Search results

Few generalizations are currently possible about the effectiveness of local forest management, owing to a lack of common terms and concepts with which to compare the wide range of practices employed. This paper proposes a conceptual framework and typology based on four dimensions which affect the motivation, resources and capacities of local people to undertake it: (a) the objectives underlying local people's use of the forest; (b) the potential of the forest resource to meet these objectives; (c) the nature of local social arrangements; and (d) macro-level economic and political factors

Environment and development practitioners increasingly are interested in identifying methods, institutional arrangements and policy environments that promote negotiations among natural resource stakeholders leading to collective action and, it is hoped, sustainable resource management. Yet the implications of negotiations for disadvantaged groups of people are seldom critically examined. We draw attention to such implications by examining different theoretical foundations for multistakeholder negotiations and linking these to practical problems for disadvantaged groups. We argue that negotiations based on an unhealthy combination of communicative rationality and liberal pluralism, which underplays or seeks to neutralize differences among stakeholders, poses considerable risks for disadvantaged groups. We suggest that negotiations influenced by radical pluralist and feminist post‐structuralist thought, which emphasize strategic behaviour and selective alliance‐building, promise better outcomes for disadvantaged groups in most cases, particularly on the scale and in the historical contexts in which negotiations over forest management usually take place.

The paper develops a conceptual framework for defining the linkage between livelihood activities and conservation. It then develops a scale to assess the strength of linkage across five dimensions: species, habitat, spatial, temporal and conservation association. It tests the framework and scale by evaluating 39 project sites in the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Finally, it discusses the relevance of linkage to designing appropriate conservation strategies. (DSE/DÜI)

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) has gained significant policy momentum as an international mechanism for global climate change mitigation. The mobilization of funding, technical activity and institutional engagement for REDD has been relatively quick and widespread. The policy and technical lessons learned over the evolution of REDD are not yet widely understood, nor have they been widely integrated into efforts aimed at enabling and incentivizing agricultural mitigation. Within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, there are opportunities to include agricultural mitigation through the ad hoc working groups and technical work programs. To create the policy space and operational feasibility necessary for an international mechanism for agricultural mitigation, parallel advancement is needed on developing a shared vision, tackling high-priority analysis, coordinating efforts among stakeholders and getting money to flow from donor governments, foundations and industry.

Local government is built around careful and illuminating case studies of the effects of devolution policies on the management of forests in several Asian countries. The studies demonstrate that devolution policies - contrary to the claims of governments - have actually increased governmental control over the management of local resources, and a lower cost to the state. The controversial findings show that if local forest users are to exercise genuine control over forest management, they must be better represented in the processes of forming, implementing and evaluating devolution policies. In addition, the guiding principle for policy discussions should be to create sustainable livelihoods for local resource users, especially the poorest among them, rather than reducing the cost of government forest administration.

This chapter synthesizes results from case studies of the effects of devolution policies on the management of forests in three Asian countries, China, India and the Philippines. It also seeks to explain the disappointing impacts of forest devolution policies in terms of the divergent interests and perceptions of forest departments and local people. Some case studies show the convergence of between state and local interest. Some give examples where local interests have prevailed in spite of state strategies to maintain control. The principle for forest policy should be to create sustainable livelihoods for local resource users, especially the poorest among them, rather than reducing the cost of government forest administration.

Indonesia's new basic forestry law makes some promising steps towards devolving control over forests to customary communities. This chapter analyzes the law's provisions for new institutional arrangements, "customary communities" and co-operatives. The analysis shows how the extent of centralized control over these institutions potentially limits the law's support for local management. Rights to local management under the new law are vulnerable to abuse if they are aquired by unintended parties. Empowerment of customary communities is constrained by the restrictions on economic rights. For devolution to occur, the implementing regulations should create legal possibilities for communities to manage with more certainty, to gain secure access to valuable economic benefits and to overcome conflicts with more powerful groups. A broader base of civil society organisational capacity and systematic checks and balances within government are necessary to support these changes.

Forest devolution policies have generated much hope for sustainable development in rural areas of the South. Yet such policies have not always generated economic benefits for the poor, and have seldom transferred substantial decision-making authority to the poorest forest users. We discuss four case studies of the history of devolution policies in Asia that ask why. We draw several conclusions from these cases. Devolution policies will fail to meet the expectations of the poorest forest users unless they address historical 'holdovers', particularly ideologies and institutions within government that continue to favor centralized control and elite/subordinate relations at the local level. At the same time, policies must include scope for building capacity at the local level to deal with new forests and new institutional and political conditions. The state can play a role in capacity building, but will succeed only by working collaboration with social movements and NGOs that advocate on behalf of forest users, especially the poor among them. Because addressing holdovers and building capacity are difficult tasks, policies should be organized so that they can be reviewed and reformed in a collaborative fashion on a regular basis.

Pluralism is a political belief that acknowledges individuals' rights to pursue their interests, but requires society to resolve differences where they infringe upon each other. This guide shows how pluralism helps people to value social differences and provides clear principles and rules about how to coordinate those differences. The guide reviews pluralism's origins, key elements and strengths and weaknesses. It examines how people think about differences, including the psychological obstacles that cause us to exclude or ignore others. Practices are examined with examples drawn from forest-related contexts: legal pluralism, multistakeholder processes and diversity in work teams. Questions are provided to help the reader assess and practice pluralism in their own settings. The guide concludes that understanding the political assumptions and principles of pluralism can enrich our understanding of current practices to develop fundamentally new approaches to forest decision-making.

The authors introduce the special issue on accommodating multiple interests in forest management and provide an overview of the seven papers in the issue. The papers document and analyze existing approaches and from them identify principles related to pluralism and good governance. Three themes emerged from the papers. First, there are serious pragmatic and theoretical difficulties in defining interests and reaching agreements. The papers demonstrated the diversity of interests that exist in apparently homogeneous groups, the tendency for interests to be constructed in response to specific contexts and for strategic purposes, and the partial and temporary nature of agreements. Second, the papers suggest that accommodation is not a steady-state condition that can be achieved, but instead a process that is necessarily ongoing. Third, weaker groups' interests were routinely ignored or negotiated away. Certain parties enjoyed disproportionate control because of a lack of democratic practice in (1) who assumed the convenor and facilitation roles (or controlled them), (2) who was represented in the process, and (3) differing capacities for communication and negotiation among participants.

Forest decision-making is becoming more pluralistic. As the numbers of groups involved in forest decisions have increased, concern about how to accommodate multiple interests has similarly burgeoned. This article presents pluralism as a foundation for understanding how less powerful group's interests can be accommodated. It examines approaches to how interests are defined, communicated and coordinated to review the scope of possibilities for improving pluralism. Experience with these methods suggests that accommodation that genuinely reflects the interests of disadvantaged groups is most likely to occur where state and civil society governance institutions provide opportunities for 1) mutual learning among interest groups, 2) iterative cycles of bounded conflict and cooperation 3) public, transparent decision-making 4) checks and balances in decision-making among groups and 5) the provision of capacity building or political alliances for disadvantaged interest groups. High transaction costs, persistent injustices and impossibility of neutral facilitation pose contradictions to the possibilities of achieving accommodation and need to be recognized and negotiated.