Sustainable
forest management in a changing world
Don Gilmour*
The
term "sustainable development" is often interpreted in different ways
depending on the perceptions of different interest groups. As used in this
paper, it refers to the definition given in Caring
for the Earth:
"... improving the quality of human life
while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.".
There is a clear intention in this definition of
explicitly bringing together both the human well being and biophysical
components which are often implicit in discussions of sustainable development.
Forest management authorities have responded to the global focus on sustainable development by embracing a significant shift in forest policy from one which emphasised sustainable harvesting of dominant products, primarily wood fibre, to one which emphasises stewardship of a complex, valuable natural resource system yielding a broad mix of goods and services.
The
globalisation of the world economy (in particular the opening up of national
economies to international market forces) has created changed economic
circumstances that have necessitated changes to the institutional arrangements
for resource management. Structural adjustment policies of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank have been major influences driving these
changes in developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
However, the same imperative is affecting other countries through the related
drive for economic rationalisation.
Most
countries are going through policy reform processes and there are some common
themes in the direction that these are taking. Governments are down-sizing
(reducing the size of their bureaucracies) and decentralising forest management
decision-making to lower levels and (in many cases) devolving responsibility
(and sometimes authority) to various elements of civil society such as NGOs and
local communities.
There
is a growing recognition world-wide of the rights of indigenous peoples and
local communities in regard to their involvement in decision-making about
managing natural resources over which they exercise some claim. This is
particularly the case in situations where indigenous (and other) communities
are living in and around forests and using forest resources for subsistence
purposes or for generating cash income. Past government actions that
nationalised forests frequently disenfranchised these people and put them
"outside" the law. The rights of indigenous (and other) local
communities are being increasingly recognised in national policy debates.
One
result of the changing policy focus outlined above is that management is
becoming more sophisticated (and challenging) as managers try to balance
multiple objectives and work with multiple stakeholders.
Governments around the world have adopted various forms
of participatory natural resource management during the past few decades in an
attempt to engage with a wide range of stakeholders. In some countries the
approaches have become wide spread and have been incorporated into national
policy and translated into large-scale field programmes.
The
phrase "collaborative management" is becoming increasingly popular as
a generic description of a range of approaches involving some form of
collaboration between government and other stakeholders, particularly those
groups whose livelihoods are intimately linked with the resource. Fisher (1995)
has suggested that collaborative approaches to resource management involve
recognition of:
·
the
need to integrate conservation and development;
·
the
legitimacy of the rights of local people to secure their economic future; and
·
the
value of seeking the active involvement of local people in environmental care
and management.
Collaborative
management of forests refers to[1]:
·
the arrangements
for management which are negotiated by multiple stakeholders and based on a set
of rights and privileges (tenurial arrangements[2])
that are recognised by the government and widely accepted by resource users;
and,
·
the process
for sharing power among stakeholders to make decisions and exercise control
over resource use.
So, collaborative management
is something that is done by multiple stakeholders. This feature alone
represents a major difference to more conventional forms of management where
one party retains sole responsibility for decision-making and other
stakeholders remain at the periphery.
Commonly, the approach to
management is tied to tenure, which defines the bundle and allocation of rights
and privileges to use the resource (Fisher, 1995). In general terms, various
tenure systems can be grouped into the four categories of state, private,
communal, and open-access property. Of course, the recognition of tenure
depends on who you are. The state may not recognise some private or communal
rights that are accepted by local resource users, and conversely, local users
may not respect some claims of ownership made by the state through its various
government bodies. At various times, new claims emerge or old ones are
questioned. When disputes about rights and privileges exist, management is
problematic because there will be a lack of confidence in whether decisions
made by either party will be agreed to or followed.
Collaborative management
implies that government and resource users agree about tenure, thus providing a
foundation of confidence and legitimacy for management. If disagreements arise,
collaboration implies that there will be a willingness to resolve differences
and an effort to negotiate an acceptable tenure arrangement. Whether it is
active or passive, the hand of government is usually present in some way in
collaborative management systems, even if it is restricted to approving the
allocation of rights and privileges for using and managing the resource.
Fisher, R.J. (1995) Collaborative management of forests for conservation and development. Issues in Forest Conservation. IUCN and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
*IUCN and RECOFTC
42 Mindarie Cres
Wellington Point, Queensland 4160
Australia
Email: gilmour@redland.net.au
[1] This definition excludes situations where local users are managing natural resources which are claimed under state-ownership, without having prior government approval. Such systems, referred to as “indigenous or traditional” management systems, are often effective and involve a lot of collaboration among users. However, the definition used here seeks to include only those collaborative arrangements that are legitimised and strengthened by government recognition. It should be stressed that identifying indigenous management systems and building upon their strengths are critical steps towards establishing management systems that do have government approval.
[2] The tenurial arrangements are not necessarily formal ones—they can be ad hoc or tacit.