20 The majority of the land allocated under social forestry programmes has been degraded forest. For example, in Viet Nam,
75 percent of the forestland allocated to local people under the Community Forestry Management Pilot Programme was bare land or poor-quality forest RECOFTC, 2010. Most community forests are designated for the purpose of production
and the protection of soils and water resources. The transfer of management and use rights in conservation forests and protected areas has been less common, even when permitted under national law. Recently, Cambodia began to develop
mechanisms to engage local people in the management of protected forest areas RGC, 2010; Oberndorf, 2010. Indonesia and Viet Nam are exploring co-management or collaborative options to improve the management of protected forests
under pressure from human activity Mulyana et al., 2010; Swan, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2012.
2.5 Forest tenure
The specific bundles of rights, duties and responsibilities Box 6 that are transferred and the length of tenure vary with the different models Table 9. The length of tenure ranges from 15 years in Cambodia to 50 years in Viet Nam and as much as
70 years in Lao PDR under specific circumstances.
Box 6: Land and forest tenure and bundles of rights
Tenure arrangements consist of a package or “bundle” of assigned rights, responsibilities and benefits. In many cases, the details of the tenure rights transferred to local people depends upon the type of land or forest and the model of
social or community forestry being applied. Different types of rights relating to forest land include:
• access rights – right to enter an area of forest;
• use or withdrawal rights – to use timber and non-timber forest products;
• management rights – to make decisions about forest use patterns and improvements;
• exclusion rights – right to decide who can and cannot use the forest resources;
• alienation rights – rights to lease, sell, exchange, transfer, inherit, mortgage or use the land as financial collateral;
• carbon rights – a newly emerged right, likened to property and intellectual property rights, to “commoditize”
carbon and allow it to be traded in voluntary and regulatory markets. ASEAN governments have yet to develop legislation on carbon rights, but this will presumably be based upon established systems of forest ownership and
use rights Suzuki, 2011; Felicani-Robles, 2012.
Tenure agreements are generally renewable if conditions have been met, although tenure rights can be withdrawn by the government in the public interest; guidelines governing compensation are often unclear or insufficient. In Malaysia, social
forestry does not include transfer of tenure rights but instead focuses on the development of basic village infrastructure and alternative livelihood projects on state forestland. In almost all cases, rights include both access and management rights.
In the Philippines, the State retains significant control over community-based forest management through regulations on resource use; community-based forest management is vulnerable to changes in government policies, although indigenous
communities are granted substantially more autonomy through ancestral domain titles than in most other countries.
In the majority of cases, rights cannot be alienated. The exceptions are Myanmar, where rights can be inherited, and Viet Nam, where they can be inherited, rented, transferred and mortgaged. Exclusion rights are granted under many social
forestry models but appear very difficult to enforce in practice. Experiences from Oddar Meanchey Province in Cambodia and some community forests in Myanmar are demonstrating that although forest communities hold exclusion rights in
principle, in practice their ability to exclude other, often more powerful, forest users from their community forests is limited. This weakens their ability to protect the community forest from encroachment by outsiders, prevent deforestation and
degradation and maintain forest carbon stocks Tint et al., 2011; CIFOR, 2013.
Ownership of forest carbon rights has yet to be clarified by ASEAN governments. Ownership of these rights at the community level could be instrumental towards incentivizing carbon sequestration and storage and ensuring the fair distribution of
potential future benefits from carbon financing mechanisms. Ideally, carbon rights should be closely associated with forest use rights to incentivize activities to increase carbon stocks. If the ownership of carbon rights is unclear or vested in state
or private entities, the incentives for communities to invest in forest protection and forgo immediate benefits from forest resources will be weakened.
Secure tenure also appears important for adaptation because local people are unlikely to invest in adaptation responses on their lands such as reforestation, improved infrastructure, water harvesting, irrigation systems or climate-resilient crops
unless their land tenure status is secure Barnett, 2013.
21
Table 9: Overview of legal rights and forest tenure arrangements in Southeast Asia
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR Sabah,
Malaysia Myanmar
Philippines
Thailand
Viet Nam
Country Bundle of rights
Use Social forestry
model Forest type
Access Management
Community-based forest management
Community protected area
Community-based forest HKm
Village forest hutan desa
Village forest Social forestry projects
Community forestry Community-based
forest management
Community forestry Community land use
permit Community forestry
management – Land use rights certificate
Community forestry management – Forest
protection contract Production forest
MAFF Protected forest MOE
Protection and production
Protection and production
Any state forest Forest management
units in commercial reserve
All state forest All state forest
State forest land except protected areas
State forest land except protected areas
Production and non- critical protection
Protection
Exclusion Alienation
Length of tenure
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Timber and non-timber forest products NTFPs for domestic use
Permits and royalties for commercial use NTFPs from sustainable use zone Commercial use of
timber prohibited Protection forest – NTFPs
Production forest – timber and NTFPs Protection forest – NTFPs
Production forest – timber and NTFPs Collection and sale of some NTFPs
Small amounts of timber for domestic use in production forest
Alternative livelihoods projects and development of basic infrastructure
Collection and sale of forest products for domestic use without taxes
Limited use rights in protected areas and watershed reserves
Collection of dead wood and NFTPs Felling timber is prohibited in natural forests
Collection of dead wood and NFTPs Felling timber is prohibited in natural forests
Plantation forest – all products can be sold without restrictions
Dry fuel wood and some NTFPs May be limited, depending on protection function
Yes Yes
Participate in management
board Yes
Yes Local communi-
ties consulted Yes
Yes
Yes Co-manage-
ment Yes
Unclear Yes
No Yes
unclear No
unclear Yes, but in
practice it is weak
Yes
Unclear Yes
Yes Yes
No No
No No
No No
Can be inherited Community-based
forest management agreements are non-
transferable Certificate of
Stewardship Contract is transferable
No No
Rent, transfer, mortgage and inherit
Not permitted for communities
15 years – renewable State can reclaim
15 years 35 years and can be
extended, based on evaluation
35 years and can be extended, based on
evaluation Degraded forest 30–40
years Barren forest 40–60 years
Remote areas 40–70 years No tenure
30 years – renewable 25 years – renewable
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
retains significant authority
Unclear Renewable
Duration set by government committee
50 years 1-year contracts –
extendable up to 5 years
22
23
As previously noted Southeast Asia is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions and is likely to suffer more from climate change than other parts of the world ADB, 2009. Many human settlements are situated along coastlines, riverbanks and
river deltas and are exposed to the impacts of rising sea levels and more severe storms. The impacts of climate change will have far-reaching social and economic consequences, affecting agriculture, food security, water availability, economic
development, health and security and are likely to hinder efforts towards poverty reduction and widen economic disparities between and within nations.
3.1 Potential impacts of climate change