WORKING PAPER Community forest management in the Peruvian Amazon A literature review Rosa Cossío Mary Menton Peter Cronkleton Anne Larson Working Paper 136 Community forest management in the Peruvian Amazon A literature review Rosa Cossío CIMMYT Mary Menton CIFOR Peter Cronkleton CIFOR Anne Larson CIFOR Working Paper 136 © 2014 Center for International Forestry Research Content in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Cossío R, Menton M, Cronkleton P and Larson A. 2014. Community forest management in the Peruvian Amazon: A literature review. Working Paper 136. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. Photo by Juan Carlos Izurieta ‘Tablilla’ saw mill near Pucallpa, Peru. CIFOR Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede Bogor Barat 16115 Indonesia T +62 (251) 8622-622 F +62 (251) 8622-100 E [email protected] cifor.org We would like to thank all donors who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Fund. For a list of Fund donors please see: https://www.cgiarfund.org/FundDonors Any views expressed in this book are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of CIFOR, the editors, the authors’ institutions, the financial sponsors or the reviewers. Table of contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Peru’s forestry sector 1 2.1 Timber production 2 2.2 Illegalities in the forestry sector 4 2.3 Communities, rural populations and the farm–forest interface 5 3 Cases of community forestry in the Amazon 8 3.1 Community forest management: Definitions and challenges 8 3.2 Examples of CFM projects in Peru 9 3.3 Main challenges for CFM in the Peruvian Amazon 15 4 Conclusions 17 5 References 17 1 Introduction traditional communities, colonist settlers, ribereños1 or small‑scale farmers (Sabogal et al. 2008). For a long time, the predominant focus of international interest in tropical forests was on A substantial body of evidence shows that CFM forest preservation and biodiversity conservation. has become an important feature of the forestry Recent years, however, have seen a gradual shift sector in many developing countries. Many early away from this “fortress conservation” (Brockington examples come from India and Nepal (e.g. Agrawal 2002) toward sustainable forest management, in and Ostrom 2001), with examples from Latin which local people’s needs are reconciled with America increasingly common (Larson et al. 2008; biodiversity conservation (Schwartzman et al. 2000; Cronkleton et al. 2011a). Leaders in Latin America Wilhusen et al. 2002). In the 1990s, integrated include Mexico (Klooster and Masera 2000; Bray et conservation and development projects (ICDPs) al. 2003, 2005), Guatemala (Ortiz 2000; Wittman became common (Hughes and Flintan 2001), and Geisler 2005; Taylor 2010), Brazil (Amaral et including projects that supported community‑based al. 2005; Humphries and Kainer 2006) and Bolivia sustainable management of forests for environmental (McDaniel 2003; de Jong et al. 2006; Stearman services, timber and non‑timber forest products 2006). Although in Mexico CFM has been evolving (NTFPs). These community forest management over several decades, in other countries in Latin (CFM) projects were designed as an alternative to America (particularly in the Amazon region), most traditional timber extraction practices, with the initiatives to promote CFM are relatively recent aim of protecting forests while providing social and (Amaral et al. 2005; SNV 2005). This is the case for economic benefits to a range of forest users (Bray CFM in Peru. 2004). CFM is generally understood to refer to a wide variety of local modalities employed to manage The purpose of this review is to summarize the and use forest resources in a sustainable and equitable published literature, as well as any available manner (De Camino 2001; SNV 2005; Pagdee information provided by NGOs or project et al. 2006; Cronkleton et al. 2013). Most of the proponents, on the practice of CFM in the Peruvian discourse around CFM centers on management of Amazon. We begin by describing the forestry sector communal forest resources (Agrawal and Ostrom in Peru to provide background for the discussion of 2001; Pagdee et al. 2006) or on externally supported CFM. This is followed by an overview of land‑use projects that facilitate timber harvesting or NTFP and forest management by rural populations in the commercialization (Amaral et al. 2005; Li 2007). Peruvian Amazon. We then describe the different This focus on communal forests is logical, given that manifestations of CFM in Peru and the most widely large areas of forest in Latin America are managed studied cases of CFM projects. Finally, we look at by communities under communal titles. At the some emerging initiatives, summarize the main same time, other forms of forest management challenges for CFM and highlight important areas are increasingly attracting attention and interest, for future research. particularly company–community partnerships (Mayers and Vermuelen 2002) and locally initiated forest management activities that do not rely on outside support (Pokorny et al. 2010). 2 Peru’s forestry CFM projects usually focus on supporting collective enterprises that manage communal forests under sector legal management plans, yet in practice, communities Peru has the second largest area of natural forest in and the individual households within them manage South America, and the ninth largest in the world forests in diverse ways. We therefore argue here that (Schwartz 2004), and Peru’s forests are among the the definition of CFM should be expanded to include the variety of ways in which communities manage their forests, whether through externally supported 1 A term used for rural populations in the lowland Peruvian projects or informal traditional forest management Amazon. They include detribalized Amazonian natives, immigrants from neighboring Peruvian departments, from other practices. Under this definition, CFM is understood South American countries or overseas, or the descendants of any to comprise all planned forest activities conducted unions between members of these groups. They live mostly along by local actors, such as indigenous, peasant or the major rivers in small villages called caserios (De Jong 2001). 2 Rosa Cossío, Mary Menton, Peter Cronkleton and Anne Larson Earth’s most significant areas of biodiversity and year from 2005 to 2009 and to 103,380 ha each year endemism (Oliveira et al. 2007). The forests of the in 2010 and 2011 (MINAM 2012). Although this Peruvian Amazon cover a total of 73 million ha, level of deforestation is lower than the global average or 60% of the country’s total land area (MINAM or that of neighboring Brazil (250,000 ha/ year) and MINAG 2011). A total of 78% of the (Hansen et al. 2013), it is projected to continue at Peruvian Amazon (47% of the country) lies in similar rates until 2050 under a business‑as‑usual four administrative regions (Loreto, Ucayali, scenario (Armas et al. 2009). As deforestation in Madre de Dios and San Martín) (MINAM 2009). the Peruvian Amazon has many causes and follows Almost 8% of Peru’s population lives in these regions, irregular patterns (Alvarez and Naughton‑Treves where poverty is high (SNV 2005). 2003; Chavez 2009; Dourojeanni et al. 2009; MINAM 2009; Almeyda Zambrano et al. 2010), The government classifies forests in Peru (Table 1) as efforts to reduce deforestation in the country have production forests (for timber and NTFPs), protected followed a range of trajectories, from support for forests (e.g. parks and reserves) and community CFM (Gaviria and Sabogal 2013) and payments forests (see Box 1). for forest ecosystem services (Armas et al. 2009) through to more recent interest in REDD+ Under Peruvian law, people may extract timber (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest and NTFPs from forests, but they may not convert Degradation) (Che Piu and Menton 2013). land designated as forest to agriculture. However, in practice, these classifications have had little influence over land‑use behavior in the Peruvian Amazon 2.1 Timber production (Che Piu and Menton 2013). In recent decades, deforestation in Peru has persisted. Peruvian scientists Timber production is a major economic activity in estimate that an average of 149,632 ha of forests the Amazon and an important source of regional was lost each year between 1990 and 2000, mainly employment (Chirinos and Ruíz Pérez 2003). through conversion to agriculture (MINAM 2009). Historically, the forestry sector in the Peruvian After peaking at 163,000 ha a year in 2000–2005, Amazon relied predominantly on timber harvested average deforestation declined to 123,000 ha each on a small scale by native communities and other rural populations. Over time, however, timber harvests became more intensive and were organized Table 1. Forest classifications in Peru, with type by industry, although they remained at a relatively and area. low intensity, given the volume potentially available in Amazonian forests. Only in recent decades have Forest classification Area (millions ha) large enterprises begun the aggressive extraction Production Forests of commercial timber species using machinery Active Production Forests 9.2 (Malleux 2008). Reserve Production Forests (for 8.8 future harvest) Since the 1920s, Peru’s timber sector has concentrated on the selective logging of high‑value Protected Areas hardwoods, initially mahogany (Swietenia National Natural Protected Areas 16.3 macrophylla) and cedar (Cedrela odorata), and then Regional Protected Areas 0.7 later other species such as tornillo (Cedrelinga Private Protected Areas 0.04 catenaeformis). The government granted one‑ or two‑year contracts on areas of up to 1000 ha without Community Forests management plans in an attempt to facilitate access a Titled Native Communities 10.6 for small‑scale loggers (Cossío 2009). However, these Voluntarily Isolated Communities 1.75 contracts were often held by larger logging companies Campesino Communities 3.53 instead, and the lack of government oversight and Unclassified Forests 22.25 control led to overexploitation of these species.