Municipalities Take Action in Forest Management

Swiss-Ukrainian Forest Development Project in Transcarpathia FORZA

How communities manage forests:

selected examples from around the world

Uzhgorod – L’viv 2010 The publication was produced by FORZA, the Swiss-Ukrainian Forest Development Project in Transcarpathia with the financial support of the Swiss Confederation.

The contents do not necessarily represent the official views of the donor.

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non- profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledge- ment of the source is made. FORZA and Intercooperation would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world

This publication provides readers with an introduction to community forestry, taking eight country examples from Europe and Asia. In each example the legislation and organisational forms are described, and environmental, economical and social aspects discussed. The publication is intended for forestry students, forestry practitioners and policy makers, and interested members of the general public.

© FORZA, Swiss-Ukrainian Forest Develop- ISBN 978-966-1633-21-5 (ENG) Published: ment Project in Transcarpathia, 2010 ISBN 978-966-1633-20-8 (UA) “Galyc’ka vydavnycha spilka”, Ltd. © Intercooperation, Swiss Foundation for De- Tugana-Baranovs’kogo st., 24, velopment and International Cooperation, L’viv 79005, Ukraine 2010 Acknowledgements

This publication required the efforts thusiastic about the publication, de- of many busy people, all of whom con- spite the time that it took to reach the tributed their time and their thoughts printing press. in putting together the case studies in addition to their regular work. We Finally, we would like to acknowledge are very grateful to all the chapter the particular efforts of Jane Carter authors for so readily accepting this and Natalya Voloshyn, who were a task, and for patiently responding to constant driving force in the prepara- our queries for further information – tion of this publication, from its first including, in many cases, the supply inception through all the coordina- of photographs. tion exchange with the authors, to the final preparation of the layout. As In addition to the chapter authors, the document is produced in two lan- several other people provided sub- guages, we hope very much that both stantial assistance. Regarding the Ukrainian and English readers will be Scottish example, we would particu- as appreciative as we are of all those larly like to thank Rick Worrell for his involved. detailed comments, as well as Anna Lawrence for her early suggestions. This publication was produced within Vassil Stiptzov gave helpful input to the Swiss-Ukrainian Forest Develop- the Bulgarian example. For details on ment Project in Transcarpathia FORZA Ukraine, Yuriy Derbal provided valu- with the financial support provided able advice and detailed information by the Swiss Confederation, which we whilst Viktor Korniyenko also made gratefully acknowledge. Neverthe- important comments. Although we fi- less, the contents do not necessarily nally chose not to include a case study represent the official views of the do- from Canada, Susan Mulkey was very nor; as coordinators of this work, we helpful in responding to our que- take the full responsibility for any er- ries on community forestry in British rors that might unwittingly have been Columbia. included.

We appreciate the support of Caro- Lesya Loyko line Schlaufer, who was always en- On behalf of the FORZA project team Content

Conclusion: What future 51 for community forestry 6 Introduction in Ukraine?

Bhutan: Slovakia: 10 Community forestry Returning the forests as a fast growing national movement 36 to their original owners References Nepal: 60 Beneﬁting the poor 24 through community forestry Bulgaria: New opportunities Switzerland: 15 for municipalities A long history through communal forestry 41 of community forests Scotland: List of authors Forest ownership 62 30 brings new dynamics Kyrgyzstan: to rural communities Forest leases Viet Nam: as the choice 19 Sustainable timber of the people harvesting brings 46 funds to communities Content

Conclusion: What future 51 for community forestry 6 Introduction in Ukraine?

Jane Carter

The idea for this publication came can thus be drawn between from the realisation that very little • professional forest management as published literature on communi- a ‘scientific’ discipline practised by ty forestry exists in Ukrainian, at the (usually) State-employed foresters; same time that there is growing inter- and est in the subject, and a demand for • indigenous forest management sys- information about experiences in oth- tems, developed locally by communi- er countries. The text that follows is a ties living in and around forests, and first attempt to provide such informa- varying greatly in technical and social tion. The countries highlighted were sophistication. selected on the basis of our professional contacts or experience, com- Professional foresters have not al- bined with certain characteristics that ways recognised indigenous forms of would make them particularly inter- forest management. Indeed, for many esting to a Ukrainian audience famil- years people living in and around the iar with the challenges of forestry in forests tended to be viewed as those Ukraine, particularly in the Carpathi- responsible for destroying it – degrad- an (mountainous) region. Thus, for ing the resource through the harvest- example, the forests in most of the ing of forest products, or clearing it countries included are temperate (or completely for grazing and agricul- at least important areas are), and are ture. As the global forest area shrinks, often located on steeply sloping land. the reasons for forest loss have been We also deliberately chose to include subject to intense debate and analy- experiences from a number of Euro- sis, and it has become clear that, of pean countries, and from countries the many players involved in forest ex- that are moving out of a formerly ploitation, local and indigenous peo- centralised, socialist economy. Many ples are often those who loose the of the examples, although not all, are most. If they gain anything, it tends linked to Swiss development efforts. to be the least. Furthermore, as local The selection was not intended to be residents whose livelihoods – and in fully representative of worldwide ex- some cases cultural identity – depend perience in community forestry, but on the forest, they can have a particu- it nevertheless provides a fairly broad larly strong interest in preserving it. In overview. the past few decades, local and indigenous peoples have become better organised and more vocal in demand- ing a right in decision-making over the What is “community forestry”? forests on which they depend. They are supported in this by a number of Forestry as a scientific discipline arose international agreements and con- 1 1 For example, the United Nations Dec- in response to the need of States to ventions . At the same time, forester laration of the Rights of Indigenous exert their jurisdiction over forested perceptions have gradually changed, Peoples (2007) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). The partici- areas, and in so doing to control and to the point that it is widely accepted, pation of local people is also upheld in manage them – chiefly to generate at least at an international level, that the Framework Convention on The Pro- tection and Sustainable Development of revenue. Such management regimes local and indigenous peoples have the Carpathians (2003), and the Forest were often imposed in areas where the right to participate in decisions Stewardship Council certification Princi- local people were already living and over forest management that affect ples and Criteria (1998). using the forests. A broad distinction their livelihoods – or that they should

6 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world have, if they do not. Although some pation in forest management can be countries have practised community supported. A common one is for the forestry for well over a century (Swit- State to hand over to local commu- zerland provides one example in this nities the right to manage and ben- publication), the approach has be- efit from an area of forest, although come more widespread over the past it ultimately remains State property. 40 years. In this case the State retains the right to renew the agreement on a periodic Community forestry may thus be basis, and to rescind it if the stipulat- broadly defined as an approach to ed conditions are not met. This is the forest management that actively pro- form of community forestry currently motes the rights of people living in practised in the examples from Bhu- and around the forest to both partici- tan, Nepal and Viet Nam outlined in pate in forest management decisions this publication (although the right of and to benefit (financially and in kind) the State to terminate a community from the results of this management. forest is not usually enforced). Anoth- er mechanism is for communities and The debate has in fact moved beyond the State body (the forest administra- decision-making rights to rights of for- tion or similar) to collaborate in joint est ownership. The paradigm of State decision-making and benefit-shar- owned and controlled forests being ing – a system that is widely practiced managed by State-employed, profes- in India, for example (as Joint Forest sional foresters, is itself increasingly Management), although it is not doc- questioned. Although ownership of umented here. most forests of the world (some 75%) is still claimed by States, the current Another form of involving local peo- worldwide trend is towards local ple in forest management is through communities gaining either forest use the lease of plots of State forest land rights or full legal ownership of (pre- to individuals, households, or groups viously State-controlled) forests. This of households. To be attractive to is particularly true in Latin America, potential tenants, the lease usually where (according to 2008 figures) needs to be for a substantial time pe- nearly a quarter of the entire forest riod, and to include clear harvesting area is now owned by communities rights. This system is practised in a and indigenous peoples2. In Eastern variety of countries, the example de- Europe, there has also been a major scribed in this publication being from movement since 1991 towards com- Kyrgyzstan - although Nepal, Scotland munities and individuals regaining and Vietnam also have provision for ownership of forests that they owned forest leases to individuals or com- prior to the Soviet period. The Bulgar- munity groups. ian and Slovakian experiences outlined in this publication provide two The form of tenure arrangement examples of countries implementing adopted in community forestry tends such a forest restitution process. to reflect historical patterns as well as more recent political developments in the country concerned, as is illustrated perhaps particularly well in the ex- Different forest tenure arrangements amples from Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Vi- etnam, Scotland and Slovakia. The recent global trend towards local communities gaining full legal owner- The point here is that there is no sin- 2 See www.rightsandresources.org/ 3 Here we distinguish between recent ship of forest areas that they manage gle “model that fits all” – community transfer of ownership of forests from the is reflected in the example of Scotland forestry arrangements must be ap- State to local communities, compared 3 with the long-established ownership given in this publication . There are propriate to the local context. rights over forests enjoyed by communi- nevertheless many other mechanisms ties in the example of Switzerland through which local people’s partici- Given current global concerns over cli-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 7 mate change and the development of only in terms of trying to ensure so- mechanisms for offsetting carbon and cial equity, but also in terms of intro- payment for environmental services, ducing an approach that is practical the matter of who owns forests, who and sustainable. For example, in Ne- is in a position to manage them in a pal the early approach to community sustainable manner, and who should forestry entailed handing over forests receive benefits in return for so do- to the village administrative unit (at ing, is of key international interest. It the time governed through the sin- is thus likely that the legal provisions gle party State). The boundaries of of community forestry in different the forests, however, do not conform parts of the world will come under in- to the village administrative bounda- creasing scrutiny in the future. ries – so one forest is commonly used by people belonging to a number of different villages. A further problem at the time was that the administra- Who is “the community”? tion was highly political and not gen- uinely representative. The solution In general the definition of “com- that was found was to start by defin- munity” in the context of communi- ing the forest area, and to then identity forestry may differ depending on fy all its users. All the user households the history, the background and lo- then became a member of a legally cal context in each particular country. recognised community forestry user Indeed, within one country, different group. This system of identifying us- forms of community forestry can ex- ers, organised into forest manage- ist, in which the community unit may ment groups, is also used in Bhutan. be organised in different ways. Thus in the examples in this publication In people-oriented approaches to (and more widely), “the community” forestry in Vietnam, Switzerland and may be variously defined as: Scotland, it has been found practical • a group of people living in the same to define the “community” as the lo- area (but not necessarily in the same cal administrative unit. Another pos- settlement) and using the same forest sibility, as demonstrated in Scotland, area (Nepal, Bhutan); is for a number of interested individu- • a local administrative unit/ munici- als to get together and form a group. pality that manages and/or owns a In a separate form of community for- particular forest area (Vietnam, Swit- estry in Switzerland, the “communi- zerland, Scotland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, ty” is made up of an exclusive group Ukraine); of households with hereditary rights – • a group of people who have an in- that is, people whose ancestors lived terest in a particular forest area (Scot- in the area. land, Kyrgyzstan); • an exclusive group of households Yet another possibility is for “commu- with hereditary rights to a forest area nity forestry” to involve community (Switzerland); members on an individual basis, and • individual community members not as a group at all. This was how the (Kyrgyzstan, and some cases in Bul- concept became popular (through garia and Slovakia, Vietnam [land-use long term leases) in Kyrgyzstan, and certificates]). has also been the experience in some of the forest restitution cases in Bul- Early attempts to involve people - liv garia and Slovakia, as well as (for ing in and around forests in their land-use certificates) in Vietnam. management often failed to define exactly who belonged to “the com- Whatever mechanism is chosen for munity” – or to fully recognise the handing over rights to local people, it heterogeneity within “communities”. is of course necessary to have an ap- Both points are highly significant, not propriate legal framework. This has

8 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world often entailed a period of testing, and The country examples not one, but a series of modifications to the forest laws or regulations of The examples provided in this pub- the countries concerned. lication of different country experiences in community forestry provide All communities are of course made an overview – indicating the histori- up of individuals – women, men and cal and cultural context of forestry, children living in different house- the reasons for community forestry holds, often gaining a living in quite being introduced, the legal frame- different ways. In some communities, work adopted, and how the approach there may be considerable similarity works in practice. The effect on the between the member households, forests and the people involved is also but it is more common for there to considered from an environmental, be significant differences – in social economic and social viewpoint. Fur- and capital assets, life opportunities, ther reading (only available in English) and interest in, or reliance on, forest is also indicated in a short reference resources. In some countries, strong section at the end of the publication. social discrimination exists between different ethnic groups, between ed- It is hoped that these examples will ucated and non-educated persons, stimulate further thought with regard between men and women, etc (such to the undoubted potential for com- discrimination is often illegal, but nev- munity forestry in Ukraine, and the ertheless occurs in practice). mechanisms by which this may be implemented. Thus it is important that in any community forestry initiative, an assessment is first undertaken in each case to identify who comprises the community; who uses which type of resources, who decides, and who is marginalised from decision-making. This may be done through a stakeholder analysis or similar means, and usually takes some time. It may also be necessary to discuss representa- tion and equity matters at length with community members. Sometimes pro-active measures are needed to ensure not only that all individuals and households are involved, but that any eventual benefits are distributed in an equitable (fair) manner. Equita- ble distribution may entail identifying the poorest households or those most in need, and making specific provision for them – as is demonstrated in the Nepal example. In Ukraine, of course, a similar logic is applied by the State in making certain households (those with large numbers of children, war veterans, disabled, etc) eligible for free or subsidised fuelwood. The difference in Nepal is that it is the user group members themselves who decide who should receive special benefits.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 9 Bhutan: Community forestry as a fast growing national movement

K.J. Temphel and Kaspar Schmidt

Legal status of forests

In Bhutan, all forests, with the excep- The 1995 Forest and Nature Conser- tion of land under shifting cultivation, vation Act of Bhutan recognised the were nationalised in 1969 under the traditional and cultural rights of local Forest Act and declared to be Govern- people to access and use forest re- ment Reserved Forest. sources. It also introduced legal provisions for private forestry and for com- The first National Forest Policy of munity forests (see box). 1974 included as a long term goal the maintenance of “a minimum of 60 % of the total land under forest cover for all times to come”, which was later included in the Constitution.

10 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Main facts

Area of national forest land: 2,471,815 ha Main forest types:

Area covered by forest: 72.7 % of the land • Subtropical and warm broadleaved for- area est (Shorea robusta, Dalbergia sissoo, Tectona grandis, Duabanga grandiflo- Area of forest under community man- ra, Gmelina arborea, Castanopsis indica, agement: 21,024 ha Engelhardia spicata);

Proportion of the overall forest area • Cool broadleaved forest (Quercus spp, under community forestry: 0.85 % (but Terminalia spp, Albizia spp, Michelia spp); growing) • Mixed conifers (Pinus wallichiana, Abies Number of people participating: Approx. densa, Picea spinulosa, Larix griffithiana, 8,650 households as members of 173 Tsuga dumosa). Community Forest Management Groups (CFMGs) (July 2009)

Legal forest categories in Bhutan

Government Reserved Forest com- have been granted management and prises all forests not registered under use rights under conditions set out in an individual’s land title document. a management plan approved by the Department of Forests. Community Forest is government- owned forest lands for which commu- Private Forest is forest on private- nities, organised as Community For- ly registered land under a land title est Management Groups (CFMGs), document.

Community participation

The past decade has seen a gradual has increased rapidly and community change of emphasis in the manage- forestry has become an important part ment of forests. There has been a shift of the national forest policy and a sig- from a primary focus on the protection nificant movement in the country. By of forests towards a focus on balancing July 2009, there were 173 Community conservation with sustainable man- Forests approved by the Department agement. Associated with this change of Forest and handed over to Com- of emphasis has been a move towards munity Forest Management Groups a more decentralised and people-cen- (CFMGs). tred approach to forestry, with a strong agenda directed at poverty reduction. The Forest and Nature Conservation The first Community Forests in Bhutan Rules 2006 are currently again under were established in the late 1990s fol- revision in order to incorporate recent lowing the legal recognition of com- changes. Government policy aimed at munity forestry in 1995. Since 2007, using participatory forestry approach- the number of new community forests es to contribute to poverty reduction

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 11 and socio-economic development. able harvesting of non-wood forest The revision aims at liberalising and products (NWFPs). The entire process simplifying community forestry rules of establishing a CFMG and planning and regulations so that community forest management is facilitated and forestry can benefit even more local supported by local, specially trained communities. forest extension staff. The final management plan – incorporating recom- Any interested rural community can mendations made by the local govern- apply to the Department of Forest to ment and the district administration as establish a Community Forest. A CFMG well as a technical review by the ter- typically includes all local households. ritorial forestry service – is put to the The members of the CFMG define the Department of Forest for approval. Ap- rules governing the functioning of their proved management plans have a du- group and elect an executive commit- ration period of ten years, after which tee to represent their interests. These they can be revised and renewed eve- rules are incorporated into the Com- ry ten years. The Department of For- munity Forest management plan as est and its local staff monitor progress by-laws. The CFMG members agree on of the Community Forests and support objectives for their Community Forest CFMGs in the implementation of their and develop a management plan tak- management plans. The Department ing into account the local ecological of Forest also holds the right to revoke conditions, the production capacity of its approval of the Community Forest if the forest, the community’s demand in the management plan is not followed forest products and the availability of or if there is a lack of compliance with products and ecosystem services pro- directives issued by the Department vided by the forest. The management of Forest. To date, the Department of plan includes annual harvest limits for Forest did not have to use its powers timber and provisions for the sustain- to cancel any Community Forest.

Environmental aspects

The first Community Forests are now eas. Foresters also report a decrease old enough to demonstrate their long in the number of forest fires thanks term impact in terms of environmen- to the increased sense of ownership tal conservation. Of the total 173 and protection of forests by the CFM- Community Forests, 114 have the Gs. In general, CFMGs harvest timber explicit objective of environmental conservatively and below the annual conservation and conduct activities harvest limit prescribed in the Com- accordingly. So far, more than 346 munity Forest management plan. ha of plantations have been established in Community Forests, mainly The CFMGs also invest labour in the with native species, to protect water Community Forest to improve for- sources and to rehabilitate degrad- est quality. Three Community Forests ed or barren land and areas prone to (Dozam, Yakpugang and Masangda- landslides. za) have, for example, invested 7,524 person days during the period from Many foresters report an increase in 1997 to 2006 in silvicultural treat- vegetation cover in Community For- ments of forest stands, fire line con- est areas. CFMG members observe struction to protect the Community improvements in forest conditions Forest from forest fires, production of since they gained the rights to regu- seedlings and cane planting. In mon- late harvesting of forest resources etary terms, this investment amounts and grazing in Community Forest ar- to Nu. 752,400 (or 16,720 US$).

12 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Economic aspects In most Community Forests, econom- for illegal actitivites and donations ic benefits have started flowing to the by visitors contribute to the funds. members of the CFMGs. They use for- To give a figure: by 2007, 31 Com- est products for subsistence and are munity Forests had accumulated a entitled to market products if their total of Nu 546,772 (US$ 12,150) in own demand is satisfied. Thus CFM- Community Forest funds since their Gs increasingly generate income from establishment. the sale of timber and NWFPs. Through the sale of timber and In all Community Forests, communi- NWFPs and the establishment of ty funds are established. These funds CFMG funds, the Community Forest often start as saving funds, but with programme has the potential to really the time, the proceeds from fees for contribute to the improvement of ru- the use of forest products, sale, fines ral livelihoods.

Social aspects The Community Forest programme orities and defend their rights in the generates substantial social benefits. local Block Development Committee. After the approval of the Community In many instances, the CFMGs also Forest management plan by the De- serve as platforms for discussion of is- partment of Forest, the communities sues other than community forestry. have access to their forest resources In this way, community forestry also as per their management plan. Having contributes to improved local govern- their own harvest rights, the member ance and devolution. households of the CFMG no longer have to go through a lengthy process The Royal Government of Bhutan pro- to get timber permits from the terri- motes community forestry as one torial forestry office. CFMG members means to reduce rural poverty. To often mention an increased sense of realise this potential of community ownership over, and easy and secure forestry to contribute to poverty re- access to, their resources as the main duction, it is important to make sure motivations to establish a Communi- that benefits are shared in an equita- ty Forest (legally speaking, ownership ble way amongst the members of the is still with the Government, as only CFMGs and that poorer households management rights are handed-over thus benefit particularly. A number to the CFMGs). of CFMGs have included specific pro- poor provisions in their by-laws. The establishment of CFMGs with Community Forests can also serve as their own by-laws enables the com- a platform for developing social co- munity to better organise itself for hesion by bringing together people the benefit of all its members. These with different ethnic backgrounds, groups of villagers managing their languages, customs and beliefs to designated forest in a sustainable way talk about issues of common interest build important social capital. As an and about doing something to benefit organised group, the members can their children and grandchildren. better express their concerns and pri-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 13 A practical example: Dozam Community Forest

Dozam Community Forest covers 300 go through their Community Forest ha, and is managed by a CFMG of 114 area. The main reasons for this com- households. The CFMG determined munity action were the potential dam- that the main forest management ob- age that would be made to a planta- jectives should be to promote peoples’ tion established by the CFMG, and participation in environment conserva- the non-compliance of the contractor tion and forest management; restock with the terms and conditions agreed. the degraded forest by planting trees Eventually, the road was built through and managing the current forest stock; the Community Forest area, but under and protect the regeneration from for- the condition of strict protection of Dozam Com- est fires and from unlawful extraction drinking water sources and adherence of resources. to environmentally friendly road con- munity Forest struction practices. has gained The CFMG has been operational for 13 years, and the Community Forest The main challenges faced by the organic management plan has already been CFMG have been the restocking of the revised once. The Dozam Community barren area under grazing pressure; certification Forest has been certified for organ- poverty reduction; and keeping the for the lemon ic lemon grass oil production. From CFMG going despite the conflicts cre- 1997 to 2006, the Community Forest ated by the construction of the above- grass oil that has generated Nu. 53,841 (about US$ mentioned farm road. Only some it produces 1,200) in lemon grass distillation fees households benefit from the road, and for the Community Forest funds. The others where frustrated in seeing their CFMG was able to hold up the con- plantation efforts destroyed by it. struction of a farm road planned to

14 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Bulgaria: Municipalities take action in forest management

Natalya Voloshyna and Christoph Dürr

Legal status of forests As a country that became a com- former State Forest Enterprises were munist state after the Second World disbanded, with the process of res- War, Bulgaria was governed as a So- titution beginning in 1997, following viet-style centralised economy from the introduction of a new Forest Act. 1946 to 1989. Following the collapse Previous owners to whom forest plots of the Soviet system, the country have been returned include numer- adopted a new constitution allow- ous private individuals, communities ing for multi-party elections, and in- and churches. By 2006, more than troduced a series of market-oriented 25% of the forest area had been re- economic reforms. A major thrust in turned to previous owners. There are this process was privatisation, -par now more than 550,000 private forest ticularly land restitution – returning plots and 780,000 people (individuals land that had been taken over by the and members of communities) who State (for collective management) to are forest owners. Before nationali- the previous private owners. In the sation in 1946, 57% of the Bulgarian forestry sector, this meant that the forests were managed by communi-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 15 ties, some with ownership and some mented in different places, with - dif with user rights provided by the state ferent owners who often live far away in earlier times - even back to the Os- in the cities. This creates an -enor manian period during the 19th centu- mous challenge for effective man- ry. The clarification of these rights is agement. The technical knowledge the subject of thousands of legal cas- and managerial skills of the new for- es pending in the Bulgarian courts up est owners are also limited because to the present day. the forests were nationalised for over 40 years and traditional knowl- These changes have been both posi- edge was eroded or lost. In addition, tive and challenging for the forest in the absence of a cadastral survey sector of the country. The possibility in Bulgaria, it is generally not possible of communities being able to man- to identify the boundaries of private age their own forests once again has and communal forest property in the brought significant benefits to them, field. Legal management guidelines especially to those communities with for private and communal forests are forests as their main natural resource still not fully developed, and the for- in the area. Private ownership con- est administration lacks the capacity sists of many small forest plots with to provide advisory services to the an average size of 0.6 ha, often frag- private owners.

Main facts

Area of national forest land: 3.63 mil- Number of people participating: Ap- lion ha1 (including 0.57 million ha in pro- prox. 780 000 people, members of com- tected areas) munities that own forest land

Area covered by forest: 32.5% of total Main forest types: Coniferous forests land area1 32%, broadleaved forests 68%

Area of forest under community management: 0.53 million ha

Proportion of the overall forest area un- 1 Data source: FAO Global Forest Assessment der community forestry: Approx. 13% 2005, www.fao.org/

Legal forest categories in Bulgaria

State Forests: 74%. These forests are ty Forests is done either by a specially managed by the state forestry agency established Community Forest Man- with its 141 State Forest Management agement Department within the struc- Enterprises and 37 State Hunting En- ture of the municipality, or by the For- terprises in accordance with forest in- est Management Enterprise, which is ventory and forest management plans, an independent legal entity, reporting which are developed for a 10-year and subordinated to the municipality. period. Management can also be delegated to the State Forest Enterprise. Communi- Community Forest: 13%. Such forests ty forest management, as with forest are owned by the municipalities, which management in State Forests, is con- are governed by democratically elect- ducted according to a 10-year forest ed bodies. Management of Communi- management plan. The plan has to be

16 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world approved by the State Forest Agency. Religious Forest comprises less that A recent development in forest man- 2% of the overall forest area, and be- agement planning is the new approach longs to religious institutions (mainly of participatory multifunctional forest monasteries). management planning. The protection of Community Forests is an obligation Protected Forest is that forest which of the State Forest Enterprises. has special environmental, scientific or cultural value. Protected forest ar- Private Forest: 11%. This is the forest eas can be located in the forests of any land under private ownership. Man- ownership type; their management agement plans are done by licensed is dictated by special rules developed foresters and have also to be ap- by the state administration. Some of proved by the State Forest Adminis- these forests are managed by the State tration, which is in charge of checking Forest Agency, and some by the Minis- implementation. try of Environment.

Community participation

The management of Community For- The community is involved in forest ests is carried out by the State For- management issues through the dis- est Agency or by forest management semination of information via the bodies that are similar to the State mass media and through public meet- Forest Management Enterprises, but ings, but more indirectly through under the supervision of the munici- community deputies in the municipal pality. This can be either an independ- council. The new approach of partic- ent legal entity or a separate depart- ipatory multifunctional forest - man ment integrated in the municipality. agement planning includes consulta- tions within the community, and the Forest management planning in Com- participation of community members munity Forests is done every 10 years, as well as other stakeholders in the and annual operation plans have to working groups and forums within be approved by the municipal council. the planning process. The municipal council also decides on the distribution of the income from Logging operations can also be - auc community forest management; as a tioned to private contractors. The general rule this is spent on commu- municipality also sometimes has in- nity needs (schools, kindergartens, frastructure for timber processing, infrastructure, fuelwood) and some- thus adding value to the round wood. times returned back for forest man- Rules and procedures are still being agement purposes. developed by the state administration, and change frequently. Capac- Bulgaria’s forests are also inten- ity building on managerial skills is still sively used by the local people for needed at the different levels. non-timber forest products such as mushrooms, herbs, and berries. The regulation of these uses is however not included in the community plans, but is still under the state administration; the same is true for game hunting.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 17 The main The main benefits of community for- • Increased financial resources at the benefits estry to date are as follows: community level for re-investment at this level • Decentralisation of decision making processes, good governance and lo- • Community forest management pro- cal responsibility for managing natural motes community solidarity resources • Community infrastructure is improved • Access to the forest resources and forest benefits for community • Local ownership provides a good ba- members sis for the effective monitoring of sustainable forest management. Challenges There are also a number of challenges: is needed in a cadastral survey, with public access to information • The country is currently in an inter- im period of changes, and the legisla- • Responsibilities and rights in forest tion on ownership and user rights is planning procedures are unclear, as is not yet fully settled the mechanism for the approval and implementation of the plans • There are difficulties in forest management related to the territorial di- • Community forest management is vision of forest plots under different heavily dependent on the personality ownership of the head of the municipality or the local deputies, as well as the local for- • Clarification of property boundaries est administration.

A practical example: Vetovo Community Forest

Vetovo Community Forest covers an cessful partnership with the local state area of 4,594 ha, comprising 4514 ha unemployment office, employing local broad leaved forest and 80 ha conifer- people for seasonal works in the for- ous forest. It is managed by the Vetovo est. It has also steadily improved in its Forest Enterprise. The community for- financial effectiveness; during three est members number 18,045 people. first years of operation, the value of The Vetovo the enterprise’s shares more than dou- Forest Enterprise The main forest management objec- bled, going from 197 lv. (100 euro) in tives are as follows: 2006 to 397 lv. (200 euro) in 2008. has established a • Planting of forests – 10 ha annually successful partner- • Forest nursing/ maintenance Besides the improvement in the supply ship with the local mea sures of timber products to the local popula- • Forest harvesting – annually 14,5 tion and the employment of 40 local state unemployment thousand m3 (90% of the annual people, the enterprise has become a office, employing growth) for commercial profit stable financial resource for the lo- • Supply of fuelwood to local people cal community budget. Taxes paid to local people for with preferential or free provision to the community budget over the last seasonal works the socially disadvantaged. two years amount to 3,565,000 lv. in the forest (175, 000 euro). The enterprise has established a suc-

18 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Kyrgyzstan: Forest leases as the choice of the people

Ennio Grisa and Patrick Sieber with Jean-Marie Samyn

Legal status of forests According to the Kyrgyz legislation, implementation of the national forest forests can be State owned, com- policy. Provincial forest administra- munal or private. Most of the Kyrgyz tion units are in charge of forest man- forests are State owned (78%), 22% agement at the level of the province are under communal ownership and (oblast), while at the local level State very few are privately owned (only Forest Enterprises (leshozes) and spe- plantation forests can be private). cial protected territory units (notably State owned forests are located in reserves, national parks) are respon- the National forest territory (Gos- sible for the protection and manage- lesfund) and State reserve territory ment of both forests and non-forest (Goszemzapaz). lands of the State national territory in their designated areas. Municipalities The State Agency for Environment are responsible for the forest occur- Protection and Forests (SAEPF) is the ring within their territory. responsible body (since 2005) for the

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 19 Main facts

Area of national forest territory (Gosles- ment: about 0.6% of the total forest cov- fund): 3,321,500 ha1 = 16.6% of the land ered area in the country has been leased area. This is under the management of the out under the Collaborative Forest Man- national forest administration bodies and agement the leasehold system. is covered by forest on 26 % or 864’900 ha. Number of people participating: by the Area covered by forest: approx. end of 2009, 1,266 Collaborative Forest 1’390’000 ha of Kyrgyzstan is covered by Management contracts had been signed. forest. This represents almost 7% of the In most cases, various members of the total area of the country. While the area family are involved in carrying out the covered by forest has for many years been work fixed in the contract, and it is estimat- indicated to be about 4.5%, this figure was ed that at least 5,000 persons are involved recently adjusted with the publication of in one way or the other in the scheme. The the new digital forest map produced with number of other types of leases amounts the support of KIRFOR2 that covers the en- to some 20,000. tire national territory. This map shows that forests are also located outside the Gosles- Main forest types: There are four main for- fund. Their distribution is as follows: Gos- est ecosystems in the country: 1) Conifer- lesfund 59%, State reserve territory 19% ous forests in the North and centre of the and municipalities 22%. country comprising Spruce (Picea schrenki- ana) and Fir (Abies semenoivii) – the latter Area of forest under Collaborative Forest limited to a small endemic area; 2) Walnut- Management: approximately 8,300 ha is fruit forests in the northern Fergana slopes under Collaborative Forest Management comprising Walnut (Juglans regia), Apple leases. The total forest land leased out (Malus spp.), Maple (Acer spp.), Hawthorn under other leasehold systems makes up (Crataegus spp.) and various Prunus spp.; 317,650 ha, most being pasture. Available 3) Juniper forests (Juniperus spp.) in the data do not indicate the amount of forest South and everywhere at higher altitudes given in such leases. and 4) Riverside forests comprising Willow (Salix spp.), Poplar (Populus spp.), Birch, Proportion of the overall forest covered (Betula spp.) and other species growing area under Collaborative Forest Manage- along most of the country’s rivers.

1 ENAFLEG, 2005 figures. See: www.worldbank.org/enafleg 2 KIRFOR: the Kyrgyz-Swiss Forestry Support Programme

Legal categories in the State forest territory of Kyrgyzstan

State Forest territory is subdivided to individuals or groups of individuals into forest and non-forest land. For- for long-term management and use est land is exclusively foreseen for for- (49 years) under conditions set out in est use and may or may not be under a management contract. current forest cover. Non-forest land is not foreseen for forest use. Other leased forest is forest or non forest land that is managed by indi- Forest and non-forest land can be viduals on the basis of leasing agree- leased out according to mechanisms ments which’s term can vary accord- defined in the Kyrgyz legislation. ing to the use and terms of leasing.

Collaborative Forest Management leased forest is the forest land leased

20 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Community participation

Collaborative Forest Management the maximum area of walnut forest was introduced to Kyrgyzstan on an that can be allocated per family un- experimental basis in 1998 through der this scheme as 5 ha. the support of KIRFOR3. While other forms of access to forest resources by All of this found its legal expression in private persons already existed at that the governmental Collaborative For- time, the key features of the Collabo- est Management decree 377 which rative Forest Management leasehold was endorsed in 2001. Together with system were that it aimed to provide a number of other key policy docu- tenants with long-term user rights. ments, this decree ensured that the This would encourage the tenant to participatory resource management manage the entrusted forest plot in system gained a consolidated position a responsible manner. Collaborative within the Kyrgyz forest policy frame- Forest Management further envis- work. At one stage there was a risk aged letting the tenant become part of Collaborative Forest Management of the decision-making process re- being undermined by the existence of garding the management of resourc- another earlier and broader decree es – rather than just allowing the har- allowing for the leasing of forest land; vest of products from the forest plot. however, decree 482, passed in 2007, Based on the pilot experiences, clear ensured that all forest leases must be rules and regulations were elaborated conducted according to Collaborative for the allocation of forest land under Forest Management principles. this leasehold scheme. They include application criteria for would-be ten- Whilst for the time being the majority ants, how and by whom applications of Collaborative Forest Management are considered, and the arrange- contracts are issued to individuals or ments needed to ensure that any families, there is an increasing trend problems in fulfilling the contractual towards group contracts. In paral- agreement at any stage can be settled lel, the more engaged participation 3 The Kyrgyz-Swiss Forestry Support Pro- gramme operated from 1995 to 2009, in the most objective way possible. of municipalities in joint forest man- finally closing in early 2010. It was imple- Being aware of the high demand for agement in the pilot areas is a further mented by Intercooperation on behalf of the Swiss Agency for Development access to the walnut forest resources, positive development. and Cooperation, SDC the CFM regulations further stipulate Environmental aspects After the collapse of the Soviet Union, The introduction of the participatory the forestry authorities in Kyrgyzstan forest resource management system faced more and more difficulties in has provided a way of fostering col- managing and protecting the forest laboration between the people living resources of the country. in or next to the forest resources, and the forest authorities in charge of im- Many of the daily products previously plementing the defined forest policy. imported during Soviet times were no longer available, and people had to Through CFM it is possible to achieve find substitutes – including an- alter productive, sustainable management native source of energy from electric- (harvesting, re-planting and the en- ity and gas. couragement of natural regeneration), at the same time as promoting This situation resulted in considerable the protection of the forest from ille- pressure on the natural resources. gal exploitation.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 21 Kyrgyzstan has experienced violent sure this commitment. Beyond this, political unrest in recent times, with the multi-stakeholder negotiation considerable loss of life in the South- processes that have been started in ern part of the country. In such times CFM implementation provide one ex- of conflict, forests are often quickly ample of the type of approach need- destroyed. Strong local commitment ed more widely in seeking a construc- to forest conservation is needed, and tive future for the country. it is hoped that CFM leases will en-

Economic aspects The forest resources of Kyrgyzstan walnuts can represent a significant are an important source of revenue part of household incomes, but as the for the local population. Although yield varies greatly from year to year the harvesting and sale of timber -re (due to climatic conditions), they are mains the realm of the State Forest not a reliable source of income. Even Enterprise (leshoz), Collaborative For- so, tenants generally consider that est Management tenants have the their Collaborative Forest Manage- right to other forest products on their ment plots have provided a means to plot. Their leases allow them to col- improve their livelihoods significant- lect firewood, to harvest fodder for ly. The main economic interest of the livestock – and most importantly in State Forest Enterprises in the Collab- terms of financial income – to - har orative Forest Management system is vest non-timber forest products (pis- to fulfil their annual work plan and to tachio, almonds, apple and above all carry out labour-intensive forest man- walnuts) and sell them freely on the agement work, for which their budget market. In good harvesting years, would otherwise be insufficient.

Social aspects The Collaborative Forest Manage- is a greater sense of pride and self ment approach provides an example confidence amongst tenants, in be- of how multi-stakeholder negotia- ing able to manage a forest plot over tion processes can deliver widely ac- which they have long term (49 year) cepted results. Exchanges between user rights. policy makers and local level representatives contributed to the linking of actors and institutions in the sharing of information, and promoted a common understanding of processes occurring in the forestry sector. This has contributed to increased mutual respect between the different levels, and a marked change in perceptions. This changed perception of greater mutual understanding can be considered one of the major social benefits triggered by CFM. The other benefit

22 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world A practical example: Collaborative Forest Management in Toskolata leshoz

Toskolata leshoz was the last State For- ment in return for being able to use est Enterprise in southern Kyrgyzstan the non-timber forest products from to introduce the Collaborative For- their allocated leasehold plots. This est Management leasehold system, provision of labour to settle the lease- in 2004. Located in Nooken district hold obligations allows the leshoz to and situated north-west of Jalalabad, conduct their planned forestry ac- the forest territory of Toskolata leshoz tivities for which their limited finan- is made up of pistachio and almond cial resources would otherwise be stands in the lower and drier parts of insufficient. the leshoz, and walnut-fruit forests in the upper valleys. Some 30,000 ha of Over the last few years, Toskolata les Tenants in the leshoz area (or about 40%) is cov- hoz has gained special attention due leshoz ered by forest, and is divided into five to its pioneering role in fostering col- Toskolata forest ranges. laboration between the forest ad- are involved ministration, the local government By the end of 2006, 49 Collabora- (village administration) and the lo- in diverse for- tive Forest Management contracts cal population. Such collaboration had been signed, making up an area between the three important local estry activities of 287.3 ha of forest area leased out. stakeholders has been very much ne- in return for This area includes 90 ha of walnut- glected in Kyrgyzstan to date. With fruit forest in the upper part of the the lower lying areas of Toskolata les being able valleys, which is particularly inter- hoz being in the direct vicinity of the esting for tenants due to the high- densely populated areas fringing the to use the er expected returns from harvesting Fergana valley, a closer and success- non-timber walnuts. ful collaboration between the two local institutions and the inhabitants is forest Collaborative Forest Management considered a prerequisite to ensuring tenants in Toskolata leshoz are in- sustainable local development and products volved in diverse forestry activities finding ways to deal with the - grow from their such as forest protection and guarding human pressure on the natural re- ing, plantation works, the collection source base. leasehold plots of forest seeds and nursery establish-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 23 Nepal: Benefitting the poor and disadvantaged through community forestry

Jane Carter and Bharat K. Pokharel

Legal status of forests

Nepal’s forests may be very broad- private land are national forest – that ly divided into those at high altitude is, owned by the State. The nation- (sub-alpine and upper temperate); al forest (which includes large areas those of the middle hills (lower tem- which are not tree covered) is further perate and sub-tropical); and those divided into five categories, some of in the Southern plain that borders which are particularly associated with India (the Terai – tropical). Nepal na- certain areas. Thus community forest- tionalised its forests in 1959, and un- ry is particularly found in the middle der its most recent forest legislation hills, whilst collaborative forest man- (the Forest Act 1993), all trees and agement is only practiced in the Terai. forests other than those growing on

24 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Main facts

Area of national forest land:5,828,000 ha Main forest types: (including 2,391,000 ha of protected areas) • Tropical – dominated by Sal (Shorea robusta) or Dalbergia sissoo; Area covered by forest: Approx. • Subtropical – Four forest types, com- 3,636,000 ha = 25.4% of the land area prising Chir Pine (Pinus roxburghii); mixed broadleaves (Schima-Castanopsis); Alder Area of forest under community manage- (Alnus nepalensis); and dry forest (Albizia ment: 1,219,000 ha spp); • Lower temperate – Mixed Oak (Quercus Proportion of the overall forest area un- spp); or Blue Pine (Pinus walichiana); der community forestry: Approx. 33% • Upper temperate – Mixed broadleaves, mainly high altitude Oaks (Quercus spp).; Number of people participating: Approx. or Fir (Abies pindrow); 14,300 Community Forest User Groups • Subalpine (Abies spectabilis; Betula utilis; (CFUGs) whose membership consists of Rododendron spp). about 1.67 million households.

Legal forest categories in Nepal

Government Managed Forest is man- line. This is a relatively small forest aged by the central Government of category. Nepal based on a Work Plan that is approved by the Ministry of Forest Religious Forest is national forest of and Soil Conservation. religious significance that is entrusted to local bodies (religious groups, com- Protected Forest is that designated as munities, etc) for management. Data having particular environmental, -sci on the extent of religious forest is lim- entific, cultural or other importance. ited, but it is small. Within this category falls national parks, reserves, strict nature reserves, Collaborative Forest is a relatively wildlife reserves, hunting reserves, new forest tenure arrangement in conservation areas and buffer zones. Nepal, dating from 2000, and specifically concerns the high value tropi- Community Forest is forest that has cal forests of the Terai. It differs from been handed over to local communi- community forestry in that it seeks to ties (organised into Community - For involve both primary and secondary est User Groups, CFUGs) for their forest users, coordinated through a use, conservation and development District Forest Coordination Commit- according to an agreed management tee (DFCC). plan (developed by the users and approved by the District Forest Officer). Private Forest is forest that has been planted, nurtured or conserved on Leasehold Forest is national forest any land over which legal title is held for which management responsibili- by an individual or legal body. ties are handed over for a fixed time period (usually 40 years) to either During the 1970s and 1980s, there commercial enterprises or to groups was much concern that the middle of people living below the poverty hills of Nepal were being rapidly de-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 25 forested and that this would have forestry has undoubtedly contributed drastic implications on downstream to a major improvement in the forests areas as far as India and Bangladesh. of the middle hills. The part of Nepal Community forestry was seen as an in which deforestation is still taking answer to this problem. Subsequent place is the Terai; here attempts to research has shown that the Hima- introduce participatory approaches layan “disaster scenario” was over- have been far less successful. estimated; nevertheless, community

Community participation

Community forestry is the main of management might include (for mechanism for local people’s involve- example) livestock fodder, fuelwood, ment in forest management in Nepal. food and fibre, as well as timber. If subsistence needs are met, the group The concept was introduced in the also has the right to sell all products late 1970s, and has undergone a se- derived from the forest, including ries of refinements (both in legisla- timber (which is generally the highest tion and in the accompanying rules value). and regulations) to become what it is today. A crucial element is that all The management plan agreed by the households using a given forest are group is submitted to the District For- first identified, and formed into a user est Officer; on its approval, the group group, through external facilitation. officially becomes a Community For- est User Group (CFUG) and can open This facilitation is conducted either by a bank account in its name. Forest Department staff or by (non- government) service providers. Nei- Normally the management plan ther the forest area nor the group is should be revised every five years and necessarily determined by existing re-approved by the District Forest Of- political or administrative boundaries ficer – who holds the right to deny (which often differ). approval if the management plan has not been respected. Whilst there may The group first determines its con- be problems in adherence to plans stitution (membership, frequency of and constitutional requirements, it meetings, etc), and elects a commit- is rare that these cannot be rectified. tee to represent its interests. For im- Thus normally the user group is grant- portant decisions, a general assem- ed the right to continue. bly must be held. The management objectives of the forest are then dis- Nepal is a country with huge social in- cussed, and a management plan de- equities, and widespread discrimina- termined. This must take into con- tion on the base of caste, class and sideration the productive capacity of gender. This formed the background the forest and the sustainable levels for civil unrest which eventually led of harvesting, the products required, to outright civil conflict between the the species to be promoted, etc. government and Maoist rebels over the decade 1996 to 2006. During this In Nepal forests have a wide variety time, and indeed to date, the local of uses for subsistence and income- administrative bodies, Village Devel- generating purposes; thus objectives opment Committees, were unable

26 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world to function effectively, and in many instances Community Forest User Groups became the main body of local level development – taking on responsibility for matters such as path maintenance, repairing important buildings (such as schools), and similar issues.

Environmental aspects Data shows that forests managed by ented, and to place heavy limits on Community Forest User Groups have, harvesting. As experience has grown, overall, significantly increased in for- more productive management prac- est density, whilst the species com- tices have been adopted, but- har position has been maintained or im- vesting levels are still generally set at proved. Thus community forestry has quite conservative levels. Communi- been beneficial for Nepal’s biodiver- ty Forest User Groups are legally re- sity. The tendency early after hand- quired to invest 25% of their income over was for Community Forest User in forest management. Groups to be highly conservation-ori- Economic aspects In the early years of community forest- rules and regulations (such as the need ry in Nepal, the focus was on subsist- to obtain permits to transport timber, ence products. As community forests etc). Currently Community Forest User have increased in productivity, more Groups are not required to pay taxes or opportunities for economic benefits royalties to the government, although have been explored. there are some government officials who believe this should change. Com- Products that have been developed munity Forest User Groups have the commercially include essential oils, right to impose a (usually small) fee for resin (from pine), paper (made from the use of the forest for specific pur- the bark of shrubs), and juices made poses and to fine those committing from forest fruits. Timber sales from offences, and thus gain some income community forests are also increasing, from this. but are limited as a result of restrictive

Social aspects Partly because of the political context User Groups are expected to be rep- of the civil conflict, community for- resentative of their membership – es- estry in Nepal has become a vehicle pecially those who have been tradi- for social change. As democratic, self tionally discriminated. For example, governing bodies, Community Forest projects supporting community for-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 27 estry generally monitor the number ty forest activities, the allocation of of women and members of other dis- small plots of land for growing non- advantaged groups who participate in timber forest products, scholarships meetings, and are members of Com- for children to attend school, loans munity Forest User Group commit- at favourable rates, small grants to tees. Community Forest User Groups set up income-generating activities, are legally required to put aside 35% etc. Community Forest User Groups of their income for the poorest mem- are also represented at national level bers, who are identified by the group through the Federation of Communi- itself, using a system of well-being ty Forest Users of Nepal, which is vo- ranking. Activities in favour of such cal in ensuring that the rights of its 1 For more information on FECOFUN, see persons include preferential employ- members are respected1. http://www.fecofun.org/ ment opportunities in communi-

A practical example: Harrabot Community Forest, Thulachhap VDC, Okhaldunga District

Harrabot Community Forest User Forest User Groups to favour broad- Group was established in 1998, and leaved species (which are valued for has a current membership of 141 animal fodder, fuelwood and leaf litter households managing a forest area to fertilise the fields) this Community of 18.3 ha. The forest area is relatively small compared with other Com- munity Forest User Groups with a similar size of membership. Most of the households belong to the more privileged caste groups in Nepali so- ciety (Brahmins, Chhetris and Ne- wars), although there are also five Dalit households (castes responsible for demeaning types of work, who were traditionally “untouchable”) and twelve households belonging to ethnic groups. This composition is reflected in the committee membership; nine belong to the privileged castes, with one Dalit and one representative of the ethnic groups. Sig- nificantly, six of the eleven committee members are women.

The Harrabot community forest mainly comprises broad-leaved species (dominated by Castanopsis hystrix, Alnus nepalensis and Schima wallichiana) although there is also some Chir Pine (Pinus roxburghii). The Pine is native to the area, but in this case was planted in the early 1990s and has now reached maturity. In reversal of the general tendency of Community

28 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Forest User Groups is trying to con- dings). The bipanna have also gained vert the forest to Pine. This is because a number of other benefits. One ex- there is a major demand for timber ample is Susa Kumari Bhujel (the an- in the nearby district town of Okhal- cestors of the Bhujels were slaves, and Community dunga. Being not far from a road, the many remain highly disadvantaged). Forest User Community Forest User Group can She was able to buy a piglet with a supply timber relatively easily. They grant of Rs 5,000 (from the project, Groups have been harvesting the Pine since channelled through the group); when 2006, according to an annual allow- it had grown, she sold it and bought a are legally able harvest of 237 cubic feet (6.7 m3) buffalo. The committee members also required to put per annum. Their current bank bal- supported her husband in getting a ance stands at approx. Rs 38,000 (ap- job as a school assistant, and Ms Bhu- aside 35% of prox. US $ 512), although they have jel was elected the Community For- given out almost the same amount in est User Group vice chairperson. Thus their income loans to members, at an interest rate the family’s social as well as economic for the poor- of 24% per annum (excepting to the status has increased considerably. identified poor, see below). est members, Harrabot Community Forest User Through discussions and a selection Group is provided not as a particu- who are iden- process approved at a full meeting of larly outstanding example, but as an all the Community Forest User Group ordinary one. The area of forest that tified by the members, the group has identified it manages is of course very small, group itself, ten households from amongst their but this should be set in the con- membership who are exceptionally text of some 270 Community Forest using poor. Such persons are known as bi- User Groups in the district. The for- panna or identified poor. The bipan- est area of Okhaldunga district covers a system na are eligible for interest free loans some 37,530 ha, of which 68% is un- of well-being from Community Forest User Group der community forest. An important funds for any livelihood improvement feature of Community Forest User ranking activities that they wish to conduct Groups is that they have become an (such loans are not extended, how- effective tool for working towards lo- ever, for social expenses such as wed- cal development at their own level.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 29 Scotland: Mobilising rural communities through forest ownership

Piers Voysey and Jon Hollingdale

Legal status of forests

Some historical background on land of native woodland remaining up to ownership in Scotland is necessary to this point, in fact much of the land appreciate the current situation of for- was already deforested, with forests ests and their legal status. covering only 5% of the land area by as early as 1500. Land ownership pro- Scotland became joined to England as gressively passed to a small number of Great Britain in 1707, at a time when wealthy private owners, some Scottish most Scots lived a poor subsistence and others English, who used the land lifestyle, organised in family clans with for sheep farming and hunting deer allegiance to the clan chief. Although and grouse. During the period 1650 there is a popular image of wide tracts to 1900, large numbers of people left

30 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world the land, either as a result of poverty widely criticised by the Scots public for or through forcible evictions on the a variety of reasons, including the sig- part of the large land owners. Some nificant impact on the landscape and of these people were resettled by the biodiversity. coast or but most migrated overseas (particularly to America). From the last decade of the 20th century, forestry policy has encompassed Following the war, in 1919, the UK1 an increasingly wide range of objec- government established the Forestry tives including biodiversity and com- Commission – a government depart- munity engagement as well as timber ment with the overriding objective production. Whilst land ownership in of planting forests to create a strate- Scotland remains largely under the UK gic national reserve of timber (an -ob and Scottish governments and a lim- jective that has broadened with time ited number of wealthy individuals or to include other aspects such as rural corporations, there is a growing move- development, public recreation and ment towards communities buying up biodiversity). land and managing it themselves.

From the 1950s onwards, considerable The Scottish Land Reform Act (2003) areas were also planted up by private specifically gives communities the owners, supported through tax incen- right to buy rural land when it comes tives and grants. This combined effort up for sale, whether it is privately or by the government and private own- publically owned, and the Forestry ers has seen the forest cover expand Commission Scotland is now active- to 17% (of which about 35% is govern- ly supporting this (see next section). ment owned) – transforming much Whilst as yet community forests cover of upland Scotland through the wide- only a very small area of Scotland, they 1 The United Kingdom is made up of spread planting mainly of exotic coni- are very significant in terms of their England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Great Britain excludes Northern fers (notably Sitka Spruce, Picea sitch- historical context. Ireland ensis). This policy eventually became

Main facts

Area of National Forest Land: 447,000 ha Number of people participating: approxi- (the land managed by the Forestry Com- mately 20,000 mission Scotland) Main forest types: Area covered by forest: 1,341,000 ha = • Coniferous forest approx. 1,041,000 ha 17.2% total land area (compared against in particular introduced Sitka spruce(Picea the total wooded area in the UK of sitchensis), and indigenous Scots pine (Pi- 2,841,000 ha) nus sylvestris);

Area of forest under community manage- • Broadleaved forest approx. 300,000 ha ment: approximately 25,000 ha comprising mixed Oak (Quercus robur), Birch (Betula spp.), Alder, (Alnus glutino- Proportion of the overall forest area un- sa), Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and others. der community forestry: approximately 2%

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 31 Legal forest categories in Scotland

The 447,000 ha of National Forest ecutive Environment Directorate, etc), Land is land owned by Scottish minis- and local authorities; ters on behalf of the nation and man- • Private landowners: individuals, in- aged by the Forestry Commission vestment companies, pension funds, Scotland. A further 894,000 ha of for- forest sector companies including est is under “other ownership”. sawmills; • Environmental NGOs: Royal Socie- Owners include: ty for the Protection of Birds, Scottish Wildlife Trust, etc; • Public bodies: the UK government • Diverse other bodies such as the (Ministry of Defence etc), UK Crown Church of Scotland; Estates, the Scottish Government • Communities, in the form of Com- (Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish- Ex munity Forests.

Community participation

The Forestry Commission Scotland has the Community Council (the statutory a partnership programme which al- body of local government) or a group lows local communities to participate of people sharing an interest in the giv- in management decisions over forests en woodland, who form a community in which they have a particular inter- organisation with a constitution. est. Beyond this, a National Forest Land Scheme now gives community Community Acquisition goes a step organisations, recognised non-gov- further from “the right to buy” under ernmental organisations (NGOs), and/ the Land Reform Act (2003), because or appropriate housing bodies the op- it even allows communities to buy (or portunity to buy or lease National For- lease) National Forest Land that has est Land. not been put up for sale (or lease) – that is, the communities can demand The most common mechanism is the right to purchase. The land first through community acquisition, for needs to be formally valued at its full which seven criteria are given. To be el- market value by a District Valuer, a igible, the “community” may either be process assisted by the Forestry Com-

32 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world mission Scotland - which is obliged to The seven Community Acquisi- provide a map, inventory, and details tion criteria of any relevant legal aspects (rights of 1. The community organisation must way, etc). The community then has to be eligible to buy the land find the necessary funds for the pur- 2. The community must have a sub- chase (or lease); in the case of commu- stantial connection with the land nity organisations, this is often done 3. The community must have the ca- by forming a charity and seeking do- pacity to manage the land nations. The application itself must -in 4. The proposal must have communi- clude a map and details of the land, as ty support well as details about the community; 5. The proposal must be consistent and an explanation of how the seven with the principles of sustainable community acquisition criteria are ful- development filled (including a forest management 6. The proposal must be in the public plan). The decision on whether to ap- interest prove the purchase or lease is then 7. The proposal should not be signif- made by the Director of the Forestry icantly detrimental to the manage- Commission Scotland, who is advised ment of the national forest estate by an independent Evaluation Panel. Source: Forestry Commission Scotland, 2008

Environmental aspects

The management of most commu- maintained for timber production. nity forests specifically seeks to pro- Woodland newly planted by commu- mote biodiversity and enhance the nities tends to comprise mainly native landscape. Where existing forests species. Management often includes are taken over by communities there effort to expand any remaining area is usually an effort to increase the of the original forest (called ancient proportion of native species – often woodland) and to improve the habitat broadleaved species, but also the na- for protected and endangered species tive Scots Pine, Pinus sylvestris. At the such as bats, woodland grouse and same time, planted conifers are often red squirrels.

Economic aspects The cost of purchasing a community woodland is commonly borne by donations from private individuals and government grants. The cost of maintenance can often be covered through productive, sustainable management, supplemented by a government grant which seeks to support public benefits (access, recreation and biodiversity). In some cases this may eventually

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 33 also recuperate the investment made timber, but on tourism and non-tim- (depending on the forest type and the ber forest products. For example, the management options available). Com- membership organisation “Reforest- munity forests can be managed to pro- ing Scotland” suggests a huge range vide a sustainable source of local tim- of such products that can be har- ber to the community members, and vested from Scottish forests and sold may result in the development of small commercially, including honey, edible businesses and employment in remote mushrooms, and a variety of berries areas where few such opportunities (especially when processed into jellies exist. These may not only be based on and jams).

Social aspects In the quite often physically scattered munity forests becoming a venue for settlements of Scotland, community cultural events and artistic installa- forests have served to increase com- tions, although simply having a pleas- munity cohesion, especially at the ant space for recreational oppor- time of making an application. tunities – playing, walking, jogging, cycling, horse riding, orienteering – Since the main motivation often can generate a strong sense of com- comes from a limited number of peo- munity ownership. Often community ple, the challenge is to continue the forests are used as sites for educating momentum in the years after a suc- school children and the general public cessful application and to ensure about the environment, and may also that a broad section of people are in- be included in wildlife surveys, moni- volved. In a number of successful cas- toring and research. es, this has been done through com-

34 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world A practical example: Wooplaw Community Woodland, Scottish Borders

Wooplaw Woods are owned and man- land could become available for pur- aged by Wooplaw Community Wood- chase, he starting raising ‘seed’ money lands – a charitable organisation run (£3,500) by making and selling 365 entirely by some 100 volunteers who wooden axe-heads in what he called believe it is important to promote his “Axes for Trees” project. Each axe- woodland culture and keep traditional head was unique and made from vari- woodland skills alive. The Community ous species of British hardwood. As a Woodland consists of 20 ha of mixed result of the publicity for his “Axes for native hardwood trees and commer- Trees” project, other people joined his cial Sitka spruce. The long-term man- campaign. The land was purchased agement objective is to harvest most with grant funding from WWF and the of the Sitka spruce and replace them Countryside Commission and an or- with native hardwood trees, there- ganisation called Borders Community The very by adding to the wildlife potential of Woodlands was set up to manage the first commu- Wooplaw Woods. site. nity forest The overall aim is to manage the When the site was first purchased, woods for the benefit of the local only half of it was covered with wood- in Scotland, community – in particular education, land – the rest was just fields. Over Wooplaw training, recreation, and the sustain- the years, with the help of volunteers, able production of forest products. thousands of trees have been plant- Woods, This includes providing a year round ed in those fields and in areas where programme of events aimed at pro- some of the original Sitka spruce have emerged moting a woodland culture, making been harvested. Ponds have been dug, through the the woods available as a free venue an otter holt has been built and instal- for other organisations to run events lations such as a log cabin, a thatched determined associated with music, arts, woodland roundhouse and a toilet have been skills, wildlife studies and other cul- constructed. There is an extensive efforts of a local tural studies, and also providing com- barbecue area, which is a favourite pletely open access for members of with visitors, some of whom stay over- wood sculptor the local community. night in tents or in the log cabin. Paths have also been laid to ease access for Wooplaw Woods was the first Com- the disabled, and boardwalks, bridges munity Woodland in Britain. It was the and stiles constructed. brainchild of Tim Stead, a wood sculptor and furniture maker who lived in a The ongoing challenge for Wooplaw nearby village. He specialised in using Woods is vandalism, litter and delib- native British hardwoods, rather than erate rubbish tipping, and large over- imported timber. On hearing that the night parties with loud music.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 35 Slovakia: Returning the forests to their original owners

Zuzana Sarvašová and Peter Šiška

Legal status of forests Modern Slovakia is of course a re- Communist rule that the Slovak Re- cently constituted state. The manage- public finally emerged as the inde- ment of the country’s forests must be pendent state that it is today. set against the backdrop of Hungar- ian domination up to the First World During the Communist period, land War, followed by the formation, dis- was brought under collective own- solution and reformation of Czechslo- ership and management. With inde- vakia in the next decades, and then pendence and the new constitution the period of Soviet occupation from of 1989, a Land Act (no. 229/91) as 1948 to 1989. Associated with these well as other restitution acts restored major changes in rule were a number land ownership to private individuals. of mass migrations of different popu- The restitution of forest property to lation groups. It was with the end of former owners is still in progress, and

36 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world is characterised by a diversification in cence; and administrative units (com- forest management. It is a complicat- mercial, semi-budgetary) attached to ed process, further hampered by the municipalities. fact that it is not always easy to trace former owners (as a result of earlier Slovak forests represent an important migrations) – thus some forests re- natural heritage, reflecting their eco- main unclaimed. logical and environmental worth (as repositories of biodiversity and cover It may be noted that whilst State for watershed catchments), their eco- agencies manage 55.1% of the total nomic value, and their cultural sig- forest area, the State holds property nificance. All these values may be ap- rights to only 40.2% of the area. The preciated in a national, European and category of non-state forests includes global context. The objectives and those under private, community, priorities of the national forest poli- church, agricultural cooperative, and cy are defined in the National Forest municipal ownership. The most com- programme, the main goal of which is mon legal and organisational forms sustainable forest management. This of non-state forest include land as- assumes the management of the for- sociations (with or without the status est resources in an economically vi- of corporate entities); limited com- able manner that satisfies social and panies; shared companies; individual ecological (nature protection) needs. persons with or without a business li- Main facts

Area of national forest land:2,007,441 ha a difficult figure to calculate, because of = 40.6% of the land area shared ownership types

Area covered by forest: Managed forest Main forest types: land covering 1,933,591 ha, plus approx. 275,000 ha agricultural and other land cov- • Coniferous 40.3%. Of this, the main spe- ered by forest vegetation cies are Spruce (Picea spp.) 30%, Fir (Abies spp.) 4.4%, Pine (Pinus spp.) 7.6%, with Area of forest under community manage- other conifers 3.3% ment: 519,361 ha plus 170,264 ha of municipal forests • Broadleaved 59.7%: The main species comprise Oak (Quercus spp.) 11.2%, Beech Proportion of the overall forest area un- (Fagus sylvatica) 30.1%, Hornbeam (Carpi- der community forestry: approx. 26% of nus betula) 5.6%, Maple (Acer spp) 1.7%, the managed forest land Ash (Fraxinus spp) 1.2%, Poplar 0.9%, others 4.5% Number of people participating: This is

Legal forest categories in Slovakia

State Forests: (including military oc- the Ministry of Agriculture. The Mili- cupied land) 40.2%. Forests in state tary Forests and Estates, eg. Pliešovce ownership are managed by the fol- are administered by the Ministry of lowing state agencies: the Forests Defence. State agencies also manage of the Slovak Republic, eg. Banská un-claimed forests (some 8.2% of the Bystrica; Forest-agricultural Estate total forest area) and forests leased eg. Ulič.; and the State Forests of Tat- from non-state agencies. ra National Park. All these fall under

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 37 Municipal Forests: 9.7%. As the own- such as their legal and economic sta- er of a forest, a municipality can man- tus, method of management, and age its own property or rent it. Where duties and relations between com- the municipality adopts the former munity land members. option, it can establish a business entity. Municipalities realise their own- Church-owned Forests: 3.0%. These ership rights through municipal of- are forests privately owned by fice bodies, local councils or company churches and religious communities. boards (limited companies, business They were established under laws companies) through the approval of 282/1993 and 161/2005, respectively. the budget, balance sheet of the for- Forests that were returned to church est enterprise and management of ownership can be managed by an as- the forest enterprise (director, depu- sociation, for example the company ty, staff numbers, etc.). Municipalities PRO POPULO Poprad was set up in do not intervene in matter of profes- 1991 to manage the 11,700 ha forest sional forest management. The big- and agricultural estate owned by the gest owner of municipal forests in Slo- Roman Catholic bishopric of Spišské vakia is the city of Kosice (19,432 ha). Podhradie.

Community Forests: 25.6%. These Private forests: 13%. Individual pri- forests belong to many co-owners vate forests generally cover a very and cannot be divided, because the small area, and may be managed forest should be managed as a whole. through a forestry cooperative or land By adoption of Community Land Law community (i.e. limited company and No. 181/1995 all entities that existed others). previously to manage such areas (before they became community forests as such), were rendered defunct. Oth- er mechanisms for the management of these forests were also adapted –

Community participation

There are two legal forms of commu- use the timber either for their own nity forest. One involves the establish- consumption (especially heating) or ment of a legal entity (association) by sell it to various entrepreneurial bod- the persons with title to the forest; the ies. The main way by which small pri- other entails management without es- vate forest owners can be involved in tablishing such a legal entity. The first forest management is through partici- case generally involves larger areas of pation in joint meetings at which col- forest land with favourable production lective decisions are made regarding and logging possibilities; here manage- the exploitation of the timber resourc- ment usually develops quite positive- es of their forests. ly. The second case usually concerns the management of small forest areas, The interests of community forestry where the possibility of rational, pro- associations are to co-ordinate activi- ductive management is limited. Usu- ties aimed at securing the sustainable ally the owners themselves undertake management and prosperity of for- forest management activities. They est estates; to comment on proposed

38 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world policy and legislative documents; and of Slovakia (62 members, 134 054 ha), to organise capacity building (training) the Union of Regional Associations of their own members. Some of these of Non-state Forests (10 members, associations are further associated 276 200 ha) and the Association of in larger organisations. Amongst the Owners of Private Forests and Forests most active non-state associations are in Shared Ownership in Banská Bystri- the Association of Municipal Forests ca County (534 members, 134 011 ha).

A practical example: The Urbarium forests of Veľký Klíž

The village Veľký Klíž is situated on the Under good economic conditions, lower slopes of the mountain Tríbeč, the harvesting of Pine reaches almost in Partizánske district (West Slovakia). 420 m3 annually, and breaks down to According to the cadastral survey, the roughly 30% saw logs (mostly lower territory covers 4,241 hectares with a quality to large knots), 60% pulpwood population of 920 inhabitants. and 10% poles and fuel wood. Pine is the species giving the best econom- The Urbarium (a term denoting prop- ic return: overall, the forest manag- erty rights to an area) of the village of ers of the Urbarium can only produce Veľký Klíž associates some 600 owners some 10% saw logs (lower quality), of agricultural and forest land, covering 60% pulpwood and 20% fuelwood, a total area of 786 hectares. The main depending on timber prices and the forest species are Turkey Oak (Quer- needs of the association. Turkey Oak cus cerris) and Pine. The annual cut is is the more common species, making about 800 m3 of which about half is up nearly half of the standing stock, for fuelwood. Some 248 ha of pasture but it is not used in saw log produc- land under the Urbarium is leased to tion as there is almost no demand for the Hunters’ Association “Vrch Hora”. it, due to its low quality (many knots,

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 39 curvature and cracks due to frost). about the necessity of investing in de- Turkey Oak thus forms the main com- velopments. This required, in addition ponent of fuelwood for the members to other measures, the suspension of of the Urbarium. The Urbarium sup- payment of member shares for a pe- plies some 4-6 regular customers with riod of two years. The most logs and pulpwood when economic important conditions are good. The results and benefits of the project can be divided into economic and challenge for In times of economic crisis, the forest other benefits, the former being: managers fell only broadleaved spe- • receipts of about 3,000 euros per the Urbarium cies, almost solely for fuelwood con- year for recreational services, espe- sumption by their own members. The cially accommodation, is the Urbarium has one customer for Oak • receipts of the municipality related diversification saw logs as an occasional product, to the provision of tourist services supplying this customer on the basis • the creation of new jobs for local of production of mutual agreement. craftsmen. Other benefits include: activities, The most important challenge for the • recreation and education for the in- ensuring Urbarium is the diversification of pro- habitants of the municipality (mainly duction activities, ensuring additional pre-school children and pupils from additional income to the members – and using elementary schools) the forest to enhance the develop- • a venue for regular meetings of mu- income to the ment of the municipality and the re- nicipal organisations (Hunters‘ Associ- members gion. Veľký Klíž Urbarium offers vari- ation Vrch Hora and local unit of the ous recreational services for visitors, Slovak Tourists club Ostrá, pensioners including accommodation (forester’s club, etc.) house), a playground for children in • participation in activities for the the surroundings of the forester’s public good (e.g. waste collection) house, a sport trail, a football play- and ground, and tourist hiking trails. • more generally, an improvement in the surroundings of the municipality In the beginning it was necessary to and facilities for local inhabitants. persuade the Urbarium shareholders

40 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Switzerland: A long history of community forests

Raphael Schwitter and Erich Oberholzer

Legal status of forests

Switzerland’s federal forest law dates est-based industries is also foreseen, back to 1876, important revisions hav- as is the protection of communities ing taken place since then, the most from natural hazards such as land- recent being dated October 1991. slides, avalanches and rock-falls.

The law was formulated primarily to The law is currently being revised ensure the conservation of the forests and updated, but this will not change of the country at their existing geo- the ownership pattern in a significant graphical extent and to promote their manner. Some 58% of the forest is un- multiple functions (protective, social, der direct community control – either economic). The safe-guarding of for- through the communes or “group in-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 41 heritance”, whilst a further 29% is pri- bility of the cantons, which have their vately owned (see table below). own regulations and laws within the framework of the federal law. The The federal law essentially set a communities often have additional framework that applies to all forests, rules regulating the management of regardless of their ownership. The im- their forests. plementation is mainly the responsi-

Main facts

Area of national forest land:1,247,856 ha Number of people participating: This is a (2007 figures) = 30.2% of the land area difficult figure to calculate

Area covered by forest: 1,247,856 ha (all Main forest types (with dominant spe- land that is officially forest is indeed forest cies): Coniferous (69% overall, occurring covered) particularly at higher altitudes) – Fir(Abies alba), Spruce (Picea abies), Pine (especial- Area of forest under community manage- ly Pinus sylvestris), Larch (Larix decidua) ment: 725,541 ha (Communal forest and Broadleaved (31% overall, occurring par- “citizens” forest – see below) ticularly in the plains and lower mountain slopes) – Beech (Fagus sylvatica); Ash Proportion of the overall forest area un- (Fraxinus excelsior), Sycamore (Acer pseu- der community forestry: 58.1% doplatanus) and others.

Legal forest categories in Switzerland

Communal forest (covering approx. Ortsgemeinden) who trace their an- 28% of the total forest area) is forest cestors back to the locality and who owned and managed by communes, have inherited ownership rights. The the smallest administrative and politi- nature of this ownership and associat- cal unit in Switzerland. All households ed rights varies somewhat in different within the territory of a commune are parts of Switzerland (often pre-dating automatically under its administra- modern Switzerland under the 1848 tion, but only those with Swiss citi- constitution), but is generally a privi- zenship can participate in its political lege that is not shared with house- functions. Decisions over the manage- holds that have settled in the area ment of communal forests are made more recently. Thus there is not full by the elected village (commune) community participation in manage- council, who are usually advised by a ment decisions. forester employed (full or part time) by the commune. Cantonal forest (covering slightly over 4% of the total forest area) is forest “Group inherited” forest (covering ap- owned and directly managed by one of prox. 30% of the total forest area) is the 26 the cantons. The amount varies forest that belongs jointly to a group considerably by canton, being highest of households (Bürgergemeinden or in the cantons of Bern and Vaud.

42 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Federal forest (under 1% of the total Private Forest (covering some 29% of forest area) is forest owned and direct- the total forest area) is forest owned ly managed by the Swiss Confedera- and managed by private individuals or tion – this concerns protected areas of entities. national importance, and is not a large category. Other “public“ forest includes forest owned and managed by religious Corporate forest (covering nearly or similar organisations – a small 5% of the total forest area) is forest category. owned and managed by corporations (some of which are very old, and have an inherited membership) or (industri- al) cooperatives.

Community participation

In general all persons have free ac- The cantons have developed guide- cess to forests in Switzerland and are lines for a sort of “two-level-plan- allowed to collect mushrooms and ning”. The first level is effectively a berries from them; this is true even “regional forest management plan”, in private forests. The harvesting of which can cover several communities. other products is, nevertheless, re- The second level is the forest man- stricted – being regulated according agement plan, which sets out the con- to ownership. crete measures for implementation.

There are clear provisions in Switzer- At the level of the communes, par- land for the general public to have ticipation in forest management de- the opportunity to become involved cision-making is possible through the: in forest management planning at the • development of additional regula- regional level. tions (in keeping with the regional plan) that specify the details of for- The cantons are required by law (or- est management and the allocation dinance on forests Art 18) to ensure of benefits that people in the area are • approval (or amendment) of the an- • properly informed regarding the ob- nual budget jectives of the planning and its timing; • election of the local forester. • able to participate in the appropriate manner; • consulted once the planning documents have been drafted.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 43 Environmental aspects Switzerland’s forests have been well hazards is very important, especially protected since 1876, and it is difficult in the more mountainous areas of the to determine the environmental ben- country where the risk of avalanches, efits of community forestry in particu- landslides and flash floods is poten- lar – all forests provide such benefits, tially high. Up to now no tools have which are enjoyed by all people. been employed systematically to calculate the real environmental bene- That said, protection against natural fits of the forests.

Economic aspects In the past, community forests were a benefit for communities, due to a source of revenue to communities – the low price of timber. Whilst this especially from the sale of timber. In is slowly improving, prices are still some cases this used to be shared in generally below that which provides the form of an annual cash payment a good return on the investment re- to each household. Other benefits quired for management. The poor included the possibility to buy fuel- timber market can sometimes even wood at a subsidised rate; cattle graz- serve as a temptation for undesirable ing rights; and a free Christmas tree. management practices, such as post- Some of these benefits are still en- poning thinning (resulting on dense, joyed, although most households no under-productive stands), or over- longer use fuelwood as their source harvesting highly accessible forests. of heating or own cattle to graze. The provision of timely advice and su- (See, however, the case example of pervision by the forest service is thus Rheinau community forest). very important.

Nowadays the management of forests is often more an obligation than

Social aspects Given the fact that most people liv- They are highly used and appreci- ing in Switzerland are not immedi- ated for recreation – including walk- ately dependent on forests for their ing, jogging, mountain biking, the livelihoods, community forestry has rental of forest huts for festivities. little potential as a vehicle for social The health benefits of exercise in the change in the way that has happened open air is recognised by health insur- in Nepal. ance companies, which have spon- sored exercise trails in forests as a Sometimes people are not even means of encouraging people to stay aware of their rights to participate in fit and healthy. decision-making over forest management. However, forests are very important in enhancing the quality of life of both rural and urban dwellers.

44 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world A practical example: Rheinau communal forest

The commune of Rheinau has 1,350 cantonal forest service. In this con- inhabitants (some 300 households), tract the commune fulfils the spe- and owns 240 ha forest. In addition, cial standards of management, whilst some 50 households are owners of the cantonal services (forest and na- private forest – small plots averaging ture conservation) pay full compen- 1 ha in area. sation for the additional cost and the reduced benefits accrued from the A five-member committee is elected forest. by the inhabitants every four years to take responsibility for commune af- The harvest obtained from Rheinau fairs. One of these committee mem- community forest comprises 75% fire- The commune bers is responsible for the manage- wood and only 25% timber. As there is ment of the communal forest, and no market for such quantities of fire- of Rheinau prepares all forest related issues for wood, the commune (in its general covers 30% decision by the committee. assembly of all inhabitants) decided to install a communal heating system of its total The main tasks are to fuelled by wooden chips. This produc- • employ a forest ranger, usually es and delivers heating to the com- heating shared with other communes (one energy ranger manages up to 1,000 ha); • participate in the management consumption planning process guided by the cantonal forest service; from • supervise all management activities firewood of the forest ranger in the communal forest and the advisory services of the harvested from ranger in the private forests (free of its own forests cost for the owners). The Rheinau community forest comprises mainly natural oak (Quercus spp) forest. This type of forest is rare in Switzerland, and is of special interest as a habitat of many endangered plant and animal species (e.g. munal buildings (e.g. school buildings, woodpeckers). The forest is there- indoor swimming pool) as well as to fore of national importance for nature private houses. All house owners pay conservation. commercial rates for their heating. The commune of Rheinau is thus cov- In order to maintain an optimal hab- ering 30% of the total heating energy itat for the endangered species, spe- consumption out of firewood of its cial management practices have to own forests. be applied which are in contradiction with the most economical forest man- The commune solved the problem agement regime (in particular har- of making the best use of the huge vesting the annual allowable cut, AAC, quantities of firewood produced from of 1,200 m³). its forest and at the same time became a pioneer in replacing fossil fuel To solve this problem a contract was with renewable energy. developed under the guidance of the

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 45 Viet Nam: Timber harvesting for community funds

Patrick Rossier and Bui Phuoc Chuong

Legal status of forests

Forests in Viet Nam are classified into ty plays a central role in all aspects of three different use categories: life. However, over the past three dec- • Production forests (36% of the for- ades, economic development has be- est area) come a greater national priority than • Protection forests (48% of the forest communist orthodoxy. Against this area) and background, radical changes have oc- • Special-use forests (16% of the for- curred in the country’s forest tenure est area). system. Until the late 1980s, most of the area under forest was owned and Viet Nam is a single-party socialist re- managed by the State (through State public, in which the Communist Par- Forest Enterprises). The subsequent

46 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world decline in the forest area, the ineffi- portunity to obtain long-term land- ciencies of forest management by the use certificates (so-called Red Books), State, and the recognition of the role which have a duration of 50 years. of local people in forest management, Such certificates are given for barren led to a progressive devolution of the land that is classified as forest land. forest land. Since the early 1990s, lo- The new Land Law of 2003 has also cal people have been involved in for- opened the possibility for the alloca- est management through protection tion of land (including forest land) to contracts. In a further step, private communities (defined as groups of households have been given the op- households or villages).

Main facts

Area of national forest land: 19,000,000 ha Proportion of the overall forest area un- (58% of the total land area) der community forestry: 5.3%

Area covered by forest: 13,118,800 ha Number of people participating: Difficult (38.7% of the total land area) out of to estimate which 10,348,600 ha is natural forest and 2,770,200 ha is plantation forest Main forest types: Evergreen and semi- deciduous broad-leaved forests, decidu- Area of forest under community man- ous forests, bamboos and palms, conifer- agement: 691,261 ha ous forests, opened broad-leaved forests

Legal forest categories in Viet Nam

There are currently four major forest Community Forest: Either groups of tenure systems in Viet Nam households or village communities can own forests. This category was State Forest: The State is still the larg- introduced in 2003 and is still under est forest owner in Viet Nam (around development. 50% of the total forest area), comprising the following three entities: Contracted Forest: A contract is agreed State Forest Enterprises, Manage- between the State and an organisa- ment Boards for protection forests tion, household, group of households and Management Boards for special or village to protect the forest. Under use forests. this arrangement, ownership remains with the contractor (the State) and the Private Forest: Households and contracted party has the rights speci- joint ventures are the second own- fied in the contract. er group in Viet Nam (around 25% of the total forest area). It is particularly plantations that are under private ownership.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 47 Community participation

Over the last 30 years, the political er, there is still a long way to go, giv- system of Viet Nam has progressively en that this change requires the in- decentralised. volvement of many stakeholders who must learn new skills – and most of In 1986, the Communist Party all, change attitudes. The communi- launched policy reforms towards eco- ty plays a central role in all steps of nomic liberalisation and institutional Community Forest Management in restructuring at all levels. This provid- Viet Nam. ed a favourable environment in which community forestry could develop. Participatory methods are used in the allocation of forest land alloca- However, the concept of community tion and in forest development plan- forestry has only recently been offi- ning. Simple methods and tools have cially approved, in the new Land Law been developed to allow community of 2003 and the new Forest Law of members to participate in the inven- 2004. tory of the forest resources. Forest management objectives are defined In the 1990s many internationally in village meetings. The community supported projects (especially those elects a forest management board of the German technical cooperation of five persons that is responsible for body, GTZ, and the Swiss, through the implementation and the monitor- SDC/Helvetas) explored the ways in ing of all forest activities. In addition, which community forest manage- there is a community forest protec- ment might be best introduced in Viet tion group and a community forest Nam’s rapidly changing policy land- harvesting group, both composed of scape. This was done without any le- villagers. Village meetings are organ- gal basis at the time to legitimise such ised for taking decisions related to new approaches. the way in which forest protection, timber harvesting, and especially the The strong legal basis for Communi- benefit-sharing of forest products, ty Forest Management now in place will be conducted. in Viet Nam means that the concept can be implemented widely. Howev-

48 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Environmental aspects

In most of the pilot areas of commu- and the reduced risk of erosion and nity forestry, it was observed that floods. Watershed protection is very the forest condition has improved relevant in Viet Nam, where two since the introduction of forest man- thirds of the land mass is mountain- agement by the community. The im- ous. Secondly, forest management by proved forest condition brings ben- communities tends to result in an in- efits to the environment in a broad crease in species diversity, and is thus sense, especially soil conservation a positive step for biodiversity.

Economic aspects Economic benefits are crucial for the benefits are very important for com- success of community forestry. Com- munities in the remote and moun- munity forestry has two kinds of eco- tainous areas of Viet Nam. nomic benefits, namely labour and income generation, and income from However, many forests allocated to the sale of timber products. In Viet communities are of poor quality (de- Nam, the income generated through graded forest land) and provide no the forest varies enormously accord- short-term benefits to the communi- ing to the situation and especially the ty. In such cases, additional and exter- quality of the forest that is allocated nal incentives must be given in order to the community. If the community to motivate communities to embark is able to obtain a productive forest in upon the long-term investment need- good condition, it is possible to gener- ed for forest management. Payments ate a large and significant income for for Environmental Services (PES) and the community (as is the case for Bu Reducing Emissions from Deforesta- Nor village, described in the text box, tion and Degradation (REDD) mecha- where the community generates a nisms have been tested, but without sustainable annual income of approx- significant results so far. imately 30,000 USD). These financial

Social aspects Forests are an integral part of the mote and mountainous areas of Viet livelihoods of people living in the up- Nam. lands of Viet Nam. Forest land is used for cultivation purposes (swidden ag- The participatory process also helps riculture) and for the collection of a to increase community awareness wide range of NTFP’s (non-timber for- and organisational skills amongst lo- est products) for food, fodder, medi- cal people. In building the capacities cines and other subsistence needs. of rural ethnic minority communities As a result of the financial benefits to take decisions that make a differ- mentioned above, Community Forest ence to their lives, Community Forest Management can play an important Management serves as a vehicle for role in poverty reduction in the re- empowerment.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 49 A practical example: Bu Nor Community Forest (Dak Nong Province)

Bu Nor village is a Mnong (ethnic mi- is living in close proximity to a large nority) community of 98 households area of natural forest that is in good to which a natural evergreen rainfor- condition. Furthermore, the commu- est of 1,016 hectares has been allo- nity members have considerable in- cated. During a long three year proc- digenous knowledge about the for- ess (from 2005 to 2007), supported est – the different species and their by the project ETSP1, the community uses, local management practices, of Bu Nor succeeded in introducing etc. Forestry has become a very sig- and carrying out the full cycle of com- nificant source of income for the local munity forestry, from forest land al- community through the collection of location, to forest management plan- a variety NTFPs in addition to the tim- The community ning, timber harvesting and benefit ber harvesting. sharing. Bu Nor village is a concrete of Bu Nor is able example showing that community One of the major difficulties in in- to generate forestry can generate income and troducing Community Forest Man- also contribute to poverty reduction agement in this case was that poli- a net annual in the uplands of Viet Nam. cies and procedures were not yet in place, and the roles and responsibili- income of In the first pilot timber harvest, ties of the stakeholders were not yet 476 m3 of timber was harvested and defined. Furthermore, the local au- around generated a net income of 26,500 thorities were at first very reluctant US $ 30,000, USD. The felling activities were con- to hand over the forest management ducted by the community forest har- to a community. The process there- using vesting group composed of villagers, fore faced many administrative hur- while the skidding activities were dles, especially for the issuance of the selective cutting handed over to a local private logging harvesting permit. Another challenge and low impact company. Selective cutting and low was the lack of technical and manage- impact logging methods were used in rial skills available in the community logging methods order to ensure the sustainability of with regard to timber harvesting. Ca- the forest management. pacity building therefore played a crucial role in the preparation phase of Optimal pre-conditions could be met the process. in Bu Nor village. The community

1 ETSP – Extension and Training Support Project in agriculture and forestry in the Uplands of Viet Nam: a project funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC and implemented by Helvetas in collaboration with the Government of Viet Nam (http://www. helvetas.ch/Vietnam/wEnglish/programme/program-etsp.asp)

50 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Conclusion: What future for community forestry in Ukraine?

Jane Carter and Natalya Voloshyna

Legal status of forests

We start this chapter by considering ership of forests can be vested in the how the forestry situation in Ukraine State, communal bodies, or private compares with the other countries de- entities – with State ownership being scribed in the preceding chapters. the norm unless other rights are prov- en. According to Article 9, communal The most recent legislation govern- forest ownership is applicable to any ing Ukraine’s forests is the Forest forests lying within the boundaries of Code of 2006, in which article 7 states communal property, unless they are that all forests within the boundaries already otherwise defined as being of Ukraine are ultimately the prop- State or privately owned. erty of the Ukrainian nation. Article 8 then goes on to outline that own- What this means in practice is that

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 51 most forests belong to the State, un- cle 11 of the Forest Code. This states der the State Forestry Committee of that forest plots can be handed over Ukraine (an autonomous State body from the state to village administra- lying outside any of the Ministries). tions (territorially community), or to As was the case during Soviet times, self-governing bodies established by they remain territorially divided into the community. State Forest Enterprises (lishops), which are responsible for their management. There is nevertheless legal provision for communal property rights over forests, as outlined in arti-

Main facts

Total area of national forest land: 10,8 Area of forest under the management of million ha (including 1,6 million ha of pro- communal bodies: 950 thousand ha (9% tected forests) of the total forest area).

Area covered by forest: 9,7 million ha, or Main forest types: Pine (Pinus sylvestris), 15,7% of the land area Oak (Quercus robur), Beech (Fagus sylvatica), Spruce (Picea abies), Birch (Betu- Area of forest under community man- la pendula), Alder (Alnus glutinosa), Ash agement not yet implemented in a form (Fraxinus excelsior), Hornbeam (Carpinus comparable with the other case studies betulus), Fir (Abies alba).

Legal categories of forests

All the forests of Ukraine are current- • Other ministries and institutions: ly under the jurisdiction of different 0.2 million ha (2%); ministries and state institutions, as • State reserve forest lands: 0.8 mil- follows: lion ha (7%) – local decision making at • State Forestry Committee of Rayon (district) level. Ukraine: 7.4 million ha (68% of forest area); A number of communal enterprises • Ministry of Agriculture: 1.8 million have been established in Zhytomyr, ha (17%); Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernihiv, Sumy, • Ministry of Defence: 0.2 million ha Cherkasy, Lviv, Vinnytsya, Ternopil (2%); and Khmelnytskyi regions. They are • Ministry of Emergencies: 0.2 mil- commercial enterprises established lion ha (2%); through the local village administra- • Ministry of Natural Environment tion (territorial community), and their Protection: 0.1 million ha (1%); operations include the processing of • Ministry of Transport and Commu- forest products. nication: 0.1 million ha (1%);

52 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Community participation

The usual forestry planning practice ministration (TFHA), the Ukrainian in Ukraine is for plans to be elabo- state forest inventory, the district rated at regional (oblast) level by the (rayon) and village authorities, local state forest inventory unit (Ukrderzh- lishosps and forest ranges, and the lisproject) – the sole organisation in water management administration. Ukraine with the necessary invento- These pilot areas were the villages ry expertise) as well as other forest- of Nyzhniy Bystryi and Bohdan, and ry specialists. As was the case during the respective forest ranges. The pi- Soviet times, they follow a ten year lot approach of two-level planning planning cycle. Responsibility for im- was developed over the period 2004 plementing the plan is then allocated – 2008, and was viewed in a similar to lishops and regional forest admin- perspective to that of the pilot activi- istration. The possibility of local com- ties described in Vietnam and Kyr- munities participating in this very gyzstan in this publication. The idea technical process was not foreseen, was to test the new approach on a although village council leaders were small scale, and to foster a spirit of sent a formal invitation to the techni- collaboration and learning amongst cal meetings of the forest inventory the key stakeholders so that even- specialists. tually the experience would be taken into account in formulating more The Swiss-Ukrainian Forest Develop- participatory approaches in Ukraine’s ment Project in Transcarpathia (FOR- forest policy. The project also sup- ZA) has sought to promote greater ported study tours and exchange vis- local people’s participation in for- its to a number of other countries est planning and management. To implementing people-oriented for- this end, it has worked in two pilot est management in order to expose areas in collaboration with the rele- Ukrainian policy makers and forestry vant authorities – namely the Tran- specialists to such approaches. scarpathian Forest and Hunting Ad-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 53 The two-level planning approach fol- rounds of district level technical lowed in the pilot examples compris- meetings, to which representatives es a strategic plan, prepared by and of all the village councils, TFHA of- for the community and an operation- ficials, district ecologists and other al forest management plan prepared district (administrative) officials, the by the forestry authorities. The com- lishosps, forest ranges and invento- munities in this case were taken to ry specialists. A first round of such be the village authorities, although meetings – one in each of the 13 dis- discussions were not limited to tricts – has already taken place, and members of the village council; wide consultation was actively sought. served both to inform village coun- Through the strategic plan that was cils about the current status of forest eventually drawn up, the commu- management and on the process and nities are empowered to influence to give them the chance to express decision-making about the manage- their particular needs and interests. ment of the forests in the vicinity of The latter was done in the form of their homes. The natural resource a questionnaire, which village coun- development priorities identified cils were asked to complete after the in the strategic plan are important meeting to give time for discussion guidelines for the foresters, who will at village level. Unfortunately not all have to consider these priorities for the village councils took part; even- the formulation of the operational tually 80 completed questionnaires Forest Management Plan. were received. The results of these questionnaires have been taken into As a result of the positive experiences consideration in drawing up guide- in the two pilot areas, the THFA has lines for the planning process. decided that the new ten year planning process in the Transcarpathian region should provide an – albeit At the time of writing this publica- limited – opportunity for local con- tion, the second round of the consultation in the planning process. A sultation process had started. The further factor militating towards this so-called “First forest inventory decision is the requirement under meeting” involved the same stake- the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) holder groups, but this time at the certification of good forest manage- level of 18 lishosps and the region- ment that local people are consulted al TFHA. Representatives of the for- in forest management decisions. In a est inventory unit informed par- significant change from the past, the ticipants about the results of their planning process will be devolved preparations, and the readiness of from oblast (regional) to rayon (dis- the lishosps to be involved in the for- trict) level. Given that there are 351 est inventory activities. Participants Village Councils in Transcarpathia, had the opportunity at the meet- involving them all in a new process, ing to discuss the practical details when they do not expect to be consulted (since they never were in the of the field inventory, as well as the past) is a major challenge. Thus a major issues of forest management first step has been to ensure that in- planning for the lishosps. Decisions formation about the new process is made on these issues were fixed in widely disseminated – through offi- the minutes of the meeting at the re- cial communication to the village ad- gional level, approved by TFHA with ministrations and through local mass the agreement of State Department media. for Environmental Protection. This is a necessary formal step for activities The consultation process itself has to continue further. been foreseen as follows. A central part is the organisation of two

54 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world The forest inventory will now take another. Those primarily responsi- place on the ground. This will result ble for implementing the new FMPs eventually in the elaboration of a for- will be the lishosp staff, but the in- est management plan for each par- tention is that they will strive to be ticular forest range. It is envisaged more participatory and consultative that each plan will be presented to in future, working in close collabora- the corresponding village council tion with the village authorities. in order to gather feedback before the final plan is approved. The forest management plans will be com- piled at the level of the lishosp. The key aspects of each lishosps’ forest management plans will then be considered during the “Second forest inventory meeting”. Their approval by the TFHA will become the basis of a consolidated regional forest management plan, which provides the legal basis for the implementation of all plans under it. Each lishosp under the TFHA will then receive its new approved forest management plans for the next 10 years. The new plans will follow the principles of close-to-nature silviculture, and will at least have involved some consultation with some community representatives.

Developing a Forest Management Plan is one thing; implementing it is

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 55 Nyzhniy Bystryi pilot forest range of Khust State Experimental Forest Management Unit

Nyzhniy Bystryi, in Khust rayon (dis- of local renewable resources – 425 m trict) was the first pilot community- of wooden enforcement. forest range partnership to under- 2. Increase of energy efficiency of take the two-level planning approach. the local school through insulation of Strategic development goals were doors/windows, and later improve- formulated in the Community De- ment of the heating system. velopment Plan (first level plan) and 3. Experimentation on the efficiency taken onto account in the new mul- of fuelwood use in eight households tifunctional Forest Management Plan of the community, bringing practically (second level plan). checked information on the heating efficiency of different types of heating The new The forest range covers 4,782 hec- systems. tares, and the number of community 4. Development of rural tourism: ba- two-level members involved (that is, influenced sic training of local community mem- participatory by the plan) is some 2,400 people bers on rural tourism development, (715 households). establishment of eight rural guest- planning houses, ecological certification of six The strategic goals of the Community guesthouses, promotion of the- at process in Development Plan are as follows: tractiveness of the area for tourism Nyzhniy Bystryi 1. Tourism development (rural tour- through the marking and signing of ism, active tourism) 40 km of hiking trails around the vil- met with many 2. Wood processing/ value added lage, and the construction of a tourist productions recreation site. challenges but 3. Improvement of community infra- 5. Establishment of sample plots in resulted in structure and local conditions the forest range and conduction of conversion cuts, replication of the ex- increased The main forest management objec- perience by other forest ranges. tives under the new Forest Manage- mutual ment Plan are: The new two-level participatory plan- 1. Formation of uneven aged mixed ning process met with many challeng- understand- forest es. Foresters who are used to forest ing between 2. Improvement of forest access net- management planning according to work and low-impact harvesting top down directives, without any lo- foresters and 3. Provision of local community with cal consultation process, found it fuelwood challenging to accept different per- villagers 4. Conservation of forests around spectives. Villagers who had had no tourism areas previous opportunity to participate in 5. Increase of protective forest plots natural resource planning also found share it challenging to think along these 6. Improvement of hunting lines. ma n agement The whole process took a lot of time The main achievements of the com- (partly because it was the first time munity-forest range partnership for everyone), but resulted in in- are generally considered to be the creased mutual understanding. following: 1. Mobilisation of the community in flood protection activities through riverbank enforcement with the use

56 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world What can be learned?

Changing attitudes amongst profes- community forests being poorly man- sional foresters aged – to the contrary, they are often extremely well managed (particular- Perhaps one of the most striking things ly when appropriate guidance is pro- that can be drawn from most of the vided by professional foresters). The case studies outlined in the publica- long experience of community forest- tion – which was also remarked in the ry in Switzerland bears particular wit- Ukrainian pilot of Nyzhniy Bystryi – is ness to both these points. that community forestry requires a change in the attitude and perception of professional foresters. Whilst Policy and legal changes there is widespread international recognition of the need to involve local The introduction of community - for people in forest management to a estry in a country often requires sig- greater extent, this recognition is not nificant changes in national forest necessarily shared by forestry officials policy and legislation. Even if the over- on the ground – especially ones who arching national legislation allows for were trained in centralised, top down community management, often the management practices based on the rules and regulations guiding its im- concept of policing the forest on be- plementation in forestry need to be half of the State. It is important that worked out. The experiences of Ne- curricula in forestry training schools pal, Viet Nam and Kyrgyzstan, in par- are changed to reflect more modern ticular, show how it is useful to build practices, orientating those starting up experience in a concerted manner, their professional forestry careers to to devise legislation, rules and regula- a participatory mindset. This curricu- tions accordingly, and to remain open lum change has indeed been intro- to further modifications in later years duced at the National Forest Technical should this prove necessary. Policy University of Ukraine in Lviv and the and legislation need to guide field im- Carpathian Regional Training Center plementation, and visa versa. in Ivano-Frankivsk. At the same time, it is also important that older persons with years of experience are given Community forestry is not always an the opportunity to refresh their ideas appropriate mechanism through in-service training – either at training institutions or through expo- Readers may have noticed that even sure visits to pilot sites. in the countries in which community forestry is considered to be par- Many professional foresters fear that ticularly successful – such as -Swit community forestry approaches will zerland and Nepal – other forms of result in a loss of their personal pow- forest management still exist along- er and authority. However, there re- side. Community forestry is likely to mains an important advisory role for be particularly successful where sig- foresters in community forestry, one nificant numbers of people are living that can give foresters much prestige close to or within forests, and have a and respect. Another concern com- clear interest in their management. monly expressed by foresters is that This may even be the case for the ma- local people will not manage forests jority of forests in a particular coun- in a responsible or sustainable man- try. Nevertheless, for forests lying far ner. Yet there is very little evidence of from human habitation, or those hav-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 57 ing particular national significance for tant jobs in rural areas where these reasons of environmental protection, are difficult to find. biodiversity or other reasons, it may be more appropriate that they are managed by a State forest administra- Local governance and community tion or another qualified body. well-being

A number of the country examples Rural livelihoods, rural economies touch on how participating in discussions and decisions over forest man- As the various country examples have agement helped members of the shown, community forestry can often community to gain skills, knowledge provide a boost to rural communities, and self-confidence. They became ac- in strengthening a sense of owner- tive in governing the resources that ship over the local forests and rais- contribute to their livelihoods – this is ing opportunities to generate income perhaps particularly well illustrated in from forest products. Often timber re- the examples from Bhutan, Bulgaria, sources provide the greatest opportu- Nepal and Scotland. Participation in nity for generating revenue, but this is decisions that affect ones life can be not always the case; community for- a significant means to enhance peo- estry can be a means to promote the ple’s sense of well-being and respon- sustainable exploitation of a range of sible citizenship. forest products, from fruits for making jams to essential oils to firewood. This can benefit the whole community directly, if profits are shared; it can also result in the generation of impor-

58 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Final words

Whilst community forestry in Ukraine Like the other countries in transition is not yet an established practice, the that are detailed in this publication – pilot experiences of Nyzhniy Bystryi Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Slovakia and (to and Bohdan provide examples on a lesser extent) Viet Nam, forestry in which it is possible to build. Further- Ukraine is adapting to modern, post- more, the ten-year forest plan for the Communist times. Participatory ap- Transcarpathian area provides the proaches to forestry are part of this first general opportunity for greater modern trend. It is hoped that this local input into forestry planning. It small publication contributes to a is of course a limited opportunity, es- better understanding within Ukraine pecially when compared against the about community forestry, in show- rights to decide over forest manage- ing that it is widely accepted and well ment that are exercised by community functioning approach in many differ- members in some of the other coun- ent parts of the world. tries discussed in this publication. Given that it is the first time that any consultative process in forest planning has been instigated in Ukraine, it is not surprising that village council participation has been somewhat limited. In any case, not all village councils lie close to forest resources, so some may consider the process ir- relevant to their situation. The experience of other countries is that participatory processes take time – and that it is best to start where there is clear interest amongst the stakeholders. The nearly one quarter of all Tran- scarpathian village councils that have formally expressed their opinions on forest planning (though completing a questionnaire) represent a significant mass. It is important that they not only continue to play an active role in the forest planning process, but also that they seek to represent all the interests within their villages in a responsible manner. The role of lishosp staff and other forestry specialists in supporting the consultative approach and respecting the village council contributions is crucial. Apart from the principles of democracy upheld in this process, local consultation is essential to fulfil FSC forest certification.

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 59 References

General information on community Rights and Resources Group 2010 The forestry End of the Hinterland: Forests, Con- flict and Climate Change Rights and Re- Arnold, J.E.M. 2001 Forests and people: 25 sources Initiative http://www.right- years of community forestry. FAO, Rome. sandresources.org/publication_details. php?publicationID=1400 Carter, J. with Gronow, J. 2005 Recent Ex- perience in Collaborative Forest Man- Sayer, J. McNeely, J., Maginnis, S., Boe- agement: A review paper. CIFOR Occa- dhihartono, I., Shepherd, G., and Fisher, sional Paper 43, CIFOR, Bogor Indonesia. B. 2008 Local Rights and Tenure for For- http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Knowledge/ ests Opportunity or Threat for Conserva- Publications/Detail?pid=1791 tion? IUCN, Rights and Resources Initiative http://www.rightsandresources.org/publi- Carter, J., Schmidt, K., Robinson, P., Stad- cation_details.php?publicationID=849 müller, T., and Nizami, A. (eds) 2009 For- ests, landscapes and governance: multiple Sunderlin, W.D., Hatcher, J., and Liddle, M. actors, multiple roles. 83p. SDC, Helvetas, 2007 From Exclusion to Ownership? Chal- Intercooperation. lenges and Opportunities in Advancing For- http://www.intercooperation. est Tenure Reform Rights and Resources ch/offers/news/forest-land- Initiative scape-governance-publication/ http://www.rightsandresources.org/publi- view cation_details.php?publicationID=736

Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.) 2005 The equitable forest: diversity, community and resource Community forestry in different management. Resources for the Future countries and CIFOR, Washington, D.C. Bhutan Gregersen, H. and Contreras, A. 2010 Re- Buffum, B., Tenzin, Y., Dorji, S. and -Gyelt thinking Forest Regulations From sim- shen, N. 2005. Equity and Sustainability ple rules to systems to promote best of Community Forestry in Bhutan; Analy- practices and compliance. Rights and sis of Three Village Case studies. PFMP Re- Resources Initiative http://www.right- port No. 21. Thimphu: , Participatory For- sandresources.org/publication_details. est Management Project, Bhutan. php?publicationID=1402 Temphel, KJ., Thinley, K., Wangchuk, T. and GTZ Natural Resources and Governance: Moktan, MR. 2005. Assessment of Com- Incentives for Sustainable Resource Use munity Forestry Implementation in -Bhu Manual. tan. PFMP Report 23. Thimphu: Bhutan. http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en- Thinley, U. 2004. Know the Plants of Bhu- governance-nat-resources.pdf tan, Volume-I. Bhutan

Mayers, J. and Bass, S. 2004 Asia, Afri- Wangdi, R. and Tshering, N. 2006. Is Com- ca and Latin America: real prospects for munity Forestry really making a difference governance and livelihoods. Earthscan, to Rural livelihood? A Comparative study London. of three Community Forests of Mongar. Thimphu: Bhutan. Molnar, A. Scherr, S.J., Khare, A. 2004 Who Conserves the World’s Forests? Bulgaria Forest Trends http://www.rightsan- FAO Global Forest Assessment 2005, www. dresources.org/publication_details. fao.org/ php?publicationID=136

60 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world Kyrgyzstan layas: A comparison between Switzerland Carter, J., Steenhof, B., Haldimann, E. and and Nepal. Rural Development Forestry Akenshaev, N. 2003 Collaborative Forest Network Paper 20d ODI, UK. http://www. Management in Kyrgyzstan: Moving from mekonginfo.org/mrc/rdf-odi/english/pa- top-down to bottom up decision making pers/rdfn/20d.pdf Gatekeeper Series 108 IIED http://www. iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=6360IIED&n= Jahrbuch Wald und Holz 2008 (published 6&l=13&c=forestry&s=SGK 2009) Swiss Confederation www.kirfor.org http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/ publikation/01023/index.html?lang=de Nepal Gilmour, D. 2003 Retrospective and Pro- Vietnam spective View of Community Forestry in Ngoc Thang, N., Rossier, P., Schaltenbrand, Nepal Journal of Forest and Livelihood 2 H., Sieber, P. 2007 Safeguarding multi- (2) February, 2003 http://www.forestac- functional forest ecosystems in Viet Nam tion.org/pdfs/journal_of_forest_and_live- Mountain Research and Development Vol- lihood/vol2_2/Don%20Gilmore2.pdf ume 27(3): 196-201) http://www.shl.bfh.ch/fileadmin/docs/ Pokharel, B. and Carter, J. 2007 Addressing Forschung/Dienstleistungen/Profile_ chronic poverty and spatial poverty traps Brief_CFM_Vietnam.pdf in Nepal’s middle hills: The Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Project Paper pre- Quang Tan, N, Yasmi, Y., NgocThanh,T., sented at a workshop in Cape Town, South and Huy Tuan, H. 2008 Community Forest Africa http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/ Management for Whom? Learning from details.asp?id=2682&title=spatial-chronic- Field Experience in Vietnam RECOFTC Poli- poverty-nepal-community-forestry-group cy Brief April 2008 http://recoftc.org/site/fileadmin/docs/ Website of the Federation of Community publications/Policy_brief/FGLG_Vietnam_ Forest Users of Nepal: http://www.feco- Final2.pdf fun.org/ Helvetas in Vietnam: http://www.helvetas. Scotland ch/Vietnam/wEnglish/programme/pro- Guy, S. and Inglis, A. 1997 Rural Develop- gram-etsp.asp ment Forestry in Scotland: the struggle to bring international principles and best Ukraine practices to the last bastion of British colo- State Committee of Forestry of Ukraine. nial forestry. Rural Development Forestry 2007 Forest management in Ukraine. 52 Network Paper 20b ODI, UK. http://www. p. Kiev. mekonginfo.org/mrc/rdf-odi/english/pa- http://dklg.kmu.gov.ua/forest/control/uk/ pers/rdfn/20b.pdf index

National Forest Land Scheme 2008 For- estry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ fcfc118.pdf/$FILE/fcfc118.pdf

Reforesting Scotland: http://www.refor- estingscotland.org/projects/ntfp.php

Slovakia Kosice municipal forestst website: www. meleskosice.sk

Switzerland Küchli, C. 1997 Changing Forest Use and Management in the Alps and the Hima-

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 61 List of authors

Jane Carter (DPhil) is Co-Head, Gov- Project and Representative of Interco- ernance and Natural Resources, Inter- operation in Nepal. cooperation Bern, Switzerland and has particular experience of participatory Jon Hollingdale is the Chief Executive forestry in Nepal, Kyrgyzstan, Bhutan of the Community Woods Association, and Ukraine. Scotland.

Natalya Voloshyna is the coordinator of Piers Voysey is a member of the Com- social/community development activi- munity Woods Association, Scotland. ties in the Swiss-Ukrainian Forest De- velopment Project in Transcarpathia, Peter Šiška is the Manager of the Košice FORZA. Municipal Forest Company, Slovakia.

Kaspar Schmidt (PhD) is the Advisor for Zuzana Sarvašová (PhD) works in the the Participatory Forest Management Department of Forest Strategy, Policy Project, Helvetas, Bhutan. and Economy in the National Forest Centre, Forest Research Institute, Zvo- Karma Jigme Temphel is the Focal Offic- len, Slovakia. er of the Participatory Forest Manage- ment Project and Head Social Forestry Erich Oberholzer was, at the time of Section (SFS), Ministry of Agriculture writing, District Forest Officer, Winter- and Forests (MoAF), Bhutan. thur, Canton of Zürich, Switzerland. He is now enjoying having more time with Christoph Dürr was Chief Advisor to the his grandchildren. Bulgaria-Swiss Forestry Project, Interco- operation, Bulgaria. He is now Scientif- Raphael Schwitter is Forest Manage- ic Officer, Department of Environment, ment and Ecology Officer, Forest Train- Energy, Transport and Communications, ing Centre, Maienfeld, Switzerland. Federal Office of the Environment, Switzerland. Bui Phuoc Chuong was Project Coor- dinator of the Extension and Training Ennio Grisa is Chief Adviser to the Kyr- Support Project (ETSP), Viet Nam over gyz-Swiss Forestry Support Programme the period 2003 to 2007. He is currently and Representative of Intercooperation studying at Clark University in Worces- in Kyrgyzstan. ter, Massachusetts, USA.

Jean-Marie Samyn is a Programme Of- Patrick Rossier was Technical Advisor ficer, Governance and Natural Resourc- to the Extension and Training Support es, Intercooperation, Bern, Switzerland Project (ETSP), Helvetas, Viet Nam over and desk officer for the Kyrgyz-Swiss the period 2004 to 2007. He currently Forestry Support Programme. works for the forestry consultancy company «Nouvelle Forêt Ltd», Fribourg, Patrick Sieber is a Programme Officer, Switzerland. Governance and Natural Resources, In- tercooperation, Bern, Switzerland and previously worked in Kyrgyzstan as CFM Advisor, Kyrgyz-Swiss Forestry Support Programme.

Bharat K. Pokharel (PhD) is the Director of the Nepal-Swiss Community Forestry

62 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world List of authors of the photographs

Page 10: Kaspar Schmidt

Page 14: Marina Beck

Pages 15, 55: Lesya Loyko

Page 19: Olga Zaijenko

Pages 23, 48: Patrick Sieber

Pages 24, 27, 28, 29, 41: Jane Carter

Page 30: Rosslyn Mills

Page 32: Falkland Centre for Stewardship archive

Pages 33, 35: Сommunity Woodland Association (CWA, Scotland) archive

Page 34: Jake Willis

Pages 36, 39, 40: Vladimir Čaboun

Page 43: Raphael Schwitter

Page 45: Erich Oberholzer

Pages 46, 50: ETSP/Helvetas archive

Page 51: Annina Burgi

Page 53: Volodymyr Prystupa

Page 58: FORZA archive

How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world 63 How communities manage forests: selected examples from around the world

This publication provides readers with an introduction to community forestry, taking eight country examples from Europe and Asia. In each example the legislation and organisational forms are described, and environmental, economical and social aspects discussed. The publication is intended for forestry students, forestry practitioners and policy makers, and interested members of the general public.

English editing:Jane Carter [email protected]

Ukrainian editing:Nataliya Voloshyna [email protected]

Design and layout: Tetyana Smriga

Published: “Galyc’ka vydavnycha spilka”, Ltd. Tugana-Baranovs’kogo st., 24, L’viv 79005, Ukraine

ISBN 978-966-1633-21-5 (ENG) ISBN 978-966-1633-20-8 (UA)