Social forestry for resilience? Lessons from Indonesia (Laos and Vietnam)
Jan. 22, 2018•0 likes
2 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
•664 views
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Environment
Presented by Moira Moeliono, from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the Resilience 2017 conference in Stockholm (Sweden), August 20-23, 2017.
Social forestry for resilience? Lessons from Indonesia (Laos and Vietnam)
Social Forestry for resilience? Lessons
from Indonesia, (Laos and Vietnam)
Moira Moeliono, Cynthia Maharani, Indah Waty, Grace
Wong and Maria Brockhaus
RESILIENCE2017 Conference-Stockholm 21-23 August 2017
Background
• SE Asia, forest dependent people; traditional forest management practices
• ASFCC project argue that swidden is part of the traditional systems CAS/SES
• Governments argue that swidden is a direct cause of deforestation and often
bans the practice
• Swidden and traditional forest mgt practices are changing as they become
more integrated in national and global systems (land use plans), intro of large
scale industrial crops, commodification of land; infrastructure and other
development projects
• deforestation and forest degradation
• Governments are introducing CF/SF defined as any situation which intimately
involves local people in a forestry activity” from subsistence collecting of NTFPs
to commercial growing of trees (Arnold, 1992)
RQ: Government programs replace traditional systems: will it be effective?
Sustainable?
Framework (Biggs et al, 2012)
• to alleviate poverty of forest
dependent people,
• to secure access to, and
ownership of the resources
and their benefits
• to improve the condition of the
forests
• SF/CF for adaptation and
mitigation of climate change
CF/SF as government program
• CF/SF as permit system,
more sectoral and isolated
from other policies
• Uniform models
• Participative?
Structure over agency loss
of flexibility
Conclusion
Government SF/CF programs be more effective and
sustainable if:
• Government would allow more flexible
arrangements, i.e. allow more local autonomy;
• Integrates the key principles in design of SF policies
especially allow learning and experimentation (eg
Vietnam and pilots)
• SF alone is not enough to achieve the objectives of
poverty reduction, improved forest management and
adaptation and mitigation of climate change