The Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project (FCMCPP)

68905

Forestry Administration of Cambodia

The Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project (FCMCPP)

World Bank

Cambodia, June 2005

Community Consultations in Forest Management Planning

Introduction

How to use this manual

Part 1 Background

Results of an Assessment of the Present Situation

Legal and Policy Background or "why to consult communities?"

The Cambodian Forestry Law (Legal Framework) and the Sub-Decree on Forest Concessions + Community Forestry Sub-Decree

Legal Issues concerning Resin Trees

International approaches of Co-Management (the value, win/win)

World Bank Indigenous People and Safeguard Policies (to quote) /the rights of forest dependent people, communities to be embedded (not quoting the position paper)

Part 2 Manual

The Participatory Approach

What is Participation

Types of Participation

How to ensure Participation

Indicators for Participation

The Participatory Tool-Box (overview)

How to behave with villagers – Do's and Don't's

The Role of Facilitators in Community Consultations

Overview of the Procedure of Community Consultations in Forest Management Planning

Procedure of Community Consultations in Forest Concession Management Planning and for Annual Coupes (negotiation on each individual tree (as a sub-category)

The Community Consultation Procedure Step by Step

Presentation and Explanation of Community Consultation Procedure to Villagers and Stakeholders
Sharing Information: Description of planned forest management project to communities
Situation Analysis

The semi-structured Interview (SSI)

Questionnaire

Stakeholder Assessment

The institutional landscape and stakeholder analysis

Assessment of Use of Natural Resources and Forest Use Zones
Participatory Mapping and Zonation
Social Impact Assessment

Establishment of Representative Community Institutions for Negotiation
Agreements and Demarcation of Community and Forest Use Zones

Demarcation by Forest Walk, GPS and GIS

Negotiation and Agreements on other forest use issues, on mitigation measures, recompensation and benefits and future collaboration
Elaboration of Action Plans

Mediation and Possibilities of Conflict Resolution

The Role and Support of 'Third Parties'

Part 3

Suggestions for a Training (Workshop) in Community Consultations in Forest Management Planning

Annex

Cambodian Forestry Law

Sub-Decree on Forest Concessions

Sub-Decree on Community Forestry

World Bank Position on Indigenous Peoples Rights and Safeguard Policies

The World Bank Operational Manual: Indigenous People

Experiences and Results from first Training-Workshop

Introduction

The Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project (FCMCPP) overall objective was developed in the early 2000s and aims at “testing and demonstrating, through implementation, a comprehensive set of forest planning and management guidelines and control procedures and establishing an effective forest management compliance monitoring and enforcement capability”.

The following sets of guidelines were prepared in 2004 and consist of 5 separate documents.

1) The Inventory Handbook

2) The Planning Handbook

3) The Guidelines for the Review of the Management Plans

4) The Forest Systems Research and Modeling Handbook

5) The Training Material

According to the Planning Handbook a separate and specific document was supposed to be prepared with regard to the social issues of the Forest Concession Planning process in order to complete the planning process.

At the same time the concession Strategic Forest Management Plans (SFMPs) were evaluated in accordance with the already existing guidelines. One of the major conclusions that came out of this review was that most of the social consideration were, at the best, poorly documented and that the local communities that live in and around the forest concessions had not been sufficiently involved. Even the SFMPs that successfully had passed this first round of evaluation lacked a comprehensive and in depth analysis of the social issues. In many cases the conclusions were that the concessionaire should “tackle incomplete community issues at the compartment level”.

These conclusions were more acutely underlined by the recent Independent Review of the SFMPs: “The most important tasks, socio-economic survey and participatory planning of community use areas, were not well set out in the guidelines and performance is correspondingly disappointing.” The Review also highlighted the “lack of advice (to the companies) available at the start of this process in 2000”. In other words, in spite of existing guidelines[1] on how to include social matters and consult local communities, the companies failed at addressing the right issues partly because of a lack of training and understanding.

At the national level, there is a strong consensus among the Forestry Administration, the donors and the NGO community that the needs and concerns of the local communities who mainly depend on the forest must be integrated into the forest management planning. Their forest-based livelihoods need to be protected and should benefit from any commercial use of their forests. However, during the last five years, very little[2] has been done to clarify those questions on a practical and technical level and to consolidate the existing knowledge. In spite of the existing guidelines, neither the Forestry Administration, nor the concessionaires know how to proceed exactly with community consultations in the field.

To fill this gap the Forestry Administration and the World Bank felt the need to develop an applicable procedure of Community Consultations in Forest Management Planning for Cambodia and to start training the related stakeholders.This manual tries to give such guidelines and a step-by-step approach, which will enable all partakers to follow the process.

The purpose of this document is clearly for the benefit and use of Forestry Administration agents, concessionaires’ staff, local communities and all other stakeholders who will be involved in any kind of forest management planning process in Cambodia.

It is hoped that this manual will help to improve the relationship between all the forest stakeholders, and consequently help to decrease conflicts and forest destruction and to strengthen a sustainable management of the Cambodian forests.

How to use this manual

PART 1

Background

Results of an assessment of the present situation in forest concessions

Summary of results from my interim report 2004 and evtl.first part of independent review of SFMPs by GFA

The Legal and Policy Background or "why to consult communities?"

Legal issues concerning resin trees

HARVEST OF RESIN TREES IN CAMBODIA

ISSUE

Under current legislation in Cambodia, is it legal to harvest resin trees tapped by local communities?

SHORT ANSWER

No. Presently, Forest Administration (FA) Declaration 740 (26 April 2001) temporarily prohibits the harvest of resin trees. However, MAFF will issue a Prakas to interpret Article 29 of the Forestry Law (2002) and clarify the legality to harvest resin trees.

CONTEXT

Resin trees have traditionally been a major livelihood activity of local communities in Cambodia. Local communities recognize customary ownership rights for individuals or families in the community who initially tapped a resin tree. However, this traditional tenure system has never been recognized in Cambodia legislation, thereby allowing logging companies to harvest resin trees for nominal fees. This practice intensified once the higher-grade timber became depleted.

Due to loopholes in the old Forestry Law and a 1993 Prakas, loggers were able to negotiate (often coercion) with local communities to buy the resin trees with approval of forestry and local officials. In response to numerous complaints, the FA issued Declaration 740 to prevent forest concessionaires from purchasing and harvesting resin trees until their management plans and the legal issues were resolved. The legal issue is ripe since the FA may approve management plans for a group of remaining concessionaires and potentially permit logging in other production forest under annual harvest plans regulated by the Forestry Law, Ch. 6.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Constitution (1993), Article 58
Forestry Law (2002), Articles 2,3, 15, 24, 29, 40
Prakas on Protected Tree Species (1993)
FA Declaration 740 on Resin Trees (26 April 2001)
Draft Prakas by MAFF on Protected Tree Species implementing Forestry Law, Art. 29.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

Resin trees meet the definition of “forest” and “forest products” in the glossary attached to the Forestry Law. As such, resin trees are State Public Property under the jurisdiction of the MAFF (Constitution, Art. 58; Land Law, Art. 15; Forestry Law, Art. 3, 24) and not eligible for private ownership. Therefore, the law does not recognize the traditional ownership of resin trees by local communities, but instead recognizes customary user rights of local people to tap resin trees and sell the byproduct without a permit. (Forestry Law, Art. 40). Specifically, Article 40 states that “traditional user rights consist of the collection of dead wood, picking wild fruit, collecting bees’ honey, taking resin and collecting other forest by-products . . .” This customary right applies throughout the entire permanent forest estate, including forest concessions (Forestry Law, Article 15). Since resin trees are state public property, a local community can not sell a resin tree to a logging company “nor transfer any of these traditional user rights to a third party, even with mutual agreement or under contract” (Forestry Law, Art. 40). Customary user rights do not include the right to “harvest” or “sale” a resin tree to a logging company or any other third party. Despite this limitation, it was common practice for logging companies to negotiate with local people to purchase their resin trees to harvest under a permit from forestry officials.

There is a distinction between the right to “sale,” to “use” and to “harvest” resin trees.

Local communities have the customary user right to tap resin trees and sale the byproduct without a permit, but not to harvest (FL, Article 40);
Licensed logging operations operating with a permit from forestry officials have the right to “harvest” timber (FL, Article 15); and
The State has transfers the right to harvest timber to a third party by providing a permit in exchange for a royalty payment (FL, Articles 24 - 26).

A key remaining question is whether the State can offer a permit to a logging operation to “harvest” a resin tree tapped by a local community? The prior Forestry Law prohibited the harvest of resin trees tapped by local communities unless authorized by MAFF. The Prakas issued in 1993 added the requirement that the logging operator receive permission from the local community or member with the customary user right for the resin tree. This exception provided a loophole for logging operators to pay local people for the right to “harvest” their resin trees. For two reasons, this loophole is not valid at this time:

1)The FA issued Declaration 740 (26 April 2001) citing complaints by local communities about loss of resin trees. This directive does not repeal the requirement that concession companies obtain permission from local people to harvest trees but suspends all harvesting of resin trees by temporarily revoking or suspending permission from MAFF. This directive remains in full force.

2)The intent of the new Forestry Law (2002) was to repeal the 1993 Prakas and implement a new procedure and protection for protected tree species, including resin trees. During the drafting of the new Forestry Law, discussions were held about how to close the broad loophole to purchase resin trees “with authorization from MAFF.” Initial drafts included several specific provisions limiting the right of forestry officials to authorize the harvest of protected tree species. However, the final version was edited to state that: “unless authorized by MAFF, for reason such as unsuitable weather condition, trees within authorized forest feeder roads or other conditions proposed by the FA, it should be prohibited to harvest the following forest products and by-products within the Permanent Forest Reserve . . . tree species that local communities have tapped to extract resin following traditions . . . (FL, Article 29).

It can be argued that the new Forestry Law (2002) did not directly repeal the 1993 Prakas. The 1993 requirement to obtain permission from local communities to harvest resin trees does not expressly conflict any provision in the new Forestry Law and therefore may remain valid. However, MAFF has drafted a new Prakas to replace the 1993 version and implement Article 29 of the new Forestry Law (2002). This draft currently includes language similar to the 1993 Prakas regarding the right to harvest resin trees upon permission of the local community and forestry officials. This would repeal the suspension stated in FA Declaration 740 and potentially reinstate the policy that assisted in depletion of numerous resin trees and damaged the livelihoods of local communities throughout Cambodia. A window of opportunity exists at this time for the FA to submit the draft Prakas for public comment, required by Forestry Law, Art. 3, and amend the language regarding resin trees. A recommendationcouldbe:

1)To strictly prohibit the harvest of resin trees tapped by local communities thereby protecting customary user rights and traditional livelihoods (FL, Art. 2, 15, 40);

Why are Community Consultations needed in Forest Management Planning?

Community Consultations are nothing else than an ongoing process of participation of the affected and forest-dependent communities in all forms of Forest Management Planning. (See also 'Participation'in Part 2)

Here is a summery of the reasons why community consultations and the participation of the forest dependent people for forest management planning in Cambodia is so important :

Forest dependent people and communities build their livelihood to a large extent on the use of forest resources (timber and/or non-timber products). In Cambodia the forests and their resources have been ensuring a modest but stable living base to those communities who customarily and primarily subsist on them.
As primary users of these forests these local communities must be provided the right to participate in the whole decision-making and planning process concerning the future management and the commercial or customary use of the forest they depend on.

The commercial use of those forests and forest products can seriously affect the balance of their livelihood system. The people's income and subsistence from forest resources can be diminished or even destroyed. The people will be driven into deeper poverty and to further deforestation for agriculture and/or labour migration in search of alternative income possibilities.
The customary and sustainable use of forest products by forest dependent communities is protected by the Cambodian Forestry Law and by international conventions. Community consultations are demanded by the Forest Concession Sub-Decree. (see Part 1 and Annex)
Forest dependent people normally know best about their forest. They can contribute their (traditional) knowledge and skills to the forest management planning. They also know best to express their needs and interests for the customary and sustainable use of forest resources for their livelihood.
Considering the long-term values of the forest for their livelihood and for the next generation forest dependent people can contribute considerably to the planning and control of a sustainable forest management.
Being the traditional main users and conservers of the forest resources these forest communities must be entitled to get benefits from any further commercial forest use or to be compensated by suitable mitigation measures in any case of degradation.
After all the abuse of forest exploitation in Cambodia inside forest concessions, on forest state land and by illegal logging, going along with the intimidation of local communities, the resulting conflicts and loss of trust, community consultations are urgently needed for a constructive communication between local communities, government authorities and all other stakeholders for the planning of any future forest management.
Community consultations in forest management planning will finally strengthen the capacity of local governance and advance the decentralisation process in Cambodia for a future sustainable forest management.

The Participatory Approach in Forest Management Planning

Participation – Why, What and How?

We can understand participation in the simplest of its meaning as "taking part", "sharing", "acting together". People's participation is nothing less than the basis of social, economic and daily life. In all times and in all cultures people have shared decisions, tasks and responsibilities in order to organise their human existence and to manage their ecological environments and natural resources.

In the context of development and natural resource management, what benefits can be expected from participation?

local knowledge, skills and resources are used more fully;
the initiative becomes more effective, more efficient and more sustainable;
local people and outsiders share and enhance their awareness of problems, resources and opportunities; they share and diversify their relevant knowledge and skills;
local associations and institutions are created or become stronger and more capable;
local initiative and self-reliance are encouraged and strengthened
local interests are respected and local needs are protected
close control of the management of natural resources by involved local communities can be more transparent and efficient,
the local community is likely to become more self-confident and stronger in self-management
development, democracy and equity are broadly promoted

Because of these benefits, nowadays almost all development organisations and programmes value and incorporatethe participation of local people and stakeholders as an elementary and decisive approach.

To implement participation in practice, however, can be much more difficult than barely written intentions on programme papers. Participation in practice often presents the following challenges:

Local communities can be highly hierarchical and generally follow the decisions of their leaders. In those communities the participation of certain disadvantaged groups (e.g. women, landless people, ethnic minorities, etc.) may be contrary to local customs and difficult to be enhanced.
Local community members might not dare to express their own views and interests (which might differ from those of others) publicly.
National governments and other authorities may not be in favour of local participation and empowerment.
A participatory approach may also be difficult because of the lack of local political and/or institutional support.
Participatory processes require important investments of time and resources as well as committed persons and/or institutions who support the process with facilitation in order to reach a good level of confidence and communication between the different stakeholders.
The emphasis on the process of participation may take attention and resources away from the technical content of the initiative.
Decision-making in a participatory process will often ask for compromises from all sides and will need a lot of patience for consensus-building.