Forests for all by CARE Danmark

Forests for all

life in Lagantum

Forests for all A question

of rights and

equity

Fuel depot

Table of contents 4 Community Forestry, key facts

Avalanche barrier

Small groups – great changes 5

Air conditioner

A threatened treasure 8

6 Green life REDD alert 12

Carbon store

Larder

10 The forest came back to Lagantum

14 The water of life

22 Whose forest? 32 Partners

Forests for All

Front page: Primary forest is still disappearing at an alarming rate, mainly in the Tropics as here in Brazil. Photo: Roberto Faidutti Layout: Mette Schou, Gipsy Graphics Published by Brandbjerg Folk High School, Danish Forestry Extension and CARE Danmark with support from Danida

Upstream, downstream 16

Equal rights, equitable economy 26

Landslide defence

Recommendations 30 Acknowledgements: This report has been prepared by Susanne Sayers but several people have been involved. First and foremost Flemming Sehested from the Danish Forestry Extension and Jesper Saxgren from the Brandbjerg Folk High School. Both have offered invaluable advice and knowledge. And this report would not have been possible without the joint efforts and valuable input, feedback and suggestions from Maria Ploug Petersen, Søren Engberg, Line Gamrath Rasmussen, Chiranjibi Adhikari, Prasad Chhetry, Thabit Masoud, Raja Jarrah, Rolf Hernø from CARE as well as Jens Friis Lund (LIFE), Tom Blomley (Acacia Natural Resource Consultants) and Popular Gentle (Charles Sturt University).'Forests for all' incorporates facts and results from a large number of scientific studies. A full list of literature can be found at www.care.dk/forestreport

Water filter

Pharmacy timber supply

Photo: Jim Ball

Forests for All

Forests for all

Community Forestry, Key facts

foreword

Community forestry refers to the management of forest lands and natural resources by local people, for commercial and non-commercial purposes. It includes the use of the forest resources by local people as well as the community management of the forests. The individual may use the forest but the community decides on which conditions. Community forestry has existed for millennia. However, as a development strategy it took off in the late 1970's as a response to deforestation and a fuelwood crisis that had a negative impact on the livelihoods of the poor and very poor. Source: Nurse and Malla 2005

Several studies have shown that community forestry, when used to its full capacity, is superior to other methods of natural resource management. Money and benefits are reinvested into the local communities, for instance improving schools, health or creating new enterprises and new jobs. At the same time community based management has a positive impact on the environment, including less deforestation, better water supplies, better biodiversity and improved protection from landslides. In other words, community forestry can improve production, improve livelihoods and improve the environment at the same time. Source: Community-based forest enterprises in tropical forest countries, Instituto del bien Común, Peru, 2007

It is unknown exactly how much forest and forest management has been transferred to forest user groups. However, in Nepal alone during the last three decades, 1.2 million hectares of forest have been transferred to community management, and community forestry has gained popularity in a growing number of countries. Source: Community Forest Management, background paper for the UNFF9, 2011

Forests for All

Small communities

– great change

We have a global challenge: We need to increase the amount of food, water and energy available in a dramatic way within the next few decades. At the same time we need to preserve and restore our natural resources which have been severely depleted.

Goal 3:

That challenge needs global decisions, but the decisions could be futile and even damaging if they do not put priority to what this really comes down to: This is about people. We should not accept proposals that are not founded in that simple fact. Our obligation is to strive to make life better for all, not for a chosen few or even a chosen many. Fortunately, this can be done. One key to achieving both an increase in productivity and a better environment is empowering local communities and letting them manage the natural resources. Community forestry has worked in a number of countries for several decades now, and the results prove that small communities can make great change happen. Actually, each and every one of the UN Millennium Development Goals can be advanced by community forestry, because well-functioning community forestry makes the necessary resources available to all, including those that need them the most: the poorest.

Goal 1:

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Forests contribute as much as 50 per cent of all income, cash and non-cash, to the rural poor and very poor. Non-cash income includes collecting fodder for livestock, fuelwood, gathering food, medicine and fibre for cloth and thatch. Community forestry secures access and ensures availability of the forest products to those dependent on them.

Goal 2:

Achieve universal primary education. Sales of forest products generate income that can be used for school fees, school uniforms or bus fares. Community forestry ensures availability of forest products, organises sales, and forest user groups could decide to use the income on building schools.

Goal 4 and 5:

• It should protect and improve the forests as natural habitats for many species. Biodiversity is vital for a number of reasons. • It should ensure that the benefits from protecting the forests will be shared equitably. Not only should benefits be shared vertically from the top and downwards – for instance from government level to local communities – but horizontally within a community as well, so that not just the already privileged benefit and the poorest are left out. • It should ensure the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities. • It should ensure that all decisions are based on free, prior and informed consent from relevant stakeholders.

Goal 6:

This report shows how this can be achieved through community forestry and the dangers to be avoided in the process. It gives examples of how communities can become involved and make forest management a success. The report will take you to the plains and hillsides of Nepal where community forestry has brought back the forests in large areas. Local communities have been empowered and overcome old stigmas based on gender and social status, and new jobs have been created.

Promote gender equality and empower women Girls and boys are more likely to attend school when forest incomes help women to find cash for fees and uniforms. Women participate in managing natural resources, which can give them status and an access to power on equal terms with the men. And when wood for fuel, food and fodder is close by, women and girls have more time to spend on other activities such as education. Reduce child mortality and improve maternal health Mothers and children get improved acces to good quality foods, to forest medicines and the money to buy food and pay for medical treatments as a result of using the forest. Sales of forest products contribute directly and indirectly to the meeting of these goals. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases Resistance to disease is linked to overall health and nutritional status which improves access to forest products and income from sales. Acces to medicinal plants can help combat a variety of diseases.

Goal 7:

Ensure environmental stability Forest user groups invest in and enrich their forests for the benefit of all. The overall quality of the forests are improved with for instance richer biodiversity, greater resilience, cleaner water and less deforestation. Community forestry protects the resources and encourages natural regeneration. When livelihoods are improved in rural areas, it is less likely that the poorest move to cities, which could indirectly help achieve the target of improving lives in the urban slums.

The report discusses who has the right to the benefits of the forest, and how those benefits can be shared by all, not just the elite. The report will also point out that the current buzz about a green economy needs to be replaced with the demand for an equitable green economy. The report is kept in fairly simple terms, and it is aimed mainly at journalists and decision makers with a basic knowledge of forests and natural resource management. Those eager to get into more specific details will find a link to the relevant literature at the back.

Source: Community Forest Management, background paper for the UNFF9, 2011, and B.K. Pokharel ' From degradation to restoration: An assessment of the enabling conditions for community forestry in Nepal', 2006

The first part of the report is dedicated to explaining why forests are important, what drives deforestation and gives you an example of how getting a forest back has improved the livelihood in a small Nepalese community.

And so this report stresses how people can manage forests and other natural resources to the benefit of themselves and eventually the whole planet.

After this follows three chapters, showcasing what can be achieved and how to achieve it. Each chapter will be initiated with a short summary and finished with a short conclusion.

Any sustainable solution should achieve the following: • It should stop deforestation and aim to increase the amount of forests around the World.

At the end you will find the recommendations from the organisations behind the report, and we will, of course, be happy to elaborate our views and points.

Forests for All

Forests for all

Green life

green life

Green life It is no coincidence that in most cultures our oldest myths have trees at their centre. Trees have become symbolic with life itself, and life on Earth would be very different if forests did not cover large areas of our planet. Recently the concern for the forests of the world has been driven by the fear of climate change. Forests are carbon stores, and they are vital when it comes to regulating the climate. But forest are so much more than that.

Protection

Fuel

More than 2 billion poor people

Used sustainably wood is a renewable, carbon neutral source of fuel and heating. Especially in developing countries wood is still the absolutely most important source of energy. In many places it is practically the only source.

Timber

in developing countries

The forest provides local communities with building materials and frequently a living from selling the timber or running a sawmill.

Fodder Food

Forests provide the local inhabitants with fruits and nuts and vegetables, edible sprouts and herbs. But a healthy forest is also home to animals that can be hunted and used for food and furs. Bees and other pollinators increase the yield from crops close to the forest.

Forests are home to a huge number of plants that serve as a local pharmacy, curing diseases and easing pain. More than 35,000 plant species are being used around the world for medicinal purposes. As an example of importance, medicinal plants are used by more than 4,000 ethnic communities accounting for about 70 per cent of rural health care.

Forests for All

Mangrove forests are disappearing quickly but there is a growing awareness of their importance, and several countries are now hosting programmes to bring them back, such as here in Tanzania. Fauzia Said Sleiman is one of the many volunteers that plant and take care of the mangroves. Photo: Evelyn Hockstein

Forests soils can store and transmit large quantities of water. At the same time the roots serve as a biological filter that can purify the water, absorbing impurities. And the protection forests offer against mud and landslides also helps keep the water free from sediments.

depend on

primary

Household items

source of energy

Medicine

Clean water

Carbon sink

wood as their

Forests provide fodder for livestock. It can be the undergrowth, young twigs and branches or fruits and nuts. Livestock is often a considerable proportion of the total income of small-scale farmer households, and a primary source of protein. In some areas up to 90 per cent of the fodder supply may come from trees and undergrowth.

Landslides, avalanches and floods are a threat to many communities, especially in the developing world. Forests are efficient barriers and offer valuable protection. This can mean the difference between life and death for the inhabitants, and forests can save farming fields and livestock from destruction.

Trees store carbon, and the vast, but decreasing, tropical forests of South America and Central Africa help regulate the climate. The exact amount of carbon that trees store is being debated, but some studies estimate that tropical forests absorb about 18 per cent of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels.

Leaves and grasses can be weaved into baskets, wood can be shaped to serve as basins, tools, bowls and plates, plant fibres can be made into strong ropes or even used for cloth etc.

Recreation

Forests are beneficial for mental health, and ecotourism is gaining more and more interest. Areas of natural beauty, such as forests, could provide local communities with an income.

Culture

Apart from the practical and economic importance forests have several immaterial values, such as being the centre of cultures all over the World. They have historical, cultural and frequently religious significance. Traces of the past are preserved better in the forest than in farmland.

Forests for All

Forests for all

Drivers of deforestation

A threatened treasure Deforestation and forest degradation have severe consequences, locally and globally. Locally it could mean lack of shelter, firewood, fodder, sufficient drinking water, food and protection from mudslides, landslides and floods. Deforestation almost always means increased poverty for the already poor and most vulnerable. But the consequences could reach much further. Take away the Worlds' largest tropical forest, the Amazon, and you would probably take away half the rain that falls on Brazil, some scientists estimate. That could change weather patterns perhaps as far away as Europe. The Amazon, once labelled 'the lungs of the world', now probably consumes more oxygen than it produces, as farmers and loggers, both legal and illegal, clear away the forest, releasing carbon into the atmosphere as the trees fall to rampant blazes. As huge amounts of the forest disappears the rest become less resilient. In a tropical rainforest like the Amazon a forest fire would usually be a rare and limited occurrence. Except for the fringes, the forest would be too moist to feed a big fire. But now the forest is fragmented, large parts have been cleared, and much of the forest is becoming drier and so more likely to catch fire. The heavy smoke from the giant forest fires means less rainfall and higher ground temperatures which makes the forest even drier which again increases the risk of fires, forest the size of an American destroying more trees and so forth in a vicious circle. Carbon emissions from forest destruction could contribute significantly to global warming, and the fragmentation of the forests harm biodiversity severely, damaging their ability to act like gene pools.

Every two seconds a

football stadium

disappears due to illegal logging Source: FAO

So what drives deforestation? There is no single answer and so no single solution but these are some of the factors:

• Logging and trade. Logging, frequently illegal, is responsible for an unprecedented mass destruction of forests. The World Bank estimates that illegal logging in some countries accounts for as much as 90 per cent of all logging and generates approximately US$10–15 billion annually in criminal proceeds. The illegal timber industry is usually linked to corruption and highly organized criminal networks. The trade is international with much of the demand for the wood coming from the industrialized countries and the BRIC countries.

Forests for All

• Mining and other exploitation. Sometimes forests cover areas that are coveted for their minerals, metals, oil or gas depots. • Infrastructure. New settlements, logging sites, farmlands require roads. Large amounts of forests are cleared to make way for the infrastructure, and the improved access makes logging easier and more profitable. • Farming. Farmers clear large areas to make way for cattle farming, soy, palm oil and other agricultural products, often in international demand. The steep increase in food prices increases the immediate profit.

North America: There is a slight increase in the forest area, both planted and primary. The region accounts for about 25 per cent of the World's primary forest.

• Urbanization. It may sound illogical but the increasing urbanization has become a major driver of deforestation, studies have shown. The population in cities tend to eat more, and they eat more processed food than rural populations, which increases the demand for agricultural products. Forest is cleared to meet the demand, and at the same time city populations do not directly feel the consequences. • Climate change. As the weather patterns change, forests are affected. Too much precipitation, too little, rising temperatures, gales – all this could increase the vulnerability of the forests. • Shrimp farms. The rapidly expanding shrimp aquaculture industry threatens the remaining mangrove forests and the communities they support. In the process the local residents are being displaced and impoverished, and as the valuable mangrove barrier against floods disappears, the coastal towns and farmlands become more vulnerable to floods and tsunamis. • Tourism. While the increased demand for ecotourism could be a driver of forest conservation, tourism is a threat in many coastal communities. Mangrove forests are removed to make way for sandy beaches, golf courses, cruise ports, marinas, hotels and other tourist facilities.

The state of the forests Since 1990 the World has lost an alarming 13,500,000 hectares of forest every year – or the equivalent of a nation the size of Greece annually, mainly in South America and Africa. However, the speed of the decline is slowing, and in some continents there is an increase in the amount of area covered by forest. Some of the regained territory is not an adequate replacement of the primary forest felled as monocultural plantations are frequently inferior to a natural old growth forest as resilient habitats. But still there are multiple good examples to learn from.

My Watershed, Honduras Poor rural communities in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua reduce their vulnerability to waterrelated shocks and improve their quality of life by improving watershed management. Quantity of water for productive use is increased in project watersheds; and communities' abilities to manage, conserve and rehabilitate natural resources such as forests in watersheds are enhanced.

South & Latin America: South America is home to more than half of all the primary forest in the World, but it is still declining, and the overall forest area is decreasing, though at a slower speed than in previous decades.

Europe: Europe is the continent with the biggest forest area, mainly because of the vast forests of Russia, which make up more than 80 per cent of all European forest. The area is growing in spite of a minor decrease in the Russian forest area.

Climate resilience, Nepal Climate change and deforestation are causing natural disasters in Nepal. At the same time nearly half the population live below the poverty line, and gender inequality is a big issue. CARE is working with local organisations to manage natural resources in a way that is resilient to climate change and sustainable socially and economically as well as environmentally.

Asia/Pacific: The amount of forest has increased significantly, mainly thanks to reforestation projects in several countries. There is still a loss of primary forest, though.

Africa: There is still a net forest loss, but the speed is slowing. More forest is now being planted, especially in the North and the West, and more forest is protected.

Sustainable forestry, Ghana More than 70 per cent of the population depend on the country's natural resources for their daily supplies of food, water, energy and medicine. CARE is working with local organisations on empowering the population in their role in developing sustainable agriculture and forestry and to secure the rights – in law and in practice – of poor population groups to land and natural resources

Reforestation, Tanzania Short-sighted economic interests have caused massive deforestation in Tanzania. The forest dependent population is frequently poor and marginalised. CARE projects in Tanzania aim at improving the livelihoods of the poorest while protecting the forests. One way is making companies pay small scale farmers for taking care of the environment.

Mangrove reforestation, Vietnam Mangroves are hardy coast guards, protecting villages, live stock, farmland and people against floods and tidal waves. A belt of mangroves just 200 meters wide can dissipate 75 per cent of the energy in a wave. In Vietnam Care works with the local population to bring back the mangroves. It can pay off. For every dollar spent on planting mangroves, the local community saves 130 dollars in constructing concrete dikes.

Forests for All

Forests for all

Topali Lamsal happy that the forest life inisLagantum has returned to her village, Lagantum. It makes life easier, and it has given the village a source of income. Photo: Søren Rud

Forests for all

life in Lagantum “I used to be afraid all the time. Now I'm not afraid anymore.” Topali Lamsal has taken a break from her chores to talk about how life in Lagantum has changed. Lagantum is a small village in the Middle Hills of Nepal, and to the passing visitor it will seem unremarkable, looking like so many other villages. The houses are simple and surrounded by the mosaic of terraced rice paddies, fields, fluttering butterflies, giant sprouts of bamboo and verdant trees. Green in a multitude of shades and hues dominate the landscape. The lushness, however, is a recent thing. Back in the 80's Nepal's Middle Hills were almost stripped bare. And this is the time that Topali Lamsal remembers with dread. “We had landslides. There were no trees left to brake the slides, and so we had no protection. People would die in a landslide, or we would lose our fields and crops. When it rained, I was afraid,” she explains.

A better life in Lagantum A forest can mean a world of difference. Life in Lagantum, Nepal, changed for the better in a number of ways when the whole village pulled together to bring back the wilderness. The new forest means protection, easier access to food, fodder and fuelwood, and as the water has become cleaner it is now a source of income. The forest user group decide how to distribute the new wealth.

Barbed wire The Nepalese government was well aware that forest deprivation was a severe problem. It tried to solve it by fencing off the forests to prevent people from felling the trees. Barbed wire was used, and armed guards were authorised to kill trespassers if necessary. The government had little success. People in the densely populated Middle Hills of Nepal depend on wood. 90 per cent of all fuel is still firewood, wood for timber as well as fodder for livestock. It was impossible to keep people out, even when their lives were threatened by going into the forest. In 1993 the government handed over the right to manage the forests to forest user groups in community forestry. Projects supported by NGOs and donor countries helped the villagers. Managing the forest in a fair and democratic way was a challenge. Several studies based on experience from other parts of Nepal had shown, that though all benefited from community forestry, the already well-to-do usually benefitted more than the poor, even when they put in the same amount of work. In Lagantum a democratic council was established, and everyone has a right to participate, regardless of caste or gender. The council decides what to plant, how to distribute income from community forestry, how much wood each villager can take etc. It is voluntary to participate in the management of the forest. However, you only receive the rights to collect firewood and other benefits if you do your share of managing the forest, and that means that everyone participates or make certain to send a replacement if they cannot make it themselves. But managing the forest in a cooperation has given both the women and the Dalits their say. Many benefits The result is very visible, the forest is thriving and healthy, and looking over the valley down to the local river it is almost impossible to imagine that just a few years back the hillsides were barren. “Life is easier now,” Topali Lamsal explains. “Before we sometimes had to walk very far to get the wood we needed. Now it is all around us. Farm-

Forests for All

ing is better because the soil is not swept away during heavy rainfalls. The wildlife has come back, so the men can hunt. Unfortunately, the monkeys are back as well, and they can be a pest,” she adds with feeling. Bringing the forest back has had unexpected benefits as well as the most obvious. One of them is the local river. The water is now purer, because the trees work as a root zone system cleaning the water, and the forest slows the flow, so there is less sedimentation. In fact the water is so pure that the village make money from bottling it and selling it to those who pass by. And then there is the more invisible side effects. Caste and gender still remain sensitive subjects in Nepal, especially in rural districts, even if discrimination is against the law. The Dalit people traditionally have no rights and are considered too lowly to even address. Women live a hard life, and through all castes they are commonly considered worth less than men. They are paid less, even when they work harder, and they are not put through education as frequently as men. Forests in Nepal have been battlegrounds in more ways than one. One of the reasons why many But managing the forest in a cooperaonce forested areas of Nepal became barren tion have given both the women and the actually shows how you can make matters worse Dalit untouchables their say. They are even with the best of intentions. beginning to speak up, something that would have been unheard of a few years In 1957 the Nepalese state nationalized the forago. And their opinions are slowly being ests. Most of the forested areas under private taken seriously. Apart from the obvious control or the control of communities would now advantages of less discrimination studies be under government control. As a result many have shown that empowering the poor, owners and users converted the forests into farmespecially the women, benefits much land to avoid the nationalization and to keep their more people than just those directly at access to the land. the receiving line. It increases the overall wealth of a community. The government tried different ways to keep people out, including armed guards. But it became Collecting the money from all the activiclear that this approach didn't work. In 1982 the ties and trade from visitors and customCommunity Forestry Legislation and Decentraliers from the outside is the job of Topali sation Act increased local forestry rights. Nepal Lamsals brother-in-law, Tilak Bahadur became a democracy in 1990, and in 1993 the Lamsal. He used to be the strong man elected government handed over forest manageof the village, the one employed to keep ment rights to forest user groups. Today, Nepal people out. has more 12,000 forest user groups, managing more than a million hectares of forest. Many of the “And it is a good thing that we don't need user groups have been supported by NGOs and a strong man any longer, because I am international donors. not that strong now. But the forest is,” he laughs.

Forestry in Nepal

Forests for All

Forests for all

redd alert

REDD alert

REDD alert It is obvious that deforestation is a major challenge and just as obvious that something can be done about it. What is perhaps less obvious is the fact that there is no magic bullet. The drivers behind deforestation and forest degradation are multiple, complex and intertwined which means that the solutions have to be the same. Yet most solutions tend to focus on one end point, but a solution that fixes one problem only could lead to new and unforeseen problems that may be worse in the long run. At the same time it is not enough to solve a problem locally. The drivers behind local deforestation may be found much further afield, for instance in the demand for rare tropical wood in other countries or the growing consumption of refined agricultural products from urban populations. Some solutions need to be international, some national, some regional and some local. And some of them need to address more or even all levels at the same time. It all depends on the situation. The main framework in which we now address deforestation is REDD, an abbreviation for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. It is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

But biodiversity, soil quality, water courses etc suffer. A plantation is not as resilient as a natural forest with its multitude of

Forests for All

â&#x20AC;˘ It is vital that social safeguards are implemented in REDD+. The safeguard systems should adequately address: - Protecting against violations of human rights or other negative consequences for poor and marginalized groups. - Sharing REDD+ benefits equitably with, and also within, indigenous and local communities.

REDD+ tries to amend some of this by including the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Now biodiversity must be taken into consideration as well, and old forests should not just be cleared to make way for plantations. That is a good thing. Biodiversity is as important as climate. But though REDD+ is a step forward it is still focused mainly on the forests themselves, not on the people that are depending on them. Indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities have been vital in managing the forests, and experience from multiple forest initiatives shows that they are critical to success, yet they rarely have documents that can prove their title to the land, and frequently they have been excluded from receiving a fair share of the benefits.

As many as

Today REDD has been replaced by REDD+ to acknowledge that it is necessary to focus not only on carbon but on environmental sustainability as well. Trees are not just trees. If you just look at the carbon balance itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fine to cut down primary forest and replace it with a plantation. Though some trees are better at acting as carbon sinks than others the climate does not care too much about whether it is one kind of forest or the other.

Points to consider:

new trees, old trees, dead trees and undergrowth, neither does it offer the same protection of the surrounding environment or the same opportunity for other species to dwell and thrive. As a habitat it is vastly inferior to a natural forest.

1.6 billion

people, most of them very poor,

Without social safeguards REDD+ could lead to companies, authorities or large landowners cashing in on the scheme while those depending on the forest could get evicted or impoverished as they no longer have free access to forest products. This has already happened in many places, and the poorest and especially women suffer in the process.

for their daily

Another real danger is the insufficient value applied to the forests as carbon stores. It is not competitive compared to the yield from for instance clearing the natural forest and replacing it with a palm oil plantation. For forests to be worth more stand-

depend on forests

survival

Commercial plantations are usually inferior to natural growth forests when it comes to biodiversity and resilience. Photo: FAO

â&#x20AC;˘ The safeguards should be built on what was already agreed at COP16 in Cancun: - Ensure full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in developing and implementing REDD+ and, through recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, accept the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. - Consider gender within REDD+ programmes, with regards to safeguards, benefit sharing, participation and capacity building. - Provide information on safeguards including institutional reforms, consultation processes and social impacts. - Address the drivers of deforestation, both in national REDD+ strategies and internationally, with all parties acting to reduce pressure on forests.

ing than converted to industrial food crops, the carbon stored has to be worth more than the price of the crops. For the moment the carbon value is not even close, and the speculation that has led to an increase in food prices has only made matters worse. REDD+ has the potential to become an engine driving positive change but it needs the right fuel and it needs to be steered in the right direction. REDD+ when done well can support livelihoods, maintain vital ecosystem services and preserve global biodiversity. Done badly it can exacerbate inequality and contribute to the violation of the rights of the forest dependent people. Such risks are accentuated in countries and regions with weak forest governance.

Forests for All

Forests for all

All people live in a watershed. They may not be close to a large body of water but even in the driest desert areas there is water in the ground and so they too are part of a watershed. Watersheds are vital when you are dealing with nature and the management of natural resources, especially forests. The 'common water course' as scientist John Wesley Powell named it, feeds the forest. But in return the forest feeds the water course and tames it. Forest play a direct role in recharging groundwater, absorbing impurities, controlling erosion and reducing the A watershed is "that area of land, risk of extreme floods. To a large exa bounded hydrologic system, tent the water course and the forest are one. within which all living things are

“

inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community.”

Forests for All

• Recharge groundwater depots providing high quality water to the rest of the watershed.

A healthy watershed basically does three things:

1 2

the World's largest watersheds 2

Amazon 6,915,000 km

By volume of water, the largest watersheds are:

Amazon 219,000 m3/s Congo 3,680,000 km2 Orinoco 98,000 m3/s

Captures water: Rain naturally enters the

Río de la Plata 4,144,000 km2

Stores water: After rain enters the soil,

Nile 3,349,000 km2 Congo 41,800 m3/s

earth through soil, roots, and animal tunnels.

it fills the spaces between rocks and soil particles and becomes groundwater.

Examples of watersheds,

Releases water: Springs, wetlands, and

floodplains slowly release groundwater into lakes and streams.

Ob 2,990,000 km2 Yangtze 31,900 m3/s Mississippi 2,980,000 km2 Río de la Plata 22,000 m3/s Healthy Valley Lands, including Wetlands:

Healthy waterways:

A watershed can be very small or it can span nations. But even in the vastest systems small actions in one place can have huge reverberations in other places. Those living upJohn Wesley Powell, scientist geographer stream have an impact of the lives of those situated downstream. That seems logical enough. All rivers flow downwards, bringing whatever happened upstream with them. If you remove a lot of trees upstream, the risk of floods and erosions increase all the way along the water course.

• Have a diverse habitat including pools, riffles and glides; meandering, deep and narrow channels; large woody debris (trees); boulders.

But those at the low lying end affect those further upstream as well. Does the town downstream demand firewood or are the residents of the city at the mouth of the river eager to buy precious tropical timber? Then they are part of the explanation why the population upstream chops down trees and thereby degrading the efficiency of the water course to act as a buffer.

• Have cool water, free of sediment and pollutants.

Sometimes there are hundreds of kilometres between the events, which means that knowledge of how they are interlinked is not a given thing. And so all humans along the water course are part of a community, defined by a water course, but far from all are aware of it.

• Have a diversity of plant species to provide good ground cover and help water infiltration.

Groundwater

The water of life

• Capture precipitation (and snow melt) and store it for safe, slow release to streams.

Streams and rivers

Healthy Uplands:

Precipitation

Watershed management

• Have higher late season stream flows uplands and riparian areas are healthy. • Have reduced flood flows with less energy.

• Are home to diverse populations of fish and wildlife.

Healthy riparian or bank side areas: • Have a diversity of river bank vegetation which: 1. Provides stream bank stability 2. Increases bank storage of water and water table levels 3. Dissipates energy and slows the speed of flood flows 4. Filters sediment and potential pollutants from runoff water 5. Protects streams from temperature extremes • Have a constant supply of older trees to contribute large woody debris (branches and falling trees) to dissipate flood energy and create aquatic habitat.

• Have a high water table as a result of associated healthy upland and river conditions. • Have vegetative cover that: 1. Filters sediment and reduces nonpoint source pollution. 2. Slows the speed of flood flows and seasonal waters reducing soil erosion. 3. Deposits soil which can improve land production 4. Slowly releases water for recharging groundwater depots and increased stream base flow.

• Supply food sources to the adjacent waterways. Photo: Søren Rud

Forests for all

UPstream, downstream Nature and nature dynamics do not respect man-made borders. To some extent the same is true for social dynamics. What happens in one place affects another place, and so resource management has to have a much broader scope than just planting a forest or restoring natural vegetation.

Upstream, downstream To prevent deforestation it is necessary to eradicate the underlying mechanisms. One way of addressing the complexity is to work at watershed level and empower communities. This has been done in the innovative JIWAN Project in Nepal where landless and land owners, Dalits and so-called higher castes, and people from upstream and downstream are encouraged to work together in finding solutions to the serious degradation of the watershed.

Forests for All

In the Middle Hills of Nepal community forestry has brought back a green cover during the last decades. It has benefits for those living further down the stream as well. Photo: SĂ¸ren Rud

Forest degradation and deforestation is, as has already been explained, a multifacetted issue. A lot of projects have failed because they have only addressed one or a couple of the facets.

New methods, new knowledge, new confidence, new trades â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Nepalese open village schools are ultimately about getting the tools for shaping a better life for all and preserving the natural resources at the same time.

In other cases projects have been a success locally or benefited one group of people, but as the underlying and deeper mechanisms were not addressed, what was a solution for one place or one group of people simply transferred the problem to somewhere or someone else.

A school for life

Generally speaking, the solutions should be as complex as the problems. And no solutions are sustainable if they are not rooted in the societies in which they have to work. Dumping ready-made plans in a community simply does not work. The approach should be one of empowerment. The communities should make their own sustainable choices about their lives and environment. What they may need in order to do so is knowledge and a framework that facilitates the necessary actions.

Once the plains were covered in trees. Rivers meandered through the jungle which was abundant with wildlife.

Watershed literacy is one of the ways of taking a broader view and addressing deforestation at several levels. The communities upstream usually have no idea how much they influence those living further down the stream.

But the pressure is rising. Traditional methods are not enough in the face of a growing population and an increased need for food. At the same time the Terai is affected by droughts, floods and other natural disasters, and the frequency of these events is growing alarmingly. Most years now floods wash away whole villages, killing people and livestock, ruining fields and leaving thousands homeless and with nothing to live on.

Now only a fraction of the original jungle remains. Tourists will pay for a safari in the hope of spotting one of Nepal's few remaining tigers or the rare one-horned rhino in this beautiful but threatened nature lover's paradise. Outside the national parks most of the jungle has been cleared, and the lowlands on the Nepal-India border that were once almost uninhabited are now home to more than half of all the Nepalese population. Rice paddies, wheat fields, little vegetable gardens, cattle, chickens and women in their bright saris dominate the landscape. This is the 'breadbasket of Nepal', the most productive agricultural area in all of Nepal and the one which feeds all those in areas where there is not enough farmlands to meet the demand from the local population.

Forests for All

Forests for all

UPstream, downstream Climate change and deforestation Part of the explanation is climate change. The seasonal patterns have become less predictable, the storms more vicious, the droughts more severe. The unpredictability is the main concern. When there is no pattern, it is difficult to adapt, because what do you have to adapt to? And so the life-giving monsoon is now dreaded as well as anticipated because no-one knows how it will behave. However, local changes and mechanisms are to blame as well. The Terai lies at the foot of the World's highest mountain range, the Himalayas. The rivers from the hills and mountains are fed by the rain and the snow, and by the time they reach the Terai before they ultimately end up in the holy river Ganges, they have grown to roaring monsters of terrifyingly destructive water masses in the wet season. In the dry season the river bed looks like a desert with just dust, pebbles and boulders. The once forest-covered Middle Hills behind the Terai would take away some of that capacity for destruction. The water would be slowed on its way downhill, the speed would be less dramatic. Forested brinks would delay the water, roots and banks would gather some of the sediment. The slower pace allowed the flow of water to continue throughout most of the year, although in the dry season it would still be only the ghost of its size in the wet season. But in the second half of the 20th century the tree cover has been felled many places. The local population needs farmland, firewood and timber, among other things. The small communities have little or no knowledge of how this affects people living further down the stream, At the current consumption rates far away in the Terai.

“

the world will need an additional 45 per cent energy, 30 per cent more water and 50 per cent more food by the year 2030.” Source: UN

And in the Terai itself traditional farming methods are not sufficient to meet the growing demand for food. Inevitably the resources will be exhausted, leaving the already poor even poorer. Neither does industrial farming provide a satisfactory answer to the challenge. For instance pesticides and artificial fertiliser are too expensive for the poor, and at the same time they take a heavy toll on the environment. Open village schools Nepal has been one of the pioneers when it comes to community forestry. The need for getting local people involved was recognised early as was the challenge of sharing the benefits from managing the forests. And thanks to the organisation of forests user groups, the Middle Hills are now being reforested. There is reason to applaud these changes which often have other benefits reaching further than the immediate and visible return of trees and wildlife. However, the open village schools in the JIWAN Project along the river Jaladh in Southern Nepal demonstrate that much more can be achieved. Small scale farmers can be the very key to both restoring natural resources and increasing productivity. What is needed is a holistic approach that includes all aspects of life and empowers the participants to become agents of change.

Forests for All

UPstream, downstream

884 million people worldwide do not have access

to safe drinking water,

and 2.6 billion people

lack access to basic sanitation services,

such as toilets or latrines Source: UN

The Jaladh river has an unstable and very vulnerable ecosystem endangering the livelihoods of all in the watershed. In 2005 the first 'Lok Patshala', or people's schools as they are named in Nepali, were established in villages along the water course. The idea is originally Danish. More than a 150 years ago a similar voluntary school system for small scale farmers changed Denmark profoundly and laid the foundations of the modern welfare state. The farmers were offered knowledge at a time when the elite basically thought it a waste of time and effort to educate them. The farmers grasped the chance. They rejoiced in learning, they found a place to discuss ideas, and in the process they discovered new ways to prosper. They founded cooperatives and ultimately became a power to be reckoned with and the backbone of the economy for more than a century. Part of the secret was simply that the small farmers learned how to cooperate to bring about change and that they had the knowledge to make it happen. Women and Dalits That lesson is still relevant today, and so the open village schools have been established in a number of villages in Nepal, offering lessons to all regardless of their gender, caste, religion or income. The schools deal with a wide variety of subjects such as ecology, new techniques for farming and production, health, how to create an organisation, how to appeal to authorities etc.

A large number of people in Nepal, especially the poorest, are not literate, but that does not matter in the open village schools. The teachers use other ways of sharing their knowledge and facilitating debates. The main objective is to increase the productivity and sustainability of land use and bringing farmers together for the management of natural resources at a larger scale such as the watershed. Small scale farmers should be enabled to enhance the natural resources so they can still provide a growing population with life's necessities, be they food or firework, fodder or fibre. The schools raise an awareness of the interrelationship along the whole watershed. People upstream are made aware of how they affect those downstream and how they can help them. People downstream learn how their demand for firewood is part of the reason for the destructive deforestation upstream. By cooperating they have a much better chance of finding solutions that will benefit all in the watershed, and it is easier for them to negotiate with for instance authorities. People that have not been working and discussing together before are brought together. The women make up half of all the school attendants and half of the specially trained educators. Some of the women have never really left home before or spoken in public. The Dalit people, the so-called 'untouchables' who fall outside the traditional caste system, are invited to share their views and ideas as well on equal terms with everyone else. They discover a new dignity and a new identity in the process. Other people discover that women and Dalits cannot just be dismissed as worthless. It is no quick fix. Getting people together does not, after all, in itself bring back the forests or manage the watershed in a more sustainable way. But it provides new opportunities for doing so and increasing wealth and quality of life for all in the process.

Nepal at a glance

Total population (millions): 29.85 Life expectancy at birth: 67 Urban population: 18% Agricultural population, including forestry and fisheries (1000s): 27,746 Number of people undernourished (millions): 4.5 Proportion of undernourished in total population: 16% Nepal has 27.3 per cent forest cover (3.9 million hectares), although at least one-quarter of the forest area is heavily degraded. Nepal has a modest area of plantation forest (133 000 ha). Almost 15 per cent of the country's land area is in national parks, wildlife reserves or conservation areas. Domestic fuelwood is a major source of domestic energy. Nepal's important non-wood forest products include medicinal and aromatic plants, lotka paper, pine resin, fodder, grasses for thatching, matting and rope making, lemongrass and essential oils. Source: FAO

Q&A The JIWAN Project What does JIWAN mean? • JIWAN stands for Jaladh Integrated Watershed and Natural Ressource Co-Management Programme but it also means Life in Nepali. The programme integrates public education with sustainable management of natural resources in the open village schools. • The programme targets 62,500 residents of the Churia Mountains of which 53 per cent are women and 14 per cent are Dalits. The programme helps an additional 17,000 people in the surrounding areas. What is the purpose of the open village schools? The objectives of the open village schools operating in the Jaladh River watershed in Nepal are: • Increased understanding of how nature works – at various levels from garden to watersheds – and increased capacity to take individual and collective action on the basis of that. • Increased understanding of the fact that in the Jaladh watershed one key factor for improving life is a better management of the watershed with the involvement and cooperation of both upstream and downstream actors • Increased relevant options for people in terms of methods and techniques for improved sustainable methods in land use, health and other areas - all at various levels • Increased relevant options, actions and capacities for people in terms of cooperation at various levels • Increased empowerment in terms of an attitude of self-confidence, creativity and power of expression, an increased capacity to meet challenges, to change things and to learn – alone and in cooperation with others • Have facilitated upstream and downstream dialogue and helped develop a common feeling of interdependence and belonging among the people of the Jaladh watershed • Have facilitated organised cooperation on natural resource management within the Jaladh watershed • Increased richness of rural life Who is behind JIWAN? • Three Danish NGOs – CARE Danmark, Danish Forestry Extension (DFE) and the Danish Folk High Schools Association

Forests for All

Forests for all

UPstream, downstream

In the Jiwan Project women participate on equal terms with the men and speak up. Many of them have found green jobs to provide for their families through Jiwan. Photo: Flemming Pless

“

Our community got electricity so now we don’t have dark homes any more – we are in the light. We sold trees that were fallen by the wind and collected the money to purchase wires and took wood for electricity poles.” Mrs. Masrangi, member of Siddhasanti Community Forest User Group

A Dalit power woman In traditional Nepalese society she was a nobody. Resma Devi Das belongs to the Dalit people, the socalled untouchables. 260 million people in Southern Asia fall outside the cast system, most of them live in India and the Nepalese lowlands. Being an ‘outcast’ is being so low that you are even outside the traditional caste system, and Dalits are being discriminated against on a large scale. They live on the outskirts of the villages in the most exposed spots, they are not allowed near those from a higher caste, they cannot use communal facilities, they have the hardest jobs and the lowest pay, and they rarely go to school. Women especially are vulnerable. Rape is common, prostitution sometimes the only way of providing for a family. This was the situation that Resma Devi Das was accustomed to. She and her husband could not own land, they were forced to work as cheap labour to pay for food and pay their rent. They were constantly scared of losing the house to the people they owed money. Her father-in-law died when the family could not pay for a doctor when he fell ill. Today Resma Devi Das can pay medical bills, she earns a living, and she has the respect of her community. She no longer owes money, her house is her own, and she pays for her children to attend school. Life changed for Resma Devi Das when she began to participate in one of the open village schools in the JIWAN Project. Resma Devi Das took advantage of the skills taught at the schools, among them how to make environmentally friendly bricks. Today she is a brick maker of high esteem and was recently applauded as a true power woman at the yearly 'Celebrating Womanhood Awards' in Nepal. Shobha Biswakarma, Dalit: General member of Balajhar community forest user group and the open village school. “Before I only had a very small plot of land and was almost landless. But I got 12 katha of land from the community forest user group and I have now planted food crops like lentils, herbal products, fruit, and vegetables. This has improved my livelihood very much”.

Forests for All

“I collect dry leafs and dead trees from the forest for fuel wood and furniture. I collect this with a permit. Before when I used to collect forest products I was scared of the smugglers. Now I get permission from the president and I am not scared any more. The forest is very green and very beautiful and I can go there without being scared”. “I feel like the community forestry will increase my access to resources like fuel wood and tress in the future. It is important to conserve the forest to secure the future and the coming generations. I have learned this from the forest user group”. “As a member of the community forest user group I have a feeling of unity in the community. Being a Dalit used to be associated with many problems and I was discriminated. Now I do not experience discrimination any more. My voice is being heard.”

Conclusion:

Empowering local communities by offering education in a practical manner relevant to their daily lives and quality of life can enhance the capacity of forest user groups to become agents of change, increasing both the quality of the natural resources and productivity. This combination is necessary as the global population grows and the demand for food has to be met without jeopardising the ecological balance further. Solutions to the challenge need to take the dynamics of both nature and social and cultural structures into account.

Landslides threaten lives and livelihoods. Forests offer protection, making landslides less frequent and braking their speed and progress if they occur. Photo: Søren Rud

Forests for All

Forests for all

Whose forest Forests are cleared, like here in Ghana, for timber and farmland. Very often those dependent on the forests don't share the benefits, but the consequences threaten their livelihoods. Photo: Tine Harden

Whose forest? Indigenous peoples and the poorest are those depending the most on the forest, yet they are frequently prevented from sharing the benefits on equal terms. Community forestry can ensure that the money and other benefits are not kept in the hands of authorities, companies or privileged individuals, but support and empower the local communities.

Back in the 1990s the government in Uganda decided to save the mountain gorillas. Their habitats, the dense forests, were shut off, and only special guides would be allowed to take tourists through the moist dripping trees to get a glimpse of the World's largest primates. The decision was generally applauded internationally. What was forgotten was the fate of the Batwa people, an indigenous Pygmy ethnic group. For thousands of years they had shared the forest with the gorillas, never hunting them. They had suffered loggers and farmers penetrating deeper into the forest, but maintained their traditional lifestyle. They did not have a say in their fate, as they were forcibly moved from their home, their culture and places of worship. Nor was the money that rich tourists paid to see the mountain gorillas channelled to compensate the Batwa for their loss or improve the livelihoods of the now outcast Batwas. All over the World there are examples of similar stories. The most vulnerable groups – the poor and the indigenous peoples - are usually those that depend the most on the forests and other natural resources for their livelihoods. Frequently they preserve the forests, knowing that they are dependent on them. Yet they are neglected or even persecuted when for instance authorities, companies or cooperations decide to take over the forest and monopolise the resources.

Forests for All

This is not a theoretical discussion. Several studies from different community forestry projects have demonstrated that one of the dangers of just turning over the management of the forest to a local community is that of 'elite capture'. This phrase is used to illustrate the fact that without a framework that ensures a democratic and transparent process the strongest group of people could take over the management and monopolise the benefits with little or no regard for the poorest or weakest. However, community forestry can overcome this and be made into a tool that empowers the weakest and gives them their say and share, as mentioned in the Jiwan project earlier.

“

Acknowledging rights can halt deforestation. For instance deforestation rates are low to non-existent in most of the recognized indigenous territories in Brazilian Amazon.”

There is a link from this to REDD. Not that REDD in itself is to blame for inequalities, the social and cultural structures exist outside REDD. But REDD could enhance the mechanisms as some groups may see an advantage in laying claim to the money offered in the carbon trade without respecting the rights of the most vulnerable groups.

Participation of the poor Nepal has one of the longest traditions of community forest management, and according to studies in some cases the poor have received less benefits than the rest of the community even when they have put in the same amount of work and effort. It is important to prevent this and be aware of the following:

Community managed forestry models can help prevent this, and several studies have shown how community forestry improves the livelihoods for all while it improves the environment. However, there are issues that need to be addressed to ensure that the benefits are not only shared vertically, from the top and down, but horizontally within the community.

• The poorest are very often very dependent on meeting most of their needs from the forest. Yet, when a community takes over an area to bring back the trees or to preserve a forest, they may decide that the forest should be left alone for a period to give it time to recover. If the poorest are not compensated for their loss, they could suffer severely.

Benefits for all – but how? The principle behind community forestry is simple: Manage the forest together and enjoy the benefits together.

• A community forest user group will frequently apply special conditions for gathering wood, fodder and other forest products. It could be a fee or it could be a certain amount of work. But the poorest, who have been used to getting what they need for free, may not have the money. They may not have as much time to spare either, being paid poorly for their services and having to work longer hours to provide for themselves and their families.

After that it becomes rather more complicated. Who exactly should manage the forest together? Who has the right? Those with an address in the forest? Or everyone depending on the forest for their livelihoods? Should all receive equal benefits, or should they be distributed on the basis of the amount of effort and time that each member of the community puts into the work? Who should make the decisions? Other aspects of the access to the forest include how to ensure the rights of pastoralist populations that do not live nearby the forest but use it in their seasonal migrations with their herds. How should they be represented when decisions are made? And is it fair that the benefits of the forest should be given only to those that happen to live close by? Isn't a forest a valuable national asset that should benefit all?

It doesn't stop there, but once you get started what seemed straightforward enough may be nothing of the kind.

Source: Conservation Biology, February 2006

• Some community forest groups have decided that all households should be allowed to take what they need for their own consumption from the forest. But even this means that the already relatively well-to-do get a larger share: they may have livestock that needs fodder or larger lands that demand more leaf litter, for instance. Studies have shown that both in absolute and relative terms the poorest end up with the lowest share of the benefits from the forest. Gender and social status play an important role when groups are left out or simply not given any attention. A field study from Nepal has shown that especially low caste and Dalit people had a tendency to be absent from the executive committees in the forest user groups, when equitable sharing of decisions

Forests for All

Forests for all

Community forest user groups in Tanzania have very good results when it comes to preserving the forest. Photo: Evelyn Hockstein

Whose forest

In 2008 a study by South Asia Network

for Development and Environmental Economics, SANDEE,

Forests of global importance

a 27 per cent

In Tanzania local communities have taken part in the forest management since the early 1990's. Today more than 4 million hectares of forest are under community based forest management or joint forest management, where communities work together with forest owners, usually central or local government bodies.

showed that women had and benefits was not part of the structure. They felt inferior, and their surroundings very often shared that view and didn't include lower caste members in the decisions. The same was the case with women. In many societies women are considered worth less than men and less knowledgable, and so they are not encouraged to participate in public decisions. It doesn't have to be like that. More and more forest user groups demonstrate how social and economical structures and habits can be changed to make community forestry a driver of change, both socially and environmentally. But it is necessary to focus on both, not just the natural resources.

The blacksmiths belong within the illiterate, lower caste. They don’t know the benefit and what the forest provides to us. They lack such knowledge. The people from the lower caste don’t know how and what to speak in a crowd. They don’t know the meaning of the forest. ...They don’t know how to use it, how to conserve it. ...They cannot contribute anything.

From needs to rights Vital to successful forest management is the question of rights. Traditional approaches in helping the poorest have focused on needs. But seeing people only as needy makes it easy to forget that people have resources and wishes of their own, and that they are able to make their own decisions if they are given the necessary knowledge and tools to put it to use – if they are empowered, in other words.

Member of the executive committee, forest user group, Nepal, explaining why low caste blacksmiths were not allowed influence on decisions. SANDEE, 2008

The focus on needs should be replaced by a focus on rights. This approach recognises the underlying causes of poverty and marginalisation, and it aims at eradicating them rather than just trying to alleviate the material situation of the poorest. The poor are not seen as passive receivers but as people of resources that can assert rights and participate in decision making. People have a right to life, to a safe and healthy environment, to their culture and religion, freedom from hunger and all forms of discrimination. And they have rights to information, access to justice and participation in decision making. Without social safeguards that ensure their rights, the poorest and most vulnerable will continue to be discriminated against, especially in countries where there is no strong tradition of governance.

Forests for All

Forests for all

Whose forest

representation in the executive committees in a sample of the forest user groups of Nepal's. Yet when it came to key positions in the committee,

Looking at the condition of the forests this has been a success. The forests are thriving, especially where they are managed by local communities.

women only counted for 5 per cent As for the Dalit, the disadvantaged ’outcasts’, they had a less than 10 per cent representation in the committees and made it to key positions in only 4 per cent of the cases. The advantaged group, on the other hand, had a 64 per cent share of representation but 72 per cent of the key positions. Community forestry has proven that it can play a vital and very positive role in protecting existing forests and bringing back forests to areas that have been stripped bare of trees. Several studies have shown that community forestry groups have high rates of success, higher than many government schemes. However, if the poorest groups are left disadvantaged, they may have no choice but to partake in illegal activities that will degrade the forests once more. This problem needs to be addressed and built into the framework at all levels, from local structures to global ones. The Jiwan Project mentioned in the previous chapter demonstrated how empowerment at watershed level can improve living conditions for all as well as ensure competent management of the natural resources. We need to make certain that the rights of people are woven into decision making at all levels.

Conclusion:

It is essential that the rights of all are recognised and respected in natural resource management. If the poorest and most vulnerable are not sufficiently included in the decision making, and if they are not benefitting fairly, the whole process could be threatened. The disadvantaged may have no other choice but to take part in illegal activities to ensure their livelihoods. Rights and social safeguards must be made part of all sustainable solutions, and they must be so at all levels, local, regional, national and global.

The results are less clear when it comes to determining whether people have benefitted. Some have, some haven't. And Tanzania illustrates that it can be complicated working out who should pay and who should benefit.

Country facts, Tanzania

In 2000, forest cover was estimated at 38.8 million hectares, which comprises 43 per cent of the total land area. This represents the highest forest cover per capita in the southern and eastern regions of Africa. Twenty-nine per cent of the forest resource is protected, much of which, being located on steep slopes, is retained to control soil and water erosion. Forestry contributes around 10 per cent of exports and 3 per cent of paid employment. Tanzania has 135,000 ha of forest plantations contributing around half of total forest sector revenue. The rural population relies significantly on forests and its products such as fuelwood, honey and construction materials. The productive forest is managed mainly for fuel and timber production. Fuelwood covers around 90 per cent of the people's energy demands. The deforestation rate was at 91,000 ha per year as of 2000 and is mainly caused by competition for land resources for agriculture, livestock development, wood energy, industries and mining. Agricultural expansion and free-range pastoralism have been the major causes of vegetation loss in most parts of the country. Total population (millions): 45 Life expectancy at birth: 56 Urban population: 26% Agricultural population, including forestry and fisheries (1000s): 33,006 Number of people undernourished (millions): 13.7 Proportion of undernourished in total population: 34% Source: FAO

Some of the community based user groups do a lot of work managing some of the most valuable forests in Tanzania. They are home to a large number of species, and they deliver a range of crucial environmental services. They conserve and replenish important water sources, and they play an important role in regulating the global climate acting as carbon sinks, just as they preserve vital biodiversity. All these eco services, however, mainly benefit people living far away from the forest. Those bearing the cost and effort of managing it have far less to gain. These forests are protected and restricted because of their importance, and so the community based user groups only harvest a very limited profit from managing this wealth. As the wildlife such as elephants and buffalos come back because of improved forest conditions, so do the local communities lose more crops. For the community forest groups to stay efficient and motivated it is necessary to figure out how to pay the people actually doing all the work for the services rendered when their direct gain is very limited. The benefits should be shared down through the system. At the same time it is important to share the benefits within the community. In Tanzania as in other places elite capture can be a problem. The poor are not always included, and they risk losing their forestbased incomes if the local elite takes measures to protect and conserve the forest without including all. Evidence collected so far indicates that without deliberate and conscious efforts to avoid elite capture, poorer members of the community may receive minimal benefits from forest management. When this is brought up, a frequent comment is 'we are all poor'. But the example from Tanzania shows that even in a poor community poverty is highly differentiated and relative. For community based forest management to become the positive driver of change it has the potential to become, it is necessary to acknowledge that benefits should be shared equitably both vertically and horizontally, and that the poorest and least powerful should be included in decision making on equal terms.

Forests for All

Forests for all

a green economy for all

This family of Dalits in the Nepalese lowlands left their homes to search for a better life in the city after a flood washed away their hut. Photo: Søren Rud

Equal rights, equitable economy The current buzz of a green economy needs to be replaced by a focus on an equitable green economy – a green economy that is sustainable in all senses of the word: environmentally, economically and socially. The approach used in community forestry, based on the rights of both individual and groups, can ensure the necessary equitability.

The local farmers no longer have access to the important farmland and the water resources that they are dependent on. Instead large agricultural areas have been set aside for production of crops used in biodiesel and ethanol in several African countries. The local farmers suffer, while others cash in on the production.

able energy sources and resource and energy efficiency will enable us to cut back dramatically on CO2 emissions and limit our consumption of raw materials. For this to be possible new technology and smart solutions will be needed, creating new green jobs worldwide.

The need for renewable fuels will grow as the World tries to curb carbon emissions and manage resources in a more responsible way. Green growth is being promoted as a way out of the current economic crisis in most of the Western countries as well as an environmental revolution.

Some don't buy the simplicity. They see Green Economy as a nicer term for Green Capitalism with all the mechanisms intact that allow some to profit on others and expand the already huge gap between this World's richest and poorest. One group of NGOs from Asia, Africa, South America and Europe recently put it this way in a joint appeal:

And yet the example shows once again that when you focus only on the natural resources and forget people, you miss the target. In this case there has been local protests and disputes, and climate friendly solutions could lead to increased conflicts, when local communities are not being included in the decisions and the benefits, according to the Danish Institute for International Studies. Green growth and green economy is the buzz these days, and there is no doubt that the World needs to find a way to combine improved production with a decrease in the use of resources. Green economy promises to be an answer, but it is not a sustainable answer. True sustainability can only be achieved when solutions combine environmental sustainability with social and economic sustainability. And in this case two out of three isn't enough. There are lessons from community forestry that can be applied to achieve this, but first a bit more about some of the dangers of debating green economy without considering how to make it benefit all, socially, economically and environmentally. Green capitalism? Green Economy is, at least partway, an attempt to bridge the crucial need to take care of the climate and the environment with the fact that a message of cut-backs and changes in lifestyle is not exactly popular in large parts of the World. Green Economy promises continued growth at no cost to nature. The brief version is that nobody has to cut back, or at least only marginally so. Instead we have to shift our economy away from being dependent on fossil fuels. Renew-

Forests for All

“The current economic models pursued in the name of efficiency and economic growth, but in fact driven by profit and greed, have resulted in unprecedented levels of poverty, exploitation of natural, resources, inequality and food insecurity, which disproportionately affect women,” and accused the rich countries of wanting to transform all ecosystem services to commodities and market products. How much is a bee worth? One of the concerns is the idea to put a price tag on nature and ecosystem services. There are good reasons for doing so. In a world where the general consensus is to measure everything in money it makes sense to raise awareness of the hitherto literally priceless values and services that nature provides us with. By estimating a price we can see what we have to lose, and so we may pay more attention to the value of biodiversity for instance.

More than 1.3 billion of the world’s population have no access to electricity. 2.7 billion people have no access to clean cooking fuel. Source: World Energy Outlook

Back in 1997 the first such attempt was made. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study suggested that the total annual value of the World's ecosystems was a staggering 33 trillion USD. That was about double the size of the global GDP at the time. But some fear that ultimately nature will simply become another coin in a green economy, and that by putting a price on nature and ecosystem services you could eventually end up with poor people having to pay for access to services and natural resources that have been free for millennia. Water for instance. Or fuelwood. Just as has been discussed on previous pages, when companies,

Forests for All

Forests for all

a green economy for all

12 per cent

Cutting answers

surface

When local communities are empowered they can become valuable partners to the government. In Ghana forest user groups now work with the government to promote sustainable logging and increase the forest area.

of the Earth’s land

authorities or strong groups or individuals monopolise resources with no concern for the rights of others.

is covered by protected areas Source: UN

If that is the case, the strategies could be counter-productive as poor people may begin exploiting natural resources illegally, simply to survive. They would have nothing to lose and everything to gain. A different Green Economy Care has – as part of the Danish 92 Group, which counts all major Danish NGOs working with sustainability and sustainable development – recently published a report written by expert authors from developing countries on what green economy must include for it to lead to equitable and sustainable development. The points of consideration are very similar to those applied to community forestry.

insecurity, energy shortage and a general collapse of resources and the climate will not be addressed.

The advantages of moving to an equitable green economy – efficiency of production, resource security, reducing dependence on imports, job generation, resilience of economies and people in the face of climate change, conflict avoidance or resolution – need to be acknowledged and reflected in the political will of governments, the drivers for private enterprise and the mandates of key actors and stakeholders. Examples from community forestry shows that this can be done. Local people can become drivers of change in terms of both economic, social and environmental sustainability. Their rights have to be respected, and they have to be able to make their own choices about the resources they manage.

The key message is that a true and equitable green economy has to be rooted in the rights of all There is no doubt that it will be a key social challenge to change some of the fundamental structures of people, also those in rural communities, to a clean environment, the world today and share the wealth of our natural resources equitably. secure livelihoods, and decent living conditions. Self-sufficiency should But we have no other choice. be advanced at the national and local levels, and universal access to food, clean energy and water should be increased. “Jobs are green when they help Self-sufficiency is important, especially for the billions who live in remote areas who are not able to benefit from for instance centralised, smart energy solutions. Neither will they have easy access to – or the money to buy – imported foodstuff, whether the goods are manufactured and shipped in an environmentally sustainable way or not. If Green Economy only regards sustainability as environmental sustainability, the underlying mechanisms leading to deforestation, food

reduce negative environmental impact ultimately leading to environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable enterprises and economies. More precisely green jobs are decent jobs that: Reduce consumption of energy and raw materials; limit greenhouse gas emissions; minimise waste and pollution; and protect and restore ecosystems.”

The International Labour Organisation (ILO)

Forests for All

Conclusion:

A Green Economy will only succeed if it is equitable and ensures the rights of all, not just some. The discussions on sustainable development around Rio+20 on this issue are not ambitious enough, and the Green Economy is too focused on environmental sustainability and overlooks the fact that a solution can only be truly sustainable if it is also socially and economically sustainable. Basic injustice and inequalities have to be addressed. All decisions at Rio+20 and beyond should be measured by their ability to contribute to an equitable green economy.

Ama Ntowaa looked over her ruined fields. The cocoa plants that she had planted with such care, were gone. So was the rice and the cola nuts. Most of her trees were cut down. Without her knowledge the local chief had made a deal with illegal loggers, and the elderly widow and mother of six was left with nothing. No compensation, no part of the income. No way, she thought. And when the loggers came with the bulldozers to remove the trees they had felled, she lay down in front of them to prevent them. She knew she had the right, and she knew what they were doing was illegal. In the end she succeeded. The loggers never got the timber, and they didn't come back. Ama Ntowaa is one of the growing number of people in Ghana that are aware of the importance of the forests and the rights of the people. The national NGO Forest Watch Ghana, which has been formed by a large number of NGOs, including Care, has gained support, and part of its purpose has been to inform people like Ama Ntowaa of their rights. As a result several communities have stopped illegal timber companies from fleeing with logs. Total population (millions): 24.3 Life expectancy at birth: 57 An increasing amount of forest is turned Urban population: 51% over to local communities to manage in a Agricultural population, including forestry and sustainable way, and gradually sustainable fisheries (1000s): 13,093 logging is replacing the illegal and highly Number of people undernourished (millions): 1.2 damaging clearing of primary forest, thanks to different projects initiated by Forest The natural forests of Ghana occupy nearly 40 per Watch Ghana. cent of its land area and occur in two ecological zones: the tropical high forest which covers oneForest Watch Ghana started out as a third of the country and provides the major source watchdog but now it is recognised by the of logs for the wood products industry; and the government and is consulted on forest savannah zone which covers the remaining twoissues. It soon became clear that one of thirds of the country's total land area and plays an the major challenges was the fact that there important part in the supply of building poles and was hardly any legal framework regulating fuelwood and charcoal.

Ghana at a glance

Source: FAO

Ama Ntowaa put her own life at stake to stop illegal loggers. More and more people in Ghana are aware of their rights. Photo: Christina E. Gadiel

the forest sector and securing the rights of local communities. The laws that should control timber companies had never been implemented, for instance. Forest Watch Ghana makes suggestions on how to improve the forest management in a way that is sustainable both environmentally, socially and economically. There are still illegal loggers in Ghana. But chances are better now of stopping them.

Forests for All

Forests for all

recommendations

Recommendations Sustainable development is impossible without healthy forests. Forests are a matter of life, both at a local and at a global scale and they are vital in the fight against poverty and inequality. Experiences to date both in Asia and Africa, as this report have shown, suggest that inclusive and just community based forest management models both protect the livelihoods of forest dependent communities and have a greater poverty reduction potential. Sustainable and equitable forest management can positively contribute to better conditions for both humans and nature. There are a number of countries where the community based approach to protecting forests and fighting poverty can and should be integrated in national and local policy frameworks. In doing so, a number of recommendations at global, national and local level should be taken into account: At the International level • With 1.6 billion people, the majority living in poverty, depending on the World’s forests, political solutions to protect the forests are urgent in creating a sustainable and fair development. These solutions must include global policy frameworks and financing instruments that effectively slow, halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation and promote sustainable use and forest management. • Political commitment to end global policies, subsidies and corruption that drive deforestation is crucial. The transition must be steered and funded towards a green zero-deforestation economy that meets the needs, as well as respects the rights, of poor people and local communities. • The Rio+20 process must include Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), that will promote community based forest management with a view to achieving zero net deforestation and halting the decline of biodiversity by 2020. In achieving these goals reforestation is especially important in head water and catchment areas and in the restoration of degraded forests.

Primary forest and wildlife reserve in Congo. According to the UN nearly 17,000 species of plants and animals are currently at risk of extinction, and the number is increasing daily. Photo: Tullia Baldassarri Hoger von Hogersthal

Forests for All

At the National Level • Conflicting claims on scarce natural resources can easily create conflicts. Climate change will exacerbate this situation. Conflicts must be prevented from arising in the first place by addressing the root causes of potential conflicts in which climate change may contribute. This includes addressing land and water scarcity, and ensuring equitable and sustainable access and rights to and good governance of land and water resources. • Representative and transparent government institutions are key as they control and regulate access to natural resources, and prioritise development efforts. Support to this area is not new, but much remains to be done and a concerted effort in this field is an important element in minimizing the threat of climate change. Issues that require particular attention include: • addressing the constraints that block de facto devolution of natural resource control • enhancing and clarifying the role of local government institutions in natural resource governance replicating and scaling up “best-fit” practices drawn from the multitude of existing models for jointand community-based natural resource management • Vulnerable populations, especially people who are poor and dependent on natural resources, should be supported in adapting to climate variability and climate change and thereby build resilient livelihoods and adaptive capacity. • Address discrimination and empower women to participate in and benefit equitably from community based natural resource management – this will have a multiplier effect on families and increases the overall wealth of a community.

• Deforestation is a global challenge, and halting the deforestation globally by 2020 will have positive consequences worldwide. Yet depending on how it is done it could fail the most vulnerable populations and even make their lives worse – or impossible. Specific recommendations to avoid this are found in the sections below.

At the Local Level • Policy makers, NGO’s and managers at all levels should be aware of and address the underlying condition of marginalisation of certain groups, and of power imbalances in terms of knowledge, wishes and needs in local natural resource dependent communities. Community based natural resource management initiatives should devise flexible implementation strategies that incorporate this diversity and challenging power imbalances to ensure equitable distribution of benefits.

• Policy instruments should provide incentives to effectively address drivers of deforestation, rather than focus support on carbon measurement for the purpose of carbon transactions. This will oblige funding for both policies and measures to invest in management reforms as the basis for performance-based payments for reduced emissions, rather than narrow carbon accounting.

• Seasonal forest users, such as pastoralists and distant forest users, have to be included in planning processes of eg. land use plans at district level. Where they have been included, such as in some parts of Tanzania, the results are often positive and they have demonstrated ownership and responsibility to assist in forest protection while using the forest for grazing.

• Gender imbalances in the use, planning and management of forests are especially important. Community forest user groups have to address obstacles that prevent women from attending in planning, meetings and decision making, such as women’s workloads. • Ensure the rights of marginalized groups through • the introduction of quotas in management committees, • the sensitization of all stakeholders to issues of diversity and discrimination • the empowerment of marginalized groups through information and education on rights to ensure active participation in decision-making. • avoidance of policies and interventions without free, prior and informed consent and adequate compensation, especially ones that significantly reduce their benefits from resource utilization. • encourage frequent, direct democratic elections of management positions in natural resource user groups (e.g. community forest user groups) through secret ballots. • Ensure that key management functions and decisions are shared and known among and monitored by all members to avoid elite capture. This emphasizes the need to continually engage the wider community – or forest users in key stages of planning and implementation and to avoid making short-cuts by working exclusively with the management committee. • Forest harvesting plans tend to focus primarily on high value products such as timber or charcoal. However, the poor tend to be more interested in essential non-timber forest products, incl. fodder for animals and medicine. Ensuring that opportunities exist for harvesting these products, through appropriate zonation, or their inclusion in utilisation plans, is an easy way to increase the participation of the poor. • In certain situations, the forest resources might be so degraded that a complete cutting and grazing stop is required. In these situations it becomes even more pressing to ensure alternative income opportunities or compensate the poor and forest dependent people. Approaches can include targeted training in income generating activities. Ignoring these real needs may only lead to increased poverty, conflict and unregulated forest use.

Forests for All

Deforestation and forest

degradation caused by human activities, contribute around

17 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions Source: UNEP

DANISH FORESTRY EXTENSION CARE has worked with development projects for more than 65 years to create long lasting solutions together with poor and vulnerable people. CARE helps people claim their rights and families to produce more food and increase their income while managing their natural resources and preserving the environment for future generations. CARE is one of the world’s largest humanitarian organisations and operates in 84 of the world’s poorest countries benefiting more than 122 million people each year. www.care.dk

As part of the Danish Folk High School movement Brandbjerg Folk High School represents and continues a long tradition within nonformal life-long learning. Established long back in the late 1800’s the Danish Folk Schools historically have had a great influence on the life of rural people in Denmark. These schools were established as non-formal centres for learning for farmers and others alike to strengthen the transformation of a feudal society into a democratic one. Having such a glorious past, these schools are still an important part of the Danish society and have also inspired other countries around the world for similar institutions. www.brandbjerg.dk

The Danish Forest Owners Associations has since its foundation in 1904 successfully practiced extension work among Danish forest owners. Based on the experience of its now 100-year-old parent organization, Danish Forestry Extension was established as an international advisory / development service in 1992. An organization focusing on responsible management of natural resources in the widest sense holding relevant working experience from more than 25 countries around the globe. www.df-extension.dk