people and forests

112 People and forests

6. PEOPLE AND FORESTS58

INTRODUCTION

People are at the centre of forestry development. How they interact with forests both as managers and userswill determine whether forestry as we know it today remains a viable proposition.

The Asia-Pacific region is a leader in developing collaborative forest management (CFM) even thoughachievements to date are scattered and in many countries the process has yet to become mainstream. Still,CFM has the potential to consolidate and enter the mainstream, to the benefit of millions of poor ruralcommunities. Furthermore, as the region with the largest total urban population in the world, Asia also has anopportunity to seize leadership in urban forestry. Asia’s cities represent the full spectrum of wealth andpoverty, the inhabitants of which demand everything from a green environment to forest products for theirdaily lives. Forestry must find ways to satisfy these urban demands despite the high price of land andcompetition from alternative uses.

THE NATURE OF PEOPLE/FOREST RELATIONSHIPS

The people most intimately related to forests are the hunter-gatherer populations for whom forests offershelter, fuel and food. Progressively less close are relationships, for example, with carpenters whoselivelihoods depend on wood; artisan brick makers, fishermen and tobacco farmers who use wood as fuel forsmoking or drying produce; and city dwellers who daily use paper derived from wood. Forests can contributeto human livelihoods in many other ways including household (subsistence) or commercial uses of wood,NWFPs and services; food security, including through income generation; and employment. Forests also servethe age-old role of being a land bank upon which agriculture and other land developments draw. The aboveare relationships of dependency and consumption but many people also relate to forests in terms of how theyparticipate in forest management.

Whether relationships are dependency-oriented or management-oriented, there are normally important genderconsiderations (Box 6.1). Rural communities continuously adapt in response to economic developments,migrations and other social change. The relationships of both men and women with forests will also have toadapt over time but the effects will not necessarily be the same for the two groups.

Three main types of people/forest relationships cover the spectrum of livelihood benefits:

• People who live inside forests: often surviving as hunter-gatherers or shifting cultivators, and who are heavilydependent on forests for their livelihood. Such people are often indigenous minority ethnic groups and tend to beoutside both the political and economic mainstream; however, non-indigenous migrants into forests are alsobecoming significant.

• People who live outside but near forests: farmers generally practising their agriculture outside the forest, whoregularly use forest products in their agricultural activities (e.g. as sources of fodder or manure), for subsistenceor for income generation.

• People engaged in forest-based commercial activities: trapping, collecting minerals or employed in forestindustries such as logging. As income is often derived from forest-dependent labour, this type of people/forest

58 The primary reference for this chapter is a paper prepared on behalf of the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre (RECOFTC),Kasetsart University: Fisher, R.J., S. Srimongkontip and C. Veer (1997): People and forests in Asia and the Pacific: situation andprospects. Document No APFSOS/WP/27. FAO, Rome/Bangkok. Other important sources are (a) Paine et al. (WCMC) 1997: Status,Trends and Future Scenarios for Forest Conservation including' Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region. Document APFSOS/WP/04.FAO, Rome/Bangkok; and (b) Kuchelmeister, G., (1998): Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region – situation and prospects. DocumentAPFSOS/WP/44. FAO, Rome/Bangkok.

Asia-Pacific Forestry – Towards 2010 113

relationship exists in both developing and highly industrialised societies (Box 6.2).59 Some people in this groupmay also pursue some subsistence practices.

Box 6.1: GENDER IN FOREST MANAGEMENT IN ASIA-PACIFIC

The gender of those who actively manage the forest and those who collect the different forest products has importantimplications for sustainable forest management. It is well recognised that men and women often have different roles inforest management and utilise the forest for different products. While the different roles are readily acknowledged, the lackof gender-disaggregated information often results in general stereotypes (e.g. “Women collect fuel, leaf litter for fodder,foods for domestic consumption; men fell trees, and are interested in income derived from forest resources”). Suchgeneralisations ignore the subtleties and the changes that are occurring in the region.

Rural communities are being transformed in response to the dynamic trends of rural outmigration, economic restructuring,and commercialisation of local economies. Although both men and women migrate to urban areas, men migrate in greaternumbers (at least in the initial phase of outmigration) and for longer periods. Older couples, adult women, and childrenincreasingly populate rural communities. Women are more frequently assuming not only the role of caretaker for parentsand children but also the primary responsibility for fields, trees, and forests. The wide range of responsibilities and activitieshas in some instances led to a degradation of local forest resources as women have been forced to collect products closerto home rather than from more distant resources.

While the downsizing of extension services in the regions also has a negative impact on the access of men to extensionservices, even in areas where extension services are available women may find themselves excluded. Cultural barriers insome countries discourage women from becoming extension agents, and severely limit the access of women to maleextension agents. Even in countries where such cultural barriers do not exist, other barriers to access to extension servicesmay exist. In the People’s Republic of China, for example, the official flow of information within the village is still primarilythrough the men, so that women are excluded from information from extension services (and men are trained) for productsfor which women have responsibility.

The current realities of who is managing the forest and what products are utilised (and wanted) must be considered in theformulation of forest policy, implementation, and services. Sustainable forest management will depend increasingly on theneeds and actions of rural women – and on the services and support provided to them.

To this list must be added:

• Urban dwellers: people who need forests or trees for amenity/recreation and physical consumption, dependingon income stratum.

The rural population of Asia and the Pacific is 2.13 billion (67 percent), with urban population totalling aboutl.06 billion (33 percent). The number of people directly dependent on forest resources totals around 0.43billion in the region (13 percent). It is not possible to reliably ascertain how many other people fall into thecategories “people who live outside but near forests” and “people engaged in forest-based commercialactivities,” but it is likely that these are at present the largest single categories. The exact numbers are notcritical; it is, however, important to note that no one category is so small that its interests can be ignored.

59 For example, small rural communities in countries with much forest industry (such as Malaysia or Indonesia) and even highlyindustrialised countries like Australia or New Zealand can be almost totally dependent on wages from commercial logging or forestproducts processing.


Box 6.2: THE PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE OF FORESTS FOR MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES – THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND JAPAN

In the People’s Republic of China, poverty is particularly acute in the mountainous areas. Of the 80 million poverty-strickenpeople in China in 1994, most lived in remote central and western mountainous areas with poor access and a stagnanteconomy. The per capita availability of arable land is about 0.1 hectares, 10 percent lower than the national average. In1992, the average per capita income for mountain farmers was 20 percent lower than the national average. Themountainous areas have 90 percent of China’s total forest land, 80 percent of the country’s total wood growing stock, andare the main sources of tree/shrub oilseeds, fruits, tea, bamboo, forest by-products, special produce and medicinal herbs.Forestry is, therefore, the basis and pioneer of other industries in the mountainous area; without it, vigorous advancementof other industries cannot be promoted and achieved. In the near future, it is envisaged that forestry development with anannual growth rate of 15 percent will promote the development of the mountain economy.

In Japan, rural communities, especially those in mountainous regions, are rapidly losing vitality and need improved incomeand employment opportunities and better infrastructure. Promoting forestry, which is a major industry in mountainousregions, and strengthening its linkages with agriculture is necessary for development in these areas. It is intended toimprove infrastructure and to improve living conditions, such as facilities for water supply and household waste disposal.Japan will also promote exchange between urban and rural communities through multiple use of forests and betterinformation distribution, apart from training talent for local leadership.

Sources: : Country Report – China: Document APFSOS/WP/14. Country Report – Japan op cit.: Document APFSOS/WP/15.

People relate with forests positively, negatively or indifferently. They may get forest-based jobs and usefulproducts and services from them, which may motivate them to manage forests carefully. Or, they may damageforests either due to real need for forest products or for land or because they feel alienated. Many people areso removed from forests as to be indifferent. The Asia-Pacific region offers examples of all shades of theserelationships. The following are important to note:

• the highest level of reliance on extensive forests is in the hilly zones and in tropical forest areas;• the highest level of reliance tends to be in areas with ethnic minorities outside the dominant national culture

(leading to relative powerlessness and vulnerability in the face of outsiders); and• in areas with high population and intensive agriculture, tree products tend to be obtained more from “homestead

forests” than from large areas of de jure forest.

COMMON CONSIDERATIONS

When deciding policies and changes to improve the relationships of people with forests, it is most relevant toconsider who has rights to access and use forests, who actually uses or manages forests (and for what uses),and who controls the resources (Box 6.3). These factors are more important than the location of people (i.e.whether they live in, near or far from forests). It goes without saying, however, that proximity over longperiods often confers rights to the forests or at least may legitimise claims to them by virtue of residence.

Another common consideration in assessing people’s relationships with forests is the changing economicsituation. In most countries of the region, it is now difficult to find a forest so remote that it is not touched bythe expansion of the modern economy. Economic growth has been so rapid that opportunities to adopt newlifestyles have come within reach of people who formerly had little option but to work the forest. The age offorest dwellers’ splendid isolation is largely over. In many countries, there are now new economicopportunities – many of them outside forestry altogether. Furthermore, there has been increasingmarket-orientation of rural areas as they are drawn into the monetised economy. With this integration, andgiven that the region is rapidly industrialising, it is very likely that far fewer people will depend principallyand directly on forests for subsistence livelihood in the future.


Box 6.3: DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR FOREST/ PEOPLE RELATIONSHIPS

• Where forests continue to be central to livelihood systems: meeting local peoples’ needs should be the principalobjective of forest management, and this should be reflected in control and tenure arrangements that are centred onthem.

• Where forest products play an important supplementary and safety-net role: users need security of forest access, butwill need to work through resource-sharing arrangements among several stakeholder groups.

• Where forest products play an important role but wood is more effectively supplied from non-forest sources:management of forests tends to be geared toward agroforest structures; control and tenure may need to be consistentwith individual (private) rather than collective (common property) forms of governance.

• Where people need help in exploiting opportunities to increase the benefits they obtain from forest products and forestactivities: support and facilitation may need to be provided in accessing markets and credit, and developing skills.

• Where people need help in moving out of dead-end forest based product activities: people may need to be providedwith new livelihood options, which are quite likely to be outside forestry.

Source: Abbreviated from Byron and Arnold (1997): cited in Fisher et al. (op cit.).

Mobility of populations has also increased and exposed forest-based people to other lifestyles, not least bybringing migrants or transient outsiders to the forests. Mobility has introduced new mind-sets and offeredchoices for those who would rather not remain forest-dependent and have capacity to embrace a differentlifestyle. Education has accelerated this phenomenon. Due to this opening up, people/forest relationships areno longer influenced only locally. Success or failure often depends on events or decisions physically farremoved. International economic and political factors do not merely impinge on the relationships betweenpeople and forests, they form a crucial part of the context in which the relationship exists. The development ofa global economy and the international environmental movement are the two most important factors.

Given the high value of forests and the associated land resources, it is not surprising that people/forestrelationships are often characterised by tensions among interest groups. However, different people and interestgroups have different capacities (including political power and influence) to capture opportunities. It is thesedifferences in power, apart from skills and ability, that help to explain why tribal societies often fail to defendtheir long-held rights over forests against better-informed migrants. The migrants tend to know better how totap the resources of the mainstream economy and its institutions for their own benefit.

FORESTS CENTRAL TO LIVELIHOODS

Old and new forest dwellers

Although there are no reliable published estimates of forest-dependent peoples in the region, “guesstimates”for six countries provide indicative numbers (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: “Guesstimate” of numbers of forest-dependent people in selected countries in Asia-Pacific

Country People directly dependenton forest resources

(millions)

People living on land classifiedas public forest

(millions)

India

Indonesia

Nepal

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Thailand

275

80-95

18

25-30

2-4

20-25

100

40-65

8.5

24

??

14-16

Source: Lynch and Talbott (l995): cited in Fisher R. J. et al. (op cit.).


In earlier times, most of the people living in the forest were tribals living as hunter/gatherers. In a few forestareas this is still the case, while in many other areas forest dwellers maintain livelihoods as subsistencefarmers (often shifting cultivators). However, as pressure for land has grown, migrants have crowded in andthe traditional indigenous forest dwellers’ existence has been put into a state of flux.

In the Philippines, for example, the country’s forest lands are under constant pressure to be converted to otherland uses. Shifting cultivation remains a big problem with the presence of some 30 percent of the country’stotal population within, or in the fringes of, forest areas. The Philippines’ upland population is growing at 4percent annually and 70 percent of upland residents are migrants from the lowlands seeking forest land tofarm. Other examples of this in-migration process are in North India, Bhutan, the Eastern and Western Ghatsof India, the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan and much of Southeast Asia.

There is general acceptance that it is a human right for people to be able to choose to live in the manner theyare accustomed to if they so wish. The question raised by policy-makers and some analysts is whether, in fact,indigenous dwellers really have a choice or are forced to maintain their forest lifestyles for lack of alternativesand lack of the capacity to recognise and capture alternative opportunities. Supporting this view is the factthat most forest dwellers in the region are tribal communities in remote areas, often little exposed to eithereducation or any other capacity building that would enable them to exist in any other mode. On the other hand,it is very clear that the needs of forest dwellers are rarely given attention by national governments and littleconsideration is given to their claims to rights over resources, including forest resources.

In the absence of some recognition of rights to forest resources and of increased education and other capacity-building, indigenous forest dwellers are highly vulnerable when migration brings new populations into forestsand adjacent lands. Migration leads to or exacerbates: (a) conversion of forest land into farms or cash treecrop plantations; (b) pressure on people already living in forests to reduce fallow periods in shiftingagriculture; (c) reduced ability to manage forests along traditional lines due to lack of control over the newarrivals; and (d) emergence of new, more commercially-oriented forest dependency by the immigrants. Wherethere was formerly traditional ownership or management of land, migration often brings uncertainty andcompetition, with the new arrivals introducing their own perspectives. There are new opportunities for valueaddition to forests but indigenous inhabitants are ill-prepared to benefit; their traditional subsistence needs areoften threatened and extreme hardships may result.

At the same time, new migrants are often inexperienced in sustainably using the forest for livelihoods. Thusthey tend to aggressively clear forests for farming and so may cause much destruction of forests in settlementareas.

The emergence of community forestry as a social movement, the development of networks of forest users, andincreasing advocacy by NGOs reflect the increasing efforts of forest-dependent peoples to protect theirinterests.60 Formal statements of policy commitment toward more collaborative-participatory forestmanagement are also being made more frequently. This process is often encouraged by pressure from variousdonors and international NGOs.

It is impossible to suggest a “most likely scenario” for the future of forest-dwelling people. There are someobvious trends (often in competing directions). The long-term outcomes are likely to be different in variouscountries, depending on the outcomes of competition between the various concerned actors. There areindications that over time forest-dependent peoples may gain a much greater say in the management of forests.If this happens, the impact on sustainable management of forests may depend on whether it is the migrantforest dwellers or the indigenous people that take the lead.

60 Gilmour and Fisher (1997): cited in Fisher et al. (op cit.).


How forests support forest dwellers

Full subsistence dependency

Livelihoods of indigenous groups revolve around hunting, gathering wood and NWFPs for direct use andmarginal commerce, and swidden (shifting) cultivation. Currently, many governments in the region seek to“improve” the lot of forest dwellers by: (a) stabilising swidden cultivation; and (b) promoting livelihoodsbased on NWFPs.

Swidden farming continues to be a major type of people-forest interaction in many parts of Laos, Viet Nam,Cambodia, Thailand, southern China, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Many authorities dislike shiftingcultivation, but even after decades of attempts to “stabilise” it have had little success. In Laos, governmentpolicy is to end shifting cultivation by 2000. The government has programmes to formalise land tenure,improve local land-use planning, enhance productivity of crops and livestock, and provide alternatives toshifting cultivation income. Experience has shown that careless attempts to stop crop rotation (the essence ofshifting cultivation) may exacerbate soil deterioration. Rather than preventing shifting cultivation, analternative approach is to focus instead on long-term economic development that creates jobs outsideagriculture.

NWFPs are often assumed to be capable of supporting many rural people and numerous efforts are underwayto promote NWFP-based income-generation. There is little evidence to support this assumption. WhileNWFPs are important, their potential contribution to livelihoods should not be exaggerated and forest dwellersshould not be encouraged to base their livelihoods on commodities that are marginal to mainstream commerce.In particular, NWFP development efforts should not lead to forest dwellers missing out on alternative orcomplementary economic opportunities within and outside forestry.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, focus on NWFPs should not be allowed to distract attention awayfrom the need for forest-dwelling people to benefit from some of the income from commercial timberharvesting and processing. Whether this benefit is arranged through payment of royalties to them in partial orfull recognition of traditional rights, through positive discrimination in employment by new enterprises, orthrough other policy measures, is a decision for society to make in each situation.

Commercial opportunities

Some indigenous people and many migrants-turned-forest-dwellers seek opportunities that are commercial ormonetised in nature. The logging industry offers one such opportunity. For example, in Laos a trialprogramme in Joint Forest Management includes a scheme giving local people the right to share the benefits ofcommercial logging. In Indonesia, the government introduced a community development programme in 1991under which forest concessionaires are “to assist in improving the standard of living of forest-dwellingcommunities.” Other major opportunities would be in countries such as Malaysia (Sabah, Sarawak), PapuaNew Guinea and in the more heavily forested Mekong countries (Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos).

Unfortunately, because logging can be a major source of state revenue and political power, it is often aflashpoint for conflict among indigenous local people, political leaders and commercial interests. Among otherproblems, logging can reduce availability of forest products (including NWFPs) or local people’s access tothem and can lead to increased competition for resources and economic opportunities with migrantpopulations. Migrants who follow the logging industry already have skills wanted by the industry and thisblocks skill-transfer to local inhabitants. Migrants also occupy and settle on land partially cleared by logging,thus displacing indigenous people. In worst case situations, indigenous dwellers have been forcibly removed61

or forced to accept compensation in exchange for reduced access to forest products.62

61 Fisher (op cit.).62 One example from the Solomon Islands indicates that a one-off royalty payment caused each villager to lose annually the equivalent ofover US$3,900 worth of forest benefits.


Forest dwellers, forest conservation and forest management capacities

Many countries are moving away from trying to achieve conservation goals solely through strictly protectedareas surrounded by areas of largely unregulated land use.63 Conservation is moving closer to the people and,unlike the past, will no longer be confined to remote forests. Even in countries where population pressure islight, efforts to extend protected areas under the old “preservation” approach will usually face problems fromindigenous and migrant forest dwellers as well as from settlers outside but near the forests. In areas wherestrict preservation is essential, the outer reaches of the areas will increasingly have to be managed as “bufferzones” to allow some development or utilisation.

In the long term, economic development, especially in East and Southeast Asia, may help achieve forestconservation. This could arise for several reasons: (a) wealthier people can afford to attach higher values toenvironmental conservation; (b) economic development can reduce the pressure to clear or degrade forests andprotected areas, as people move to better urban jobs (as observed, for example, in the Republic of Korea,Malaysia and southeastern China); and (c) prosperity may bring the ability (as well as the desire) to channelresources into conservation of biological diversity.

In the meantime, the question arises as to whether forest dwellers can manage forests well. There are sharplycontrasting views. One school of thought stresses the possession by indigenous people of long-held traditionalknowledge and institutions that enable them to use forests responsibly. In this view, it is lack of meaningfulcontrol over resources that limits effective management by local people, not the absence of knowledge or localinstitutions. Another viewpoint is that conditions have changed so much that traditional knowledge andpractices have by now lost relevance or efficacy. The latter school frequently portrays forest-dependent people(especially shifting cultivators) as destroyers of forests. Official policies in many countries of the region tendto lean to this view and laws generally mandate the exclusion of people from protected forests. Advocates offorest-dweller interests, however, increasingly ask why local people must suffer hardship to make room forprotected areas that often seem to be of primary interest to distant national or international constituencies(Box 6.4).

Box 6.4: THAILAND – TOWARDS LEGITIMISATION OF FOREST DWELLERSIN PROTECTED AREAS?

In Thailand, large numbers of forest-dependent people, usually members of ethnic minority “hill tribes,” have been movedout of protected areas into buffer zones or live within protected areas under greatly restricted access to forest products. ACommunity Forestry Bill has been drafted to address these restrictions. The bill would grant management rights to peopleliving in protected areas. It is, however, strongly opposed by some environmental groups concerned that the hill tribes willmismanage the watersheds crucial to the water supply of Bangkok and other cities. Other environmental groups supportthe initiative and regard the hill tribes as highly capable of responsible forest management. The issue has achieved greatpolitical importance and major protests have occurred to press for enactment of the Community Forestry Bill.

[It is important to realise that the people dwelling in protected areas generally lived in these places before they weredesignated as protected areas. Indeed, there are cases where hill tribes were forcibly relocated into areas that weresubsequently declared to be protected areas.]

Source: Adapted from Fisher et al. (op cit.). Additional note in square brackets added from Fisher (Personal communication).

Indigenous and migrant forest dwellers differ in forest management capacities. The former tend to haveinterest in forests and traditional knowledge and institutions for management. Migrants generally have neither,and are often most interested in the land for farming. For the latter, probably the main approach to promotingsustainable forest management would be to support forest-based income opportunities, thus offering ajustification for forest management. 63 Paine et al. (op. cit.)


FORESTS AS A COMPLEMENTARY BASIS FOR LIVELIHOOD

Forest dwellers, even if recent migrants are included, are far fewer in number than the people who live outside butnear forests. Indeed, most rural people, except in highly deforested countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, liveclose enough to interact with forests in a number of ways. Many continue to collect fuelwood and other forestproducts. Agriculture often depends on forests for water and forest products such as manure and fodder. Whereforest resources are inadequate, many rural people take up tree planting. It is from these situations that much of theinitial thrust toward collaborative forest management emerged. Recently, the scope of collaborative managementinitiatives has expanded to include management of well-endowed natural forests.

Collaborative approaches to forest management

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there emerged a perception that the limited input by people living in andnear forests over how forest resources were used was a major barrier to the effective management of suchforests. This led to the development of programmes and policies known generically as “collaborative forestmanagement.” The key element is that government forest departments give local communities theresponsibility for protecting and managing forests or establishing plantations. Local communities are givenrights to collect and harvest certain forest products for domestic use, and increasingly also for sale. In drierareas (e.g. Rajasthan and Gujarat in India, Pakistan, Mongolia, western China), the possibility of grazinglivestock in government forests is also a powerful attraction to local communities wishing to conclude jointforest management agreements.

In some cases, communities are promised a share of the proceeds from future harvests of forests thatregenerate as a result of protection provided by local people. In Nepal, for example, the government handsover forests to forest-user groups (FUGs). Negotiated management agreements include provision for managedutilisation of forest products, including grass, fodder, fuelwood and NWFPs. Recently, there have been movesto initiate FUG-managed sawmills and the harvesting of timber from community forests, although theseproposals are reportedly meeting resistance from within the Forest Department (Box 6.5).

Collaborative management in most countries is still in the early stages of development. Only 2 to 3 percent ofIndia’s public forest estate is estimated to be under community protection recognised by forest departments. Arecent study suggests that this could increase to 25 percent by 2010 if forest departments and NGOs expandcapacities to negotiate, demarcate, and register forest-dependent communities.64 The likelihood of this maydepend in part on progress in planting trees outside forests that reduce some of the need to depend on forests.

64 Paine et al. (op cit.).


In collaborative management, forest tenure is widely regarded as a key factor in increasing effective local controlover forest resources and in motivating communities to invest resources, effort and commitment into managingforests. Tenure does not necessarily have to convey outright ownership but can take a variety of forms that legitimiseaccess and guarantee user rights. Tenurial arrangements can range from full local control to limited and specifiedaccess. (Boxes 6.6 and 6.7). However, tenure arrangements are only good if they are respected. It is of no use tohave legal title that is simply ignored by insiders or outsiders. Therefore, confidence in tenure arrangements mattersmore than formality. If agreements must be formal, then there should exist enforcement capacity to match.

In order to be sustained, collaborative forest management approaches must become more profitable for thebeneficiaries. Success will require allocation of more productive forests for improved income prospects rather thanpredominantly degraded ones as at present. There should also be better access by the communities to the commercialaspects of the forests they manage, including harvesting, processing and marketing activities.

Box 6.5: COMMUNITY FOREST-USER GROUPS OF NEPAL

In Nepal, users of the community forest are defined as those people who use or intend to use a particular patch of forest.Use rights involve more than just consumption of forest products; they include participation in decision-making, inpreparing their own charter and operational plan for regulating the user group as an institution, and in managing forestryresources. User groups are now recognised by law as self-governing and autonomous organisations. The government stillretains ownership of the land, but the users have rights over the products. They can even use forestry products ascollateral for getting bank loans. But decisions have to be made by consensus of the users in an assembly. User-groupcommittees do not have the right to make rules, only to implement rules formulated by the assembly of users.

The Forest Act and its operational guidelines acknowledge that legal awareness and confidence building are necessary ifthe poor, women and the disadvantaged are to assert their rights. It is of course essential to understand and recogniseindigenous management systems, to understand the forest resources and possibilities for their management, and toassess local people’s use patterns and needs. However, a more important first step in user-group formation is to identifyreal users, make them aware of their legal rights, and prepare the voiceless for asserting their rights.

The second step is to prepare operational agreements, to guide both institutional and resource management aspects. Asthe poor, women and disadvantaged lack bargaining power, they are brought together into small homogenous groups andfacilitated in making their own rules, based on their own perspectives and needs. They are also helped to assert their rightsby teaching them that they have equal rights with other users. The small groups work together in assemblies to prepareoperational agreements, which are presented to the District Forest Officer prior to the handover of the forest resources.

User groups in Nepal still feel threatened by provisions that permit the taking back of community forests on flimsy grounds,the lack of attitudinal change among most government forestry staff, and the lack of awareness and political commitmentamong politicians and policy-makers. Powerful and opportunistic elite often exploit liberal provisions in the law to thedisadvantage of weaker user-group members. In response to these problems, user groups are organising under a networkcalled the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal (FECOFUN). The network addresses various issues andundertakes lobbying and advocacy for users’ rights.

Source: Adapted from N. Kaji Shrestha, Women Acting Together for Change (WATCH), Kathmandu (Personal communication),December 1997.


Box 6.6: ADAPTING TENURE TO ENCOURAGE FORESTRY – PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND MALDIVES

Papua New Guinea : With nearly 80 percent of the country’s land under customary ownership, the people own mostforests. The state is challenged to find ways of awarding rights to forest use that protect the people’s interests, ensureresponsible management or exploitation, and allow the investors adequate returns and security of access to resources. Anumber of instruments have been tried. The latest approach, intended for application on a large scale, is the ForestManagement Agreement (FMA). Under the FMA approach, the PNG Forest Authority secures a commitment from theresource owners to follow recommended forest management practices, while simultaneously offering investors access tothe forest for a minimum of 35 years. Implementation may involve the state issuing a Timber Permit under which itmanages the forest on behalf of the customary owners for the duration of the FMA. State management roles can beimplemented through a developer.

On a much smaller scale, “Timber Authorities” are issued by provincial governments upon the recommendation ofprovincial forest management committees and the consent of the National Forest Board. Such agreements allow theexecution of harvest agreements concluded directly with the landowners. It is reported that many foreign companies haveabused this facility. As such, new policies on Timber Authorities are now in place to protect forest resources and preventunnecessary forest clearance on customarily owned land.

Maldives : In the Maldives, the community forest lands on inhabited and uninhabited islands are leased to individualdevelopers of agriculture and tourism. However, uncertainty of land tenure acts as a major disincentive to developing andprotecting forests and agroforests and is a significant obstacle to the promotion of tree growing. Very recently, a moresecure system of leasing land has been adopted (i.e. renting of uninhabited islands for a fixed term of not more than 20years). This will encourage tree planting and will develop sustainable land use systems through out the country.

Source:Country Report 1996 – Papua New Guinea. Country Report – Maldives: Document APFSOS/WP/30.

Box 6.7: COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT (CBFM)IN THE PHILIPPINES

Community-based management has been adopted as the national strategy for management and sustainable developmentof forest resources in the Philippines, pursuant to a 1995 Presidential Executive Order. To date, more than 500,000hectares of national forests have been turned over to communities, mostly of indigenous peoples. Unlike previousprogrammes that granted tenure over denuded and/or degraded forest lands (e.g. agroforestry initiatives), the CBFMapproach extends tenure and use rights to well-stocked forests.

Organised communities operate within allowable cut limits set by the government. They harvest timber and other forestproducts to sell, to use for their own needs, or to process. Timber harvesting by communities typically follows alabour-intensive, low-impact approach. Felling uses small chainsaws, flitching and/or quarter-sawing is done at the stump,and animals are used to skid logs to roadside landings. Income from the sale of timber, rattan, bamboo and other forestproducts has created new income opportunities in upland communities where poverty is severe. Slash-and-burn forestdestruction and illegal logging have declined dramatically in all areas where the CBFM concept has been introduced. In thewords of one community leader, “Why should we burn or overcut the forest now that it belongs to us and not to some richman from Manila?” Results thus far augur well for an expanded programme. The Philippines Master Plan for ForestDevelopment envisions CBFM coverage of 2.0 million hectares within the next decade.

Source: P. Dugan (Personal communication, December 1997).


Growing trees outside the forest

In addition to community management of government forests, a major thrust in many countries has been toencourage people to grow trees on their own lands in what is called “farm forestry” or “agroforestry.” Theinitial impulse came from the perceived need to supply fuelwood for rural users. Early efforts were made inSouth Asia, where heavy forest loss meant that many farming communities were far from forests.

Between 1980 and 1990, an estimated 9 billion trees were planted on private lands in India, averaging 9,500trees per village.65 Targets were exceeded in many states and some people planted trees even on irrigated land.After the first trees grew, it became clear that industry also offered an outlet for the wood. Most of thesuccessful plantings took place on highly productive farmlands rather than the intended wastelands and dryareas, prompting concern that trees were capturing land from food crops. A key lesson is that people respondto commercial opportunities and market forces.

It is precisely in situations where competition with agriculture would be a major concern that agroforestry isbeing promoted. In Asia and the Pacific, agroforestry builds upon long traditions of homegardens and similarpractices. It also responds to concerns and prejudices against communal tenure in some countries as it focuseson private family land. Agroforestry has attracted considerable policy attention, and in countries such asBangladesh it is the dominant element of programmes involving people and trees. It is also particularlyimportant in social forestry programmes in the People’s Republic of China, Pakistan, Indonesia, Viet Nam,Laos and the Philippines.

Good prospects exist for the private sector to work with rural communities, perhaps as subcontractors oroutgrowers. India had early success with the WIMCO popular outgrower scheme for match bolts. In thePhilippines, smallholder tree farmers have supplied significant amounts of pulpwood and peeler logs to thePICOP wood-processing complex. In other countries, notably Thailand, outgrowing is a developing trend thatneeds further encouragement.

The outlook for trees outside forests is bright. Even if subsistence needs become less prominent with risingprosperity, such trees have the potential to supply industrial raw materials. Nonetheless, farm tree plantingand agroforestry will need to avoid blind promotion efforts that might flood markets and depress profitability.It will also be necessary to achieve higher efficiencies in terms of survival rates, yields, and more diversifiedspecies to meet a range of rural needs. Above all, the incentive structure has to reduce the need for directgovernment and donor intervention and financial assistance. The early successes of India, where private treeplanting in high-potential regions was oversubscribed, shows responsiveness to market signals and offersexperience to build on as economies liberalise.

FORESTS AND URBAN PEOPLE66

Context and definitions

Only 34 percent of the people in Asia and the Pacific live in cities, but this is changing rapidly. By 2025, some55 per cent of the region’s people will be urban residents. The People’s Republic of China’s urban populationis expected to increase from 30 percent to 55 percent; India’s from 27 percent to 45 percent; Indonesia’s from

65 Saxena, N.C and V. Ballabh (Eds), (1995). Farm forestry in South Asia. Sage publications, New Delhi.66 The main references for this section are: Kuchelmeister, G. (1998): Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific region: status and prospects.APFSOS/WP/44; Kuchelmeister, G. and S. Braatz (1993): “Urban forestry revisited.” In Unasylva, 173 (44) (3-12). FAO, Rome; Sene, E.H(1993): “Urban, and peri-urban forests in sub- Saharan Africa: the Sahel.” In Unasylva, 173 (44) (45-51). FAO, Rome; Braatz, S. and A.Kandiah (1996): “The use of municipal waste water for forest and tree irrigation.” In Unasylva, 185 (47) (45-51). FAO, Rome; Carter, J.(1994): The potential of urban forestry in developing countries – a concept paper. FAO, Rome; Webb, R. (1996): Urban and peri-urbanforestry in South-East Asia – a comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur. Unpublished paper. FAO, Rome.


35 percent to 61 percent; and Pakistan’s from 35 percent to 43 percent. By 2015, Asia will have 17 of theworld’s 27 megacities (with populations of 10 million or more), with even more urban dwellers in other largebut not yet “mega” scale metropolises. Today, over 60 percent of urban people live in towns and cities of onemillion or fewer people; only 15 percent live in larger ones.

In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in the roles that forests and trees can play in meeting theneeds of urban dwellers and improving urban environments. The focus of urban forestry has recentlybroadened beyond landscape architecture and horticulture for aesthetic purposes to include concerns related toair quality, cooling of cities, protection of water supplies and nature conservation. The fact that the major partof new urban growth is occurring in poor cities of the developing world adds another important dimension tothe role of urban forestry – the provision of forest products (Box 6.8).

Box 6.8: DEFINITION, SCOPE AND FUNCTIONS OF URBAN FORESTRY

Definition and scope : Although there is no commonly accepted definition for urban forestry, a working definition may be“an integrated approach to the planting, care and management of trees and forests in and around the city to securemultiple environmental and social benefits for urban dwellers.”67 Current thinking leans toward considering the urban forestas all trees and related vegetation in and around towns and cities. It comprises natural woodlands within the urbanisedzone and in adjacent suburban or peri-urban areas, parks and reserves, and trees along highways and roads, in yards andhomegardens, around public buildings, and in playgrounds and other public places. Urban forestry thus mergesarboriculture, ornamental horticulture and forest management and its scope includes activities in the city centre as well asto those in peri-urban areas.

Functions : A conventional view of urban forestry focuses on city parks, green areas and trees for recreation, beauty andshade. But forests also play important roles in conserving soil and maintaining clean and reliable water supplies for cities.Trees are also essential in protecting against drying winds, sand storms and sand dune encroachment in many locations.The needs of low-income city dwellers, however, demand attention to fuelwood and charcoal, poles, thatch and otherconstruction materials and food (such as fruit). Indeed, the “production” aspect of urban forest may well be needed most atthe growth frontier of cities where natural resources are being destroyed rapidly, unplanned settlement is occurring, and thepoor retain most of their traditional needs for forest products. Trees associated with urban agriculture, including those inhomegardens, which are common in some Asia-Pacific cities, have a role in food production.

Sources: Based on Kuchelmeister G. and S. Braatz (1993), op cit.; Sene, E.H (1993), op cit..

Normally, a number of municipal bodies, ranging from departments of parks and gardens, public utilities,highways, housing, etc., have jurisdiction over various parts of the urban forest and urban green space. Inaddition, various private landowners, businesses and civic groups are involved in tree planting andmanagement. Therefore, co-ordinating urban forestry development is often a daunting task.

A major reason that foresters may neglect urban forestry is because forest ministries are not responsible forforestry development in urban areas (it is generally under the jurisdiction of municipal governments and oftencarried out by landscape designers and horticulturists). Even where national forest administrations areresponsible for peri-urban and urban forest resources, co-ordination with the municipality tends to be weak.

Urban forestry also suffers from a lack of political and financial support. Trees tend to rank especially lowamong the priorities of many developing countries where burgeoning populations demand attention to morepressing needs for shelter, food and sanitation. The result is that green spaces and trees disappear, and futureoptions for developing these are cut off. Another constraint facing urban forestry development is high pricesfor land in urban areas. This leads to conversion of forest lands in suburban or peri-urban areas and pressureon green areas in the urban centres.

67 Modified version of definition given in Miller, R.W. (1988). Urban forestry planning and managing urban greenspaces. Prentice Hall,New Jersey, USA.


While the constraints to urban forestry are numerous, there are still ample opportunities for forestrydevelopment in cities. Growing demands of the urban citizenry for improved urban environments and livingconditions, are translating in some places into more political and financial support for urban forestryinitiatives. Particularly in some rapidly expanding cities in developing countries, there may be opportunitiesfor urban forestry for productive purposes, due to concentrated demand and ready markets for products.

Status of urban forestry in the region

The status of urban forestry development varies greatly throughout the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in thedeveloping countries. In Australia and New Zealand there is a considerable area under urban reserves. In verydensely populated (and less developed) cities such as Jakarta, Old Delhi, Colombo and Dhaka, the area underurban forests is less than in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Sydney, New Delhi, Melbourne, Auckland andWellington. The poor cities in the region are generally far below the international minimum standard (9 squaremetres of green space per city dweller) set by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The cover of greenspace ranges from negligible to more than 25 percent (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2: Green areas in three representative Asian cities

City Green area(% of city area)

Green area per inhabitant(m2)

Year of data

Beijing

Seoul

Delhi

23.8

25.2

0.003

5.7

14.6

0.12

1996

1996

1980s

References to areas of green space per inhabitant may tend to draw attention principally to trees inside thecities themselves. However, it is important to recognise the importance of managing trees in peri-urban andeven more distant locations to meet the needs of cities. In Japan, for example, improvement of forests locatedin suburbs and villages is a priority concern of policy for the future,68 the intention being to bring access tonature closer to people. Given their relatively easy access, forests and trees near roadsides can be importantfor cities, even if they are located at considerable distance from the urban centres.

The results of a comparative study carried out by FAO of three cities in Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong Cityand Kuala Lumpur) clearly illustrates the changing role of forestry in the cities in response to various socialand economic needs (Box 6.9).

Issues facing future urban forestry development in the region

While it is impossible to predict quantitatively what will happen in terms of urban forests in the region, thefuture can only bring greater focus on forestry-related needs in cities. As urban populations increase and citiesexpand in size, forested land will be converted to more financially lucrative land uses, such as real estatedevelopment, fruit orchards, or market gardening. In the urban centre where land prices are higher, cityplanners weigh the social benefits of parks and green space against the financial benefits to the tax basethrough infrastructure development. The land pressure in poorer, rapidly growing cities will certainly behighest, reducing the opportunities for urban forestry development, both for production and protectivepurposes.

68 Source: Document APFSOS/WP/15, 1998.


Box 6.9: URBAN FORESTRY IN THREE DYNAMIC ASIAN CITIES – HONG KONG CITY,SINGAPORE AND KUALA LUMPUR

A comparative study of urban forestry in Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur provides important lessons for citiesthat are at earlier stages in development of their urban forestry programmes. Afforestation of water catchment areas andthe protection of remnant forests were the earliest and most important urban forestry activities in both Singapore and HongKong. Wood production was also a driving force behind afforestation efforts in Hong Kong. As the economies of all threecities have developed, street tree planting and urban green space for recreation have increased in importance.

Singapore was covered with tropical rainforest when the British arrived in 1819, but subsequent intensive agriculturalschemes, coupled with logging and fuelwood collection led to significant deforestation and forest degradation. By 1884,only 7 percent of the island was forested. To provide for watershed protection and wood production needs, in the late1880s, forest reserves were established and catchment areas of new reservoirs were put under protection. The centre ofthe island remains forested today, protected as nature reserves and a catchment area managed by the public utilities.Although planting of ornamental trees in Singapore dates from the middle of the last century (with the active involvement ofthe Singapore Botanic Garden), the most active programmes in street tree planting and urban greening have taken placesince the 1970s. Rapid population growth between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s, led to urban congestionand housing shortages. The low rate of population increase after the mid-1960s, and rising affluence, were importantfactors underlying the successful planning and revitalisation of the urban environment in Singapore. Beautification of thecity through tree planting was part of an overall strategy to create a more pleasant and healthy living environment and tostimulate economic growth by attracting foreign investment and business development in the city.

In contrast to Singapore, Hong Kong had little natural forest cover when the British took possession in 1841. At that time,Hong Kong was described as “a barren rock” of grass covered hills with sparse woodland cover in the valleys and smallpatches of protected groves near the villages. Major reforestation programmes were carried out from the late 1800s to theearly 1900s, and again starting in the early 1950s, following extensive deforestation during World War II. Thesereforestation programmes had a dual purpose: watershed protection and wood production. Government plantations andvillage woodlots were established to provide fuelwood, poles and timber for the rapidly growing population. In the late1960s, these programmes were scaled down due to a decrease in the demand for fuelwood and increased availability ofalternative fuels. Greening efforts picked up again in the 1970s with establishment of county parks and, later, with varioustree planting initiatives. The extremely rapid growth of Hong Kong’s population and dense infrastructure developmentwithout planning for green space earlier in the century now limits the scope for street tree planting and urban green spacein the older urban areas of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, particularly outside the urban core, various public, private and citizen-led efforts are being made in tree planting along streets and roads and in parks and other public areas.

The pattern of urban forestry development was different in Kuala Lumpur , where the major period of population growthoccurred much later than in Singapore and Hong Kong. The major period of growth of Kuala Lumpur has been the last fewdecades, in particular since 1974 when the city became the capital of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur lies in a region of richtropical forest. There are still significant areas of forest within the city limits and extensive forest reserves in the peri-urbanarea, providing for watershed protection, recreation and nature conservation functions. Pressure on the urban and peri-urban forest for provision of wood products is relatively low. Demand for fuelwood is small because the average incomelevel is relatively high and people have access to alternative household fuels. There are also ample supplies of timber forconstruction and other needs from other sources in the country. Similar to Singapore, Kuala Lumpur has put greatemphasis on beautification of the city, both for the benefit of urban dwellers and to attract businesses.

Source: Webb, R. (1996). Urban and peri-urban forestry in South-East Asia: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore, and KualaLumpur. Unpublished paper. FAO, Rome.

It can be expected that the cities that have a stable or slow rate of population growth, and whose populationsare becoming more affluent, will put more emphasis on tree planting, urban beautification and green spacedevelopment, as has happened in Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Singapore. It is also likely that there will bemore support for nature conservation in peri-urban areas.

It is more difficult to predict what will happen in the poorer, rapidly urbanising cities in the region, although itis expected that the environmental and productive roles of forests will receive the most attention. The large


influx to urban areas by rural poor, many of whom are unable to purchase fuelwood and constructionmaterials, will put tremendous pressure on the local forest and tree resources. Increased degradation andclearing of urban woodlands and forests can be expected. As these resources are depleted, fuelwood andcharcoal will be transported from further away, putting additional pressure on peri-urban forests and forestsfurther afield.

End-use changes on the outskirts of cities will also have direct impact on forest resources. The area ofsquatter settlements can be expected to expand in many cities, swelled by new rural immigrants unable toafford or find legal housing. Spontaneous settlement generally occurs on seemingly unused or marginal lands,including forests. Degradation of important watershed areas will pose hazards locally from soil erosion andeven landslides, and may be expected to create problems for the urban water supply. It may lead to increasedsedimentation of water bodies and perhaps to increased incidence of flooding. Degradation of forests or forestremnants along rivers and other water bodies within the urban core will contribute further to water qualityproblems. Unless urban planning, and implementation of the plans, can be successfully carried out, theseproblems can be expected to continue well into the next century.

Conflicts are likely to arise because of the different demands on forest and tree resources. As watershed issuesbecome more critical, conflicts arising from the need for watershed protection for the city and the needs ofpeople for forest products and land can be expected to come to the fore. New settlers as well as people whohave long lived in these watershed areas may be affected, as can be seen in the case of the ShivapuriWatershed on the outskirts of Kathmandu, Nepal (Box 6.10).

Box 6.10: SHIVAPURI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT FOR KATHMANDU’S WATER SUPPLY

One of the main sources of drinking water for the inhabitants of Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital city, is the 14,000-hectareShivapuri watershed. During the 1970s, the quality and quantity of water derived from this area declined, due to loss of treecover, overgrazing, and cultivation on steep slopes. The Government of Nepal, in an effort to protect the area, establisheda watershed and wildlife reserve covering 11,200 hectares of the watershed. A boundary wall and road were constructedaround the reserve, and the majority of scattered settlements within it removed, leaving only two villages. Hunting, grazingof livestock, and fuelwood and fodder collection within the reserve were prohibited. Residents forced to move off the landwere compensated for the value of their lands and homes, but there was deep resentment by the local people at the loss ofaccess to the forest and to forest resources needed for household use. In addition, many families, that previously hadgained a significant part of their income from the sale of fuelwood to the Kathmandu market, were considerably affected bythe ban on fuelwood collection. Although illegal, use of the forest and gathering of forest products continued, albeit to alesser degree. In response to these problems, in 1985, the government initiated the Shivapuri Watershed Management andFuelwood Plantation Project.

The objective of the project was to implement measures that could help satisfy the needs of the Shivapuri people for forestproducts, yet maintain the integrity of the forested watershed. Various income-generating activities at the boundaries of thereserve were introduced and improved, and a management plan, which provided for the sustainable use of the resourceswithout compromising the watershed protection function of the reserve, was developed. Efforts continue at Shivapuri to findways in which conservation and development in the watershed can be compatible, if not mutually reinforcing.

Source: Carter, J. (1994). The potential of urban forestry in developing countries: a concept paper. FAO, Rome.

The extent to which cities can meet the rising demand for wood products will depend on the availability andprice of land in peri-urban areas, options for supplying wood products brought from other areas of thecountry, institutional capacity to manage peri-urban plantations, and the accessibility of alternative fuels (e.g.kerosene, gas). Given the competition of more lucrative uses for peri-urban lands, production forestry mustseek public land not needed for alternative uses, such as city waste dumps69 or landfills.

69 The possible use of waste dumps has raised some concern, muted so far, at the possibility of trees absorbing heavy metals and these beingreleased into the atmosphere if the wood were later used for fuel; research is needed to ascertain if this concern is justified.


In some cities in arid and semi-arid areas, opportunities may exist for irrigated tree plantations using sewagewastewater. Sewage wastewater represents a source of nutrient-rich irrigation water, while also helping tosolve the problem of prohibitively expensive conventional sewage disposal. Cities in Australia, the People’sRepublic of China and India have considerable experience in this regard. Limited analysis suggests thatforests irrigated with sewage-derived waste water could be competitive with irrigated agriculture or possiblybe even more profitable.

The future of urban forestry in the region depends to a large extent on how well urban planning can stay aheadof urban growth, and more importantly, the extent to which plans can be effectively implemented. Key issueswill be whether urban forest and trees are considered important when urban infrastructure is first beingdeveloped. Effective implementation of the urban plans will depend upon co-ordination between the variousentities involved and the means to address conflicts between competing demands on forests and tree resources.

people and forests

Documents