Successfully reported this slideshow.

Community forestry in Madagascar: A boom and burst history?


Published on

J-L. Pfund, CIFOR; L.H. Andriambelo, ESSA-Forêts; J-P. Sorg, ETH-Zurich

Presentation for the conference on
Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry
Montpellier France
March 24-26, 2010

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Community forestry in Madagascar: A boom and burst history?

  1. 1. Community forestry in Madagascar<br />3<br />A boom and burst history?<br />Trends of selected CFM sites<br />1<br />2<br />Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: where do we go from here? <br />Montpellier, 24-26.3.2010<br />J-L. Pfund, CIFOR; L.H. Andriambelo, ESSA-Forêts; J-P. Sorg, ETH-Zurich<br />
  2. 2. Participatory forestry, GELOSE/GCF, KoloAla<br />Legal framework of CFM<br />Exploratory phase<br />GCF Decree<br /> PE1 PE2 PE3<br />GELOSE law<br />1990<br />2000<br />2010<br />2003: 339 sites, 350’000 ha1<br />2009: about 6 sites, 390’000 ha2<br />KoloAla<br />2Jariala/USAID 2009<br />1Collas de Chatelperron 2007, in Montagne et al.<br />
  3. 3. 1) Western Coast: Morondava, Menabe<br />Dry forests<br />CFM for local uses (NTFPs as safety nets1)and conservation<br />Limited potential for sustainable timber(commercial species in serious decline2,3)<br />1 Dirac 2009 Region: MEFT, USAID, CI 2009, 2Raoninotsoa in Ganzhorn and Sorg 1996, 3 Andriambelo 2010, 4<br />
  4. 4. 1) Western Coast: Morondava, Menabe<br />Long-term and changing research and support to forestry<br />A regional history of immigration and external influences<br />Road building (70-80 oil prospection)<br />CFM “leakages”: hatsake (forest clearings) and illegal logging for wood traders -> suspension of exploitation permits<br />Creation of a protected area and promotion of a “conservation landscape”<br />Despite lasting efforts, weak local community “ownership” of transferred forests<br />Traditional NTFP/timber harvesting<br />Timber concessions<br />Ecotourism/GCF/Conservation<br />1970<br />1980<br />1990<br />2010<br />2000<br />Abrupt external influences<br />
  5. 5. 2) Humid South: Fort-Dauphin, Fanjahira<br />State-owned Eucalyptus plantations<br />CFM for charcoal production to decrease pressures on spiny thickets<br />
  6. 6. 2) Humid South: Fort-Dauphin, Fanjahira<br />Transition from State-managed plantation into CFM increased the production<br />Eucalyptus charcoal production induced changes in consumption patterns<br />CFM for charcoal production looks… sustainable. Plantations could provide 50% of the city needs in charcoal (about 45’000 charcoal users)<br />2002: 1000 sacks in 6 months (42/week)<br />600 sacks/week in 20092 despite initial difficulties<br />April-September 2002<br />
  7. 7. 3) Eastern Coast, Manompana<br />Humid dense forest<br />CFM for production andconservation<br />Slash-and-burn: 4%/yr1<br />Few but valuable sppcommercialized (illegal logging)<br />Numerous NTFPs, few commercialized (Pandanus)2<br />1 Rakotomavo/KAM 2009, 2 Urech, forthcoming<br />
  8. 8. 3) Eastern Coast, Manompana<br />From slash-and-burn to KoloAla for timber production<br />KAM project in coordination with the forest service<br />Zoning: zones for conservation (corridor), logging and local uses<br />15 village clusters groups under “GCF”<br />FSC interested clients (2008)<br />2010: Reorientation of the position of the forest administration towards a forest management led by private companies<br />?<br />Slash-and-burn, logging<br />2007<br /> GCF/KoloAla<br />2010<br />
  9. 9. Challenges emerging from all levels<br />Internal: Heavy procedures, need facilitators/donors of debatable influence, hurry to contract but evaluation after 3yrs – who follows up? Long term need of facilitation and flexibility…<br />Internal: Limited economic benefits of natural forest management… especially if not based on “informal” logging<br />Internal: difficult combination of individual, associative and community interests (representation of the community)<br />Institutional: Staff turnovers, conservatism of the forest service but weak means<br />Political: instability, recurrent crises<br />External: Important (strict) conservation trends<br />External: Mining, land grabbing/concessions, … Oil?<br />… and REDD?<br />
  10. 10. Conclusion (1)<br />Important local variations, but rare cases of self-sustained management activities (a plantation in our case) and lackingcommunityownership of the process (in many cases)<br />In spite of several legal attempts to secure local communities’ rights, management processes have been finally affected either by internal failures, or by higher-level economic and political trends<br />Rights… or more duties? CFM looks like a transfer of conservation responsibilities in Madagascar. It must be realistically evaluated and needs “rewards” (even when people are forest-dependent)<br />Even if timber production is allowed, villagers are expected to follow formal procedures in a situation where >60% of the market comes from informal logging (Jariala 2009).<br />
  11. 11. Conclusion (2)<br />CFM integrated into local development: There is a need to progress in improving approaches for local empowerment, notably to deal with strategy changes due to CFM, and in ensuring that local rights remain valid. Could public-private partnerships help maintaining timber exploitation into CFM?<br />Reaching larger scales: Participatory CFM at local level need to be scaled up and integrated in broader land use planning perspectives -> Combination of CFM, KoloAla and PA at a landscape scale. <br />Need of a clearernational vision to:<br />Secure local rights and access to benefits (exploitation or rewards)<br />Satisfy the wood demand (role of plantations!)<br />Conserve biodiversity from a landscape perspective (and compensate for conservation)<br />Securing local rights does not mean sustainable forest management… But it should contribute to local benefits. Unfortunately, “right now there, this is the… bazaar” (anonym source)<br />
  12. 12. Thank you<br />