44 x Models have reflected government policy on shifting cultivation stabilization, land use
planning and land allocation, rural development, and poverty eradication. x The experiences of CBFM have built a foundation for MAF, further improvement of
forest management, reformation of forest policies, and a significant shift from state led to participatory forestry.
x These experiences helped to develop legal frameworks Forest Law as well as bylaws, regulations and instructions on forest management in support of sustainable forest
management
6.2 Lessons learned
x Level of participation is a key factor affecting communities’ contribution to forest management but does not guarantee social acceptance. The question of who among the
partners prefers, and what resource is managed, remain a powerful influence deciding a scale of application. As it is at present, Collaborative Forest Management gains higher
recognition than Participatory Forest Management in state production forest regardless of level of participation.
x Many initiatives developed are deemed appropriate for different ecological, environmental and social contexts. Progress in expansion, however, has been slow due to several reasons
including insufficient budgets or human capacity, lack of supporting legal instrument, weak legal enforcement as a result of insufficiency of legal and institutional support,
ineffective dissemination, and etc. Another factor that has slowed down the pace of CBFM expansion has been the lack of technical instructions and guidelines for the actual
implementation, In addition, the scaled up coverage of CBFM has been attributed mainly to donor funded project support and has not clearly streamlined into ordinary government
projects and programs. In spite of increasing CBFM efforts, no proper institutional arrangement has been developed and roles and responsibilities among stakeholders are not
clear. Consolidation and institutionalization of these initiatives are, therefore, needed for wide scale application.
x Contribution of local communities in SFM seems to be promising, if considered individually for each type of forest management, collectively they are not well integrated
into the overall land use system. A holistic planning approach combining both forest management system and land use is, therefore, necessary.
x Replication of good lessons is constrained by limited capability of implementing staff at field level, which is again resulting from limited dissemination and information sharing, as
well as capacity building efforts. The lack of appropriate extension system and networks and government services are other significant contributing factors.
x Involving local people in forest management is a long term learning process, multidisciplinary in terms of subject areas and needs continuous support from the
government. x Most projects have an incentive mechanism to encourage participation. Lesser incentive
when project draws out brings about a slow progress or failure to continue. Awareness raising would be an important component of the project to ensure the continuity of the
initiatives. x In the present NBCA management, decentralization and local empowerment is not a
guarantee for environmental stewardship. The benefits of biodiversity and watershed protection are undervalued in relation to the traditional “productive” sectors such as
agriculture, infrastructure, logging etc. in resource-poor provinces. Lack of alternative
economic opportunity and weak enforcement mechanisms also lure villagers towards resource extraction rather than conservation.
x Local leadership is a decisive factor for the success of CBFM
45
6.3 Challenges to Confront
