Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

164 • Herlina Hartanto colonial regime exerted its control by imposing the Regalian Doctrine in 1894, which stipulated that all lands in the archipelago belonged to the Spanish Crown unless the king of Spain granted ownership to individuals or groups. When the American colonial government took over in 1889, it continued enforcing this doctrine on the grounds that the previous regime had full sovereignty over land and other natural resources (Gibbs et al. 1990; Lynch and Talbott 1995). The concepts and principles of the doctrine continued to be used by the subsequent independent governments of the Philippines. The Forestry Reform Code of 1975 claimed all lands with a slope of more than 17 percent and mountainous areas above 600 meters as public land. This forestry code firmly established state control over the forests and eroded the rights of the people and their long-term interests in managing forests in a sustainable manner (Gibbs et al. 1990). Commercial extraction of forest resources under state control caused massive deforestation. Assessments of how forest cover in the Philippines changed over time, provided by different scholars and agencies (De la Cruz 1941; Roth 1983; Porter and Ganapin 1988; DENR 1990; Kummer 1992), all show a similar decline in forest cover beginning with the arrival of the Spaniards. According to Poffenberger (1990), conversion of large forest areas commenced as early as the 17th century. The extraction of timber and firewood to support the colonial sugar cane industry increased rapidly throughout the 19th century. DENR (1990) found that the rate of forest cover loss increased significantly after the 1930s and reached a peak of 300,000 ha per year between 1965 and 1975. Thereafter, the pace of forest conversion gradually slowed and was 100,000 ha per year in the 1985-1990 period (DENR 1990). Apart from government-sponsored forest conversion—in particular, commercial logging—other factors and economic activities that contributed to deforestation in the Philippines include population growth, expansion of agricultural land, establishment of large-scale plantations and slash-andburn cultivation employed by lowland migrants (Poffenberger 1990). Rapid and massive forest conversion in the upland led to soil erosion, flooding and downstream siltation of rivers, coasts and dams (Poffenberger 1990). Despite its several causes, the degradation was officially blamed on high population growth and the swidden practices (kaingin) of the upland communities. These people were labeled backward, ignorant and destructive (Gibbs et al. 1990). Gibbs et al. (1990) believes that by putting the blame on kaingineros and stereotyping forest occupants as ignorant and destructive, the government justified its stricter control over forest resources. This is
Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from the Inside in the Philippines • 165 reflected in the mandate given to the Bureau of Forestry—to protect forest trees against upland communities. The state government was forced to evaluate its policy and adopt a more socially attuned approach to forestry in the 1970s. Gibbs et al. (1990) and Poffenberger (1990) attribute this political shift to the growing communist insurgency, the great flood in central Luzon in 1972, which highlighted the consequences of forest degradation, and the satisfactory performance of indigenous communities in managing ancestral lands leased back to them. The government began to recognise the legitimacy of forest occupants in the uplands and their potential roles in managing the forests (Gibbs et al. 1990; Poffenberger 1990). The Philippine government started to develop its community forestry programme in the 1970s. Early efforts, such as Family Approach to Reforestation (1974), Forest Occupancy Management (1975), and Communal Tree Farm (1978), failed to attract the participation and support of the communities. These programmes 2 aimed to rehabilitate open and cultivated areas, control upland farmers’ land-use practices within the forest and restrict occupancy rather than enhance local control over forest resources (Gibbs et al. 1990; Poffenberger 1990). In 1982, the Integrated Social Forestry Programme 3 was created to consolidate the three programmes; its renewable 25-year ‘certificate of stewardship’ contracts provided tenure security for forest occupants who created farmers’ organisations. This tenure came with responsibilities, including prescribed management techniques, such as soil conservation measures, forest fire control and maintenance of forest growth in the tenured areas (Sajise et al. 1999; Magno 2001). Community forestry continued to evolve in the subsequent two decades. Various programmes offering different land tenure options to local communities were developed by DENR in an attempt to speed up the transfer of management rights to local communities and engage them in rehabilitating residual forests (Figure 6-1). The complexities created by the existence of diverse programmes and tenure options prompted policy makers to simplify and integrate them under one umbrella programme, Community-Based Forest Management. In 1985 CBFM was proclaimed 4 as the national strategy to promote social justice, improve the well-being of the local communities and ensure sustainable management of the country’s forestland (DENR 1996; Sajise et al. 1999).
Page 1:
Adaptive Collaborative Management o
Page 4 and 5:
Copyright © 2007 by Center for Int
Page 6 and 7:
iv • Contents Chapter 5. Muddling
Page 8 and 9:
vi • Foreword problem solving. Th
Page 10 and 11:
viii • About the Contributors God
Page 12 and 13:
Acknowledgements In early 1999, two
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1. Introduction: People, Fo
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1: Introduction: People, Fo
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 2: Adaptive Collaborative M
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter 3: Adaptiveness and Collabo
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 4. Shaping Opportunities fo
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126: Chapter 4: Improving Forest Quality
Page 147 and 148: Chapter 5: Muddling Towards Coopera
Page 175: Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from
Page 179 and 180: Chapter 6: Facilitating Change from
Page 221 and 222: Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusio
Page 227 and 228:
Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusio
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
CIFOR is a leading international fo
show all

Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?