REGIONAL EXAMPLES OF FOREST RElatED CHALLENGES AND OPPortUNITIES 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry: Lessons from Tropical America Convening lead author: Wil de Jong Lead authors: Carlos Cornejo, Pablo Pacheco, Benno Pokorny and Dietmar Stoian Contributing authors: Cesar Sabogal and Bastiaan Louman Abstract: Community forestry is pursued as rural development strategy in many tropical forest regions worldwide. In Tropical America, rich experiences have been ac- cumulated with community forestry support initiatives and this chapter summarizes published and the author’s hands on experiences. The chapter is divided in two parts. The first half focuses on the actual contribution of forests and trees to rural livelihoods, evidence that allows a more precise identification of the actual potential of communal forestry for rural development. The second half of the chapter reviews some of the challenges faced by community forestry development initiatives. The chapter critically reflects on generating profits, inserting communities in forest product value-chains, setting up community forestry enterprises and the challenge to adequately deal with complex regulations. By exploring the experiences of a handful of current community forestry initiatives in Amazonia, and with some reference to Central America, the poten- tials, limitations and challenges of communal and smallholder forestry are discussed. Keywords: forest incomes, forest regulations, forest product value-chains, community forestry support initiatives, community forestry enterprises ■ 16.1 Introduction and anticipated fuelwood shortages, and mitigating undesired impacts of forest conversion on the en- The livelihoods of an estimated 300 million people vironment. worldwide living close to tropical forests depend on A review of the literature that deals with the tree or forest products for daily subsistence (Pimentel wide range of community forestry initiatives, also et al. 1997, but see Calibre Consultants 2000). The called smallholder forestry, participatory forest man- relationship of these people to trees and forests has agement, community-based forest management, long been recognised as an opportunity for adopting community-based forestry, adaptive collaborative community or smallholder forestry to improve rural management, or joint forest management, presents well-being (Cavendish 2000, Scherr et al. 2004). a mixed picture on realities, potentials, and experi- International organizations like the Food and Agri- ences to promote local forestry. Eminent scientists cultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) who researched indigenous groups in forest-rich re- and the World Bank began to promote community gions already observed long ago that trees and for- or social forestry in the late 1970s and early 1980s, ests play an important role in people’s economies, respectively (de Jong et al. 2008). Rural dwellers had and that local people do manage trees and forests in earlier been involved in forestry activities by both their estates. Anthropologists, rural economists, and national and colonial governments, though often as sometimes foresters, who previously had focused on 299 labour force rather than beneficiaries (de Jong 2010). rural agriculture, shifted attention to swidden-fallows Community forestry pursues multiple objectives, in- management or other kinds of forest management cluding improved rural welfare, addressing actual (e.g., Posey 1982, Moran 1984, Balee 1987, Denovan FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 OpportUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY forestry 16 OpportUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY forestry and Padoch 1988). Out of this work evolved the dis- the past two decades (Bray et al. 2005, Benneker course on non-timber forest products, which before 2008, Sabogal et al. 2008). had been called minor forest products or secondary In view of the quite contrasting experiences forest products (Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992). with community forestry, this chapter intends to Non-timber forest products were perceived as pos- address several relevant questions: What explains sible marketable forest products that could generate the disappointing outcomes, where they occur? Or, incomes to rural producers who, in turn, would make conversely, what explains the successful examples more profits from standing forests than from alterna- of community and smallholder development initia- tive land uses (Plotkin and Famolare 1992). These tives? More intriguing is why a significant number various efforts successfully brought attention to the of forestry development efforts achieve little results potential and opportunities of forests in the sustain- in locations where people depend on forests for their able development thinking. daily subsistence, and where forests contribute some- It can conceivably be argued that the community times significantly to their monetary income. The fol- forestry development model, as currently promoted lowing section16.2 reviews the opportunities related by national and international, governmental and non- to community forestry while section16.3 focuses on governmental development agencies, has its origins the challenges and limitations. Section16.4 draws in these early inquiries on the role of forests in rural some consistent conclusions from the ambivalent livelihoods. In the early stages of community forestry experiences. development, emphasis had been put on technical aspects of natural forest or plantation management and community organisation. Later on, focus shifted 16.2 Opportunities for towards land tenure security and institutional de- velopment, including the role of forest-dependent Community Forestry people as effective forest stewards (e.g. Poffenberger Development 1990). Many publications on community forestry, in- 16.2.1 Concepts and Principles of cluding peer-reviewed papers, had as their main pur- Community Forestry pose to advocate community forestry to convince rural development specialists, donor agencies, and especially national forestry experts and forestry agen- Community forestry is defined in many different cies to progressively pursue this new development ways. For instance, McDermott and Schreckenberg and conservation approach by doing the necessary (2009: 158) emphasise in their definition “power changes in legislation, policies, funding allocations, and influence” that local people exert over “deci- and land and access rights. However, at least a num- sions regarding management of forests.” Pokorny ber of papers are somewhat more reserved about the et al. (2008) propose a definition of community for- potential of trees and forests to effectively improve estry as commercial local forestry that is actively rural livelihoods (e.g., Browder 1992, Cavendish being promoted by external agents, emphasising 2000, Campbell et al. 2001, Wunder 2001). the protagonist role of non-governmental organisa- Consequently, the studies and findings summar- tions (NGOs), development agencies, or national, ised in this chapter demonstrate some critical aspects regional and local governments. This definition sug- about the community forestry development model gests that community forestry development models (Gasché 2002 and 2004, Hoch et al. 2009, Cornejo and discourses concur with locally developed for- 2010), while also citing experiences where small- est use models (Hoch et al. 2009), or traditional or holders, with external assistance, have succeeded in indigenous forest management (McDermott and using their forestry portfolio to improve incomes. Schreckenberg 2009), while it is not immediately These successful examples cited below are mostly clear how the two complement or integrate. Given the from Central America and Mexico (e.g., Bray and different perspectives on the matter, it is relevant to Merino-Pérez 2002, Antinori and Bray 2005, Bray clarify what, in the context of this chapter, we mean et al. 2005, Nitler and Tschinkel 2005, Stoian and by community forestry. Rodas 2006a and b, Stoian et al. 2009). In Mex- Commonly, forestry is understood as activities re- ico and Guatemala communities and smallholders lated to standing forests. Numerous researchers (e.g., successfully organised themselves as community Dubois 1990, Sabogal et al. 1997, Smith et al. 2001, forestry enterprises (CFEs) and succeeded with Nalvarte et al. 2004, Sabogal et al. 2006, Hoch et inserting their forestry activities in timber or other al. 2009) have demonstrated that Amazonian small- 300 forest product value chains. In addition, the chapter holders manage natural stands and forest gardens, draws on cases from the Amazon basin, where rich and plant single species stands, agroforestry fields, experiences of community forestry support exist and and single trees outside of natural forests. Many of important research findings have been generated over these activities, including those largely focusing on FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE 16 OpportUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY forestry 16 OpportUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY forestry CIFOR, Peter Cronkleton CIFOR, Peter Photo 16.1. Community forestry is based on local customary practices, but also requires that protago- nists learn modern techniques, for instance the use of maps and machinery as well as how to organize themselves. Table 16.1. Differentiation of community for- related activity carried out by members of rural estry in the Amazon (adapted from Hoch et communities or individual smallholders in Latin al. 2009).