The challenge of HIV/AIDS: Where does agroforestry fit in? - World ...

Chapter 10: Agroforestry and environmental governance89harmonize the stewardship of trees in thelandscape and on individual farms?Colonial-era forestry was designed aroundthe needs of the colonial state, i.e. promotionof exports and large industry andcontrol over local communities. Policiesof extraction and central control had theirroots in the feudal systems of medievalEurope. Policies designed to protect theenvironmental values of forests by excludingpeople began in Europe only in theearly 1900s and spread to colonial areasin the later stages of the colonial era (Fayand Michon 2003). Anthropologists suchas Cronon (1996) have shown that manyforested landscapes now considered to bepristine primary forests have, in fact, hadlong histories of human impact. Forceddisplacement of people from conservationareas has led to the impoverishment oftens of thousands of former forest dwellersin the Congo Basin (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2003) and to long-term conflictbetween rural people and governments inmuch of Southeast Asia (Fay and Michon2003; Tomich et al. 1998).A large body of research and experiencehas accumulated on central forest managementand the advantages and disadvantagesof devolution to municipal governmentsand local community groups (Agrawal andOstrom 2001; WRI 2003). Three majorconcerns have been expressed about stateforest management: i) some state agenciesand agents have used their positions as forestregulators as platforms for extractionof resources through concessions to commercialcompanies and/or bribes; ii) stateagencies are accused of not understandingor respecting the ways that local communitiesand indigenous people use and manageforests; and iii) many state forests arehighly degraded. As a consequence, therehas been undue suffering for many forestdwellers. Although state forest authoritiescontinue to operate in many countries,some countries have experienced realdevolution of authority away from centralauthorities toward communal managementand co-management regimes. Differentvariants have developed in different places:joint forest management in India, extractivereserves in Brazil, community forest usergroups in Nepal, and community forests inCameroon (see also Box 1).In the last few years, Centre scientists inIndonesia have given more attention on the‘forest’ part of state forest management. Fayand Michon (2003) argue that the forestryregulatory framework has been inappropriatelyapplied to large parts of Indonesia andother countries in Southeast Asia. In manyinstances this classification has, in fact, beenan a posteriori justification that suits thedominant political and economic interestsand disenfranchises smallholders, whilefavouring large-scale plantations and forestconcessions. Farmers practicing agroforestryhave suffered as a result. Fay and Michon(2003) argue that the forestry regulatoryframework should instead be reserved forareas that clearly protect ‘public environmentalservices’ such as watershed protectionand biodiversity conservation. Areasthat don’t generate such environmental servicesshould be reclassified under the less-restrictiveagrarian regulatory framework.The Forest Codes of francophone West Africaare renowned for the disincentives theyprovide for participatory forest managementand agroforestry. Some of them havechanged since the 1990s, with the paceof change varying from country to country(Russell et al. 2001). Cameroon introducedcommunity forestry in the late 1990s andseveral lessons have been learned from itsexperience. Niger passed its new ForestryAct in April 2004. A new forestry code forthe Democratic Republic of Congo is stillunder consideration with much discussionon the role of communities in a situationwhere all land and resources continue tobe legally the property of the state. Ashleyet al. (2005) shows that continued uncertaintyabout forest classification is creatingdisincentives for agroforestry and forestmanagement in Cameroon and Mali.Buffer zone and landscapeapproaches to conservationThere is now general agreement that conservationof valuable natural resourcesand biodiversity requires the designationof protected areas and better managementof the land surrounding them. Agroforestrycontributes to landscape approaches toconservation by enhancing the diversity ofvegetation in farming areas, increasing thehabitat value of land-use mosaics aroundprotected areas, and reducing pressureon protected areas. Schroth et al. (2004)conclude their review of the potential foragroforestry to contribute to biodiversityconservation with the statement that “…theeffective integration of agroforestry intoconservation strategies is, however, a majorpolicy and institutional challenge”.Attempts to address that institutional challengehave been undertaken in severalcountries, including Nepal and the Philippines(see Box 2). In 2003/4, Centre researchersconducted studies of the policyterrain affecting agroforestry in severalprotected areas (national parks or classifiedforests) in Cameroon, Mali and Uganda.Key conclusions from the studies were asfollows (Ashley et al. 2005):• policy and institutional support to agricultureand agroforestry in buffer zonestends to be very minimal;• extension and development agenciesthat support agroforestry in buffer zones