The Role of Community Forest Enterprises in Poverty Reduction and Conservation: Discourses,...

Open UniversityMSc (Development Management) Programme

TU874 Final Report

The Role of Community Forest Enterprises in Poverty Reduction and Conservation: Discourses, Contradictions and Ethics

Dominic Mark Malone Elson

X5114414

April 2009

Executive Summary

This project aims to discuss the ways in which community forest enterprises may come to contribute to overcoming rural poverty whilst managing forests in a sustainable manner. It reviews the background to the changing attitudes towards the relationship between poor people and forests and presents a methodology for researching current thinking, with an evaluation of the research process actually carried out. The report gathers qualitative evidence from a number of forest professionals in order to review the discourses, theories and dispositions that inform policy and program design in relation to forests, particularly community forest enterprises. The findings are analysed through the conceptual lens of ‘community’, ‘enterprise’ and ‘conservation’.

The paper argues that conservation and development goals are rarely reconciled in either theory or practice, partly because of the contradictions inherent in conceptions of the composition and capabilities of communities, and also because of the ambivalence of some organisations towards commercialising forest production. The key recommendations are that NGOs and policy makers should: critically examine institutional discourses, separate business goals from social goals, assist conservation organisations in finding local partners and, finally, work with all actors to clarify the ethical approach to forest communities. The report concludes that conservation, enterprise and pro-poor development are not mutually exclusive, but are part of a sequence of overlapping steps whereby the solution to seemingly disparate goals in the preservation of global public goods actually lies in embracing the complexity of the social, institutional and ecological landscape.

D M M Elson X5114414 TU874 Final Project

Page 2

Contents

1. Acknowledgements 4

2. Aims and Objectives 5

3. Introduction and background 6

3.1 Relevance to Development Management 7

3.2 Structure of report 8

4. The Problem 9

4.1 Literature Review 9

4.2 Defining the problem 12

5. Methodology 14

5.1 Shaping the questions 14

5.2 Tools 15

5.3 Outputs 15

5.4 Case Studies 15

5.5 Evaluation of research 15

6. Analysis 17

6.1 Community 17

6.2 Enterprise 18

6.3 Conservation 20

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 23

8. References 26

APPENDIX A 28


Page 3

1. Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the many forestry experts from around the world who agreed to participate in the research for this report, including John Palmer, Iola Leal Riesco, Kerstin Canby, Moray McLeish, Augusta Molnar, Samuel Nnah Ndobe, Silverius Unggal, Rakhmat Hidayat, Suardi Sunusi, Agus Djailani, Lars-Gunnar Blomkwist, Hugh Speechly, Adrian Wells and the many other contributors who asked to remain anonymous. Additional support and advice was given by Simon Counsell, Duncan Macqueen and Matthias Rhein, and most crucially by the OU tutor Richard Pinder.

All respondents were acting in a personal capacity and their views do not necessarily represent the policy of their organisations, except where indicated. Any errors of interpretation, transcription or attribution are the fault of the author alone.


Page 4

2. Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of the project is to examine the literature, institutional discourses and prevailing expert opinion regarding community forest enterprises (CFEs) in tropical countries, in order to ascertain how they may contribute to overcoming rural poverty whilst managing forests in a sustainable manner.

a) Personal and Learning outcomes

Successfully completing the project will develop skills of:

‣ Designing and undertaking a structured investigation

‣ Designing and undertaking interview-based research

‣ Critically investigating case studies

‣ Writing concise and focused reports

b) Outcomes for stakeholder organisations

The successful completion of the project will provide stakeholder organisations with a theoretical framework that can be used to plan, analyse and evaluate projects aimed at supporting CFEs. This outcome will be achieved through:

‣ The opportunity for organisations to reflect on their own discourses and approaches during the investigation process

‣ Receiving a copy of the project report

‣ Cross-sectoral and inter-organisational discussions and debate, e.g. through networks such as Forest Connect1

c) Outcomes for development management

The successful completion of the project will lead to:

‣ A better understanding of the relationship between the institutional discourses that inform CFE project design, and the outcomes of those projects.

‣ A theoretical framework for analysing CFE projects in multi-stakeholder environments

‣ Some broad ethical principles that may be applied to the design of conservation projects


Page 5

1 Set up by International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

3. Introduction and background

‘FOR rent: 830,000 hectares of pristine tropical rainforest. Rich in wildlife, including forest elephants and gorillas. Provides a regionally important African green corridor. Price: $1.6m a year. Conservationist tenant preferred, but extractive forestry also considered. Please apply to the Cameroonian minister of forestry.’ This mock advertisement was how an article in The Economist (2008) illustrated the increasing trend for forests to be presented as global public goods, that should be able to attract global finance. There were no takers for this parcel of land as the price was deemed too high, even by wealthy conservation organisations, though an alternative suggestion was made that that the land be given over to community management for sustainable hunting and forestry. Sadly, this plan would yield little for the Cameroonian treasury, and there were concerns that road-building would bring development to the area, presenting additional risks to the ecosystem. The Economist article concluded that ‘armchair conservationists’ need to step up and take advantage of the opportunity to ‘outbid the foresters’. No mention was made of the people actually living in the putative reserve, or how they may perceive development differently from the armchair conservationists, or armchair economists for that matter.

Tropical forests are increasingly becoming the focus of global efforts to tackle climate change, preserve biodiversity and combat poverty. A number of factors have contributed to forestry’s place in the spotlight. Deforestation over the past thirty years has led to a depletion of forest landscapes, the degradation of mosaic lands on the fringes of forests and the conversion of millions of hectares into agriculture or pasture land. Approximately 800 million of the world’s poorest people live in and around forests, and are often the scapegoats for forest degradation (Chomitz, 2007). The huge financial returns that can be made from exploiting high value timber, or from conversion to crops such as oil palm has fuelled corruption and conflict in states with poor governance. Many international conservation organisations have taken steps to protect areas of forest through purchasing or leasing it from governments, as a means to keep the loggers out and protect the biodiversity. Most recently, tropical forests have been seen as a solution to climate change, with their ability to lock up carbon far into the future. All these debates have usually taken place far from the forest themselves, and without the participation of the people who rely on them for their livelihoods.

In recent years, community forestry has been proposed as a development policy approach that may hold many of the answers to the challenges and threats faced by tropical forests. Of course forest management by communities is nothing new, it has been taking place for as long as humans have inhabited forests; in Europe it is the most common form of tenure. However, its promotion by development agencies in developing countries is relatively recent, and as a policy process it has mixed results, with some governments resistant to the notion of surrendering control of such a valuable resource. From a normative development management perspective, community forestry has some clear attractions: it implies local participation, decentralisation and equity (Brown et al, 2002). It also claims some logical rationale as those closest to the forest are more likely to have cultural and practical knowledge of the local landscape, and have a vested interest in the long-term conservation of its ecological services and income-generating features (ibid.).


Page 6

However, the beneficent role of communities in forest management is not uncontested. Whilst it is almost an article of faith amongst NGOs that communities are inherently ‘good’ for the forest, this stance is coming under pressure. International conservation NGOs (ICNGOs) have a tendency (though not always explicit) to conceptualise humans as an invasive species in the forest, and a driver of forest degradation (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006). Meanwhile the timber industry, which has sunk capital into a vertically integrated industrial model of forestry, claims that only they have the economies of scale to manage forests sustainably (Karsenty et al, 2008). As carbon financing mechanisms attract more investment to the sector, and attempts to reduce illegal logging gain more traction, forest communities increasingly find themselves in the centre of a passionate and occasionally disorderly debate that encompasses issues far beyond their own area of interest.

3.1 Relevance to Development Management

The topic of community forestry thus touches upon a number of key development management themes:

Governance

Brown et al (2002) argue that as forestry links global values to national and local rights and patterns of resource use, governance reform is the first step in tackling the sector effectively. Tenure is often contested, some open access regimes lead to over-extraction that requires good public management, and high timber values can encourage rent capture and corruption. Community Forest Enterprises (CFEs) are often placed at a disadvantage by regulations that are ostensibly designed to control illegal logging but in reality favour large companies that are politically well-connected. Governance reform that is influenced by ICNGOs may lead to tenure reform that devolves some autonomy back to the community but with restrictions on permitted economic activity, limiting the scope of the CFE to build a viable business and address local poverty.

Institutional Development

The process of enabling CFEs, either through deliberate intervention or through facilitating development, requires an understanding of the institutional landscape. How communities define institutions may be at odds with how intervening agencies view them, and this may lead to institutional contradictions (Engberg-Pedersen, 1997). Unlocking indigenous knowledge may be achieved though participatory approaches, but interpreting local decision-making could reveal power relations that are inimical to the rights of the most marginalised in the community. Developing a culture of management and leadership within the CFE, and its relationship with other institutions such as the market, may disrupt the institutional status quo.

Sustainability

To the extent that CFEs are seen as the agents of sustainable development, different meanings of sustainability may be at work: e.g. economic sustainability of the enterprise, sustainability of the local forest ecosystem in the face of managed extraction, and sustainability of any improvements in human well-being. Concepts of sustainability are contested by those that argue that we have already reached what Korten calls ‘the ecological frontier’ (1995, p.168), and that encouraging CFEs to increase their economic output may hasten the ‘collective


Page 7

march toward ultimate ecological disaster’ (ibid.), which in turn will actually increase poverty.

The ethics and philosophy of development

Any discussion of CFEs often entails reflection on how development management theories are implemented in practice. Notions of empowerment and solidarity can form a discourse of community forestry as redolent of the mythic power of the collective: Overcoming adversity armed with its inherent values of equity and ecological sensitivity. However, this conceals sharply different thinking regarding the objectives of development, the definition of poverty and the ethics of encouraging remote indigenous tribes to abandon traditional subsistence lifestyles. As forests are increasingly seen as global public goods, it follows that ‘western’ concepts of environmental ethics and inter-generational equity may influence development projects. As Slim (1997) argued, development organisations may stand on the deontological side of the debate, emphasising the interaction of local peoples’ rights and duties in respect of the forest. Other institutions, (such as ICNGOs) may take a more teleological approach, arguing that forestry management should be aimed at conservation, and not extraction in the name of economic development. At a further extreme, deep ecologists may argue that the rights of the ‘biotic community’ (Leopold, 1999) trump those of the local human population, and that all development is thus immoral.

3.2 Structure of report

This report consists first of a literature review, examining the history of community forestry in the context of efforts to conserve forests and overcome poverty, in order to define the problem at hand. A research methodology is presented that was used to investigate current discourses and insights from a range of professionals working in the sector, followed by an analyses of some of the contradictions and misunderstandings that may be preventing community forestry from becoming more successful. Lastly, recommendations are made as to how some of these contradictions may be overcome, and how the competing interests in the forest may collaborate to attain better outcomes for both the environment and the people.


Page 8

4. The Problem

4.1 Literature Review

To set community forestry in some historical context, Arnold (2001) records that the development management approach to forestry has changed according to prevailing discourses, which over time have shifted focus from the forestry industry, to rural development and more recently to biodiversity. In the first stage, forest industrialisation in the 1960s was designed to accelerate economic growth and promote urbanisation. The plan was that growth would 'trickle down' to the poorest in rural areas. However, evidence shows that this has failed to generate skilled jobs or alleviate rural poverty (Mayers, 2006). The next phase was the Rural Livelihoods approach, reflecting the turn back to agriculture and away from urban industrialisation as the means to improve rural economies. The key insight was that forests are used by poor people to top up agricultural and subsistence incomes, and to fall back on in hard times. Arnold believes this approach seems to trap poor people in the forest, producing low-input / low return outputs which as ‘inferior goods’ will be displaced over time (fibre baskets, fuel-wood etc.). However, Arnold overlooks certain higher value non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as resins, oil nuts and pharmaceutical ingredients.

The most recent phase is driven by concerns about deforestation and biodiversity loss. Arnold replays the common argument that forest dwellers over-exploit the forest, leading to its degradation, and that they are driven to this action by poverty. (The 'poverty-causes-deforestation' argument) Ironically, this in turn undermines their own livelihoods (effectively eroding their only asset base), leading to further forest destruction, creating a vicious circle. The solution appears to be better livelihood options, which means relocating the people outside the forest, in so-called 'buffer zones', as compensation for the loss of access to the forest. Over time, therefore, it seems that forest communities have been seen first as objects of development, then as victims of development and most recently as obstacles to conservation. The approaches taken by development managers designing projects in forestry may still retain vestiges of these previous phases, none of which could be said to be particularly empowering for the forest-dwellers.

The notion that forest destruction is an example of humans ‘fouling their own nest’ is perhaps best understood in the context of property rights and decision making. Irimie and Essmann (2008) examine property rights over natural resources using the theoretical framework of New Institutional Economics (NIE). They suggest that property rights theory is good for understanding how regimes evolve in relation to natural resources, but is less useful in predicting what outcomes may be expected for natural resources given certain changes in rights and rules. To understand these factors, one has to appreciate the wider context of political, social and economic changes that are taking place around the individual. Schluter (2006) questions whether informal foresters are capable of behaving rationally, partly because forestry is so complex, markets so opaque and regulations so unpredictable. He concludes that where forestry is just one part of a diverse livelihood, less time will be invested in becoming more competitive, or to become more 'rational' in the neo-classical sense. Why invest time in becoming more 'efficient' when it ‘...does not matter. Instead, goals other than economic goals will come to the fore' (p1096).

Two points of interest arise out of the discussion on property rights and rationality. Firstly, Hardin’s theory about the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (1999) suggests that the absence of property rights


Page 9

creates an open-access resource, compelling users to over-use the resource even as it leads to the resource’s degradation (this correlates with the ‘poverty-causes-deforestation’ argument). Conversely, when the poor obtain assets (for instance through tenure reform) they are encouraged to invest labour and capital into building a more sustainable livelihood, partly through leveraging the asset as collateral for loans (De Soto, 2000). However Irimie and Essmann (2008) suggest that property rights are not as relevant as the institutional context in which such rights are situated. They also point out that if environmental awareness correlates to socio-economic development, this will influence the actor's behaviour in relation to forests. However this is not a strictly positive correlation, Kuznet’s curve demonstrates that environmental destruction increases with economic progress until basic needs are met, at which point environmental awareness leads to a change in behaviour, and more careful treatment of the environment (Pirard and Karsenty, 2008).

However, our unit of analysis for this project is not only the individual, it is the forest ‘community’, a word described by Sihlonganyane (2001) as a ‘motherhood' word, used in a ritualistic or rhetorical manner, but with increasingly vague meaning. Yet in much of the grey materials produced by NGOs and donors, ‘communities’, indigenous or otherwise, are apparently the answer to many of the planet’s woes. For instance, the UK government’s recently published Eliasch Review (2008) uses the terms 'indigenous communities', 'local communities' and 'smallholders' interchangeably without attempting to define these groups. Meanwhile, the report argues that 'migrants' are both a consequence and a driver of deforestation. It is not clear how long one needs to live near a forest before one is re-classified as a 'community' member rather than a mere 'migrant'. Interestingly, there is no mention of the needs of migrant communities, which is a common inconsistency in the literature on the rights of rural communities. This is echoed by Wells et al (2006), who report that NGOs have developed a hierarchy of rights claimants, most of which are seen through the lens of the environment rather than human rights (or wider development discourse). Thus we have the 'deserving poor' such as hunter-gatherers in culturally interesting tribal groups who are deemed to be 'good' for forest resources. On the other hand there is the 'undeserving poor', for example landless peasants, shifting cultivators and migrants, who are see as destructive. How development managers conceptualise different types of community may have a profound influence on project design.

Even if the problems of definition can be overcome, communities also present challenges in terms of institutional development. Brown et al (2002) write approvingly of a forest user group concept (FUG) in Nepal that is on a separate legal basis from the village leadership, seeing this as a strength as it allowed the FUG to include actual users of the forest, who tend to be the poorest, rather than village elites (who may have a different agenda). However Engberg-Pedersen (1997) argues that as well as having practical use, village institutions could be said to have a symbolic role that may offer some stability in times of uncertainty, warning that development projects that include radical changes to institutions, or the introduction of parallel institutions may lead to instability and resistance. Macqueen (2007) suggests that: 'Communities are less prone to 'paralysis by committee' or infighting than is generally perceived' (p.2). The problem with this statement is that it uses a generalisation to overcome a generalisation. Are communities inherently inclined to consensus? And if so, is it not likely that this consensus conceals power relations at work?

A further influence on development project design is the occasionally competing discourses of poverty and the environment. Vermeulen and Sheil (2007) warn that projects must take into account the realities of poor people's lives rather than simply be an imposition of northern values. They accuse a 'small group of powerful, external voices' (p.434) of imposing conservation values


Page 10

and expertise on local communities. It seems that limiting the livelihood options available to forest communities in the name of conservation has not been successful in either protecting environmental services or tackling poverty (Scherr et al, 2003). In the spirit of Gifford Pinchot’s statement that the ‘great fact about conservation is that it stands for development’ (1999), bold claims have been made about how sustainable forest management (SFM) may square this circle by providing sustainable livelihoods for communities. Though it is certainly a pervasive discourse (Arts and Buzier, 2008), less than 5% of tropical forests are currently subject to SFM (Mayers, 2006). Some believe that communities are inherently incapable of meeting the criteria for SFM, and that large industrial concessions are the only answer (Karsenty et al, 2008), which seems to be a return to the industrial development model outline above. On the other hand, indigenous people’s advocacy groups argue that SFM is possible only when management is devolved to communities (Griffiths, 2008).

A more extreme manifestation of the imposition of northern values on tropical forestry is revealed in the Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau report (2006) that analyses the displacement of forest dwellers in the name of conservation. They point out that the 'conflict between biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction is neither new nor easy to solve' (p.1809). For a long time it has been acknowledged that the costs of conservation are borne locally, whilst the benefits accrue far from the park, usually in northern countries. ICNGOs such as Conservation International and Birdlife International are well funded and have significant political clout, whilst NGOs standing up for forest peoples (such as The Forest Peoples Programme) are less visible. Geisler estimates that globally 'at least 8.5 million people have been displaced by conservation' (2003, p.71). There seems to be little practical justification for the displacements, as the policy usually fails to protect biodiversity, following the law of unintended consequences. According to Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau (2006), the people drift back to the forest, and may actually increase their hunting because they now have better access to markets (their displacement may have introduced them to the cash economy) and because they are so alienated from conservation projects. The impact on settlements around the parks is negative, with increased degradation, soil erosion and unsustainable land use, which in turn feeds into increased incursion into the park.

These discourses are developing in the context of increasing alarm about the state of tropical forests, and NGOs have developed a ‘crisis narrative’ that has shifted over time from biodiversity loss to climate change (Wells et al, 2006), prompting what Mert calls the ‘carbonification’ of environmental discourses (2007. p.11) Some argue that such concerns are essentially unethical as they either recruit poor people to a cause that is not in their interest (Mavhunga, 2007), or they conceptualise the forest as purely of instrumental value, rather than intrinsic value, thus neglecting the rights of the ‘biotic community’ (Leopold, 1999). Whether forest biodiversity conservation is demanded in the name of use values, option values or intrinsic values, the rights of poor forest-dwelling communities become compromised by the larger forces and interests at work. Sunderlin et al (2005) point out that conservation often presupposes ‘the right to survival of threatened life forms and habitats and not presume human benefit at all.' (p.1386, emphasis added), which sets up people in opposition to the ecosystem that they inhabit and that provides them with sustenance and livelihoods. As Richard North observed: 'Isn't it true that for most of us, the animals and wildlife of the Third World seem glorious, and their peoples an embarrassment?' (Quoted by Garner, 1999, p.172).

A further theme that can be detected is the paradox of market-based solutions. The market, as an institution, can be discerned in most discussions about forestry. For instance the debate about


Page 11

using forests to mitigate carbon emissions is an attempt to place a price on standing forests that raises their opportunity cost and makes felling uneconomic (Eliasch, 2008). SFM, meanwhile, is presented as a means to attract a price premium in the market but has little to say about pro-poor issues (Mayers, 2006). Communities are encouraged to form enterprises to allow them to participate in the market, but with the proviso that governments provide a safety net in case they fail (Brown et al, 2002). This reflects risk aversion on the part of community advocates, which may over-state the real risk of failure and in the process may create moral hazard. It seems that development managers are also wary of entrepreneurs, preferring 'democratic community forest enterprises’ (Macqueen, 2007), yet in the real world very few successful enterprises are democratic.

A report on CFEs by the International Tropical Timber Organisation defines them as '...forest industries managed by indigenous and other local communities for livelihoods and profit...' (ITTO, 2007, p.14), though goes on to say that they also contribute to the community through, among other things, '...investments in social goods and services’ (ibid., p.14) without defining what these are, how they differ from ordinary taxation, or if they are compatible with ‘livelihoods and profit'. The inclination to ameliorate potential failings of enterprise by enhancing social and environmental goals (e.g. Thomas et al, 2003) may be understood as ambivalence to market-based solutions. This is ironic as McCarthy (2004) argues that community forestry is inherently neo-liberal. In devolving state control of the resource to local actors, it tacitly subscribes to the view that freedom starts with the roll-back of the state. Although neoliberals invoke 'civil society' and advocates of CFEs obviously refer to 'communities', they are in fact similar abstractions that are interchangeable, as they have similar traits assigned to them. They do 'similar kinds of work within each discourse' (ibid., p.998). In each case, an appearance (or pretence) of homogeneity within the group serves to highlight differences with those outside the group. This veneer of solidarity and cohesion may conceal inequalities, injustices and power struggles within the group. It suits this analysis for communities to be coherent actors, as they can thus be assigned the same characteristics as rational individuals, seeking to maximise their utility in the market. These contradictions may point towards a third way for community enterprises, that combine sustainable development with peaceful low risk businesses, market-focused yet democratic. On the other hand, they may expose why so few projects designed to assist community forest enterprises actually succeed.

4.2 Defining the problem

Based on the aims of the project, and the issues raised by the literature review, the problem can be defined as:

In what ways might community forest enterprises come to contribute to overcoming rural poverty whilst managing forests in a sustainable manner?

On the face of it, this definition appears to be a straightforward compound objective: how can a development project achieve both ‘A’ and ‘B’? However, in investigating this problem it is anticipated that the goals may be in tension, perhaps even mutually exclusive in the eyes of some practitioners. For instance, the literature review suggests that many projects are initiated by conservation NGOs that arguably impose external (western) values on local communities who may not share those values, and in setting constraints on forest usage (e.g. by limiting timber usage), the project fails to provide for peoples' livelihoods. Alternatively, NGOs (or governments)


Page 12

set up a community business, but impose social goals upon it in the belief that a 'profit-making' enterprise may be somehow unethical or divisive. In the process they confuse the distinction between enterprise and welfare. So different contradictions are at work here, as depicted in figure 1 below. The contradiction between profit and environment is a commonplace, but the contradiction between business / welfare or environment / livelihoods is less well appreciated or understood.

Business goals(profit)

Social goals(welfare)

Environmental goals

(conservation)

Livelihood goals(independence)

Figure 1: Contradictions in community forestry objectives

The investigation needs to consider if these contradictions are real, and if they are acknowledged by development managers. Some organisations may implicitly believe that environmental goals are the pre-condition for achieving sustainable livelihoods, whilst others may believe the opposite. Similarly, some NGOs may feel that the raison d’être of community enterprises is to achieve local social goals, whilst others may propose that such an enterprise is not sustainable and thus would require permanent subsidy. There may be a process in which these seemingly disparate goals can be brought together in the recognition that environmental and livelihood goals are interdependent, and that a profit-oriented enterprise may also lead to socially desirable outcomes.


Page 13

5. Methodology

To research the problem accurately the key concepts need to be defined (forest, community, enterprise, poverty, environment, sustainability). However, as all these terms are contested, the definitions chosen will influence the outcome of the investigation. Also, any variables studied need ‘empirical counterparts’ (Stone, quoted in OU, 2006, p.13), yet many of these issues, even if defined, are hard to measure quantitatively. These concepts are largely socially constructed, and thus susceptible to partial interpretation, or meaningless conclusions (Thomas and Chataway, 1998). One possible approach would be to perform a meta-analysis of a large sample of community forest projects, but in such a way as to bypass the discourses and institutional agendas of the powerful actors, perhaps using participatory analysis tools to learn about project outcomes directly from the beneficiaries. However, such an approach was beyond the scope, resources and timescale of this project.

This investigation is trying to get to the heart of the ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ questions that Woodhouse (1998) suggests are more suited to semi-structured interviews than a structured survey. This entails communicating with experts and development managers to answer policy questions, and perhaps unearthing further evidence and contacts. Hanlon (1998) recommends a less formal investigative approach, that starts with the people one already knows to unearth the key issues. These can then be redefined depending upon what the investigation reveals. The objective is to focus the analysis on one or two key points, and then assemble the evidence to tell the story.

To strengthen the body of evidence, some of the issues raised in the literature review and research may be best illustrated with reference to a limited number of case studies. The choice of case studies will depend upon their relevance and the availability of information about them. Thomas (1998) points out that in order to generalize from case studies one needs to distinguish between ‘extreme’ or ‘revelatory’ cases, that may have explanatory potential but are not representative, and cases that are suitable for comparative analysis.

This approach, combining questionnaires, interviews and case studies, seems best suited to the nature of this investigation, and the available resources.

5.1 Shaping the questions

A survey that has the appearance of being more daunting than a twenty minute task (a coffee break exercise, if you will) is unlikely to be even started. It is therefore counter-productive to pose questions that require a disquisition of broad issues, and in any case such responses would make analysis more troublesome.

On the other hand, closed questions, demanding a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, may be swifter to answer but are unlikely to supply the depth of information required. Simply posing various hypotheses and asking: ‘Is this true?’ is unlikely to be a rewarding experience for the informant, or a useful source of information for the report. Therefore, the questions sought to gather thoughts from around the edges of the subject to reveal discourses, ethics and preconceptions:

i) How should we measure the success of a Community Forest Enterprise?


Page 14

ii) Is the risk of failure an acceptable price for Community Forest Enterprises to pay for learning lessons?

iii) In 1901, as the US National Parks were being set up, The American conservationist Gifford Pinchot said the ‘...great fact about conservation is that it stands for development.’ In your experience, is this true for forest conservation?

iv) Are entrepreneurs born or made?

v) Which ‘community’ would you consider yourself a member of, and how does that community make decisions?

5.2 Tools

The tools for the research process consisted of:

‣ Pre-approach e-mail to obtain the informant’s consent

‣ Questionnaire, with guidance notes, in English (see APPENDIX A)

‣ Questionnaire, with guidance notes, in Indonesian

‣ Database tool for monitoring progress and chasing up non-respondents and recording

responses

5.3 Outputs

The pre-approach e-mail was sent to 35 contacts working in INGOs, southern NGOs, CFEs, donors and government. 27 people (77%) agreed to participate, and of these 20 returned the questionnaire (74%) and a further 4 were interviewed. This is a total response rate of 89%. No one refused to participate, and those that were subsequently unable to do so gave plausible excuses.

It is hard to place the informants into hard and fast categories, but broadly speaking 6 work for southern NGOs and community groups, 12 are from international NGOs and 6 are from governments and/or donors. 9 respondents are from southern countries (mainly Indonesia) and 15 are from Europe and USA.

5.4 Case Studies

The case studies were chosen on the basis of their suitability in illustrating themes arising from the research. Rather than introducing secondary sources, each example has been visited by the author in the past six months, and followed up recently with further communication. In some instances additional sources have been used to triangulate the data and ensure a more rounded description.

5.5 Evaluation of research

The respondents are a fair cross section of those invited to respond, with almost all the main constituencies represented. However the initial target list of informants was limited to existing contacts, and inevitably some groups fell outside this definition, including the more dogmatic international conservation NGOs (though one ICNGO did respond).


Page 15

The high response rate from those who were sent the questionnaire (74%) reduces the likelihood of self-selection bias, though inevitably, the responses represent the views of the people who feel most comfortable responding, and have the time to do so. If there is any bias in the data, it is likely to be due to the initial list of contacts, rather than in the nature of the respondents.

An e-mail questionnaire was the best method available given the constraints of time, poor Internet access and unreliable telephone service where this project was conducted. None of the research subjects objected to the format, or raised any concerns about it. It yielded a good response rate in quite a short space of time.

Half the respondents have asked for their comments to be kept anonymous, meaning they can be quoted in the report but not attributed to any person or organisation. This is the trade-off for inviting honest answers to potentially provocative questions, but this seems to be rewarded by greater authenticity.


Page 16

6. Analysis

The responses to the research questions can be organised into a framework of the key concepts of community, enterprise and conservation. ‘Community’ encompasses notions of identity and institutional meanings; ‘enterprise’ leads to a discussion of ways and means to address poverty; and ‘conservation’ demands a definition of the value and meaning of the forest. The output of the research can be analysed using this framework, to establish if any synthesis can be constructed that allows these strands to be woven together in resolving the problem of rural poverty and environmental sustainability.

6.1 Community

The research was interested in finding out if a clear definition of ‘community’ existed, and if perhaps the term is more of an artefact of prevailing development discourse rather than a tangible reality that can be managed. It is striking that those respondents from developing countries were emphatic about their community and its processes, whilst those from developed countries were more equivocal (one donor observed that he did not “see any political or social unit as community”). It is a commonplace that well-educated, well-travelled urban elites are no longer part of a recognisable cohesive community, whereas people from rural areas, especially those in developing countries, are more rooted in traditional structures. However, what is interesting about this response is that the same people who design community forest projects, and whose other answers disclose that they have such lofty ambitions for what forest communities are capable of, are unable to coherently describe their own community. This may lead to assumptions being made about rural communities, based on mythology and wishful thinking rather than empirical evidence. Perhaps in institutional terms there is an expectation that individuals should think in a certain way about communities, even if this is at odds with their own experience. As one respondent, who grew up in communities where feuds and factions were the norm, warned: “I don’t think that proponents of community anything, not just forestry, usually realise how fragile is a ‘community decision’.”

Whilst it would be unwise to generalise from such a small sample of respondents, it seems that different concepts of the meaning of ‘community’ reflect personal and institutional discourses. Iola Leal Riesco2 sees her community as born out of the “environmental and social movement”, and the concept of community as a movement born out of struggle seems to be a powerful image. This depicts the forest communities as opponents to deforestation, rent capture by elites and marginalisation by government. However according to McCarthy’s analysis, their struggle has been romanticised, and the ‘appeal of community as the locus of pre-modern sensibilities and potential for resistance is entirely understandable' (2004, p1001). A senior manager of a Multilateral Donor suggested that some notions of ‘community’ are merely a “construct to impose the idea of ‘community’ onto a village or indigenous group that lives near the forest”.

In the event that a bounded entity of ‘community’ can be discerned, for it to be successful it will need to take, and enforce, decisions. Development managers were ambivalent about their own community’s procedures (“decision-making dressed up as democracy” as Duncan Macqueen3


Page 17

2 Programme Manager, FERN, Brussels3 Senior researcher at International Institute for Environment and Developent (IIED), Edinburgh

noted). This is in contrast to Rakhmat Hidayat4: “To make decisions we use the process of ‘musyawarah’, and the resulting agreement becomes a decision that is adhered to by all members of the community”. 'Musyawarah' was cited by almost all the Indonesian respondents, referring to the Indonesian culture of achieving consensus through deliberation. This process is not without its critics, and arguably the regime of the former dictator Suharto abused the Musyawarah tradition to achieve its anti-democratic aims.

However, there is a danger that the alternative to ‘guided consensus’ is paralysis by committee. Macqueen felt this risk was over-stated and was dependent on context: “In many parts of Africa traditional leaders listen carefully to what everyone has to say first but then take a virtually unilateral decision about how to proceed. In Guyana Amerindian communities much the same applies. In Brazil, many of the communities I met were of recent migrant origin so the conflicts were much more prevalent”. In contrast, John Palmer’s5 view was that community cohesion is not just about how decisions are taken, but also how they are enforced: “Does the community have effective and durable sanctions against members who break community agreements and decisions? If yes, then community forestry may have a chance...if no, as in Amerindian villages..., then chances are slim”. Interestingly, the Amerindian communities are cited as both paragons of guided consensus and yet weak enforcers of decisions.

The case of the Koperasi Hutan Jaya Lestari (KHJL) community forest in Sulawesi, Indonesia, may be instructive, though it is not typical6. The co-operative was formed by a group of smallholders looking to find a market for their teak, and over time it has grown to over 600 members, has attained FSC certification and has recently been granted 9,000 hectares of degraded state forest as part of a community plantation scheme. In an interview, the key members attributed their success to the fact that the co-operative was not externally imposed by government or donors. All the members have coalesced around a shared endeavour and vision that cuts across class, ethnicity or gender. They believe that their ‘community’ is strong precisely because it is not homogenous. To outsiders, KHJL may sometimes behave like a ‘movement’, for instance when it appeared that the local government would renege on the deal to grant the state forest to the group, political advocacy and direct action was required. However, it is first and foremost a business that is owned by the members, and that is what motivates it, rather than externally-imposed constructions of ‘community‘ values and expectations.

6.2 Enterprise

In exploring the nature of enterprise, the study initially considered how the success of a CFE should be measured. The key themes that emerged were:

‣ Sustainability, which seemed to be used in three different ways: financial, ecological and

institutional.

‣ Economic success (“make a profit”, “decent return on inputs of capital and labour”)

‣ Ecological soundness (“natural resources not destroyed”, “biodiversity not declining”)

‣ Social factors (“education”, “equitable distribution of benefits”)


Page 18

4 Director of WARSI, a prominant Indonesian NGO 5 Forest Management Trust, Florida6 Based on site visit and interviews in April and November 2008

There were also some more nuanced responses that referred to achieving the desirable balance between costs and benefits, and the balance between “income generation and social goals”, as Augusta Molnar7 put it. Interestingly, whilst success is seen in terms of economic, ecological and social factors, failure is seen exclusively as insolvency of the business. No one mentioned ecological failure (e.g. the business is successful but the forest is degraded) or social failure (e.g. the rewards are captured by elites).

Whilst most of the responses did not assign any timescale to these successful outcomes, Molnar spoke of the emergence of “sound resource management over time” and “social inclusion over time”, reflecting the fact that it is possible to construct a hierarchy of desired outcomes from CFEs, and not expect all good things to happen at once. Allowing for a sequence of outcomes to emerge recognises that some of them may be dependent on others, though the sequence itself may be influenced by NGO preferences. Some respondents imply that ecological performance is the prerequisite to improved economic and social performance. A major donor suggested that a financial return will happen in due course, whilst a southern NGO suggested that livelihoods must improve first to create the rationale and space for ecological sustainability.

Analysing the responses in relation to the origin of the informants is instructive (with the caveat that generalising from a small sample is problematic). For instance, responses from southern NGOs show that their notion of success for CFEs is predominately led by economic considerations - the CFE needs to make a profit. Most of the INGOs and donors seem more concerned with environmental goals, or a range of social outcomes. In summary, those that are closest to the forest dwellers are interested in the immediate livelihood gains and material poverty reduction, whereas those furthest away allow themselves the luxury of contemplating broader development goals. This cuts to the heart of the problem that this research hopes to address, which is the extent to which CFEs can accomplish multiple goals. It seems that, prima facie, those with the power over development funding believe CFEs are the means by which improved environmental outcomes can be accommodated with livelihood needs, whereas the local people who will actually execute these programs are a little more pragmatic, seeing satisfying livelihood needs as the pre-requisite to better environmental outcomes

Another way of testing the attitude to ‘enterprise’ is to consider if the benefits of failure outweigh the costs. The responses to this question range from “failure is acceptable” through to “no, failure comes at too high a price”. The majority, however, reflect the view that enterprises fail in the real world, so stumbling is an inevitable part of running any business, even a community-owned enterprise. Some respondents discuss how CFEs may need help learning the lessons that may be drawn from poor outcomes. Others point out that the concept of failure itself needs definition, as donors may under-estimate a community’s ability to absorb the bad times (for instance through reverting to subsistence), and thus inhibit an otherwise healthy enterprise by imposing risk aversion. There was some reflection on the fact that donors rarely learn from mistakes, and Hugh Speechly8 concluded that CFEs “should not have to bear the cost of external parties’ experiments”.

To consider the compatibility of ‘enterprise’ with ‘community’, the case of Association Femmes et Hommes Amis Nkolenyeng (AFHAN) in Nkolenyeng village, Cameroon, is revealing 9. AFHAN is a


Page 19

7 Director, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC8 Programme Co-ordinator, Forest Law Enforcement and Governance, DFID9 Site visit with village chief Manuel Bifene Elle and CFA president Mme Mbia Salome, 05/10/08

fairly typical example of a CFE in that country, with a license to manage 1200 hectares of marginal forest that has already been logged-over. The group aims to find a market for the lower value timber species that usually do not attract a good price, “thus attaining development goals for the village, as well as empowerment and positivity”. In 2007 they received $1300 in sales income; this cash was not invested in the business but spent on repairing the borehole, buying a generator, and some sports equipment for the children. However, in 2008 they achieved sales of only $180, partly because they did not have cash in the business to submit the permit request to the forestry department earlier in the year. It thus resembles a project rather than a sustainable enterprise.

This is a common problem, and similar stories were heard from other CFEs in Cameroon. Often the supporting NGOs need to pay for the government permit, as the CFEs do not allow for amortization of the expense in their business planning (though one should also acknowledge that perverse government regulations, poorly applied, also play a part). A recent ICRAF survey, which included AFHAN, revealed that ‘Some community forests claim to be held ‘hostage’ by local NGOs in a bitter-sweet relationship of mutual need’ (Mbile, 2008, p.7). One could speculate that the CFE is fulfilling social goals at the expense of long-term business sustainability to either comply with the wishes of the NGO, or to perpetuate the symbiosis. An alternative to ‘NGO capture’ is the often touted but little understood phenomenon of ‘elite capture’. Simon Counsell10 explained in an interview that there are many examples of CFEs that would not have happened if they did not have the involvement of an elite member of the community (e.g. someone who worked in the city and has returned to the village) who can negotiate the complex procedures and provide the initial cash to get the permit. In Cameroon it is expected that a villager who does well for himself returns to the village and makes a contribution, such as building a school. Counsell concluded that “the role of elites is part of the social context, and not always to be resisted”.

There appears to be an overlap between notions of ‘community’ and capacities for ‘enterprise’. Where CFEs are expected to achieve social goals in preference to business aims, the enterprise is unlikely to be sustainable without outside subsidy. Where CFEs become the client of a local businessman they may run on more entrepreneurial lines, but with the risk that the benefits are not evenly shared, and environmental goals may become subservient to the profit motive.

6.3 Conservation

Opinion was divided over whether Pinchot’s phrase that ‘conservation stands for development’ (1999) could be applied to forestry. The answers ranged from ‘I strongly agree” to “no, absolutely no!”, revealing some strong opinions, some flexible interpretation of the question and, I suspect, existing prejudices. One of the key themes is causality: the Kuznets curve shows how an improved standard of living eventually leads to better conservation, but Moray Mcleish11 pointed out that there is no evidence that better conservation leads to better development. In general the respondents felt that people need livelihoods that utilise the forest, not just jobs as gamekeepers to guard the forest. Rakhmat Hidayat pointed out how Integrated Conservation and Development (ICD) has been deployed in Sumatra, with poor results, yet most informants agree that some form of joint management is the way forward. As Palmer put it, accommodation means


Page 20

10 Director, Rainforest Foundation UK11 Associate Director, Proforest, Oxford

“less conservation than the ICNGO would like, and more than the local farmers and hunters and loggers would prefer”.

Depending upon how it is conceived, some informants believe that conservation may actually harm development. Indeed, they suspect that many ICNGOs still believe in the 19th century US model of “parks without people”, and are still “hungry for acreage” which can be enclosed and protected as a global public good. Forest reserves are frequently scheduled as the most protected Category I or II in the IUCN scale (2002) regardless of their scarcity value, when in most cases they could be Category VI, allowing sustainable use (Swiderska et al, 2008). It seems that ICNGOs apply the same criteria to a populated complex forest mosaic, as they would to a remote pristine wilderness. It is not surprising, therefore, that as Lars-Gunnar Blomkvist12 suggested, some governments see conservation as “a sacrifice, not as a contribution to development”.

It is clear from the research that the ICNGOs are perceived not to have altered their approach much in the past twenty years, despite poor outcomes and criticism. Initiatives such as the Durban Principles (Swiderska, et al, 2008, p.29) lobby for change on behalf of indigenous people, but Simon Counsell reports that there is no change at the higher levels of policy by ICNGOs, though there may be some changes at the country manager level. Where changes have occurred, it may be of rhetoric than policy, as the ICNGOs find that to fund their programs from outside their own base of supporters, “donors look for a more people-centred approach to development”. However, people-centred may be different from pro-development. It seems that depending on the circumstances ICNGOs may adopt a ‘post-development’ approach to forest peoples (the theory that development is not in their best interests and should be suppressed so they remain in a pre-lapsarian idyll, at one with nature). Counsell suggests that the problem lies in the way conservation projects are evaluated: “In rich biodiversity parks these projects are looking for a state of frozen stasis: nothing moves, nothing develops, nothing changes.” As this is hard to measure objectively, “they build up an array of proxy indicators: poachers arrested, traps foiled etc. So they get locked into objectives that are anti-people and anti-development.” Furthermore, John Palmer suggests ICNGOs may be aware that moving forest dwellers off the land can contribute to urban drift, and that once these people are settled in peri-urban slums they may rarely return to the forest, as their tenuous land claims will have been eroded through their absence. This would, over time, reduce the likelihood that former forest-dwellers would threaten the protected area. Both of these positions are ethically dubious.

The impact of the ICNGO discourse can be seen at work in the case of the 100,000 hectares Birdlife Harapan (BH) restoration forest in Sumatra, Indonesia, supported by the Birdlife International organisation13. Swiderska et al (2008) reports that Birdlife is one of the few ICNGOs to include benefit-sharing and people-centred approaches in its policies. However, the new park in Sumatra is encountering difficulties (Sarwadi, 2008). There are 22 villages in and around the concession, and large numbers of rubber trees (and other agroforestry) within the concession that are deemed to be 'owned' by local people. However, BH does not formally acknowledge any competing claims on the land, and in any case would be forbidden from doing so by the terms of its concession from the state. Local managers acknowledge that some form of benefit-sharing arrangement, perhaps through a joint venture company, may be a good way to get local people on board and prevent future incursions and erosion of the forest.


Page 21

12 Forestry consultant, based in Indonesia13 Based on confidental interviews with various sources within and outside the organisation

However, at an international level, Birdlife International is worried that any economic activity within the park will act as a magnet, attracting human incursion from both proximate communities and migrants alike, and preventing the ecosystem restoration from taking place. Their concern is that the locals agitating for access rights are themselves recent arrivals to the area - they do not have long-standing claims. This may be true, but of course the Birdlife Harapan site assumes the boundaries of a former concession that was itself contested, and the incursion by communities when the former concession was wound up was a fairly reasonable action. The institutional view seems to be that carbon credits will provide the income to pay for locals to patrol the perimeter of the park, but this fails to address the difference between 'jobs' and sustainable livelihoods, and thus ironically makes the same mistakes as the large industrial concessions that have had such a disastrous impact on Sumatra’s ecosystem (Mayers, 2006).

Beyond the practical considerations of conservation, and the evidence that displacement and exclusion of people fails to contribute to good outcomes for either the people or the ecosystem, there is clearly an ethical debate to be had within the ICNGOs. This may need to start with an acknowledgement of the utilitarian aspect of the ICNGO approach, and how it sets up a contradiction between the notion of ‘animal rights’ (or ‘biotic rights) and the instrumental value of any living thing, including humans. If humans can be displaced in the name of ecosystem protection, to preserve the ‘greater good’ (whether that be expressed in terms of global public goods such as biodiversity and climate change or local goods such as the economic value of the timber), then those people have become instruments of development, not participants.

Slim argued that ‘moral views which believe in a single golden rule’ (1997, p.229), such as utilitarianism, are less likely to run up against moral dilemmas, but that does not necessarily recommend them. Moral complexity - balancing the needs of different groups of people against the ‘rights’ of animals and ecosystems - may require more trade-offs, but these are not moral dilemmas as such, as they do not involve the choice between two comparable things (ibid.). However, in order to consider trade-offs in the first instance one needs to to have an idea of which groups are available for negotiation, and to what extent they can enter into binding commitments. Birdlife International’s problem is partly a legitimate fear that more commercial activity in the area may lead to forest degradation, and also the difficulties in identifying the ‘forest community’ that can be brought into the project as either partners or beneficiaries. Development organisations that are critical of ICNGOs do not help this problem by permitting a word with such a large semantic footprint as ‘community‘ to be presented as if it were plainly self-evident.


Page 22

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of this project was to explore institutional discourses that inform the project design and management of community forest enterprises, in order to ascertain how CFEs may best overcome rural poverty whilst managing forests in a sustainable manner.

In summary, the main findings emerging from the research are:

‣ Conservation and development goals are rarely reconciled in either theory or practice.

‣ There is a dissonance between institutional concepts of community and the personal experience of development managers.

‣ Communities do not necessarily inherently possess the capabilities to make important decisions and follow them through.

‣ Heterogeneity of membership of CFEs could be a strength rather than a weakness, providing that they are assembled around a common cause.

‣ The requirement for CFEs to attain social and/or ecological goals in preference to business goals may be externally imposed by NGOs, and this may not be the route to sustainability.

‣ Whilst conservation NGOs are wary of commercialisation of forest products, projects that do not address the holistic livelihood needs of the proximate communities are built on questionable practical and ethical foundations and thus unlikely to succeed.

‣ One of the possible reasons conservation projects overlook the needs of forest dwellers and users is their difficulty in locating a coherent entity that can negotiate on behalf of the ‘community’.

‣ Institutional discourses relating to ‘community’, ‘enterprise’ and ‘conservation’ are often contradictory, yet as dimensions of policy and project design they are probably inter-dependent.

One possible route to synthesis of these seemingly disparate (and potentially contradictory) findings may lie in organising the development goals into an inter-dependent sequence of outcomes (see figure 2). If communities are conceptualised accurately, then enterprises may be more successful. If CFEs do well, then livelihood improvements (and the reduction of poverty) will enhance ecological sustainability and meet some conservation goals. Therefore, if conservation projects start from a livelihood perspective rather than a 'global public goods' perspective, and incorporate genuine enterprise, then this may support institutional and cultural aspects of communities, capturing valuable local knowledge, and strengthening rather than undermining communities.


Page 23

Cohesive

Communities

Shared Vision

Viable

Enterprise

Social

Goals

Poverty

Reduction

Enhanced

Conservation

Figure 2: Linking community enterprises to poverty reduction and conservation

This report therefore makes a number of specific recommendations for NGOs, consultants, donors and other professionals involved in community forestry, conservation or policy making:

Critically examine institutional discourses to arrive at a more nuanced understanding of ‘community’. It may be better to locate the community in shared goals and values rather than shared opposition, circumstances or ethnicity.

Separate business goals from social goals. As different types of community exist in any setting, and different sub-groups, the group that makes the profit (via the CFE) may not be the best body to decide upon its disposition in social projects. The latter may require democratic accountability whereas the former may be hampered by too much consensus.

Assist ICNGOs in identifying partners in conservation, by recognising that in most cases the proximate ‘community’ may be a multi-layered and complex kaleidoscope of competing interests, rather than a homogenous group united in poverty.

Provide evidence and make the case that sustainable livelihoods consist of more than just a ‘steady job’ or income derived from cash transfers.

Acknowledge the importance of sequencing desired outcomes, with the knowledge that this may require some trade-offs in the medium term between development and conservation goals, but that accommodation of these seemingly disparate goals will in the long term lead to better, more holistic outcomes for both humans and ecosystems alike.

Work with all actors, including ICNGOs, to encourage each organisation to clarify its ethical approach to forest communities, and express how moral dilemmas will be navigated.


Page 24

The subject for this report arose from the general observation that different institutions seemed to discuss forest communities according to certain norms and assumptions that almost resembled mythology rather than empiricism. Furthermore, their notions of enterprise, and business in general, seemed to reflect ambivalence towards the market, and perhaps some misunderstanding of how small enterprises form and thrive. The process of articulating these intuitions into a problem, and researching them - albeit using a limited sample of qualitative data - has led to the emergence of a number of associated themes that has broadened the original scope of the report. The findings extend into quite fundamental aspects of project design, and touch upon a wide range of institutions. However, the core message is quite simple: characterising forest communities as victims, villains, obstacles or saviours, depending upon each NGO’s proclivity, is neither practical nor ethically sound.

As Sen remarked, communities should not be asked to bear ‘the terrible burden of narrowly defined identities’ (1999, p.8), but should be allowed to flourish according to their own lights, or even not flourish at all. Well-meaning organisations, motivated by the crisis narrative that demands action to save the forests right now, may propose approaches that have utility in conserving environmental resources. However, these may spring from an indifference to the complexity of human interaction with the forests that, to paraphrase Marx (1848), will drown the poor and marginalized ‘in the icy water of egotistical calculation’.

_______________ _______________


Page 25

8. References

Arnold, J.E.M., (2001) Forestry, Policy and Aid, Occasional Paper No.33, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Arts, B., Buzier, M. (2008) 'Forest. discourses, institutions', Forest Policy and Economics, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.004, Elsevier

Brown, D., Malla, Y., Schreckenberg, K. and Springate-Banginski, O. (2002) 'From Supervising 'Subjects' to Supporting 'Citizens': Recent Developments in Community Forestry in Asia and Africa' in ODI Natural Resource Perspectives Number 75, February 2002, Overseas Development Institute, London

Cernea, M.M. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006), 'Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement', World Development Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1808–1830, 2006, Elsevier Ltd.

Chomitz, K.M. (2007) At Loggerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduction and Environment in the Tropical Forests, The World Bank, Washington DC

De Soto, H. (2000), The Mystery of Capital, Basic Books, New York

Eliasch, J. (2008) 'Climate change: Financing Global Forests', The Eliasch Review, HMSO, UK

Engberg-Pedersen, L. (1997) 'Institutional contradictions in rural development', European Journal of Development Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 183-208

Garner, R.(1999), 'Conserving Wildlife' in Smith, M.J. (ed), Thinking Through the Environment: A reader, London, Routledge / Open University

Geisler, C. (2003), 'A new kind of trouble: evictions in Eden', International Social Science Journal, 55(1), 69–78

Griffiths, T. (2008) Seeing 'REDD'? Forests, climate change mitigation and the rights of indigenous peoples, Update for Poznan (UNFCCC COP 14) Advance Draft, Forest Peoples Programme, UK

Hanlon, J. (1998) ‘Grabbing Attention’ in Thomas, A., Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds) Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development, The Open University, Milton Keynes/Sage, London

Hardin, G. (1999) 'The Tragedy of the Commons' in Smith, M.J. (ed) Thinking Through the Environment: A reader, London, Routledge / Open University

Irimie, D.L., Essmann, H.F., (2008) 'Forest property rights in the frame of public policies and societal change', Forest Policy and Economics, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.001, Elsevier

ITTO (2007) Community-based forest enterprises. Their status and potential in tropical countries, ITTO Technical Series #28, International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama

IUCN (2002), The IUCN Protected Area Management Categories, Information Sheet 3. http://www.iucn.org, accessed 15/03/09

Karsenty, A., Drigo, I.G., Piketty, M., and Singer, B. (2008) 'Regulating industrial forest concessions in Central Africa and South America', Forest Ecology and Management doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.001, pp. 1498–1508, Elsevier

Korten, D.C. (1995) ‘Steps towards people-centred development: vision and strategies’, in Heyzer, N., Riker, J.V. and Quizon, A.B. (eds.) Government–NGO relations in Asia: prospects and challenges for people-centred development, London, Macmillan

Leopold, A. (1999) 'The Land Ethic' in Smith, M.J. (ed) Thinking Through the Environment: A reader, London, Routledge / Open University

Macqueen, D. 2007. 'Cutting edge: how community forest enterprises lead the way on poverty reduction and avoided deforestation', Sustainable Development Opinion Dec 2007, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London

Marx, K and Engels, F. (1848) The Communist Manifesto, London

Mavhunga, C. (2007) 'Even the rider and a horse are a partnership: a response to Vermeulen & Sheil', in Oryx. Vol. 41(4), 441-442, Flora and Fauna International, UK

Mayers, J. (2006) Poverty Reduction through Commercial Forestry: What evidence? What prospects?, The Forests Dialogue, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven


Page 26

Mbile, P, Ndzomo-Abanda, G., Essomba, H. and Misouma, A. (2008), Towards Alternative Tenure and Forest Enterprise Models: Opportunities, Constraints & Recommendations for Community Forest Enterprise Development in Cameroon (Draft), Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington DC

McCarthy, J. (2004) 'Devolution in the woods: community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism', Environment and Planning A 2005, volume 37, pages 995 - 1014, Pion, UK

Mert, A. (2007) 'Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: Shifts in discourses of environment and democracy', Forest Policy and Economics, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.003, Elsevier

OU (2006), Block 3 Guide, Collecting, Analysing and Using Data, TU874 Development Management Project Study Guide, The Open University, Milton Keynes

Pinchot, G. (1999) 'Conservation and human welfare' in Smith, M.J. (ed) Thinking Through the Environment: A reader, London, Routledge / Open University

Pirard, R. and Karsenty. A. (2008), 'Climate Change Mitigation: Should "Avoided Deforestation" (REDD) Be Rewarded?' Journal of Sustainable Forestry, In Press

Sarwadi, S (2008), 'Small farmers victims of forest carbon trading', http://www.viacampesina.org, accessed 15/03/09

Schluter, A. (2006) 'Institutional change in the forestry sector - The explanatory potential of New Institutional Economics', Forest Policy and Economics, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.11.001, Elsevier

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Sherr, S.J., White, A. and Kaimowitz, D. 2003. A new agenda for forest conservation and poverty reduction: Making markets work for low-income producers, Forest Trends, Washington, DC

Sihlongonyane, M.F. (2001) 'The rhetoric of the community in project management: the case of Mohlakeng township', Development in Practice, Vol. 11(1), Carfax Publishing, UK

Slim, H. (1997) ‘Doing the right thing: relief agencies, moral dilemmas and moral responsibility in political emergencies and war’, Studies on Emergencies and Disaster Relief, no. 6, Nordiska Afrikainstitute, pp. 3–11.

Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso L. and Wunder, S. (2005) World Development Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 1383–1402, 2005 Elsevier Ltd

Swiderska, K., Roe, D., Siegele, L., & Grieg-Gran, M. (2008) The Governance of Nature and the Nature of Governance: Policy that works for biodiversity and livelihoods, IIED, London

The Economist (2008), 'The price of conservation: The unkindest cut', The Economist, Feb 14th 2008, London

Thomas, A. (1998) ‘Challenging Cases’ in Thomas, A., Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds) Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development, The Open University, Milton Keynes/Sage, London

Thomas, A. and Chataway, J. (1998) ‘Personal Effectiveness and Integrity’ in Thomas, A., Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds) Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development, The Open University, Milton Keynes/Sage, London

Thomas, R., Macqueen, D.J., Hawker, Y. and DeMendonca, T. 2003. Small and medium forest enterprise in Guyana, Guyana Forestry Commission and IIED, London

Vermeulen, S. and Sheil, D. (2007) 'Partnerships for tropical conservation' in Oryx. Vol. 41(4), 434-440, Flora and Fauna International, UK

Wells, A., Luttrell, C., Brown, D. and Bird, N. (2006) 'Public Goods and Private Rights: the illegal Logging Debate and the Rights of the Poor' in ODI Forestry Briefing Number 9, February 2006, Overseas Development Institute, London

Woodhouse, P. (1998) ‘People as Informants’ in Thomas, A., Chataway, J. and Wuyts, M. (eds) Finding Out Fast: Investigative Skills for Policy and Development, The Open University, Milton Keynes/Sage, London


Page 27

APPENDIX A

Dominic Elson - Development Management Research Project January 2009

Research Survey

Notes for Informants

I have designed this short survey to be a ’coffee break’ exercise, meaning that it should be a reasonably pleasurable activity, stimulating rather than onerous, and should ideally take no longer than twenty minutes.

Therefore some of the questions are a little unconventional, and for some respondents may even be provocative. In some cases it may be best to simply record the first thought that comes into your head. In fact, as this survey is more about attitudes than formal systems, instinctive responses may be the most appropriate and interesting.

You may write as much, or as little, as you like. Also, feel free to record any wider thoughts or preoccupations about community forestry, REDD or conservation that you may have. For instance, you may wish to attach briefs you have written in the past, or send me links to relevant documents or other sources.

You may answer ‘in-line’ in the e-mail, or use this document, whichever you find most convenient. Please return your answers to [email protected]

Please try to respond to this survey (even if it is to decline to be involved) before Friday 6th February. Many thanks for you help.

Please indicate the following:

‣ Are you are responding on behalf of your institution, or making personal observations?

‣ Do you prefer these responses to remain confidential, or can you and/or your organisation be specifically referenced in the report?

Survey Questions

1. How should we measure the success of a Community Forest Enterprise?

2. Is the risk of failure an acceptable price for Community Forest Enterprises to pay for learning lessons?

3. In 1901, as the US National Parks were being set up, The American conservationist Gifford Pinchot said the ‘...great fact about conservation is that it stands for development.’ In your experience, is this true for forest conservation?

4. Are entrepreneurs born or made?

5. Which ‘community’ would you consider yourself a member of, and how does that community make decisions?


Page 28

Date post:	27-Jul-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dominicelson
View:	698 times
Download:	2 times

The Role of Community Forest Enterprises in Poverty Reduction and Conservation: Discourses,...

Documents