farm producer businesses, adjusting resource tenure and taxes in their favour, reducing the cost of capital for their investment needs, subsidising inputs (seeds, fertilisers, energy costs etc)
Finally, there are ways of designing education systems (and indeed health, agricultural support etc) such that they cater for the entrepreneurial necessities of local forest farm producers – across a necessarily diverse basket of crops – that diversifies income sources and so provides security from climatic, economic and civil shocks.
In summary – the best way of aligning social protection services with forest policies and programmes is to ensure that both work directly to strengthen the organisation of forest and farm producer groups – who form the biggest forest private sector – and the one most likely to conserve forests and reduce poverty.
References
Mayers, J. (2006) Poverty reduction through commercial forestry: What evidence? What prospects? Tropical Forest Dialogue Background Paper. The Forest Dialogue, New Haven, USA.
Bowler, D., Buyung–Ali, L., Healey, J. R., Jones, J. P. G., Knight, T., and Pullin, A. S. (2010) The evidence base for community forest management as a mechanism for supplying global environmental benefits and improving local welfare: Systematic review. CEE review 08–011 (SR48). Environmental Evidence. Available at: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR48.html. Accessed 8 May 2014.
Molnar, A., Liddle, M., Bracer, C., Khare, A., White, A. and Bull, J. (2007) Community–based forest enterprises: Their status and potential in tropical countries. ITTO Technical Series No. 28, International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan.
Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Rar, D., Schlesinger, D. Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G. and Rolla, A. (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20(1): 65–73.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. and Daugherty, P. J. (2006) What makes community forest management successful: A meta–study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 19 (1): 33–52.
Persha, L., Agrawal, A., and Chhatre, A. (2011) Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331 (6024): 1606–1608.
Porter–Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M.R., Ruiz–Mallen, I., Negrete–Yanelevich, S. and Reyes–Garcia, V. (2012) Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17.
Seymour F., La Vina, T. and Hite, K. (2014) Evidence linking community level tenure and forest condition: An annotated bibliography. Climate and Land Use Alliance, Washington, USA.
The impacts of forest policy and programs on risks and vulnerability for forest dependent people are considerable. Policies and programmes typically marginalise those people in favour of State or Corporate interests – often mediated through business models involving large-scale industrial forest concessions, or large-scale agricultural land allocations. However, there is little evidence that the large-scale industrial model either protects forests reduces poverty (Mayers, 2006).
Much rarer are models of investing in locally controlled forestry (ILCF) which allow local people to: (i) secure commercial resource rights; (ii) gain access to technical extension and finance; (iii) develop business capacity and market access; and (iv) strengthen organisations that allow them market power and political influence. Any forest farmer needs these four preconditions to engage in farm forestry – and would need to answer yes to the following four questions: If I plant or manage this tree / crop, will I be able to sell it? (rights); will I be able to protect it from pests and diseases and process it to market specification? (technical extension); will I be able to access markets on fair terms? (market access); will I have an organisation to defend these prior conditions during the tree / crop cycle?
Good progress is being made towards ILCF in countries such as Gambia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal – but progress is painfully slow. Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that ILCF delivers better forest protection and poverty reduction than State or Corporate models (Nepstad et al. 2006; Pagdee et al., 2006; Molnar et al., 2007; Bowler et al. 2010; Persha et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2011; Porter-Bolland et al. 2012; Seymour et al. 2014; WRI and RRI, 2014 – the list goes on…).
A valid question, therefore, is ‘why do the former sets of policies still persist’ – and the answer is probably mostly simply stated as ‘elite vested interests’. So how can such policies and vested interests be tackled or realigned with social protection for forest-dependent people? The best approach, in my view, is to strengthen the organisation of forest and farm producer groups so that they can hold government to account and break into markets. This is exactly the approach of the Forest and Farm Facility that was designed by representatives of alliances of Indigenous Peoples, community forestry and smallholder family forestry – see http://www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility/en/ . The major sources of vulnerability for forest dependent people to my mind lie in their isolation: from each other, from markets, from service providers and from decision-makers. Alliances of supporters of small forest enterprises such as Forest Connect have sought to tackle such isolation – and are now aligned with the approach of the Forest Farm Facility based around ILCF.
So how might social protection policies be aligned with ILCF? Well, firstly there is a need to role out social insurance to support forest farm producers in times of shock. Many forest farm producer organisations already invest in this, by establishing rotating loan funds that can (i) meet critical short term cash needs for members while also (ii) preventing needs based tree cutting that threatens sustainable forest management planning.
Second, there is a need to provide social assistance to those unable to engage directly in such forest farm producer organisation (because they are ill, or in school, or landless etc). Again forest farm producer organisation almost always make such investments in social assistance within the distribution of profits from their businesses.
Third, there is a need to develop labour policies to protect forest workers (minimu wages, safety standards etc). But this is much less of an issue if the business model is based on collective ownership and profit distribution between members structured in some form of informal or formal association or cooperative. One of the best ways to provide labour assurance is to preferential support and procure from such business collectives where labour not capital drives benefit distribution.
Fourth, in terms of subsidies, there are ways of reducing the administrative costs of establishing collective forest farm producer businesses, adjusting resource tenure and taxes in their favour, reducing the cost of capital for their investment needs, subsidising inputs (seeds, fertilisers, energy costs etc)
Finally, there are ways of designing education systems (and indeed health, agricultural support etc) such that they cater for the entrepreneurial necessities of local forest farm producers – across a necessarily diverse basket of crops – that diversifies income sources and so provides security from climatic, economic and civil shocks.
In summary – the best way of aligning social protection services with forest policies and programmes is to ensure that both work directly to strengthen the organisation of forest and farm producer groups – who form the biggest forest private sector – and the one most likely to conserve forests and reduce poverty.
References
Mayers, J. (2006) Poverty reduction through commercial forestry: What evidence? What prospects? Tropical Forest Dialogue Background Paper. The Forest Dialogue, New Haven, USA.
Bowler, D., Buyung–Ali, L., Healey, J. R., Jones, J. P. G., Knight, T., and Pullin, A. S. (2010) The evidence base for community forest management as a mechanism for supplying global environmental benefits and improving local welfare: Systematic review. CEE review 08–011 (SR48). Environmental Evidence. Available at: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR48.html. Accessed 8 May 2014.
Molnar, A., Liddle, M., Bracer, C., Khare, A., White, A. and Bull, J. (2007) Community–based forest enterprises: Their status and potential in tropical countries. ITTO Technical Series No. 28, International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan.
Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Rar, D., Schlesinger, D. Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G. and Rolla, A. (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20(1): 65–73.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. and Daugherty, P. J. (2006) What makes community forest management successful: A meta–study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 19 (1): 33–52.
Persha, L., Agrawal, A., and Chhatre, A. (2011) Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331 (6024): 1606–1608.
Porter–Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M.R., Ruiz–Mallen, I., Negrete–Yanelevich, S. and Reyes–Garcia, V. (2012) Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17.
Seymour F., La Vina, T. and Hite, K. (2014) Evidence linking community level tenure and forest condition: An annotated bibliography. Climate and Land Use Alliance, Washington, USA.
World Resources Institute and Rights and Resources Initiative (2014) Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Washington DC: Rights and Resources Initiative. Available at: http://www.rightsandresources.org/publication/securing-rights-combating-... .