Ahmad Maryudi
Community forestry has been widely promoted as a potential approach to improved forest management and conservation strategies. It emphasizes improving local communities’ socioeconomic well-being, promoting social justice and giving equitable access to the forests.
Interest in its implementation has increased significantly. More than one-tenth of the world’s forests are managed by communities, and this figure is expected to rise 50 percent by 2015.
In Indonesia, a staggering 2 million hectares of Java’s forests and some forestlands in other regions are now jointly managed with forest user groups through different community forestry programs.
The enthusiasm about community forestry has been linked mainly with the premises that ‘forest communities’ are closely attached to the surrounding forests, not only for their daily livelihood but also for cultural and even religious lives.
So it is believed that their meaningful involvement will provide a sound platform for better forest planning and management, from which the people should benefit more.
In the program, local forest users play an important role in the common decision making procedures and implementation of forestry activities. As such, empowerment of the people is sounded throughout.
Empowerment is indeed a tricky and multifaceted term; but it refers to lifting the capacity of disadvantaged individuals so that they can actively participate in matters affecting their lives.
In general, empowerment should encompass the following features: Self-control, independence, authority, and self-determination. In short, being empowered means ‘one can do what they want to do’.
In regards to forest use, strong empowerment of forest communities implies that the communities are allowed to use the forests according to their needs, ideally without any regulations.
In a more pragmatic term, it means free access.
Indeed this means risks to the forest resources, as is generally argued by the proponents of exclusive state control. Hardin’s monumental essay, The Tragedy of the Commons also cautions the likely resource degradation caused be free access. Nonetheless, community forestry supporters argue that if the main premise of community forestry – that the close attachment of forest communities will promote wise usages – is met, then there should not be concerns over resource degradation.
In practice, the contrary has however been witnessed — community forestry programs have become restrictive and punitive to the people, particularly direct forest users. Forest users are now facing complex permit systems to gain access to their land, for various ‘technical rationales’, e.g. management plans, forest biodiversity, allowable cut, cutting cycle and so on. If such rationales are not met, then usage is prohibited. These measures have clearly caused hardships to the people in accessing the forests.
In addition, formal agreements usually require the group – as a legal partner to the forest managers – to control the behavior of the members (direct forest users). It has been found everywhere that detailed rules and strict punitive measures are set in place. These include penalties for noncompliance. Those violating the rules have to pay fines and can even find themselves excluded from the group.
Through these ‘institutionalized’ restrictions and punishments, forest managers exert more control over the forests, without directly ‘confronting’ forest users. All the risks are now transferred to the few people sitting on group committees or boards.
Indeed, through legal agreements, forest communities are supposedly entitled to benefits which, unfortunately, are solitarily defined by forest managers. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the benefits flow directly to forest users. Cases show that such benefits are captured by the group’s boards.
In conclusion, it is beyond a doubt that community forestry is an innovative policy. It has set a comprehensive blend of environmental and socioeconomic as well as political objectives.
It can support strategies for poverty alleviation and is well-placed in regional development goals. In addition, community forestry is highly relevant to the far-reaching decentralization policies, shifting the focus of forestries from national to regional and even community levels.
Nonetheless, a limited impact on livelihoods has been achieved to date due the artificial empowerment. To achieve the initial objectives of community forestry, policy makers and forest managers should explore innovations beyond the current practices and genuinely reestablish the rights of local communities regarding forest resources.
The writer is Executive Director of the Institute for Forest Policy and Environmental Studies (IFPES), currently conducting PhD research on Community Forestry Policy at the Goettingen University. This is his personal opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment