2 presented in this current assessment. Some variations in the 2010 and 2013 data reflect the different definitions and
methods of data collection used rather than actual changes on the ground. These definitional challenges are discussed further in section 2.1 of this report.
Despite the difficulty for comparisons, the data presented in this report provides stakeholders with a current snapshot of social forestry in the region and highlights progress made in recent years. The report should be of value for policy-makers
and practitioners engaged in social forestry programmes as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives at the local level.
1.3 The ASEAN region
ASEAN consists of ten countries: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. The total land area of the ASEAN region covers 4.4 million km2 444 million ha of
land. In 2011, the collective population of the ten ASEAN countries was estimated at slightly fewer than 600 million people ASEAN Secretariat,2012.
1.4 The ASEAN Social Forestry Network
The ASEAN Social Forestry Network ASFN was established in 2005 by the ASEAN Senior Officials on Forestry, who are responsible for policy coordination, decision-making and regional cooperation in the forest sector. The government-driven
ASFN promotes cooperation and knowledge sharing on social forestry in the region. It links government forestry policy- makers with other stakeholders from civil society, research, academia, the private sector and elsewhere working to develop
social forestry in ASEAN member countries, including its potential to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. Working under the auspices of ASEAN, the ASFN informs the Senior Officials on Forestry policy agenda and builds synergies
with the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forests and Climate Change.
Figure 1: Map of the ASEAN region
3
1.5 What is social forestry?
Both social forestry and community forestry refer to the involvement of local communities in the protection andor management of public forests Rath, 2010, with the intent to prevent degradation from overuse, promote sustainable
forest management and respond to the basic social and economic needs of local people Box 1. In theory, when the people who depend upon forest resources are jointly responsible for managing and protecting them, they tend to do
so in a more sustainable manner by focusing on the long-term benefits rather than the immediate short-term gains. In contrast, where tenure rights are weak, unclear or insecure or offer limited benefits, people are provoked to extract
immediate benefits, resulting in suboptimal forest management and the reduction of carbon stocks. The transfer of forest ownership, management and user rights to local people is therefore expected to lead to improvements in forest protection
and conditions as well as improved livelihoods.
There is considerable evidence in the literature to suggest that when local people acquire secure tenure and forest management rights and receive adequate benefits from forest resources, this indeed leads to improved forest management,
conservation of biodiversity and stronger local livelihoods FAO, 2006; FAO, 2011; Robinson et al., 2011; Chhatre and Agrawal, 2011; Porter-Bolland et al., 2011; Persha et al., 2011; Sikor et al., 2013. Community management of forests has
been shown to improve forest conditions and levels of forest biomass Skutsch and Solis, 2010. Documented experiences in ASEAN countries demonstrate that community forestry has positive outcomes on both forest quality and local livelihoods. In
Myanmar for example, community forest management has contributed to improvements in forest conditions and increased livelihood benefits for local people Springate-Baginski et al., 2011.
The details of how forest land is transferred to local people, on what terms, with what combination of rights, benefits, responsibilities and security as well as the capacities of local communities and government officials are critical factors for
ensuring sustainable forest management Ostrom and Nagendra, 2006; FAO, 2006; Robinson et al., 2011; Helvetas and Rights and Resources Initiative, 2012; Lawry and Maclean, 2012. Well-defined and locally accepted rules governing the
use of forest are also significant for achieving sustainable forest management Patel et al., 2013. Where local people are genuinely engaged in formulating the rules on forest use – or at least consider the rules to be legitimate, they are more likely
to follow them and monitor and sanction the actions of others Ostrom and Nagendra, 2006. Forest user groups need to be able to enforce forest management regulations and protect their forests against external actors and drivers of land use
change Robinson et al., 2011. Although experience from the region suggests that in practice, this is extremely challenging Springate-Baginski et al., 2011.
Box 1: The evolution of social forestry in Asia
Forest management in Asia has long been dominated by state actors, initially by European colonial powers and later by independent national governments. Forest communities are often regarded as “encroachers” on state land; their
traditional land tenure and agriculture practices are blamed for deforestation Poffenberger, 1999; Poffenberger et al., 2005; Poffenberger, 2006; Charnleyand Poe, 2007. Towards the end of the twentieth century, it became
increasingly clear that centralized systems of forest management and intensive timber extraction were leading to environmental degradation and failing to provide for the needs of local people. Governments began to recognize
the need for increased participation of local stakeholders in the rehabilitation, management and protection of forest resources. New policies, laws and programmes emerged to strengthen the role of local governments and communities
in sustainable forest management and devolve greater management rights and responsibilities to local people Sands, 2005; Poffenberger, 2006; Soriaga and Mahanty, 2008.
Social forestry first emerged in India in the 1970s in response to fuel wood shortages and the failure of other forestry programmes to alleviate rural poverty Arnold, 1992. Early programmes focused on the afforestation of communal
lands to create alternative supplies of fuel wood, fodder and forest products to meet peoples’ basic needs, alleviate poverty and reduce pressure on commercially productive forests Arnold, 1992; Hobley, 2005; Charnley and Poe,
2007. Over time, social forestry evolved into broader concepts covering a range of approaches to involve local people in governing, managing, using and benefiting from forest resources RECOFTC, 2008. These approaches
include participatory forest management, joint forest management, collaborative management, co-management and community-based forest management. The different models share similar principles, but the details of participation,
decision-making autonomy, rights and benefits afforded to local people vary in each. Social forestry and community forestry are therefore regarded as “umbrella terms” for a range of activities that link local people to forests, trees and
the products and benefits they provide Arnold, 1992.
4
1.6 Definitions of social forestry and community forestry
