18 REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR CF
approach, which placed 8-10 million ha of forest land – around one-third of the country’s total land area of 30 million ha – under the control of the social elite,
particularly the relatively few timber license operators Pulhin and Pulhin, 2003. E.O. 263 and its implementing rules and regulations stipulate the basic policy
objectives that CBFM intends to pursue. These are: 1 to protect and advance the right of the Filipino people to a healthy environment; 2 improve the socio-
economic conditions through the promotion of social justice and equitable access to, and sustainable development of, forest land resources; and 3 respect the
rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral domains by taking into account their customs, traditions and beliefs in the formulation of laws and policies.
To achieve these objectives, the CBFM Program CBFMP was established through DENR Administrative Order No. 96-29 to integrate and unify all the people-
oriented programs of the government. Despite the above-cited policies and programs, there is as yet no single
legislated policy that provides a stable legal framework to guide the smooth implementation of the CBFM Program. This has created a highly uncertain policy
environment that continues to derail CBFM implementation. In particular, DENR’s vacillation on the issuance of Resource Use Permit RUP to participating People’s
Organisations as demonstrated in a series of national suspensionscancellations of RUPs by three DENR Secretaries has greatly affected CBFM operations at
the field level, upsetting the major source of livelihood of the participating communities. The DENR is developing legislation for the proposed Sustainable
Forest Management Act, which incorporates CBFM as the core management approach in its effort to create a more stable forest policy environment.
5.5.2. Progress with Implementation
CBFM now encompasses a total of 5.97 million ha involving 5,503 sites, with a total of 690,687 participating households. This has grown from less than 200,000
ha in 1986. Most, if not all the sites have an existing People’s Organisation. The POs may also be members of local, regional, andor national CBFM
Federations.
CBFM as a strategy is a viable model to ensure sustainable forest management Bacalla, in press. However, in a recent DENR-JICA review of 47
CBFM sites Miyakawa et al. 2005, quoted in Bacalla, in press, it was found that DENR personnel assigned to support the POs generally lack training, and access
of local communities to forest resources remains an issue. The recent total log ban policy has also adversely affected the interest of the local communities to
participate in the programme ibid.
5.6. Thailand adapted from Wichawutipong et al. 2005
5.6.1. Regulatory Framework
Community forestry was officially recognized as a tool for sustainable forest management in Thailand about two decades ago. The National Constitution
Article 46 on Decentralization Policy in 1997 is clear on the rights of local people as it states that they should be involved in managing their natural resources.
However, community forestry in Thailand is plagued by conflict, as indicated in the timeline of key events in the development of community forestry legislation
shown below.
Gilmour, O’Brien Nurse
19
Table 1. Key events in the development of community forestry legislation in Thailand
Date Event
1991 The Royal Forest Department RFD began a process to develop
a Community Forest CF Bill to involve local communities in managing communal forests. The draft bill was to recognise the
legal status of communities living around Thailand’s National Forest Reserves and proposed the establishment of CFs by rural
communities to manage forest areas in cooperation with the RFD.
1992 The concept for a draft Bill was approved by the cabinet.
1992-1995 The draft Bill was revised and reconsidered through committee
and public hearings. 1993
A draft CF Bill was developed. 1994
People campaigned for the government to accept the people’s version of the Bill.
1996 As a response to grassroots and NGO pressure for a community
forestry law, the government assigned the National Economic and Social Development Board NESDB to organize and draft a new
version of the CF Bill, with participation of representatives from government, NGOs, academics, and grassroots communities.
1997 1 Urban conservationists lobbied against the re-drafted CF Bill
and the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperative was ordered to further modify the Bill.
2 Cabinet approved the Ministry version of the CF Bill. 3 Local community members from across the country rallied
against the Ministry version. A Joint Committee revised the Ministry version.
2000 Nationwide community forestry networks announced their intention
to collect 50,000 signatures to submit a people’s version to the Parliament according to Article 170 of the 1990 Constitution. The
CF Bill was approved by the Lower House.
2001 A new Government confirmed its intention to continue consideration
of the Bill. 2002
The Senate’s revision deleted the most crucial clause of the Bill which would have allowed people settled in community forest
protected areas to continue to use forest products. Bill was then sent to joint committee of Senators and Representatives.
CF Bill sent back to the Lower House to consider the Senate’s revision.
2005 The CF Bill is still in the joint committee.
20 REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR CF
While legislation to support community forestry has not been approved in Thailand, the Royal Forest Department RFD does support local community
management of its forests. The Community Forestry Division was initiated in 1991 and it later became the office of Community Forest Management in 2003.
Its mandate is to plan and promote community forestry, and to involve local communities, local organisations, NGOs, and other institutes in community forest
management.
5.6.2. Progress with Implementation
