10 REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR CF
3. Terminology
Many terms are used to describe modalities involving the engagement of communities generally in some form of partnership with government in the
management of forests. Some examples include: Community Forestry in Cambodia, Nepal and Vietnam; Village Forestry and Joint Forest Management JFM in Lao PDR;
JFM in India; Social Forestry and Community Forestry in Indonesia; Community Based Forest Management CBFM and Ancestral Domain Management Program ADMP
in the Philippines. Each of these terms has its own particular local connotation, and considerable differences occur in the characteristics of each, particularly in terms of
the level of authority and responsibility of the various partners to take management decisions.
It is not proposed to enter into a semantic debate on the precise definition of one or another term, but rather to use the term “community forestry” in a generic sense to
denote the many types of modality where local communities have a major involvement in forest management decision making. This includes all of the terms in the previous
list.
In this paper regulatory frameworks are considered to include law plus subordinate instruments, referred to variously as decrees, sub-decrees, orders,
policies, operational guidelines, etc.
4. Global Trends in Forest Management
Community forestry needs to fit within and respond to a dynamic internal and external environment. Included among the changes which need to be considered are:
• globalization, and the way that this universal phenomenon affects forest
management; •
changing institutional environment such as moves towards decentralization and devolution;
• an emphasis on addressing poverty through community forestry;
• approaches to forest management to mitigate the adverse effects of climate
change through carbon sequestration; •
rapidly changing forest cover in many countries—many countries now have greatly reduced areas of forest compared with 10-20 years ago.
Estimates by Bull and White 2002 indicate that more than 11 of the world’s forests are managed or owned by communities and in developing countries the figure
is 25. It is estimated that this may reach 45 by 2015. Pretty and Frank 2000 estimated that from 1990-2000 over 320,000 community groups with over 10 million
people formed natural resource management groups for the management of watersheds, forests, micro-finance and pest management. Clearly, community
involvement in the management of natural resources has become a global phenomenon. Many countries, particularly those that have only recently embraced
community forestry, are in the process of revising their regulatory frameworks to accommodate this radical change in approach to managing their forests.
Gilmour, O’Brien Nurse
11 Box 4 gives a summary of the status of community forestry initiatives in several
regions and countries outside Asia.
Box 4. Status of community forestry initiatives outside Asia extracted from Gilmour et al. 2004
Africa Alden Wily 2002 Results of a community-based wildlife program in Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE
provided major incentives for community management in other countries. Many countries have new legislation allowing community management. An upcoming law in
Tanzania has led to over 500 Village Forest Reserves and 1,000 clan-owned forests since 1996. Innovative community forestry initiatives exist in Ethiopia, Mozambique,
The Gambia, South Africa and several other African countries
. Europe Jeanrenaud 2001
Strong public concerns about the environment led to moves from industrial management of public forests to multi-purpose management with increasingly
participatory decision-making. In addition, there are 11million forest-owning families, many belonging to ‘community organizations’ that provide information and marketing
services and represent them on policy matters. Forest Commission and Local Councils support a network of 12 community forests across England.
Canada Haley 2001; Poffenberger and Selin 1998 There has been a push from some communities to manage local forests – mainly
because of vast loss of biological and timber resources. The Model Forests Program in the early 1990s gave impetus to community forestry in some areas. In British Colombia
a new Act will allow communities to manage their local forests in partnerships with government. Requests were received from 88 communities for CF licenses under the
BC Community Forest Management Pilot Project.
United States of America Kusel and Adler 2001; Poffenberger and Selin 1998 There has been considerable growth in community-based approaches to
management of forests, lakes, watersheds and pollution. The main drivers have been environmental movements and frustration by communities over their “lack of voice” in
local forest management issues.
Mexico Klooster and Ambinakudige 2005 Mexico is in the vanguard of the community forestry movement on several fronts.
Community ownership of forests is much more extensive than almost anywhere else in the world. Tenure over forested land includes the right to harvest and sell trees. The
state role is merely regulatory and communities exercise the central role in forest management. Mexican community forestry relies on local governance structures that
are reasonably representative, democratic and autonomous. These conditions have resulted in between 533 and 740 community managed forest enterprises that compete
successfully in national and international markets for timber and value added wood products. Mexican communities keep all proceeds from commercial harvests of timber
and other valuable forest products.
12 REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS FOR CF
5. Evolution of Community Forestry Policy Across Parts of the Asia Region
Kategori