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

1. Community forestry in Madagascar 3 A boom and burst history? Trends of selected CFM sites 1 2 Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: where do we go from here? Montpellier, 24-26.3.2010 J-L. Pfund, CIFOR; L.H. Andriambelo, ESSA-Forêts; J-P. Sorg, ETH-Zurich

2. Participatory forestry, GELOSE/GCF, KoloAla Legal framework of CFM Exploratory phase GCF Decree PE1 PE2 PE3 GELOSE law 1990 2000 2010 2003: 339 sites, 350’000 ha1 2009: about 6 sites, 390’000 ha2 KoloAla 2Jariala/USAID 2009 1Collas de Chatelperron 2007, in Montagne et al.

3. 1) Western Coast: Morondava, Menabe Dry forests CFM for local uses (NTFPs as safety nets1)and conservation Limited potential for sustainable timber(commercial species in serious decline2,3) 1 Dirac 2009 Region: MEFT, USAID, CI 2009, 2Raoninotsoa in Ganzhorn and Sorg 1996, 3 Andriambelo 2010, 4

4. 1) Western Coast: Morondava, Menabe Long-term and changing research and support to forestry A regional history of immigration and external influences Road building (70-80 oil prospection) CFM “leakages”: hatsake (forest clearings) and illegal logging for wood traders -> suspension of exploitation permits Creation of a protected area and promotion of a “conservation landscape” Despite lasting efforts, weak local community “ownership” of transferred forests Traditional NTFP/timber harvesting Timber concessions Ecotourism/GCF/Conservation 1970 1980 1990 2010 2000 Abrupt external influences

5. 2) Humid South: Fort-Dauphin, Fanjahira State-owned Eucalyptus plantations CFM for charcoal production to decrease pressures on spiny thickets

6. 2) Humid South: Fort-Dauphin, Fanjahira Transition from State-managed plantation into CFM increased the production Eucalyptus charcoal production induced changes in consumption patterns CFM for charcoal production looks… sustainable. Plantations could provide 50% of the city needs in charcoal (about 45’000 charcoal users) 2002: 1000 sacks in 6 months (42/week) 600 sacks/week in 20092 despite initial difficulties April-September 2002

7. 3) Eastern Coast, Manompana Humid dense forest CFM for production andconservation Slash-and-burn: 4%/yr1 Few but valuable sppcommercialized (illegal logging) Numerous NTFPs, few commercialized (Pandanus)2 1 Rakotomavo/KAM 2009, 2 Urech, forthcoming

8. 3) Eastern Coast, Manompana From slash-and-burn to KoloAla for timber production KAM project in coordination with the forest service Zoning: zones for conservation (corridor), logging and local uses 15 village clusters groups under “GCF” FSC interested clients (2008) 2010: Reorientation of the position of the forest administration towards a forest management led by private companies ? Slash-and-burn, logging 2007 GCF/KoloAla 2010

9. Challenges emerging from all levels 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… Internal: Limited economic benefits of natural forest management… especially if not based on “informal” logging Internal: difficult combination of individual, associative and community interests (representation of the community) Institutional: Staff turnovers, conservatism of the forest service but weak means Political: instability, recurrent crises External: Important (strict) conservation trends External: Mining, land grabbing/concessions, … Oil? … and REDD?

10. Conclusion (1) Important local variations, but rare cases of self-sustained management activities (a plantation in our case) and lackingcommunityownership of the process (in many cases) 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 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) 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).

11. Conclusion (2) 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? 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. Need of a clearernational vision to: Secure local rights and access to benefits (exploitation or rewards) Satisfy the wood demand (role of plantations!) Conserve biodiversity from a landscape perspective (and compensate for conservation) 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)

12. Thank you