THINKING beyond the canopy

Amy Duchelle, Peter Cronkleton, Marina Londres

FSC Side Event, Rio+20, 16th June 2012

Smallholder and community forest management in

the tropics: what we know and where we are going

THINKING beyond the canopy

Why the community-based forest management model?

Model was a reaction to:

- Government-led control over forest resources (with focus on

industrial and commercial interests) – with degraded forests

delegated to communities – and resulting struggles of forest

peoples around the world to defend their forests and forest

resources (Menzies 2007)

- Mainstreaming of the idea of forest peoples as “stewards of

biodiversity” and validation of their local environmental

knowledge and collective institutions for resource management (Ostrom 1990, 1999; Berkes et al. 2000; Colchester 2008)

Community-based forestry emerged in the 1970-1990s with goals of

ecologically sustainable management, socioeconomic benefits, local

access to resources (Charnley & Poe 2007)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Who are the smallholders & communities managing forests and forest resources?

NTFP collectors

Agroforesters

Fishermen

Charcoal producers Timber harvesters

Farmers Among many others…

THINKING beyond the canopy

Recent justifications for promotion of smallholder and community forestry

• Devolution of forestlands (back) to

communities: now own or manage ¼

of world‟s tropical forests (White &

Martin 2002; Sunderlin et al. 2008)

• Evidence of forest conservation in

community-managed forests (Bray et

al. 2008; Nepstad et al. 2006; Porter-Bolland

et al. 2012)

• Tropical forests contribute ~20% of

the income of the rural poor (Angelsen

et al. forthcoming)

• Successful links to external

governance systems and markets

(certified CFEs) (Wiersum et al. 2011)

THINKING beyond the canopy

What does the community forestry model look like in policy?

• Community Forest Enterprises in Mexico (1917 onwards)

• Joint Forest Management in India (1988)

• Extractive Reserves (and other sustainable use protected areas)

in Brazil (1989)

• Community Forest User Groups in Nepal (1993)

• Community forest concessions in Petén, Guatemala (1994)

• Social Forestry systems in Indonesia (1999)

All of these models represent variations on co-management

of forests by local people and the state, with widely differing

degrees of actual management rights for smallholders and

communities.

THINKING beyond the canopy

Case #1: Brazil nut in southwestern Amazon

Acre, Brazil

Pando, Bolivia Madre de Dios, Peru

• Brazil nut trees (Bertholletia excelsa) are “forest giants” in mature, upland

forests of the southwestern Amazon

• Fruits collected ground during the rainy season (January – March)

• Provide livelihood base for thousands of rural producers in the region (Duchelle et al. 2011)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Brazil nut policy vs. reality in Bolivia

Cronkleton et al. 2010

• Bolivian technical norms for Brazil nut management (2005) require

management plans and controversial “no-take zones” that have little to

do with Brazil nut ecology or local practices (Guariguata et al. 2008)

• Economic benefits of organic and Fair Trade certification; FSC

certification has not gotten off the ground (Duchelle et al. forthcoming)

• 1996 Forestry Law and Agrarian

Reform Law (=> devolution of

rights from private estates to local

communities)

• 500 ha decree, which undercut

the traditional tree tenure system

and resulted in local conflicts

(Cronkleton et al. 2010), including

reported Brazil nut thefts by

members of the same community (Duchelle et al. 2011)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Case #2: Community forestry concessions in Petén, Guatemala

• 12 community concessions and 2

industrial concessions in Multiple-Use

Zone of Guatemala‟s Maya Biosphere

Reserve (created in 1990;

concessions granted 1994-2000)

• Concessions contingent on

community organization, NGO

accompaniment, and 3rd party

certification within 3 years

• Diversity in community concessions

(residents with forest-based history

vs. recent immigrants, non-residents)

• FSC cert. of timber in all concessions

and xate palm (Chamaedorea spp) in

several as of 2008

Radachowsky et al. 2012

M. Guariguata

THINKING beyond the canopy

Outcomes in the Petén (governance, ecological, socio-economic)

Radachowsky et al. 2012

Industrial concessions (2)

• Strong governance reflecting well-developed model of private logging

concessions; minimal deforestation and fire; financial profitability from timber

Non-resident community concessions (6)

• Strong governance - deliberately and voluntarily chose to work together;

minimal deforestation and fire, income from timber

Resident community concessions with forest-based histories (2)

• Weak governance (poor financial management, internal conflicts, heavy

external support); minimal deforestation and fire, income from timber and xate

Resident community concessions comprised of recent immigrants (4)

• Weak governance (low initial buy-in for forest management; 2/4 lost

contracts & other 2 likely to fail, heavy internal conflicts); extremely high

deforestation - cattle ranches; income from agriculture, cattle, timber

THINKING beyond the canopy

Cases illustrate key challenges

• Lack of genuine devolution to smallholders and communities

and recognition of customary rights (Larson et al. 2010)

• Discrepancies between legality and smallholders‟ reality in

forest management and land use (Cronkleton et al. 2010;

Radachowsky et al. 2012)

• Difficulties in linking communities to markets (Schmink 2004,

Scherr et al. 2005); heavy subsidies associated with community

forest management (Humphries et al. 2012), „myth of self-financing‟ (Radachowsky et al. 2012)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Where do we need to go?

Acknowledge the achievements (incl. FSC support for

smallholders)

Harmonize forestry policies with local realities

- recognize local management systems and genuinely devolve

management authority to local people

- reduce forest management bureaucracy (don‟t expect communities to

act like companies)

- minimize market externalities to increase return to local producers

- improve dialogue between external actors and local resource users

Rethink the model for smallholders and communities on

the forest-farm interface

- challenge our assumptions (types of forests and products used,

local engagement in markets, decision making)