Working Paper 03

Community Based Forest Management in Cambodia and Laos

Frame Conditions, Selected Examples and Implications

Supported by the Cambodian – German Forestry Project

Consultancy Report prepared by

Dietmar Braeutigam

Phnom Penh, October 2003

MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme

Watershed Management Component

Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary...................................................................................... 1 2 Tasks and Procedures............................................................................. 4 3 Community Based Forest Management in Cambodia....................... 5

3.1 National Frame Conditions and Major Elements......................... 5 3.1.1 Country Background Information...................................................... 5 3.1.2 The Forestry Sector.......................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Emergence and History.................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Policy Development.......................................................................... 9 3.1.5 Legal Framework.............................................................................. 11 3.1.6 Tenure and Land Management Issues............................................. 12 3.1.7 Institutional Set-up, Responsibilities and Capacities........................ 15 3.1.8 Networks........................................................................................... 18 3.1.9 Extension System and Services....................................................... 19 3.1.10 Research .......................................................................................... 21 3.1.11 Specific Issues.................................................................................. 22

3.2 Selected Initiatives.......................................................................... 24 3.2.1 General Consideration and Overview............................................... 24 3.2.2 Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap

Region Project, FAO, Siem Reap,..................................................... 25 3.2.3 Community Forestry Program, Concern, Kampong Chhnang.......... 26 3.2.4 Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project,

IDRC/ RECOFTC, Koh Kong............................................................. 28 3.2.5 Community Based Natural Resource Management, CARERE/

IDRC, Ratanakiri................................................................................ 29 3.2.6 Community Forestry Initiative, MCC, Takeo...................................... 31 3.2.7 Community Forestry Initiative Senti Sena, Oxfam GB/ CIDSE,

Svay Rieng........................................................................................ 31

3.3 Implications and Recommendations............................................. 32

3.3.1 General Consideration...................................................................... 32 3.3.2 Policy and Legal Framework Development...................................... 33 3.3.3 Institutional Development and Capacity Building.............................. 34 3.3.4 Extension System and Services........................................................ 35 3.3.5 Information Management and Awareness Creation.......................... 38 3.3.6 Scaling-up and Replication of Existing Models................................. 38 3.3.7 Conflict Management ....................................................................... 39 3.3.8 Networking........................................................................................ 40 3.3.9 Research........................................................................................... 40 3.3.10 Financing and Benefit Sharing.......................................................... 41 3.4 CBFM in the Context of Watershed Management ....................... 42

ii

4 Community Based Forest Management in Laos................................. 44 4.1 National Frame Conditions and Major Elements......................... 44 4.1.1 Country Background......................................................................... 44 4.1.2 The Forestry Sector.......................................................................... 44 4.1.3 Emergence and History.................................................................... 46 4.1.4 Policies and Legal Framework......................................................... 47 4.1.5 Tenure and Land Management Issues............................................. 48 4.1.6 Institutional Set-up and Responsibilities........................................... 50 4.1.7 Networks........................................................................................... 51 4.1.8 Extension System and Services....................................................... 51 4.1.9 Research ......................................................................................... 52

4.2 Selected Initiatives.......................................................................... 53 4.2.1 General Consideration and Overview............................................... 53 4.2.2 Forest Management and Conservation Project, WB/FINNIDA/ GEF, Savannakhet............................................................................ 54 4.2.3 Joint Forest Management Dong Khapo, SIDA, Savannakhet........... 55 4.2.4 Forest Conservation and Afforestation Project, JICA, Vang Vieng... 56 4.2.5 Industrial Tree Plantation Project, ADB............................................. 57 4.2.6 Training and Model Forest of the FoF,Vientiane,GTZ........................ 58 4.3 CBFM in the Context of Watershed Management........................ 59

5 CBFM in Laos and Cambodia, Comparison and Implications........... 61

5.1 Comparison of CBFM in Laos and Cambodia.............................. 61 5.1.1 National Frame Conditions................................................................ 61 5.1.2 CBFM Initiatives................................................................................ 63 5.1.3 CBFM in the Context of Watershed Management............................. 64 5.2 Implications for Regional Experience Exchange......................... 66

6 References..................................................................................................... 68 7 Annexes................................................................................................. 76

iii

List of Annex Annex 1: Terms of Reference Annex 2: Activity Schedule Annex 3: List of Contacted Key Persons Annex 4: Overview on Institutional Set-up for CBFM in Cambodia Annex 5: Organization and Functional Relationships of the Agriculture

Extension System in Cambodia Annex 6: Overview on Selected CF Initiatives in Cambodia Annex 7: Location of the Selected CF Initiatives in Cambodia Annex 8: Procedure for Community Forestry Management Planning (FAO) Annex 9: Planning for Community Forestry within the Frame of the Planning Procedure for CBNRM, Ratanakiri Province Annex 10: Institutional Framework for CBNRM in Laos

Annex 11: Agriculture and Forestry Extension System in Laos Annex 12: Organizational Structure of the Village Forestry Association,

FOMACOP, Laos Annex 13: Institutional Arrangements for Implementing CBFM in Production

Forests in Laos Annex 14: Functional Relationships in Organization and Management MRC, AIFP List of Tables Table 1: Distribution of Forest Land Tenure in Cambodia

Table 2: Extension Categories for Cambodia Table 3: Characteristics of the Extension Categories in Cambodia Table 4: Overview of the LUP/ LA Procedures in Laos Table 5: Comparison of National Frame Conditions in Laos and Cambodia Table 6: Comparison of CF Initiatives in Laos and Cambodia

List of Figures Figure 1: Consultation and Implementation Structure of the NFP in Cambodia

Figure 2: Schematic Overview on Land Tenure in Cambodia Figure 3: Forest Land Classification and Tenure in Cambodia Figure 4: Organizational Set-up of the DFW, MAFF Figure 5: Overview on Institutional Arrangements at Village Level in Cambodia Figure 6: Overview on Relevant Networks and Existing Linkages in Cambodia Figure 7: Structure of the CFWG Figure 8: Organizational Linkages between Communities and Concessions Figure 9: Overview on Jurisdiction of CF Initiatives in Cambodia Figure 10: Structure of the VFMC, CF Initiative Concern Figure 11: Structure of the VRMC’s, PMMP Figure 12: Structure of the VCFC, CBNRM Ratanakiri Figure 13: Elements of the CF Program Figure 14: Learning Cycle CBNRM Figure 15: Institutional Set-up for Agriculture and Forestry Extension in Laos Figure 17: Institutional Settings for the Credit System, ADB ITPP

Figure 16: Organizational Structure of the JFM Board, Dong Khapo

Figure 18: Concepts of Participation in Forest Resource Management in the TMF

Figure 19: The Concept of Model Farmers in the TMF Figure 20: Overview on Linkages of CBFM to Cross-cutting Issues

iv

List of Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank AIFP Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme of the Mekong River

Commission APB Agricultural Promotion Bank app. approximately APSARA Authority to manage Angkor Temple complex Art. Article of Law BGA Lao Plantation Forestry LTD BoL Bank of Lao P.D.R. BURAPHA Agro-Forestry Co. LTD CAAEP Cambodia Australia Agriculture Extension Project, DAE CAMCOFTT Cambodian Community Forestry Training Team CARERE Cambodia Area Rehabilitation and Regeneration Program CBFM Community Based Forest Management CBI Cambodia Buddhism Institute CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CCC Community Consultation Committee CCFC Commune Community Forestry Committee CDRI Cambodia Development Resource Institute CETDU Central Extension Training and Development Unit, NAFES CF Community Forestry CFA Community Forestry Association CFCC Community Forestry Consultation Committee CFDA Community Forestry Development Associations CFN Community Forestry Network CFNM Community Forestry Network Meeting CFRP Community Forestry Research Project, RECOFTC/ IDRC CFTF Community Forestry Task Force of the Community Forestry Working

Group CFU Community Forestry Unit, DFW CFWG Community Forestry Working Group CGFP Cambodian-German Forestry Project, DFW/GTZ CIDSE Cooperation International pour le Development et la Solidarite CLP Council of Land Policy CNGO Cambodian Non-Governmental Organization CUSO Canadian University Service in Oversea DAE Department of Agricultural Extension, MAFF DAFO District Agriculture and Forestry Office DED German Development Service (Deutscher Entwicklungs Dienst) DF Department of Fisheries, MAFF DFW Department of Forestry and Wildlife DLMUP Department of Land Management and Urban Planning DLPM Department for Land Planning and Management, PMO DNCEP Department of Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection DoF Department of Forestry, MAF EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FEU Forestry Extension Unit, DFW FINNIDA Finnish International Development Agency FLET Forestry Law Extension Team, FEU, DFW FMC Forest Management Committee FMU Forest Management Unit

v

FoF Faculty of Forestry Dong Dok, NUoL FOMACOP Forest Management and Conservation Project FORCAP Forest Conservation and Afforestation Project FRC Forest Research Center FSEW Farming Systems Extension Worker FWRI Forest and Wildlife Research Institute GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental Facility GoL Government of Lao P.D.R. GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, GmbH Helvetas Swiss Association for International Cooperation IDRC International Development Research Center IFF International Forum on Forests IMU Information Management Unit of the Department of Forestry and

Wildlife IPF International Panel on Forests IPRS Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy IPRSP Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper ITPP Industrial Tree Plantation Project, ADB IWSM Integrated Watershed Management JFM Joint Forest Management JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JVC Japan International Volunteer Center LA Land Allocation Lao P.D.R. Lao People’s Democratic Republic LDC Least Developed Countries LEAP Laos Extension for Agriculture Project LMAP Land Management and Administration Project, GTZ/ MLMUPC LMB Lower Mekong Basin LSFP Lao-Swedish Forestry Program MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MCC Mennonite Central Committee MLMUPC Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction MoE Ministry of Environment MRC Mekong River Commission NA National Assembly NAFES National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service NAFRI National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute NAWACOP Nam Ngum Watershed Management and Conservation Project NBCA National Biodiversity Conservation Area NFP National Forestry Program NGO Non-Governmental Organization NMC National Mekong Committee NRM Natural Resource Management NSEDP National Socio-Economic Development Plan NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products NUoL National University of Laos PAFFD Provincial Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Department PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office PDRD Provincial Department for Rural Development

vi

PFA Production Forest Area PFEU Provincial Forestry Extension Unit PFO Provincial Forestry Office PLUP Participatory Land Use Planning PM Prime Minister PMMR Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources PMMRP Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project PMO Prime Ministers Office PNRMTS Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region

Project, Siem Reap, FAO PNSA Preak Leap National School of Agriculture PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRASAC Program de Rehabilitation et d’Appui au Sector Agricole du

Cambodge PROFEP Promotion of Forestry Education Project RDC Rural Development Committee RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Center RGC Royal Government of Cambodia RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal RUA Royal University of Agriculture SEDP II Second Socio-Economic Development Plan SFE State Forest Enterprise SFM Sustainable Forest Management SGS SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SMRP Sustainable Management of Resources in the Lower Mekong Basin

Project, MRC/ GTZ SOE State-Owned Enterprises TERRA Towards Ecological Recovery & Regional Alliances TMF Training and Model Forest of the Faculty of Forestry of the National

University of Laos

UNFF United Nation Forum on Forests VCFC Village Community Forestry Committee VDC Village Development Committee VFA Village Forest Association VFC Village Forestry Committee VFMA Village Forestry Management Agreement VFMC Village Forest Management Committee VFO Village Forestry Organization VRMC Village Resource Management Committee WB World Bank WFP World Food Program WSM Watershed Management WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature

vii

1 Executive Summary Varying frame conditions in Cambodia and Laos, related to governance, civil society, policy and legal framework, institutional setting, socio-economic and biophysical characteristics had major influences on the development of CBFM at national scale. The comparison between the two countries revealed specific conditions, similarities as well as differences, and made impeding as well as accelerating circumstances for the development of CBFM visible. Because of these national differences, the history and development dynamic of CBFM, concepts and approaches, as well as technical interventions show specific characteristics. Like other neighboring countries in the region, the Governments of both countries give high priority to poverty reduction and sustainable economic growth. As they depend very much on their natural resources, they place emphasize on community-based approaches for their sustainable management and conservation within the frame of general decentralization efforts. Both countries went through a period of authoritarian rule. But in contrast to Cambodia’s current multi-pluralistic society based on the existence of different political forces, Laos still remains a socialist political system, ruled by one party. Although Cambodia has twice the number of people as Laos, the demographic characteristics are similar. The majority of the people in both countries is living in the rural areas with subsistence economy and depends strongly on forest use for securing their livelihood. In contrast to Cambodia, the population of Laos is much more divers evidenced by various ethnic groups making up for a high portion of the total population. Additionally, the natural frame conditions differ in both countries. Steep slopes characterize main parts of Laos, whereas the Cambodian landscape is dominated by floodplains. Previous success of CF Initiatives and improving frame conditions increased the recognition and support for CBFM. The accelerating trend of CBFM development and increased promotion reflects the current paradigm shift from a timber oriented forest exploitation system towards a multi-functional and sustainable use of forest resources through the participation of local communities. Yet, the area under CBFM is in both countries still very limited and large-scale application faces various constraints. Growing emphasis has been placed on policy and program support for CBFM assisted by international organizations and NGOs. It has been recognized that local people living in and around forests have strong incentives to protect and manage forests, provided that they participate in and benefit from forest management. CBFM has certainly a high potential for larger scale application and could fill a “forest management gap”. As an alternative to forest exploitation, CBFM would contribute simultaneously to improved livelihoods and poverty alleviation, to the conservation of biodiversity and the cultural identity of rural communities. Policies and legislatives relevant to CBFM have been developed in both countries. Nevertheless, they emerged earlier in Laos, but with a very limited participation of the civil society. In both countries CBFM Initiatives have emerged a decade ago mainly driven by the interests of international organizations and NGO’s. Differences in national frame conditions in both countries caused diverging developments of CBFM Initiatives, in terms of characteristics and current status. At local level CBFM Initiatives has been integrated into village structures and institutional set-ups. LUP and LA as an important tool to avoid conflicts and to provide better land tenure security is more advanced in Laos, being a priority of the Government during the last decade with the result that its implementation could be completed in more than 50% of the villages nationwide. Extension related to CBFM in Cambodia is fragmented, carried out by different institutions and limited in scale. In contrast to Laos it takes place separated from other NRM sectors, especially from the agricultural extension.

1

The RGC has recognized the importance of CBFM and undertook continuous efforts to formulate enabling policies and legislatives. However, its development is hampered by severe lack of institutional and personal capacity, as well as financial resources and depends still very much on the support from foreign donors and NGO’s. Capacity building and extension is not yet addressed in a systematic and institutionalized way. Recent assessments in Cambodia determined 57 initiatives comprising 228 community forests in 18 provinces with total area coverage of community forests of 83 000 ha nationwide. Initiatives are mainly focused on degraded forests and reforestation with only a few exceptions. They are promoted by a wide spectrum of stakeholders including government institutions, international organizations and NGO’s creating divers approaches and technical interventions, but achieving relatively small area coverage in total and with single initiatives. Benefit sharing arrangements between communities and local government authorities are still missing. Integrated approaches are nowadays growing, nevertheless the integration and implementation of LUP is still very limited on national scale. Nevertheless, policies and legislatives should be further developed in a consultative way, involving stakeholder from national down to the local level to reflect the multi-institutional nature of CBFM and ensure transparency and the creation of mutual trust. Further legal framework development can be achieved through the elaboration of Declarations or Circulars supported by existing networks and working groups. Expanding interest and commitment in CBFM requires the development and strengthening of in-country capacities for related training with appropriate training contents and materials capable of reaching large numbers of participants from a variety of target groups at reasonable costs. The process of elaborating extension packages targeting different stakeholders and reflecting regional socio-economic and biophysical conditions should be continued. Capacity building for governmental staff, especially at provincial and district level is urgently needed. Experiences from the agricultural extension system and from selected initiatives should be integrated and used for the improvement of the current forestry extension system. The creation of a pyramid system for capacity building is suggested integrating existing Forest Rehabilitation and Extension Stations and considering the establishment of Regional Extension Centers. Close linkages to the agricultural extension service at national and local level are recommended. It is suggested to support the establishment of the relevant databases on national and regional level to facilitate information and experience exchange. The GoL has adopted strong policies and legislatives, as well as ambitious programs to expand CBFM at national scale. Lack of capacity still poses a significant obstacle to a successful policy and program implementation. In contrast to Cambodia, CBFM initiatives in Laos have been strongly promoted by the central authorities supported by a limited number of international organizations and NGOs. The focus has been placed on participatory approaches for the management of production forests without neglecting support to reforestation efforts. Single initiatives achieved quiet significant area coverage and introduced technical interventions, as well as benefit sharing arrangements that could be applied for future scaling-up processes. The majority of the initiatives applied integrated approaches considering LUP as important precondition for CBFM. The GoL is further committed to apply Watershed Management to combat poverty and to manage natural resources, especially in the fragile upland areas. It is currently incorporated into the general national planning framework as a holistic area-based planning process. Institutional arrangements at district level are only established in selected pilot provinces and capacity of the governmental staff is still very limited. In Cambodia WSM is a fairly new approach and policies as well as concepts are only emerging. The development of comprehensive national policy on WSM is complicated because of overlapping mandates of

2

various institutions. Policies on decentralization with the focus on the establishment and strengthening of Commune Councils are an important precondition for WSM implementation. Issues of special interest related to national frame conditions for CBFM are related to institutional set-up and procedures for the decentralization of forest management, refinement of existing laws into lower legislatives, appropriate policy development mechanisms, approaches and experiences to improve tenure security and institutional set-up and capacity building for extension. Topics of interest related to CF Initiatives are technical interventions for community-based management of production forests, experiences with the Joint Forest Management, benefit sharing arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms. Starting with bilateral exchange, regional cooperation with focus on CBFM should emphasis on strengthen the dialogue between stakeholders, information gathering and sharing, and joint evaluation of lessons learnt. Collaboration in the fields of developing national CF Action Plans or Programs, information exchange on best practices and model development, better integration of CBFM into formal education could be facilitated through joint activities comprising workshops, seminars and joint field excursions on selected thematic issues. Awareness creation within the region should focus on political level and international donors to promote scaling-up processes and secure needed funding within the countries. It would be important at regional scale to link existing national working groups and networks and to promote links between national CBFM initiatives.

3

2 Tasks and Procedures The study has been commissioned by the Cambodian-German Forestry Project (DFW/GTZ) and the Watershed Management Component of the Agriculture Irrigation Forestry Programme of the MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme with the aim to analyze and reflect on frame conditions and selected community based forest management and rehabilitation approaches in Cambodia and Laos, to provide complementary information for the ongoing forest policy dialogue and the elaboration of a Forestry Extension Strategy and to reflect on the importance of CBFM within the context of WSM. Information related to the specific national frame conditions and the selected examples of CBFM have been compiled mainly from secondary data, reference materials, publications, research papers as well as project reports. Verification and up dating of information has been secured through interviews and discussions with selected key persons from a wide range of stakeholders, especially from governmental institutions, international donor organizations, networks, as well as international and national NGOs. Field visits to the CF Initiative of the FAO in Siem Reap and MCC in Takeo provided the opportunity to verify information with representatives of local government authorities, village based organizations, local networks and resource managers. The detailed analysis of Cambodian case studies had to be limited to only five of the 57 CF initiatives nationwide. The selection took place in close cooperation with Mr. J. Fichtenau, Adviser for Community Forestry of the CGFP, and members of the Community Forestry Unit, as well as the Forestry Extension Unit at the DFW. The selection was based on identified criteria, the results of past ranking of CF initiatives and the intention to select Initiatives representing different biophysical and socio-economic conditions. The information on frame conditions and CF Initiatives in Laos have been collected during previous years and have been presented already in February 2003 at the DFW within the frame of a CF Seminar organized by the CGFP. Preliminary findings comparing CBFM in Cambodia and Laos have been presented to representatives of relevant governmental authorities, NGO’s, international donor community and the MRC.

4

3 Community Based Forest Management in Cambodia 3.1 National Frame Conditions and Major Elements 3.1.1 Country Background Information The turbulent history of Cambodia, especially the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 until 1979, as well as the following isolation until 1991, destroyed the civil society and the foundations of the national economy. The process of building social stability and national economic growth started after the first multi-party democratic elections in 1993 with interruptions and setbacks during the social unrests in 1997. Real peace in the countryside has only been achieved since 1998. Cambodia is nowadays a free and steadily progressing country. Evidences are a multi-party parliamentary system, elections, free media, existence of NGOs, freedom of expression and the commitment of the RGC to reform areas like public administration, civil service, jurisdiction and forestry1. Yet, the lack of rule of law, misuse of power and state owned property and resources, corruption, as well as the penetration of the public structures with military can still be evidenced, especially in the countryside. After having experienced various political and economic systems, a Constitutional Monarchy with free market economy, a Constitutional Presidential Regime (1970-75) and a Communist Regime with a planned economy, a Constitutional Monarchy and a free market economy has been established since 19932. Reforms and decentralization efforts of the RGC have been initiated and are promoted through various programs on national scale and supported by the international donor community. The most important, the Seila program, especially the natural Resource and Environmental Management Project aims at achieving sustainable livelihoods of communities through participatory planning and management of natural resources3. It therefore supports the RGC in the implementation of decentralized development planning, financing and management in communes, as a part of the governance reforms. According the current decentralization policies and efforts of the RGC, Commune Councils are playing a vital role in general, and have important duties for participatory natural resource and environmental management, including planning, implementation and monitoring4.

App. 84 % of the 11,4 Mio inhabitants of Cambodia are living in rural areas and rely on subsistence economy. The average population density within the 24 provinces has been determined with 64 per km2, but varies significant within the different regions, with the highest density in the plains (235 per km2) and sparse population in mountainous areas (17 per km2). App. 55% of the total population is younger then 20 years. Adult literacy rate is around 67% in average and down to 16% in rural upland areas (e.g. Ratanakiri province)5. The demography is further characterized by an imbalance of women to men (women 54%) and a high portion of young people under 17 years (50%). The population comprises different ethnic groups. The Khmers make up for around 96% of the population; therefore Cambodia is one of the most homogeneous societies in South-east Asia. They live throughout Cambodia, settled in fairly permanent villages near major water bodies, Tonle Sap Basin and Mekong River mainly in lowland areas. Khmer villages, especially in central and southeastern Cambodia, usually include representatives of other ethnic groups. Hill tribes or Khmer Loeu are found mainly in the northeastern provinces of 1 Developing Democracy, Doyle (2003) 2 The Constitution and the Government in Cambodia, Rendall (1999) 3 Mainstreaming Natural Resource and Environmental Management, NREM (2003) 4 Analysis of Laws and Regulations Impacting Upon Commune Councils, Oberndorf (2003) 5 General Population Census of Cambodia, NIS (1999)

5

Ratanakiri, Stung Treng, Mondulkiri and Kratie. Most of them live in scattered temporary villages with only a few hundred inhabitants. They cultivate a wide variety of crops applying traditional slash and burn practices and compliment their subsistence through the collection of NTFP’s. Major Khmer Loeu groups are Kuy, Phnong, Stieng, Brao, Por, Jarai and Rade6. Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri are the only two provinces where indigenous minorities represent a majority of the population. The indigenous people are still marginalized from national decision making processes, because of ethnicity, language and geographic position. Literacy rates are less than 10%7. The overwhelming majority of the population - 90% and almost 98% in rural uplands (e.g. Ratanakiri) - relies on firewood for cooking purposes8. Uplands with low population densities coupled with surrounding forest resources provide still sufficient fuel wood that can be relatively easy obtained. In areas with high population densities (e.g. Svey Rieng, Takeo) the availability of firewood is already very limited and fuel wood collection is getting more difficult. Declining forests and their continued degradation already negatively effects the livelihood of parts of the rural population, leading to rising poverty and even more dependency on the remaining and dwindling forests9. Studies in Pursat province did show that the majority of households rely on the collection of NTFP’s mainly for subsistence purposes. Only 24% of the villagers are involved in the sale of NTFP’s that can contribute to more than 50% of the household income10. The following forest types exist in Cambodia: Evergreen Forests (22,5%), Semi-Evergreen Forests (8,5%), Deciduous Forests (22,4%) Inundated and Mangrove Forests (2,2%). The rest is made up of forest re-growth and plantations. The forest cover varies strongly within the different provinces. Provinces with a highest portion of forest cover (more than 80%) are Stung Treng, Preah Vihear, Koh Kong, Ratanakiri and Mondulkiri. In contrast to that the forest cover of the provinces Svay Rieng, Prey Veng and Takeo is extremely low with less than 5%. 3.1.2 The Forestry Sector Forests in Cambodia have contributed to recent economic growth and are vital for the majority of the rural population. They still have a high potential to contribute to long-term oriented sustainable development on national scale, provide and secure environmental services and can contribute to poverty alleviation in rural areas. During the last decade the management of forests was linked to political stabilization and economic recovery of the country. Initiated by strong commitments of the foreign donor community, a comprehensive forestry reform has been initiated, but much still needs to be done to address good governance, forest loss, insecure resource tenure, regulatory frame conditions as well as institutional set-up and inadequate human resources11. Between 1990 and 1997 the RGC granted more than 30 concessions covering app. 7 Mio ha that equals 65% of the national forest resource. The ADB supported concession review in 1999 discovered an extreme poor performance of the majority of the concessions, as well as severe problems in the concession system and declared it as a “total system failure”12. Based on the review results 19 concessions have been cancelled until end of 2002 effecting 6 Ethnicity and Forest Resource Use and Management in Cambodia, Daren (2000) 7 Structural Analysis of Deforestation in Cambodia, Bottomley (2000) 8 General Population Census of Cambodia, NIS (1999) 9 Forestry and Food Security, WFP, 2000 10 The Valuation of Community Forestry Products in Pursat Province, Limchun (2000) 11 Project Strategy Refinement and Operational Planning, Kollert (2001) 12 Cambodian Forestry Review, DFW (2002)

6

3 Mio ha of forests. Previous economic and financial analysis of sustainable concession management suggests that this is unlikely to ever be achieved. Only 6% of Cambodia’s forests are commercially attractive and enforcing sustainable harvest of 1 to 3 trees per ha will be extremely difficult. Under such low extraction rates concession operations are not economically viable13. The regulatory frame conditions for the forestry sector in general have been improved considerably since end of the 90’s. Various Laws, Decrees and Sub-decrees related to forestry, land management and environmental protection have been developed and endorsed (e.g. Immoveable Property Bill, Forestry Law) creating better regulated frame conditions for sustainable management of forest resources. The total log harvest in 1997 has been estimated with 3 to 4,3 Mio m3 round wood equivalent whereby the estimated sustainable yield has been determined with 0,5 to 1 Mio m3. Only 7% of this harvest was legal. National elites have privately benefited from the sale of the forest resources. Only a small fraction of logging revenues has reached the legal economic system and the treasury14. The forest cover declined from 75,2% in the 1960’s to 60,2% in 1996/9715 because mainly of unsustainable and illegal logging by commercial enterprises, military and local authorities, as well as increasing rural population. Deforestation increased sharply especially between 1993 and 1997 (to 10,6 million ha), as the Cambodian forestry sector faced a serious crisis due to widespread illegal logging, corruption, insufficient legal frame, poor management and weak law enforcement16. Negative impacts caused by the deforestation on the environment (e.g. loss on biodiversity, increased soil erosion, siltation, increased flooding), the economic development on national and local scale (e.g. loss of income from timber), on the livelihood, as well as increasing land conflicts are already reality. Reforestation of degraded forestland has been promoted mainly through the establishment of a nationwide network of 12 Tree Planting Stations under the responsibility of the DFW supported by JICA17. Within the period from 1985 until 2002 a total of 11 125 ha of tree plantations have been established, mainly under the DFW, the PFO’s and initiatives of NGOs and individuals using mainly exotic species like Acacia and Eucalyptus. Indigenous tree species like Teak and Dipterocarp’s have been used only on minor scale. A national afforestation fund has been created at the MAFF. Funds are generated through the collection of fees from concessionaires and are administered by the Tree Planting Stations. The emerging and accelerating trend of promoting CBFM during the past decade and the break-down of the concession management system reflects the current paradigm shift from a timber oriented forest exploitation towards multi-functional and sustainable use of forest resources through local communities within the frame of the overall decentralization efforts of the RGC.

13 Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia, McKenney (2002) 14 Structural Analysis of Deforestation in Cambodia, Bottomley (2000) 15 Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002, DFW (2003) 16 Natural Resources and Rural Livelihood in Cambodia, McKenney (2002) 17 Development of Forest Management Plans for Forest Rehabilitation and Extension Stations, Yoshida (2002)

7

3.1.3 Emergence and History Traditional and customary use of forest resources based on indigenous knowledge has been practiced in Cambodia since decades and has a long-standing tradition, especially by hill tribes in the northeastern uplands (e.g. Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri). The application of centralized, bureaucratic and technocratic forest management policies and approaches during the colonial period and the post-colonial government, as well as social disruptions in the past has resulted in extensive loss of community traditions and knowledge related to forest management in Cambodia18.

The first initiatives of CBFM have been initiated by international NGO’s beginning of the 90’s (e.g. Concern Worldwide 1991, MCC 1992) in a few pilot sites in selected Provinces (e.g. Takeo, Kampong Chhnang). The intention was to support local communities to create awareness, establish structures and develop procedures and techniques for a more sustainable management of their forest resources and to rehabilitate degraded forestland.

At this time the development of CBFM was mainly driven by the interests of international NGOs tolerated by the RGC. Due to visible success of implemented initiatives, changing national frame conditions, as well as raising awareness among government authorities and communities a process of paradigm shift has been triggered. Especially provincial governments have been eager to support and promote CBFM, although unclear policies created uncertainty. Decentralization efforts since mid of the 90’s and continued support by international donor organizations resulted in the diversification of approaches and the increase of CF Initiatives. Support to capacity building and research has been initiated. Beside projects focusing merely on CBFM, donors also supported inter-sectoral and integrated approaches (e.g. PNRMTS/ FAO, PMMR/ IDRC, CBNRM/ CARERE) and CBFM as a part of rural development projects (e.g. EU/ PRASAC). Various networks like the Community Forestry Network Meeting (CFNM), mainly supported by Concern Worldwide, and the Community Forestry Working Group (CFWG), assisted by the SMRP (GTZ/MRC) have been created in 1993 and 1998 respectively. The Community Forestry Research Project (CFRP) and the Sustainable Management of Natural Resource Project (SMRP) initiated case studies related to CBFM since 1999. The first compilation of experiences of CF Initiatives has taken place in 200019 supported by WWF/ IDRC. Since 2000, further case studies have been supported by the CBNRM Case Study and Networking Initiative assisted by WWF, IDRC, Oxfam America and RECOFTC. A comprehensive study on CF Initiatives supported by the CGFP has been conducted in 200220. A first National Forestry Extension Workshop has been organized and conducted in mid of 2000 to identify demands and needs for future forestry extension in Cambodia. A National Community Forestry Strategic Plan has been elaborated as a guiding framework for the promotion of CBFM during the same year through joint efforts of a planning team comprising representatives of the DFW, MoE and from a wide variety of international institutions, donors and NGO’s (e.g. ADB, SMRP (GTZ/MRC), Concern, IDRC, RECOFTC, FAO). It was the first attempt to assess the potential for CF in Cambodia and to define the role of the DFW in promoting and supporting CBFM and necessary activities. To develop relevant legislatives, especially the CF Sub-decree, a CF Task Force has been created in 2001, as requested during the National Community Forestry Workshop. The first

18 Community Forestry in Cambodia, Henderson (1998) 19 Scoping Report, Community Based Natural Resource Management in Cambodia, Kalyan (2000) 20 An Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002)

8

definitions for the term Community Forestry have been formulated in developed legislatives: “Community Forestry is a Community conducting forestry activities within a Community Forest in compliance with a Community Forestry Agreement. Community Forest is State forest, granted to a Community living in or near the forest, subject to an agreement to manage and utilize the forest in a sustainable manner between the responsible authority and a community”21. A National Workshop on Community Forestry Management Planning has been organized by the MAFF with support from various international donors and NGO’s in 2002 to share experiences related to management planning for CBFM, to discuss related guidelines and to provide standardized procedures for management planning for practitioners. Based on the comprehensive experiences of the FAO Project guidelines for the preparation of management plans for CBFM in Cambodia have been elaborated during 200222. 3.1.4 Policy Development Many recent policy documents declare the fundamental commitment of the RGC to reduce rural poverty. This goal is especially addressed in the Second Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDPII, 2001-05) and the present draft Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP). Community based management of natural resources, including forests, are considered to be an important element to contribute to food security, poverty reduction and socio-economic development on local and national scale. In 1996 the RGC established a National Steering Committee to manage and execute national forest policies. In early 1999 the DFW with technical assistance from FAO initiated a process to prepare a preliminary National Forest Policy23. Recognizing the rather fragmented efforts to achieve sustainable forest management, the RGC introduced the instrument of the National Forestry Program (NFP) with assistance from the CGFP since 2001. It provides a framework to facilitate the development of a consistent national forest policy and to resolve controversial forestry issues among relevant stakeholders. It further acknowledges Cambodia’s commitment to international frameworks and processes (e.g. IPF/ IFF, UNFF).

The DFW is responsible for the formulation and implementation of forest policies and leads the national forest policy formulation process (see Figure 1). Major constraints related to future policy development are lack of cooperation and coordination between governmental agencies, top-down decisions, lack of transparency and isolation of forest authorities through the new administrative system.

21 Sub-degree on Community Forestry – Draft, CFTF (2002) 22 Guidelines for the Preparation of Management Plans for CF, FAO (2002) 23 Cambodian Forest Policy Review, DFW (2002)

9

Figure 1: Consultation and Implementation Structure of the NFP in Cambodia24

Parliament

Council of Ministers National Committee on

Forest Policy Reform

Secretariat of the Committee

P.M. Chairman

MAFF Co-Chair

MEF Co-Chair

DFW Secretary

Decision-making Consultation

Donor Working

Group Task Forces,

Working Groups Specific Topics

Ministriestechn. level

Donors, NGOs

Private Sector Civil

Society

Provincial and local level multi-stakeholder consultation processes

B o t t o m – u p i n v o l v e m e n t

A Statement on the National Forest Sector Policy has been formulated by the DFW assisted by the CGFP as one result of the NFP. It has been endorsed by the RGC mid of 2002 and provides the framework for the future development of legislation and regulations in the forestry sector. Subsequent to the approval of the Forestry Law in 2002, the National Committee on Forest Policy Reform has been replaced by the Inter-Ministerial National Forest Policy Steering Committee chaired by the Minister of the MAFF25. With its Forest Policy Statement, the RGC commits itself to the conservation and management of the country’s unique forest resources and pursues a maximum involvement of the private sector and participation of the local population, as well as the harmonization of different interests and perceptions through a coordinating multi-stakeholder process. It also emphasis on the establishment of a forest administration in which necessary steps of devolution of decision-making power can take place and to optimize the benefits to local populations from the use and management of forest resources26. A National Community Forestry Strategic Plan has been elaborated in 2000 by the DFW in cooperation with other national institutions and assisted by a wide variety of international organizations and NGOs to provide guidance for the promotion of CF in Cambodia. The overall goal aims at the participation of rural communities in sustainable management of forest resources, in order to meet people’s needs for forest products and services, and to maximize the contribution of forest management to sustainable rural development and 24 Lessons Learnt from Contributing to the NFP Process in Cambodia, Hess (2002) 25 Lessons Learnt from Contributing to the NFP Process in Cambodia, Hess (2002) 26 Statement of the Royal Government on National Forest Sector, RGC (2002)

10

national socio-economic growth. Major objectives focus on policy and institutional development, information generation and information sharing, education and training, promotion of appropriate management strategies and extension and implementation27. 3.1.5. Legal Framework The Cambodian Constitution recognizes the importance of environmental protection and sustainable management of natural resources and stipulates that the state should promote environmental protection and SNRM. In 1996 the Law on Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management was enacted that emphasis on SMNR and anticipated the need for the establishment of a network of protected areas. The drafted Protected Area Law contains provisions for Conservation and Buffer Zones, in which the access to forest resources are allowed by local communities living within or next to them. Resource utilization is allowed in accordance with Regulations (Prakas) issued by the MoE (Art. 28). Minority groups that practice shifting cultivation may continue to practice them on their lands, if registered with the state authorities. This should not be permitted in primary forest areas (Art. 30). As a result of a broad consultative process, the Forestry Law has been endorsed in 2002 by the National Assembly. It is considered one of the best in South-east Asia due to its long elaboration and reconciliation process, as well as the involvement of major stakeholders28. It principally recognizes forest management by communities and private entities and the customary use of forests. Communities or individuals can acquire user rights insight Permanent Forest Reserves based on an application to the forest authorities. Traditional slash and burn practices are permitted on community land that is registered with the State, but it is prohibited in natural intact forest in the Permanent Forest Reserve. (Art. 37). MAFF shall assist local communities, stakeholders and the MLMUPC in the registration of community land titles and coordinate the delineation of boundaries (Art. 10). MAFF has authority to allocate an area of Permanent Forest Reserve to a community or a group of people (Art. 41). The cantonment chief of the Forest Administration has authority to approve Community Forest Agreements for a period up to 15 years. A Community Forest shall be managed based on a Community Forest Management Plan that has to be revised every 5 years (Art. 43). The Land Law (2001) aims to clarify previous legislation related to use and ownership of land and other natural resources, regulates basic issues related to land management and tenure and provides the legal frame for the allocation of user rights to juristic entities (e.g. individuals, communes). Nevertheless it does not provide regulatory clarity across all areas related to land. The Forest Concession Sub-decree (2000) contains a few provisions with relevance to CBFM. Community forests have to be delineated during the process of management planning and the relevant communities consulted (Art. 6.2). The right of access to forest resources with economic, subsistence and spiritual value to local communities within concession areas are protected (Art. 2.5). To facilitate participation and cooperation between the concessionaire and the villages, a Community Consultation Committee (CCC) should be established (Art. 5.5). In February 2002 the Community Forestry Task Force (CFTF) of the Community Forestry Working Group (CFWG) submitted a final draft of the Community Forestry Sub-decree to the

27 National Community Forestry Strategic Plan, DFW (2000) 28 Project Strategy Refinement and Operational Planning, Kollert (2001)

11

DFW. Guided by the Task Force, its elaboration was the result of an intensive consultation process involving all major stakeholders, including representatives of governmental institutions, international donors, NGO’s and communities. The DFW and MAFF have reviewed and revised it prior to its submission to the Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee of the Council of Ministers. Substantial changes have been made in this document, causing massive protests from communities and NGO’s. The following statement undermines this: “The current version of the Sub-decree is at odds with the poverty reduction, forestry management and decentralization goals of the RGC.29” The changes resulted in a version that it is not longer a multi-ministerial Sub-decree, deals only with CF on land under jurisdiction of MAFF (Permanent Forest Reserve) and is inconsistent in terminology30. Differences also exist in used definitions (e.g. Community Forest). ”... is State forest, granted to a Community living in or near the forest, subject to an agreement to manage and utilize the forest in a sustainable manner between the responsible authority and a community31” and “... is the forest plantation of a Community or State Forest, where the right is granted to a local Community living in or near the forest to manage and utilize the forest in a sustainable manner between responsible authority and a local community.32” Critical points communicated to the Council of Ministers by the NGO Forum are33:

Clce 3 Topp

2

3

3

3

3

3

+ broad discretionary power given to MAFF may lead to poor rather than improved governance. + substantial changes related to approval of community forests “Chief of parent inst.” (Art. 35) makes it very unclear to determine who will approve the Community Forest Agreements. “other relevant documents” very unspecific/ the roles and duties of CF members include “follow instructions of Forest Administration” (Art 19). + the area for community forestry substantially reduced/ the Forest Administration shall “assess and demarcate forest area for establishing community forest (Art 28). + removal of the section on granting communities rights to enforce their CF Agreement (Art. 32/ version Febr.2002), it was a key request from CF groups in Cambodia. + removal of the section on granting communities rights to enforce their CF Agreement (Art. 32) version Febr.2002), it was a key request from CF groups in Cambodia. + removal of provisions related to inter-ministerial responsibilities (e.g. conflict resolution MoE/ Art 29; duties of MLMUPC curtailed, now it plays no role in demarcation of CF boundaries) + termination of CF Agreements possible any time, no standard of conduct, review etc. (Art. 38)

urrently advancement of CBFM is still hampered by not yet endorsed and therefore unclear

egislatives, as the CF sub decree is still with the Council of Ministers (send back to MAFF to hange parts that have been criticized by villagers and NGO’s) and the endorsement is xpected not before beginning of 2004.

.1.6 Tenure and Land Management Issues

he legal frame in Cambodia only recognizes state and private land tenure, full private wnership rights could only be obtained on land for housing, whereas on land for cultivation ossession and use rights could be obtained34. Only a very small portion of the rural opulation is actually in possession of a valid land occupation and user rights certificate

9 Letter to the Council of Ministers, Peterson (2003) 0 Review of Draft CF Sub-decree as Submitted by MAFF to the Council of Ministers, Oberndorf (2003) 1 Sub-degree on CF – Draft. CFTF (2002) 2 Sub-degree on CF – Revised Version, MAFF (2003) 3 Letter to the Council of Ministers, Peterson (2003) 4 Participatory Land Use Planning in Rural Cambodia, Rock (2001)

12

(land title) for their residential land, rice fields and farmland. Growing landlessness of rural households and unequal landholdings have been reported35. Four main resource tenure schemes are recognized: common property (legal part of the state ownership that are traditionally open access areas such as forests and the flooded areas), state tenure (protected areas, production forests), individual or private tenure (homestead, rice fields) and communal tenure (community forests). The ethnic minorities especially in the northeastern provinces are practicing functioning systems of traditional use rights within their community territory. Studies have proven their effectiveness for the sustainable management and conservation of forest resources, provided that a low population density and the traditional tenure systems can be maintained. According to the Land Law the communal user rights can obtain formal recognition by issuing of communal land certificates36. Two options for securing land tenure for ethnic minorities in the uplands in accordance with the legal framework have been suggested: (1) provide each farmer with individual ownership title for 4-5 plots of land (not exceeding 5 ha) on which they can practice the swidden fallow system or (2) Grant long-term user rights for each village to use and manage communal lands as a swidden common, which requires that the village must register as a legal association and prepare a management plan approved by governmental authorities37. The MLMUPC is usually responsible for issuing land titles and the land registration procedures, facilitated by provincial departments. This seems to be not relevant for forestland under the provision of the forestry law, which could be interpreted that this law does not apply for forests and that MLMUPC has no role in relation to forests (Art. 16). There seems to be still unclear institutional responsibilities that can lead to the duplication of surveying, mapping and registration functions. Interaction and cooperation between the forestry authorities and the MLMUPC is needed, as it is responsible for recording the location of forestland. Figure 2: Schematic Overview on Land Tenure in Cambodia38

Communal Tenure Community Forests,

Fishing Areas

Individual Tenure Rice

Fields, Orchards, Swidden FieldsResidential

Areas/ Home Gardens

Common Property Ponds, Rivers,

Lakes, Grassland, Flooded Areas

State Tenure Natural Forests, Protected Areas, Concession Areas

35 Facing the Challenge of Rural Livelihoods, Sophal (2001) 36 Participatory Land Use Planning in Rural Cambodia, Rock (2001) 37 Traditional Resource Tenure and Livelihood Systems, Paterson (1999) 38 Participatory Land Use Planning in Rural Cambodia, Rock (2001)

13

The Land Law was promulgated by Royal Decree in 2001 and creates a legal platform for the management of land in Cambodia. Assisted by the LMAP (GTZ/MLMUPC) a comprehensive land policy framework has been developed to guide land administration, management and distribution. The Strategy of Land Policy Framework places high importance on the strengthening of land tenure security and land markets, to prevent or resolve land disputes, to manage land and natural resources in an equitable, sustainable and efficient manner and to promote equitable land distribution39. The Land Law differentiates three types of property in Cambodia: (1) State Public Property, (2) State Private Property and (3) Private Property. State Public Property (Art. 15 & 16) is land held by the state in public trust, which carries a public interest use. State Private Property (Art. 17) is land owned by the State or public entities that does not have a public interest use. The main difference between State Private Property and State Public Property is that the State Private Property may actually be sold or transferred to other legal entities. Land Concessions (Ch. 5), whether for a social or an economic purpose, may only occur on State Private Property. Private property is owned by individuals or legal entities. It may be leased, used as collateral, inherited or transferred to other individuals or entities. The Forestry Law specifies that the State owns all natural resources, including forests (Art. 12), State Public Property includes natural forests that are not subject to private ownership (Art. 15). The State shall grant collective ownership to indigenous communities (Art 23, 24, 25), Communities shall have ownership rights similar to private land, but are not allowed to transfer or dispose it to a third party (Art. 26, 28). Forestland classification and tenure are summarized in Figure 3. Figure 3: Forest Land Classification and Tenure in Cambodia40

Permanent Forest Estate(Overall Forest Complex,

Natural and Planted, Includes Public & Private Property)

Protected Areas

State Public Property (Jurisdiction of MoE)

Permanent Forest Reserve

State Public Property, 3 Categories

Private Forest Private Property

(Plantation and Natural Forests)

Production Forest (Timber/NTFP Production,

Forest Concession, Degraded Forest,

Regeneration Forest, State Plantation Forest,

Community Forest

Protection Forest (Ecosystem/Watershed Protection, Biodiversity,

Cultural / Religious Heritage, Recreation)

Communities have only customary user rights

Conversion Forest (Idle State Forestland, Not

Designated for Use, Temporary Category)

May become State Private

Property

39 Strategy of Land Policy Framework, CLP (2002) 40 Overview of Land and Forest Land Classification under the Land and Forestry Law, Oberndorf (2003)

14

The SMRP (GTZ/MRC) promoted the process of defining appropriate approaches for participatory land use planning since 1999. The focus has been placed on exchange and dissemination of information and experiences related to PLUP and CBFM. A manual for PLUP has been elaborated supported by SMRP (GTZ/MRC) based on a long participatory process and gained field experiences. Systematic training of trainers in PLUP has been organized for provincial facilitators by a national trainer team from the MLMUPC since 2002 in six provinces supported by the DED41. Table 1: Distribution of Forest Land Tenure in Cambodia42

Forest Land Tenure Area (ha) Share of Forest Area (%)

19 Forest Concessions (DFW, MAFF) 4.2 Mio 40.0Protected Areas (MoE) 3.3 Mio 31.4Community Forestry 0.08 Mio 0.8Agricultural Concessions 0.8 Mio 7.6Flooded Forests (DF, MAFF) 0.45 Mio 4.3Heavily degraded forests, plantations, research areas 1.67 Mio 15.9

Total 10.5 Mio 100.0 Currently only around 10% of rural families possess a legal land title. Due to a complicate process of land registration and high administrative fees, 75 % of farmers didn’t apply for land titles for their land under cultivation. Additionally, recent studies indicated a raising number of landless families43. 3.1.7 Institutional Set-up, Responsibilities and Capacities The institutional set-up related to CBFM is fragmented and comprises different governmental institutions with different responsibilities. At the national level the Department of Forestry and Wildlife (DFW) and the Department of Fisheries (DF) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), as well as the Department of Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection (DNCEP) under the Ministry of Environment (MoE) are responsible for CBFM. Beside them, the National Assembly (NA), the Prime Minister (PM) and the National Inter-ministerial Steering Committee under the Council of Ministers are involved in policy development. The Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC), especially the Department of Land Management and Urban Planning (DLMUP), and the Department of Land Registration are responsible for LUP and land registration procedures. The DFW (see Figure 4), especially the Community Forestry and the Forestry Extension Unit within its Reforestation Office are responsible for the CBFM on state forestland. The Community Fisheries Development Office under the Department of Fisheries bears responsibility for the management of mangroves and inundated forests. The jurisdiction for Protected Areas is with the Community Forestry and Buffer Zone Management Office under the DNCEP at the MoE. It is required to better integrate perspectives and mandates of the whole range of institutions and agencies with responsibilities for forests and local communities including the MAFF, MoE, MLMUPC and special authorities like APSARA and enhance cooperation. 41 Participatory Land Use Planning in Cambodia: Concepts and Experiences, Kirsch (2003) 42 Lessons Learnt from Contributing to the NFP Process in Cambodia, Hess (2002) 43 Report on Land Policy, DWG (2001)

15

Figure 4: Organizational Set-up of the DFW, MAFF44

Deputy Director General

Deputy Director General

Deputy Director General

Deputy Director General

Forest & Wildlife Research Institute

Legislation & Litigation Office

Forest Management Office

Reforestation Office

Extension Unit

Reforest. Stations

Planning and Accounting Office

Forest Export – Import Company

CF Unit

Wildlife Protection Office

Colexim Enterprise

Casotim Enterprise

Administration & Personnel Office

Plantation Unit

Director General

On the other hand the presence of institutional responsibilities and capacities for CBFM in different Ministries has pluralistic advantages in terms of creative and motivating influences through reflections of different perspectives, programmatic cooperation and competition45. Staffing and capacity is limited, especially on provincial level. Only selected personnel from national and provincial level received training in CBFM. Various international donors and NGOs promoted capacity building for staff from the CF Units of the two Ministries down to the provincial forestry authorities. Initial training related to CBFM concepts and practices have been conducted, but training is not yet systematically available outside these project areas. With the support from RECOFTC a program for in-country capacity building for CBFM and participatory management of protected areas has been implemented from 1998 until 2001 by CAMCOFTT. The DFW has 858 officials, among them 192 in the Reforestation Office. The CF Unit in the DFW employs currently 24 persons and the Community Forestry Office MoE around 10 persons. They have limited experiences related to concepts and implementation of community forestry programs46. Traditional tasks of forest officers were mainly related to the regulation and control of forest utilization. The concept of CBFM is relatively new in the forestry sector and intensive awareness creation is necessary to create understanding and commitment among them. Considerable effort is required to change traditional attitudes and practices of forestry officers to develop skills and knowledge needed to facilitate people’s participation in forest management and conservation. Current institutional set-ups and staffing do not reflect yet adequately future needs and requirements related to CBFM, considering its growing importance and future perspectives The intention to upgrade existing Units to Offices for CF and Extension at the DFW is one option to improve the situation. The intention to establish the French administrative system based on Cantonments and Divisions under the DFW will not be favorable for the

44 Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002, DFW (2003) 45 Community Forestry in Cambodia, Henderson (1998) 46 National Community Forestry Strategic Plan, DFW (2000)

16

development of CF, as it will lead to the creation of separate structures, which are not a part of the general administrative system (e.g. Provinces, Communes). Governmental authorities at provincial level related to CBFM comprise the Provincial Environmental Department, the Provincial Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Department (PAFFD) and the Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD), as well as the Provincial Office of Land Management, Urban Planning, Construction and Cadastre. Community Forestry Units (CFU) are attached to the Provincial Forestry Office (PFO) as a part of the PAFFD. Personal capacities are varying between 5 in Krong Kep and 100 Kampong Thom equal to 41 in average47. They are mainly in charge of control and inspection of logging activities. Only a very limited number is currently dealing with issues related to CBFM and extension. Extension Units under the PFO only exist in a few selected Provinces initiated mainly by projects of international organizations. Community based organizations (see Figure 5) are the central element to support, guide and facilitate the process of CBFM at the village level. They are integrated into general village organizations (e.g. VDC). Different wordings for the community-based institutions can be found and their structure and extent are varying depending on socio-economic conditions of the respective village and the forest resource. If larger forest areas are concerned inter-village Community Forestry Associations (CFA) have been created as an effective body for communicating experiences, interests and demands to other stakeholders, and to use existing capacities through coordination48. Such kind of organizational set-up has been established in various CF initiatives in Cambodia (e.g. MCC, Concern, FAO). Figure 5: Overview on Institutional Arrangements at Village Level in Cambodia

VDC VDC VDC VFC/ VFMC VFC/ VFMC VFC/ VFMC

User Group User

Group Farmer

User Group User

Group Farmer

User Group User

Group Farmer

Inter-village CFAssociations

Commune Council/ RD Committee

The creation and development of enduring social structures at local level is central to the success of CBFM, as they have irreplaceable roles in organizing related activities and safeguard agreed rules. It is important that these structures are integrated in existing village organizations and that members are elected by the communities. The participation of 47 Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002, DFW (2003) 48 Community Forestry Guidelines, Fraser (2000)

17

villagers in CBFM is voluntary. Committee members receive in some cases additional benefits from forest use as incentives. 3.1.8 Networks Various networks related to CBFM on national and local level have been established since mid of the 90s supported by NGO’s and international organizations (see Figure 6). Figure 6: Overview on Relevant Networks and Existing Linkages in Cambodia

DFW/ MAFFNational (policy/

decision making)

Provincial/ Local

(implementation)

Continuous Dialogue,

Information &Experience Exchange

CF Working Group

NGO Forum

CF Network (all Prov.) Provincial Forestry

Networks

Still very limited high potential for

future support Task Forces

Donor Working Group

They are linked and an important element for securing transparency in policy-making processes, as well as for information and experience exchange. The Community Forestry Working Group (CFWG) was established in 1998 with the objective to improve the understanding of community forestry through the promotion of information gathering and exchange, and the collaboration among governmental institutions at central level and representatives of international donor organizations and various NGO’s49. The Task Force on Community Forestry (see Figure 7) was formed during a community forestry workshop with the mandate to elaborate and propose the draft CF Sub-decree.

49 Scoping Report, Community Based Natural Resource Management in Cambodia, Kalyan (2000)

18

Figure 7: Structure of the CFWG50

Steering Committee (5-7)

Secretariat

Task Force(4-5)

Task Force(4-5)

Task Force (4-5)

Advisory Group

Working Group (up to 50)

Working Level

Decision Making

The Environmental Working Group supported by the NGO Forum is an inter-sectoral working group addressing issues and problems related to the environment with representatives of concerned central government authorities, international donor community and international as well as national NGO’s. The Community Forestry Network Meeting (CFNM) has been established in 1993 by the Cambodia Environment Management Project and has been supported since 1997 mainly by the MoE, DoFW and Concern51. The major objective of this network is to share information and experiences among different stakeholders from national, provincial and village level. Originally Community Forestry agencies like the CFU of the MoE, the DFW and NGO’s participated. Nowadays focus has shifted towards local level including mainly representatives of the provincial, district and village level, as well as international and national NGOs.

Provincial Community Forestry Networks have been established in a few provinces (e.g. Kampong Chhnang), where CBFM is applied and promoted by donor agencies and NGO’s. They provide a forum for representatives of local government authorities, commune councils, villagers, NGO’s and concessionaires to share experiences on practical issues and contribute therefore to capacity building. Workshops, meetings and field trips are organized on a periodical basis. 3.1.9 Extension System and Services The institutional set-up for forestry extension services is fragmented and lacks coordination at all levels52. MAFF has established the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), but cooperation and operational modes with other line departments like the DFW are not yet established. The DFW has established its own institutional units for extension and CBFM. Their responsibilities related to extension are still overlapping. Extension Units within the PFO’s on provincial levels are not yet existing nationwide and are limited to selected

50 The Proposed Goal, Objectives and Structure of the CFWG, CFWG (2003) 51 Scoping Report, Community Based Natural Resource Management in Cambodia, Kalyan (2000) 52 Project Strategy Refinement and Operational Planning, Kollert (2001)

19

provinces, due to limited personnel and financial resources. Very often the establishment of extension units was merely a result of the influence of CBFM related projects. Beside the DFW under the MAFF, the MoE claims a role for forestry extension within the protected areas. Efforts to develop capacities for CBFM related extension have been undertaken with the creation of the Cambodian Community Forestry Training Team (CAMCOFTT), involving key persons of relevant institutions (e.g. MAFF, MoE, RUA) and NGOs. It has been dissolved in 2001 due to ceasing support and subsequent financial constraints. Extension services by governmental institutions, NGOs and projects with international donor support are currently provided within a wide range of socio-economic, as well as bio-physical conditions and different forest types. Each of the situations requires different approaches with regard to legal arrangements, management, planning procedures and technical interventions. Capacities for training related to CBFM have been built up especially within the DFW at MAFF and the CFU at MoE. Initial training has been conducted for governmental staff and villagers in selected provinces related to basics of community forestry and technical interventions supported by RECOFTC and Concern. Yet, a systematic approach for qualifying governmental personnel, as well as interested communities is not yet established. A limited number of key persons is qualified to provide training for trainers. Educational institutions like RUA or PNSA still have very limited capacity to provide adequate training. Considering biophysical and socio-economic diversity of Cambodia, but also the need for a more pragmatic approach to address extension needs under similar local condition, attempts have been undertaken to formulate Extension Categories as a basis for an Extension Strategy. These categories have been defined according to forest conditions and population densities. The following four extension categories have been created: Agricultural Land, Heavily Degraded Forests, Slightly to Undisturbed Forest and Mangroves/ Inundated Forests. Development goals have been defined (see Table 3) for each of the categories and the area coverage has been determined to estimate potential demands. Table 2: Extension Categories for Cambodia53

No. Characteristics Development Goals Area

Coverage

1 Agriculture Land High population density (> 60/ km2)

Farm Forestry, Agroforestry, emphasis on agriculture rather forestry

3,9 Mio ha (21%)

2 Areas with Heavily Degraded Forests

Low population density (<60/ km2)

Forest rehabilitation (reforestation/ natural regeneration/ enrichment planting)

2,8 Mio ha (16%)

3 Areas with slightly degraded to undisturbed forests

Low population density (<60/ km2)

Natural Forest Management (sustainable management of mature forests)

9,1 Mio ha (50%)

4 Inundated forests and mangroves

Low population density (<60/ km2)

Forest Management and Fisheries

0,8 Mio ha (4%)

Total 16,6 Mio ha

53 An Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002)

20

A total of 12,7 Mio ha of forestland equal to 70% of Cambodia’s land coverage has been identified as potential areas suitable for Community Forestry. The area has been reduced to 8,4 Mio ha considering limited accessibility of the forests, by assuming that a radius of 10 km around the settlements is as a realistic distance for farmers (see Table 4). Even though there are variations because of different cultural resource use patterns and different topography studies revealed that the majority of rural families collect forest products in the range of up to 10 km, 22% between 10-20 and only 5% up to 30 km. Table 3: Characteristics of the Extension Categories in Cambodia54

Extension Category Areas covered

considering 10 km zones

Share of the total Forest Cover (12,7 Mio ha)

Population Involved/ Share of the Total

Population Heavily degraded 2,3 Mio ha (2,8) 18% ~ 620 000 (6%) Slightly degraded up to undisturbed 5,5 Mio ha (9,1) 43% ~ 300 000 (3%) Mangroves and inundated forests 0,6 Mio ha (0,8) 5% ~ 145 000 (1%) Total 8,4 Mio ha 66% 1,1 Mio (10%)

Extension demands have been comprehensively determined within the frame of a nationwide study on CF initiatives. The highest extension demand has been determined related to leadership and management skills, concepts of CBFM, guidelines on planting, harvesting and maintaining and legal matters. These subjects are followed by interest in forest management techniques, fire protection, silviculture and management planning55. In 2000 the first national workshop on forestry extension has been conducted to analyze necessary steps required to develop forestry extension in Cambodia56. Suggestions related to appropriate institutional arrangements for forestry extension at national level, the FEU at the DFW, and the provincial level, PFEU at PFO, have been elaborated by the DFW assisted by the CGFP in 2001. A goal statement has been formulated for forestry extension as following: ”Forestry Extension is an integral part of the Cambodian Extension System, promoting information exchange in order to enable stakeholders to improve their activities within specific forest eco-systems towards sustainable managed forest resources in Cambodia.”57 Constraints to improve extension services are not only related to financial resources and the number of personnel. The shift away from the concession management system towards CBFM makes also a change of attitude of forestry professionals at all levels necessary. Foresters, which have been used to carry out authoritarian tasks, have to be transformed into facilitators, trainers and partners of villagers. Low salaries of forestry staff that are currently topped-up by income from other opportunities (e.g. corruption due to their control functions) will have to be considered. 3.1.10 Research Research related to CBFM been mainly carried out within the frame of research projects supported by international donors and research institutions (e.g. IDRC/ RECOFTC). The Forest Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) established in 1997 was not yet involved in CBFM 54 An Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002) 55 An Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002) 56 Report of the First Stage Development of a Needs Based Forestry Extension Info System, Helmers (2002) 57 Institutional Arrangements for Forestry Extension in Cambodia, West (2001)

21

related research, nor has it capacities to do so. Nevertheless interest has been indicated to join CBNRM related research activities in the future. The Community Forestry Research Project (CFRP) started in 1999 and has been jointly implemented by representatives of the MoE, the RUA and the DFW with the support from IDRC and RECOFTC58. A new phase is planned from 2003 until 2006 with the focus on the interaction between land tenure and resource management, indigenous knowledge and practices and conflict management mechanisms. So far activities were related to capacity building for research (e.g. methods, studies). Various case studies with the focus on best practices of CBFM have been supported by the SMRP and the CGFP. The CBNRM Case Study and Network Initiative started in 2000 and is facilitated by a cross-institutional, multi-disciplinary core group of researchers with partners from various governmental institutions, NGOs, networks and educational institutions. The project supports linkages to locally based approaches empowering local communities to take part in the conservation and SMNR. Objectives are the development of an analytical and conceptual framework for CBNRM, capacity building through case study writing, documentation and the development of analytical skills59. 3.1.11 Specific Issues The concession system has negatively affected rural livelihoods by reducing access and use of forest resources60. Past studies on impacts of concessions on communities and their livelihood revealed that logging has negative impacts on socio-economic, as well as spiritual and cultural aspects61. Zones of spiritual value for the communities have not been respected. Unsustainable logging destructed wildlife habitats leading to reduced hunting grounds for villagers, as well as reduced availability of NTFP’s. Employing villagers by companies has caused social disparities and disruptions among the villagers. Logging brought only little employment opportunities to local communities and led to human right abuses and problems in supporting their livelihoods62. According to existing legislations, particularly the Forest Concession Sub-decree and developed guidelines63, concessionaires are obliged to guarantee traditional rights of access to those forest resources within concession areas that are of economic, subsistence and spiritual value to local communities. Management plans should specify community forests and related programs with communities, as well contain a Social Impact Assessment. To facilitate cooperation between the concessionaires and the local communities Community Consultation Committees (CCC’s) should be established. Even legislation is reflected nowadays in existing management plans64 in form of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments; it still has merely an alibi function. In average only 1-3 ha forestland per household has been designated as community forests, but agricultural land is often included. Further it has been stated that in reality local communities are very seldom involved in the planning process and that resource use conflicts are common. Access to traditional forest products – hunting or collection of NTFP’s - is often limited, or concessionaires have imposed taxes. 58 Community Forestry Research Project – Annual Report, CFRP (2002) 59 Project Profile CBNRM Case Study and Network Initiative, CBNRM (2001) 60 Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia, McKenney (2002) 61 Cultural Resource Study, MoE (2000) 62 Structural Analysis of Deforestation in Cambodia, Bottomley (2000) 63 Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management, DFW (2001) 64 Strategic Forest Management Plan, Mieng Ly Heng (2002)

22

Figure 8: Organizational Linkages between Communities and Concessions65

Village Community

Forest

Forest Concession

CFA

CFCC

Village

Village

Village

VFC

VFC Village

VFCVFC

Concessionair

Village

Commune Council,

District and Provincial Authorities

Central Authorities

VFC

VFC

On the other hand the cancellation of many concessions will make land grabbing and forest conversion more likely.66

Especially resin tapping provides significant supplementary income to rural households. Studies have found that income can range around 340 US$ per family and year67. Intensive logging and removal of the majority of the big Dipterocarp trees resulted in major losses of income and subsequent increased clearing of forestland for shifting cultivation and increased hunting pressure. The participation of both sexes is important to sustainable forest use, planning, decision-making and implementation, because men and women have different demands for and uses of various types of forest products. They also have different capabilities to collect NTFP’s and dissimilar opportunities to participate, depending upon times and seasons of the year. However most of the planning, managing and decision-making is carried out by a male dominated leadership. In order to have a better balance of men and women in CBFM, it is necessary to improve women’s function in committees, to let them attend training and reduce traditions, which undervalue women and their capacity68.

65 Community Forestry Guidelines, Fraser (2000) 66 Personal communication, Petrucci (2003) 67 A Study of Resin Tapping and Livelihoods in Southern Mondulkiri, WCS (2003) 68 Gender in Community Forestry Management, Vann (2002)

23

3.2 Selected Initiatives 3.2.1 General Consideration and Overview Since the first initiatives started in the early 90’s, CBFM in Cambodia has experienced significant development and expansion especially in recent years. A significant number of initiatives are currently implemented covering a wide variety of socio-economic, as well as biophysical conditions. The degree of documentation of approaches and lessons learnt varies and the dissemination of their results is limited. Good documentations are often made available by initiatives with international donor support. The support to CF initiatives resulted in the establishment of 127 community forests covering an area of app. 47 000 ha69 until 2000. Another comprehensive study on CF initiatives in Cambodia indicated in 2002, that 57 initiatives exist currently comprising 228 community forests in 18 provinces with growing tendency. The total area of the community forests nationwide equals app. 83 000 ha including Mangroves and inundated forests (12 000 ha) equal to app. 0,8% of Cambodia’s total forest cover70. The number of CF Initiatives varies between the provinces, the highest number are currently implemented in Siem Reap, followed by Battambang, Ratanakiri, Kampong Chhnang, Kampong Thom, Koh Kong, Kampong Speu and Takeo. Nationwide app. 410 000 people, equal to 0,78% of the total population, of 404 villages are involved in CBFM. The majority of the CF Initiatives (65%) is facing highly degraded forest resource conditions and is therefore dealing with reforestation and forest rehabilitation. Only a few initiatives are implemented within productive forests, where revenues can be expected in the medium term. 70% of the CF Initiatives are under the jurisdiction of the MAFF, 15% under joint responsibility of MAFF and MoE, and 11% are sole under the MoE (see Figure 9). Figure 9: Overview on Jurisdiction of CF Initiatives in Cambodia71

69 Na70 An71 An

MAFF70%

MoE11%

MAFF & MoE15%

APSARA4%

tural Resources and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia, McKenney (2002) Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002) Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002)

24

Conflicts have been reported from 75% of the CF Initiatives, related to four different categories: (1) internal conflicts among villagers in one village (40%), (2) conflicts among different villages and (3) conflicts with outsiders (e.g. concessionaires, military). Objects of conflicts are mainly related to resource use (e.g. illegal use, collection of NTFP’s), land tenure (e.g. land grabbing), deny of access (e.g. to NTFP’s) and benefit sharing. Conflicts are solved through the involvement of communities, local authorities (e.g. commune), as well as representatives from the military. Internal conflict mediation mechanisms exist and are often facilitated by local authorities. Land Dispute Settlement Committees have been formed to resolve serious conflicts related to land tenure. In some exceptional cases support has been provided by NGO’s. Even though benefit-sharing arrangements are an essential part of management plans they are often not specified. Benefit sharing arrangements between the government authorities and local villages are absent. The delay of the endorsement of the CF Sub-decree hampers currently the advancement and development of CBFM, as very often local authorities feel reluctant to sign Management Agreements for selected areas with communities, because of the unclear legal conditions. CBFM is a major alternative to industrial forest concession systems. The justification for the transfer of user rights and management responsibility includes various aspects. The state authorities are unable to effectively and sustainable manage large forest areas and local communities are usually primary users of forest resources. Communities have to receive long-term benefits as incentives for sustainable use and protection of forest resources. The state owns the land and forest resources in the name of country’s citizens therefore properly managed use of forests by citizen and supervised by the state is justified72.

Local and regional experiences have shown, that CBFM are successful in protecting forests from uncontrolled logging and agricultural conversion by giving communities ownership, access and benefits. So far CBFM has been promoted in degraded forest areas aiming at rehabilitation and reforestation. Findings of CF Initiatives have indicated high motivation and commitment of rural communities in forest management. The development of CBFM in Cambodia faces variety of challenges, attitude of forestry officials, lack of capacity, skills and knowledge, unclear institutional framework, tenure insecurity and low benefits. 3.2.2 Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region Project, FAO, Siem Reap The Participatory Natural Resource Management Tonle Sap Project in Siem Reap Province supported by FAO has been initiated in 1994. The implementation of its Community Forestry component did commence in 1995 with the objective to “establish responsible, productive and sustainable management of forest and fishery resources by local communities to meet local needs and to stimulate local development within the province”73. It has been closely linked to its fisheries and rural development component. The project works in collaboration with the PAFFD, PED and PDRD. The Community Forestry component of the project has been integrated into the PFO and targeted communities in uplands, riparian zones and flooded forests of the Tonle Sap74. It is one of the few provinces where a PFO has established a CFU and staff is actively assisting communities with CBFM.

72 Structural Analysis of Deforestation in Cambodia, Bottomley (2000) 73 Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region, Evans (2003) 74 Community Forestry in Cambodia, Henderson (1998)

25

During the first phase baseline information have been collected and first trials related to NRM within inundated forests have been initiated. During the second phase the focus has been placed on the implementation of CBFM over a wider area within a variety of environments and jurisdictions. Scaling-up from initially 6 villages with a total area of 2 642 ha to app. 70 000 ha inundated forests and 20 000 ha of upland forests involving app. 90 villages has been achieved. During this period the project became recognized as one of the model projects for CBFM at national level. Capacity building for forestry staff and communities was an important element, applying especially the learning by doing approach. Community forests in Siem Reap are degraded and naturally regenerating Dipterocarp forests in need of thinning to improve stocking and productivity. They have been delineated and demarcated by communities to protect them against encroachment and conversion into other land uses, without applying PLUP procedures. Various silvicultural interventions (e.g. thinning trials) have been introduced. Ten community fisheries organizations including 111 villages protect and manage 108 000 ha of inundated forest, as well as 44 established community forestry sites, with 16 having completed management plans. Participatory development (12 steps) and planning procedures for CBFM (10 steps) have been developed (Annex 8) and were presented at the National Workshop on Community Forestry Management Planning. The experiences gained have been the basis for the development of management planning guidelines for Cambodia75. Community fisheries, as well as CBFM have been both integrated into the commune, district and provincial planning framework. As communities successfully established control over their forest resources, a growing number of communities recognized the importance of CBFM resulting in more than 50 outstanding requests from communities to be assisted in CBFM. Forest Management Committees (FMC) have been created through the election of its members by the communities with specific tasks and responsibilities for each of the organizational units. Benefits from commercial activities within the community forests (e.g. production of poles) are being used to pay for labor and to finance development activities. Recently the establishment of a “Management Fund” has been introduced to finance resources development76. The collection of fuel wood and NTFP’s is allowed in the designated community forests. Conflicts among villagers are solved through the involvement of the FMC. Some constraints for further development of CBFM still exist and have been addressed77. The CF sub-decree tends to centralize decision-making, does not permit commercial management for the first 5 years and maintains royalties for products harvested. Royalty rates imposed for the harvest of e.g. poles exceeds the market price and makes this activity economically not feasible. Illegal harvested timber from other forests undermines the price for properly managed community forests.

3.2.3 Community Forestry Program, Concern Worldwide, Kampong Chhnang The Community Forestry Program of Concern Worldwide in the Kampong Chhnang province started in 1991 in response to a request of the DFW with reforestation and joint management of an adjacent government forest with 5 villages. During the period from 1991-1994, 150 ha of plantations have been established mainly with Acacia and Eucalypts to be managed under a coppice system with a calculated rotation period of 7 to 10 years. A mixed management system (coppice with standards) has been introduced to produce fuel wood and construction timber in one single stand. Native species (e.g. Dipterocarps) are managed

75 Guidelines for the Preparation of Management Plans for Community Forestry, FAO (2002) 76 Introduction of Management Techniques to Improve the Conditions of Community Forests, Wauters (2002) 77 Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region, Evans (2003)

26

under longer rotation periods, up to 15 years. Seedlings have been produced through the voluntary contribution of community members, 50% women of them have been women. The Community Forestry Association (CFA) has developed community forestry guidelines for plantation management. They reflect the objectives of the forests, as well as the structure, roles and rights of the community members. The guidelines provide a basis for introducing management techniques, but require still a more detailed management plan. According to the guidelines the economic benefits from timber sale will be shared between the community members (75-85%), the CFA (5%) and the DFW (10-20%)78. In 1995, Agroforestry trial plots have been established and the project adopted a community forestry approach focusing on long-term strategies and the integration of forest management with the objective to increase access to forest resources by local communities and to build capacities among involved actors. In 1998, five villages with app. 4 600 people were involved to establish community forests in degraded lowland and upland forest types. In the meantime 23 VFMC’s are active with a share of 20% female members79. The management of community forests is under the overall responsibility of the CFA’s. They have been created at commune level to oversee the CF activities in the involved villages. In each village 5-10 families are organized into interest groups. One member of each interest group is a member of the Village Forest Management Committee (see Figure 10) and one representative of each VFMC is a member of the CFA. Provincial network meetings are held to provide a platform for experience exchange.

Figure 10: Structure of the VFMC, CF Initiative Concern80

Vice Chairman

Interest Group Interest Group Interest Group Interest Group Interest Group

Chairman

In 1999 the CF activities have been expanded to Pursat province. Community forests in 26 villages have been established and divided into production, protection and special management zones. Forest resource assessment through a participatory forest inventory provides the basis for the elaboration of 5-year management plans to be approved by the PFO. A participatory impact monitoring has been recently introduced to analyze impacts of CBFM related activities on forest conditions and livelihoods. As most important aspects related to CBFM, villagers identified timber for construction, production of farming equipment as well as environmental improvements (e.g. reduced soil erosion, increased soil fertility) that improved the output of their farming activities and

78 Evaluation of the Community Forestry Project in Kampong Chhnang, Burgess (1998) 79 National Community Forestry Program Cambodia, Concern (2002) 80 Example of Community Forestry Status in Chamkar Phnom Kly, Concern (2001)

27

therefore their livelihoods. The relationship and cooperation between the CFA and PFO should be improved and the forest management requires more effective technologies to secure needs of a rapid growing population. Nevertheless an independent evaluation of the project concluded “the project has resulted in significant economic, environmental and social benefits to the participating villages...”81 Concern has initiated a CF Program until end of 2005 to improve frame conditions for CBFM at national level and to extent their support to field implementation to 3 provinces with the intention to develop approaches towards management of forests for real economic benefits82. 3.2.4 Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project, IDRC/ RECOFTC, Koh

Kong The Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project located in the Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary in Koh Kong province has been implemented since 1997 by the MoE supported by IDRC. Overexploitation for charcoal production and destruction through conversion into shrimp farming areas caused degradation of the Mangrove forests resulting in negative impacts on fish populations and peoples livelihood. Most villagers are engaged in various numbers of subsistence and market-based livelihood activities and rely mainly on fishing, charcoal production and farming. The project provides support to capacity building for integrated CBNRM of coastal resources including participatory action research. Objectives are (1) to design participatory planning and management strategies, (2) to evaluate forms of organization at community level, (3) to assess sustainable livelihood options for communities based on the Mangrove ecosystem, (4) to promote participation of local communities in resource use, as well as capacity building and awareness creation.

It cooperates mainly with four provincial departments: (1) Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; (2) Environment, (3) Women’s Affairs and (4) Rural Development. At local level the PMMRP selected key persons as members of temporary resource committees. Based on an election process, official Village Resource Management Committees (see Figure 11) have been established with a central role in organizing user groups. The Chief of the VRMC is responsible for techniques, education and extension. The other tasks are divided among the first Vice Chief (administration, finance, planning and communication) and the 2nd Vice-Chief (guards and conflicts). In total 336 families did join the activities represented by various interest groups counting 15 to more than 30 members83.

81 Evaluation of the CF Project in Kampong Chhnang, Burgess (1998) 82 Community Forestry Program Cambodia, Concern (2002) 83 Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project-Annual Progress Report, Nong (2001)

28

Figure 11: Structure of the VRMC’s, PMMP84

1st Vice Chief

User Group User Group User Group User Group

2nd Vice Chief

User Group

Chief

Based on relevant legislatives and a participatory drafting process community regulations have been jointly developed involving Committee members, representatives of local authorities and villagers. A general planning process comprising 12 steps has been introduced to facilitate CBNRM. The elaboration of management plans has been initialized under the responsibility of the VRMC’s, setting priorities for the rehabilitation of degraded Mangrove areas. Further activities included resource use mapping and market surveys. The CBNRM process is driven by the VRMC’s and the communities. Environmental awareness has increased and there is growing demand from villagers and the government authorities to protect Mangrove resources. It has been recognized that the empowerment of local communities to manage coastal resources is an essential precondition. The introduction and preparation of a specific planning method for mangrove management, as well as the adoption of a Sub-decree on Community Fisheries is still necessary.

3.2.5 Community Based Natural Resource Management Project, CARERE, Ratanakiri In 1996 the Provincial Department of Environment, Agriculture, Tourism and IDRC collaborated together to prepare management plans for protected areas in Yeak Loam commune. The 3 pilot sites of this commune were integrated into the CARERE/ IDRC project in 1997 with the objectives to assist local communities to develop, test and implement methods and options for CBNRM with special emphasis on PLUP and community forestry. Further it aimed at improving the dialogue between communities and provincial authorities, capacity building at community and provincial level and the development of strategies for joint forest management85. The forest resources of the Som Thom and the Yeak Loam commune have been severely affected by logging activities, encroachment and land conversion for commercial agriculture. A multi-ethnic population comprising mainly Charai, Tampoun and Kreung ethnic minority groups characterizes the communes. Currently population density per land area has fallen below 1.5 hectares per person. A major threat for CBNRM in the uplands is the disturbance of traditional management systems and cultural degradation, which leads to the destruction of traditional natural resources protection systems, causing uncontrolled use of the natural resource without internal control mechanisms in place. A preparatory process with four distinctive steps at provincial and community level (see Annex 9) has been introduced by the project to prepare for more specific planning 84 Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project, Nong (2002) 85 Community Based Natural Resource Management – Project Steps and Processes, Sovanna (1999)

29

procedures like PLUP and Planning for Community Forestry. Both processes usually occur simultaneously in the village. PLUP comprises 8 steps and the planning procedure for Community Forestry 9 steps (see Annex 9). The NRM Committee members facilitate the planning processes and the formulation of Land Use Management and Community Forestry plans, as well as the formulation of regulations after consultation with neighboring villagers and other stakeholders86. Village Community Forestry Committees (VCFC) and Commune Community Forestry Committees (CCFC) have been created through free election of their members by the respective villages. Members of the CCFC have been selected from representatives of the VCFC (see Figure 12). The tasks of the VCFC focus on the facilitation of participatory NRM in the respective village, including planning, implementation, patrolling, as well as conflict resolution within the village. Figure 12: Structure of the VCFC, CBNRM Ratanakiri87

Advertising/ Education Section

Cash Box Section Patrol Section

Vice Chairman

Patrol Group Patrol Group Patrol Group

Chairman

The CCFC facilitates mainly capacity building, awareness creation and facilitate conflict resolution between villages. Successful procedures for the solution of land conflicts have been identified, involving communities (e.g. leaders, representatives), private companies, provincial authorities (e.g. Conflict Resolution Committee), provincial governors and technical institutions (e.g. Department of Urbanization, Construction and Cadastre). Reasons for successful conflict resolution have been expressed by a village head as following: “I think the success of conflict resolution depends on the participation of villages and the strong support from local authorities and technical institutions.”88

Land use maps including land use zoning, management guidelines and community forestry management plans have been developed. The CBFM is based on a 25-year lease contract with the provincial authorities89. Revenues from the forests are spent for resources development and protection, as well as village development. Trust building and transparency through cooperation and dialogue between communities and government authorities are considered important preconditions for CBNRM and CBFM. The applied approach tried to avoid conflicts through the application of participatory planning methods, to facilitate the integration of traditional resource use practices and indigenous knowledge. 86 Community Based Natural Resource Management – Project Steps and Processes, Sovanna (1999) 87 Memorandum and Articles of Community Forestry Som Thom Commune, CBNRM (2001) 88 Successful Land Conflict Resolution, Sreymom (2001) 89 Scoping Report, Community Based Natural Resource Management in Cambodia, Kalyan (2000)

30

3.2.6 Community Forestry Initiative MCC, Takeo The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) initiated community-based reforestation in Takeo province in 1992. It was one of the first CBFM initiatives in Cambodia and officially recognized by the MAFF. The purpose was to support village-based organizations to support CBFM and relevant development activities. It pursued a need-based approach to build up management capacities at village level and to demonstrate viable options for managing degraded forestland. App. 500 ha of former government plantation and degraded forest areas have been initially allocated to be jointly managed by 12 villages. The number increased to 18 villages in 199590. Land has been allocated to communities, as well as to individual households. The rehabilitation of degraded land through the establishment of plantations was a respond to the increased need for fuel wood by the local communities. Still roughly 20 to 35% of the villagers depend on purchased fuel wood to meet their needs91. Until recently 220 ha of pure and mixed plantations with exotic (e.g. Acacia, Eucalyptus) and indigenous tree species (e.g. Dipterocarpus, Hopea), as well as fruit trees (e.g. Cashew nuts) mixed with forest trees in Agroforestry systems have been established. The plantations are managed under short (7 years) and long-term (60 years) management schemes. According to the short-term management scheme thinning is carried out in the third year (30%), fifth year (30%) and sixth year (40%). App. 50 ha have been delineated as protection forest. In each village community forests have been delineated, mapped and annual implementation plans, as well as monitoring reports elaborated. The delineation of community forest areas was not yet integrated into a PLUP procedure. Inter-village Community Forestry Development Associations (CFDA) have been created to facilitate and monitor primarily CBFM activities, but also social development. Village Development Committees (VDC) have been established to be responsible for CBFM activities. Both, CFDA and VDC members have been elected by the village representatives. One of the Tree Planting Stations under the DFW did represent the central authorities. The benefits derived from forest resources have been shared between involved families (20%), governmental authorities (20%), the CFDA and the VFC92. Saving and credit schemes have been introduced and rice banks were set-up to support farmers to invest in various commercially oriented activities and to secure food security. Growing awareness of the villagers related to the benefits of rehabilitating degraded land through the establishment of plantations has been witnessed by increasing requests to support community based rehabilitation activities. The support by MCC to the CFDA phased out in 2002. 3.2.7 Community Forestry Initiative Senti Sena, Svay Rieng The CNGO Senti Sena headed by the monk Mr. Kim Teng, created this initiative in 1996 supported by Oxfam Great Britain. It currently implements activities in 10 villages involving 1680 families in two districts in the Svay Rieng province. The forests cover is less than 3% of the provincial territory and almost 90% of the population depends on fuel wood for cooking purposes. The initiative is based on an agreement between Senti Sena and the PFO and has been approved by the DFW. The objectives are to improve environmental management and promote cultural as well as religious practices in sustainable management of natural resources, especially related to reforestation activities. A Community Forestry Committee (CFC) has been established to facilitate planning and implementation activities. Regulations

90 Community in Cambodia. A Briefing Paper, Henderson (1998) 91 Natural Resources and Livelihood in Cambodia, McKenney (2002) 92 Regulation of Inter-village Community Forestry Development Association, Samhath (1994)

31

and management plans have been prepared, but the delineation of areas was not yet integrated into a PLUP procedure. Activities are supported by monks, who also are involved in environmental awareness creation in Buddhist temples. Buddhism as a belief system and a way of life has always promoted traditional community and cultural values and identification with the nature. Buddhist principles offer solutions for dealing with problems behind environmental destruction, ranging from the greed which causes people to cut forests and poverty, which forces villagers to misuse natural resources. Buddhist temples are symbolic centers of Cambodian rural communities and therefore a suitable and potentially effective channel for environmental education and awareness creation campaigns93. The strong connection that people once felt with nature is illustrated in the story of Buddha’s life, in which the most significant events occurred in rural settings and were associated with trees. As the spiritual leader of Cambodian Buddhism, Samdech Preah Maha Goshananda stated: “People and forests are connected. If we take care of ourselves we will take care the forests and the forests will take care for us in return.” 3.3 Implications and Recommendations 3.3.1 General Consideration Cambodia has failed to introduce SFM since more than 20 years despite intensive efforts. There is a strong need to explore forest management alternatives, as the concession system has failed. So far reasonably well-stocked forests have been available for commercial exploitation through the concession system and degraded forests have been managed by communities. CBFM needs to be recognized as a means for achieving SFM for larger forest areas including well-stocked forests. SFM in Cambodia would require reducing harvest volumes of about 10 m3, equal to 1-3 trees per ha94, which would be appropriate for sound CBFM but not economically viable for a concessionaire. Although they have better technical and financial resources, their interest is limited to timber-rich forests. Cambodia’s rural people are a major human resource that, with appropriate incentives, can be engaged in managing these forests resulting in wide scale improvements in forest management95. To address successfully deforestation, the cooperation and participation of local communities will be an essential element. Therefore the security of land tenure and user rights is one of the most critical factors in obtaining initial participation and enduring support of communities for forest management and protection. Priority issues for the development of CBFM at field level are to clarify land tenure, to strengthen the capacities of CF groups and associations, to document and built upon field based initiatives to show effectiveness of CBFM and to formulate clear planning processes and procedures. Organizational aspects are, to develop linkages between national and provincial line agencies, to provide opportunities for national level authorities to better understand field realities and to support organizational management for CBFM planning and implementation. Institutional issues are related to clear policy guidelines and improved twinning and collaboration between donors. A CF Program based on action plans is necessary to address still constraining issues for further development of CBFM in Cambodia. The CF Program will be a part and implemented within the frame of the NFP process. The elaboration of a CF Action Plan by a multi-

93 Cry from the Forest, CBI (2003) 94 Baseline Assessment of Cambodias Forestry Sector, McKenney (2001) 95 Community Forestry Guidelines, Fraser (2000)

32

institutional team of key persons (e.g. a task force) would have to be supported by the international donor community. Such an action plan should comprise all issues aspects related to institutional and legal framework development, capacity building measures, an extension strategy, information exchange and management, networking mechanisms, funding and research activities. Figure 13: Elements of the CF Program

Research

CF Forestry Program National

Program CF

Action Plan

Capacity Building

Institutional Development

Networking

Legal Framework

Development

Information Management

Extension Strategy

Frame conditions for CBFM will improve further through continued decentralization efforts, the enhanced land tenure security by promoting PLUP and the refinement of the legal and institutional framework. The reduction of forest areas under concession management creates a management vacuum and the need to introduce other forms of forest management to avoid further resource degradation and conversion into other land management forms. Mutual understanding and cooperation between relevant governmental agencies, especially on national level is essentially necessary. Final top-down decisions, neglecting results of long reconciliation processes of stakeholders, should be avoided as they cause frustration and disappointment by different stakeholders. Appropriate benefit sharing arrangements are necessary to provide income for communities, as well as revenues for the Government. 3.3.2 Policy and Legal Framework Development Policy development should consider the following aspects: (1) to be developed with broad-based participation of relevant stakeholders considering field experiences, (2) a transparent development process involving public participation, (3) allowing modification to be responsive for operational experiences, (4) political support for implementation, (5) the coordination of policies with implementation strategies, (6) the communication in local languages and (7) the support programs that create capacities for implementation96. 96 Linking Government with Community Resource Management, Poffenberger (1997)

33

It would be of utmost importance that the CF Sub-decree with the contents of the version from February 2002 would be endorsed as soon as possible. Further refinement of the legal framework could be achieved through reconciled elaboration of Declarations or Circulars through the DFW supported by the CFWG and the international donor community to be approved by the MAFF. They will provide guidance for the implementation of existing Laws and Sub-decrees. The formulation of these legislatives should still secure flexibility to be able to reflect sufficiently local conditions in rules and regulations at local level. Policies and legislatives should be further developed in a consultative way, involving stakeholder from national down to the local level to reflect the multi-institutional nature of CBFM. Therefore further support to existing multi-stakeholder forum (e.g. CFWG) and NGO’s is needed to secure the adequate involvement of interests of communities into policy development processes, to facilitate transparency, cooperation, information exchange and create mutual trust between the different stakeholders. Willingness and commitment is needed to create and maintain partnerships among the different actors to guarantee progress and long-term success. The process of monitoring, reviewing and adjustment is best facilitated by these platforms, which also provide feedback on how initiatives are implemented and if they meet local needs. Such an interactive feedback and review process would secure a gradual refinement of policies and legislatives based on changing frame conditions and needs from the society. Improving the research – policy linkage would contribute to provide scientific information for policy making processes. Awareness creation for government officials at national and local level is necessary, as well as for communities and can be achieved through dissemination of target group oriented materials.

3.3.3 Institutional Development and Capacity Building It is important to clarify on roles, structures and mandates of institutional entities and actors related to CBFM to avoid duplication of efforts and to use existing human and financial capacities in a more focused and efficient way. To overcome the separation between the involved institutions and initiate integration through intensified cooperation would be needed to promote CBFM on larger scale. Expanding interest and commitment in CBFM requires the development and strengthening of in-country capacities for related training with appropriate training contents and materials capable of reaching large numbers of participants from a variety of target groups at reasonable costs. Capacity building for governmental staff, especially at provincial and district level is urgently needed. Capacity building provided by key persons from various institutions (e.g. DFW, MoE, RUA) should be continued and comprise workshops, seminars, excursions and training courses. Forestry staff, especially at local level should be aware of technical issues related to CBFM, but also of community development concepts, relevant planning instruments (e.g. PLUP, forest management planning), conflict management and extension methodologies. The promotion of existing networks will facilitate experience exchange and capacity building.

The strengthening of bilateral linkages to regional capacity building institutions (e.g. RECOFTC) will secure the systematic built-up of in-country training capacities through national training programs. Besides training on CBFM adapted to the national context support for trainers and training program managers is needed. The support to the institutionalization of the learning cycle (see Figure 14) of the CBNRM learning and sharing initiative should be considered.

34

Figure 14: Learning Cycle CBNRM97

Capacity Building

Networking

Policy Support

Lessons Learning ReflectionAction

Conclusion

Experience

Capacity building for governmental staff should be based on a needs analysis. The training must be structured and organized in a systematic way. The principle of a cascade training will follow the following steps: identification of participants, training needs analysis, development of training programs, identification of training providers, development of training activities, delivery of training, evaluation of effectiveness and follow-up. 3.3.4 Extension System and Services It is necessary to elaborate a comprehensive extension strategy involving all relevant stakeholders. Extension services should be a demand-driven service provided by governmental authorities in close cooperation and complementation with NGOs. Suggestions related to future needs and action to be taken have been reflected already with different extent in the following existing documents (a) Institutional Arrangements for Forestry Extension98, (b) development of a need based forestry extension information system99 and (c) thorough analysis of extension demands100. The FEU at the DFW should provide Subject Matter Specialists to train and support provincial FEU’s and to cooperate with the DAE of MAFF. It is not necessary to increase the staff number of the FEU, but to place significant efforts to improve needed capacities through training based on a training needs analysis. A National Extension Working Group should be established involving the FEU and the DAE to exchange experiences, to coordinate extension efforts and facilitate joint training (e.g. extension methodology). Together extension packages for farm forestry and Agroforestry should be developed. Experiences with extension approaches (e.g. FAO) should be analyzed and evaluated to synthesize models for larger scale application. Extension related to CBFM should facilitate

97 Project Profile CBNRM Case Study and Network Initiative, CBNRM (2001) 98 Institutional Arrangements for Forestry Extension in Cambodia, West (2001) 99 Report of a First Stage Development of a Needs Based Forestry Extension Info System, Helmers (2001) 100 An Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002)

35

the transfer of knowledge, skills and technologies to all relevant stakeholders in the forestry sector. Essential precondition is a functioning communication structure and platforms (e.g. existing networks). The use of the Forest Rehabilitation and Extension Stations under the DFW for extension purposes should be increased, as they are still to much focused on technical aspects (e.g. seedling production). The mandate should shift to provide training to staff from PFO and villagers and their integration into a possible network of Regional Extension Centers. They should coordinate and provide extension mainly for PFO and CNGO’s staff as transmitter to villagers. Considering interactions of agricultural and forestry activities at local level, it is suggested to establish close linkages and intensive cooperation with the agricultural extension system from the DAE at national and provincial level (see Annex 5). It is already well established and currently widely in use because of intensive support by CAAEP/ AusAID. Detailed descriptions of institutional settings and responsibilities exist101. The integration of forestry components into existing agricultural extension programs and the formation of joint extension teams at provincial level would lead to more efficiency, synergies and reduce costs while each department would maintain control over their own staff. The development of a pure forestry extension service would create problems, because of the limited human and financial resources, especially at provincial level. It will further promote the separation from other sectors and would not reflect common decentralization efforts and realities at community level. Forestry extension staff operating down to district level would be administratively and technically responsible to the Chief of PFO who is answerable to the Director of the provincial DAFF. Important for the capacity building at community level are key farmers (VFC), which would receive extension services by FEU of the PFO at the provincial DAFF, NGO’s and the private sector.

The establishment of a Forestry Extension Information System integrated into the FEU of the DFW will contribute to the adequate dissemination of information and materials. It will provide a system to collate, catalogue and analyze extension resource materials, enhance capacity for material translation from English into Khmer, improve the information flow between field extension workers and rural people based on their information needs and to improve the feedback on already existing and disseminated extension materials. Building up a pilot information system components to match priority needs, will increasingly play a role in networking among forestry extension stakeholders.

It is necessary to continue the process of developing extension packages and materials for different target groups and various socio-economic and biophysical conditions. Extension packages could be replicated nationwide in regions where the same problems, opportunities and socio-economic, as well as ecological conditions exist. For the refinements of the extension categories it is suggested to take regional zones and their cultural and socio-economic specifics into consideration and relate them to: (1) Uplands (e.g. Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri), (2) Lowlands (e.g. Pursat, Kampong Chhnang), (3) Mekong and Tonle Sap (e.g. Stung Treng, Siem Reap) and (4) Coastal areas (e.g. Koh Kong, Kampong Som). The following conditions for them can be described: Uplands: forest areas in mountainous areas, collective forest use by ethnic minority groups

based on traditional knowledge and practices, strong dependence for livelihood of local people, application of swidden agricultural systems and “shifting cultivation” intensive use of NTFP’s, existence of logging concessions, high forest cover (>80%), relatively well stocked forests, (e.g. Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri, Preah Vihear, Stung Treng), low population densities, evergreen and semi-evergreen forest types are dominating.

101 The Organization Structure, Roles and Responsibilities of the Offices at the DAE, DAE (2000)

36

Lowlands: forest areas in the plains, communities less dependent on forest for securing their livelihood, pure agricultural systems common, high population density, forests degraded and low forest cover, absence of logging concessions, conversion of degraded forests into agricultural concessions, reforestation activities, not subject to seasonal floods, deciduous forest type is dominating, existence of plantations.

Flooded Forest: forests seasonally flooded, around the Tonle Sap Lake and the Mekong

River, strong interdependence of local people on fishing, very often / big portions part of commercial fishing lots, high population density, forests important for biological balance and fish reproduction, important for flood mitigation, people dependent on forest products (fire wood/ construction), clearing for agriculture in dry season.

Coastal areas: Mangrove forest in inter-tidal areas, people dependent on use of timber (fire

wood, charcoal production, construction), shrimp farming, mangroves important for protection of coastal areas, reproduction of fish, cultivation of shells and crab farming, major threats from clearing for shrimp farming and cutting for industrial charcoal production.

Extension materials should be developed in line with the results from the analysis related to extension demands, which has been a part of the nationwide study on CF initiatives. Demands are related to organizational, managerial, legal and technical matters. The highest demand has been determined in the fields of (1) leadership and management skills, (2) concepts of CBFM, (3) guidelines on planting, harvesting and maintaining and (4) legal matters. These subjects are followed by interest in forest management techniques, fire protection, silviculture and management planning102. Experiences from good examples for material development should be promoted (e.g. FLET). An assessment of existing materials produced by various organizations has been initiated to analyze contents and their effectiveness, before producing extension materials suitable for government staff, civil society, NGO’s and communities. A systematic and institutionalized capacity building system has to be developed by creating a network of regional extension centers reflecting on the specific conditions. The creation of a national master trainer pool could facilitate the qualification of staff from national, as well as provincial level and national NGOs based on a systematic in-service training based on training needs analysis. The provision of extension for local communities should be based on identified extension demands. The improvement of the extension – research linkages is a necessary precondition for the advancement of extension approaches and to participatory technology development. This can be achieved through intensified cooperation between the extension authorities FEU and with institutions with research capacity (e.g. RUA/ CFRP/ CDRI) and should be based on the implementation of participatory research activities. To be able to react on growing extension demands on a long term, it is important to create a self-financed extension system. Such a system will only work, if the financial constraints of the local authorities are addressed in the medium term. If this cannot be secured the extension services can most likely not be sustained in the long run and will rely on outside support. The assistance from NGO’s at grass-root level will be a necessary element to strengthen capacities on village level. Future extension services could be supplementary financed through generated income through commercial use of forest resources by communities and gradually introducing fees for provided services. 102 An Assessment of Ongoing Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia, Fichtenau (2002)

37

3.3.5 Information Management and Awareness Creation It is suggested to continue the establishment of the Community Forestry Database that has been initiated with support from SMRP in 2002. It aims to provide detailed information on CF initiatives and related publications. Unfortunately this database could only be completed to app. 80% due to the cessation of the SMRP end of 2002 and financial constraints. The Community Forestry Database Working Group has been created to assume responsibility for the finalization of the database and to develop a strategy for its future management. The working group comprises representatives of the Information Management Unit (IMU), DFW, CGFP, DED and Concern. The Community Forestry Database can be used by various stakeholders (e.g. RGC, NGOs, networks, universities, donors) and provide information on CBFM in Cambodia for decision-making, policy development, advocacy and educational purposes. To ensure good accessibility a multi-stakeholder group (e.g. CFWG, CFN) should owe and manage the database103. The IMU of the DFW should up-date and maintain the database, which will require initial financial and technical support. Information’s will be made accessible and disseminated bilingual in English and Khmer using various mediums. It is suggested to link it with other databases related to NRM (e.g. database at Community Fisheries Office, RECOFTC). Information management and awareness creation has been promoted significant through the establishment of the Regional Information System on Participatory Natural Resources Management - www.mekonginfo.org - supported by SMRP (GTZ/MRC). The existence of the website secures easy accessibility of existing publications, case studies, reports and research papers. 3.3.6 Scaling-up and Replication of Existing Models An important precondition for a successful scaling-up of CBFM approaches is the further improvement of frame condition, especially the institutional arrangements for CF and extension capacities, secure tenure and user rights through continued PLUP, refinement of existing Laws and Sub-decrees through instructions and regulations, as well as the intention to extend CBFM to production forests. The application of CBFM at larger scales can further only be achieved if this process receives enduring support and commitment by policy and decision-making authorities, as well as practitioners. Model application at local level has to be based on a certain degree of flexibility related to processes, approaches, organizational arrangements and technical interventions based on an understanding of the socio-economic conditions. Decision on multiplication of developed approaches based on criteria like existence of several years of experiences with planning and implementation and subsequent refinements, the achievement of a certain area coverage and the involvement of a critical number of villages, sound technical interventions sufficiently applied and based on principles of biological and social sustainability, as well as economic feasibility. It is possible to apply three basic concepts of community-based management at larger scale in Cambodia. (1) Community Forestry understood in the way, that the forest management is based on communal tenure and user rights, even though it is widely used to describe people-based forms of forest management. This approach is currently practiced by the majority of the CF Initiatives for degraded forests (e.g. FAO, CBNRM, Concern). (2) Joint Forest Management (JFM) is another form of CBFM that could be an alternative option to the concession system. JFM is a form of collaborative management and is based on (1) the 103 Community Database Discussion Paper, Duemmer (2003)

38

arrangements for management are negotiated by multiple stakeholders and are based on a set of rights and privileges recognized by the government and widely accepted by resource users and (2) the process for sharing power among stakeholders to make decisions and exercise control over resource use. It is therefore a system where forest resources are managed through a partnership between communities and governmental authorities, thus contributing to livelihood and income of local people and the national economy. First attempts to JFM have taken place in Ratanakiri province. But institutional set-ups, benefit-sharing arrangements, procedures and interventions are still lacking. (3) Farm forestry involves the promotion of tree planting by farmers on private lands, e.g. through free and low-priced seedlings, decentralized nurseries, tax exemption or through benefit sharing arrangements. It provides an option for the rehabilitation of degraded forestland by individuals, especially in regions with low forest cover (e.g. MCC initiative). The integrated community forestry approach applied by the Community Based Natural Resource Management Project (CARERE/ IDRC) in Ratanakiri with extensive experiences related to planning and implementation of community based traditional management of natural forests could be replicated as a model under similar uplands conditions. In Lowland areas models related to reforestation as well as the management of mainly degraded forests have to be taken into consideration. The approach and experiences gained with reforestations in the MCC Initiative would help to rehabilitate highly degraded forestland. Beside communal reforestation, farm forestry should be more promoted through benefit sharing schemes and tax exemptions. Existing examples from Laos could be taken into consideration (e.g. FORCAP). Models including procedures for planning and technical interventions developed and applied by the Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region Project (FAO) in Siem Reap and the CF Initiative (Concern) in Kampong Chhnang could be replicated in degraded forests under lowland conditions. Their application in better stocked forests experiences from Laos (e.g. FOMACOP) could be considered especially related to benefit sharing arrangements and technical interventions. The approach developed by the Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region Project could be replicated in areas covered by inundated forests. Coastal areas: The integrated approach developed and applied by the Participatory Management of Mangrove resources Project (IDRC/ RECOFTC) could be replicated in coastal areas for the management of Mangroves including developed planning procedures and technical interventions (e.g. rehabilitation). 3.3.7 Conflict Management PLUP should be the basis and precondition for CBFM with the aim to avoid land conflicts, which are currently one of the most common conflicts between villages, as well as between villagers and outsiders. The participation of all stakeholders in this process will secure transparency and PLUP becomes therefore an effective method to prevent conflicts. Many of the CF initiatives gained experiences in dealing with emerging conflicts. Successful conflict management mechanisms related to CBFM involve the conflict partners and the stepwise facilitation of the process through external authorities. Usually a committee at local level (e.g. VFC, RDC) analyzes the conflict involving relevant stakeholders and organizes a village meeting to discuss steps for solving the conflict and necessary support from outside. A proposal for an agreement on expected results agreeable to both conflict partners will be drafted and representatives of the Commune Council, military and provincial authorities are being informed. The involvement of representatives of CNGO’s might be considered to mediate in serious cases. A meeting at provincial level involving the conflict parties, representatives of the community (e.g. committee members), the military, the chief of the

39

village, commune council and technical Departments are organized to discuss the drafted proposal. After agreeing on the proposal it is signed by the conflict parties and acknowledged by provincial authorities. In general, conflicts should be addressed initially at the level where they occur. If resolution fails at that level, the conflict should be referred to a higher level, including the relevant provincial authorities (e.g. Land Conflict Resolution Committee). Existing processes and procedures should be better documented and shared within the frame of experience exchange (e.g. network meetings) to make them transparent and create awareness. Experience exchange related to conflict resolution mechanisms among villagers and between communities and outsiders should be promoted. 3.3.8 Networking Networks at different levels involving various stakeholders are already well established and very active in various fields. Existing networks on national as well as local level should be further supported to promote information exchange, capacity building, policy and legislative development and create a stronger lobby for CBFM within the national context. They are the most important platforms where governmental institutions come together to discuss related issues and coordinate activities. To create linkages between networks in Cambodia and other relevant networks at national and regional scale would be fruitful for the strengthening of CBFM in Cambodia. 3.3.9 Research Research has to play an important supportive function, especially through the documentation of activities and the generation of relevant information’s related to CBFM to be provided for policy-making processes, decision making, extension services and the refinement of approaches and technologies. Research should reflect the complexity of CBFM and cover existing linkages to other sectors of natural resources management (e.g. PLUP). It should therefore be related to policy and legal aspects (e.g. land and resource tenure arrangements), organization and management (e.g. organizational arrangements and capability development at village level), socio-economic and cultural issues (e.g. indigenous knowledge, gender), as well as technical aspects (e.g. management planning).

A thorough compilation of past research work and results is needed as a basis for setting priorities and making decisions on future research topics. Research results have to be synthesized periodically (e.g. Best Practice Studies) to develop scientific-based models for scaling-up processes under similar socio-economic and biophysical conditions. Multidisciplinary research should be promoted to reflect on issues related to CBFM within the context of CBNRM. The research-education linkage is important for the continuous adjustment and development of syllabi and teaching materials of related subjects and will have to contribute to the improvement of the teaching and learning process at RUA and PNSA. They also have to be considered for the preparation of short-term training courses for different target groups. Research-policy linkages should secure the provision of reliable data related to CBFM to policy-making authorities and to be considered for policy-formulation processes. More interaction and collaboration through networking and information exchange among the different actors are needed to avoid duplication of research efforts and to use financial and human capacities more efficient. A coordinating and leading institutional entity (e.g. CDRI, RUA) is required to take over a leading function on national scale integrating relevant

40

institutions (e.g. IFWR) and international organizations. The capacity of personnel from relevant institutions needs to be strengthened and further developed to keep pace with modern knowledge on research methods and approaches related to social and technical forestry research. Research results have to be adequately documented and disseminated using various media.

3.3.10 Financing and Benefit Sharing As resources have been focused on developing the concession system, community forestry has been marginalized so far. Because of growing attention during the past years as a potential alternative to the forest concession system, CBFM should be a priority for donor support. In order to achieve SFM the RGC will continue to require technical and financial assistance. Community based reforestation could be financed through the use of the reforestation tax that has been imposed on all forest concessionaires since 1994 with rates ranging from 2.00 to 2.60 US$ per m3 payable to the DFW104. With increasing importance of CBFM and therefore increasing demands for various elements (e.g. extension, research) the provision of sufficient and adequate financial resources has to be secured. Beside governmental funds from the RGC to support relevant line agencies in implementing CBFM, external funding is needed to guarantee further advancement due to the decrease of revenues from Forest Concessions in form of royalties (decreased from ~17,2 Mio $ in 1994 to ~87 000 $ in 2002), as well as the reforestation fee (decrease from ~200 000 US$ in 1994 to ~89 000 $ in 2002) and an inadequate national budget105. Existing CBFM initiatives currently focus on rehabilitation and use of degraded forests, with the objective to conserve the existing forests to enable their gradual recovery. Use is limited to the collection of NTFP’s and firewood. Even for the few examples of better-stocked forests, commercial use of timber is still not yet on the agenda and benefit sharing arrangements between government authorities and communities do not exist. Forestry authorities still seem to avoid that well stocked forests are commercially oriented managed by rural communities, even though it would be a viable option to generate revenues for local communities, as well as the governmental authorities. Adequate funds are required and the success of fund raising will depend on the creation of awareness that CBFM has significant potentials for larger scale application. The NRM Donor Working Group should be addressed to support the scaling-up of appropriate models, extension, capacity building and research. As a complementary step the RGC should use the Forest Development Fund administered jointly by the National Forest Development Committee at MAFF and the Ministry of Economy and Finance for community based reforestation and forest management in line with the Forestry Law. To stimulate reforestation efforts financial support schemes and land and resource tax exemptions for established plantations are necessary. The majority of the community forests is highly degraded and need intensive rehabilitation efforts prior further commercial utilization. Income generation by communities will therefore be very limited in the medium term. The objective will be merely focus the to secure self-consumption and to contribute to livelihood of the rural population. Reforestation and forest rehabilitation requires considerable initial investment considering determined costs for reforestation (240 to 500 US$/ ha) and enrichment planting in degraded forests (187 US$/

104 The Valuation of Community Forestry Products in Pursat Province, Limchun (2000) 105 Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002, DFW (2003)

41

ha)106. Without comprehensive financial support to rural communities, as well as individual farmers rehabilitation of significant areas cannot be achieved. In the medium term the commercialization of forest products from CBFM is necessary to derive tangible benefits for communities and governmental authorities, being a viable option to contribute to income generation of rural households and national economic growth. 3.4. CBFM in the Context of Watershed Management WSM is a fairly new concept in Cambodia and policies as well as concepts are only emerging. A Royal Decree on Watershed Management was issued in 1998 outlining the importance of protecting natural resources in watersheds and instructing the RGC to develop and prepare sub-decrees and instructions. The development of comprehensive national policy on WSM is complicated because of overlapping mandates of various institutions. Policies on decentralization with the focus on the establishment and strengthening of Commune Councils are an important precondition for WSM implementation, promoting participatory planning approaches and attempting to integrate natural resource management into local planning processes. Integrated Watershed Management “is the co-coordinated multi-stakeholder management of land, water and other natural resources within a region, with the objectives of conserving or rehabilitating resources and environment, ensuring biodiversity, minimizing land degradation, achieving specified and agreed land and water management targets and promoting social and economic development.”107 Inter-sector planning and implementation approach often faces difficulties, especially because of various interests of involved institutions. This creates the need for coordination and commitment at higher political level to come away from the old sector thinking. Forests in Cambodia play an essential role in supporting rural livelihoods and provide a range of non-extractive values, including cultural and spiritual values, rich flora and fauna diversity, and ecological services, like stabilization of watersheds to regulate flooding and silting levels. Especially the mountainous provinces in the Northeast harbor important watersheds. The Se San and Sre Pok rivers flow from Vietnam through Ratanakiri and together with the Se Gong River from Laos contribute 15% of the delta flow of the Mekong River. Fisheries biodiversity and productivity is high, with more than 200 species in Ratanakiri, the two rivers are important spawning grounds for migratory species108. Priority catchments in Cambodia are: Se San in Ratanakiri and Stung Treng; Sre Pok within Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri and Stung Treng; Stung Pursat wholly in Cambodia, Stung Mongkol Borey in Bantey Meanchey and Battambang, Stung Sreng in Siem Reap and Otdar Meanchey, and Stung Sen in Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. Traditional systems of forest management in uplands are very specific. Spirit forests are maintained within community boundaries and provide conservation of forests and wildlife. Village forest conservation areas tend to be old-growth forests that are used for hunting and NTFP collection. The swidden system provides watershed protection and biodiversity conservation as it maintains a mosaic of forest at different stages of generation109. Swidden agriculture is the most important economic activity of indigenous people beside forest and water use, especially the collection of NTFP’s, and fishing110. Studies have revealed that this

106 Development of Forest Management Plans for Forest Rehabilitation and Extension Stations, Yoshida (2002) 107 Basin Development Plan-Regional Sector Overview Watershed Management, MRC (2002) 108 Structural Analysis of Deforestation in Cambodia, Bottomley (2000) 109 Ethnicity and Forest Resource Use and Management in Cambodia, Daren (2000) 110 Traditional Resource Tenure and Livelihood Systems of Ethnic Minorities, Paterson (1999)

42

is a sustainable land use practice provided that the low population density and the traditional tenure system are maintained. It preserved up to 50% of old growth forests maintained as sacred forests and for the collection of NTFP’s. Secondary forests made up for 40% and open swidden fields only for 4% of the total village territory. Positive effects related to WSM are: (1) no ploughing is applied and soil erosion is less than with modern cultivation methods, (2) small plots are cleared avoiding runoff and soil erosion, (3) no external inputs are needed and therefore there are no contaminations with chemicals and (4) forests rapidly regenerate as seed sources are still sufficient available in the surroundings. To be effective poverty reduction and sustainable rural development efforts must take into account the close linkage between rural livelihoods and natural resources, in particular the forests. 85% of the rural population depends on agriculture, fisheries and forest resources to support their livelihood, 80% of them are subsistent. Most rely on one rice harvest per year, fish and a range of forest products, such as fuel wood, timber, resin, wild fruits, vegetables and medicines. As common property resource, forests provide households a means to diversify their subsistence and income-generating activities, optimizing their labor during different seasons and balance agricultural failures111. In-depth case studies of forest and community interactions did show significant dependency on forests by communities for a variety of food and non-food needs112. One of the key reasons for people to access forests are food insufficiencies caused by insufficient rice production. This especially applies for the northeastern provinces, where food shortages are a common phenomenon that affects 39% of the population with rice deficits for more than 2 months. Swidden agriculture takes place in areas of secondary forests and fallow periods of 8-15 years are observed. As such fallow periods allow sufficient regeneration of forests and recovery of soil fertility, they are a stable and sustainable form of food production, especially under the uncertain and difficult conditions in rural areas. At the same time these agricultural systems are high in biodiversity and do not require application of fertilizer and pesticides. Protecting and maintaining this traditional system could be a strategy for watershed protection and biodiversity conservation. Relocation of communities from their ancestral lands has been shown to lead to environmental degradation, as it is difficult to rebuild a sustainable system after replacing the people to other locations113. Natural forests widely serve as “safety nets” for rural communities, but it proves difficult to raise producer benefits significantly. When powerful actors from outside, e.g. concessions, resource use conflict raise and benefits for the rural poor are endangered. Protecting their access is vital for their livelihood. “The poor are not ignorant of the process of deforestation nor blind to its effects. They cut because they must.” Current benefits from natural forests to communities may be safeguarded as a defensive strategy, but it is difficult to raise benefits in a sustained manner, except redistributing timber profits and promoting commercial use of selected NTFP’s114. Studies have indicated that the dependence on low return forest product activities with limited or declining market prospects can perpetuate poverty115.

111 Natural Resources and Rural Livelihood in Cambodia, McKenney (2002) 112 Forestry and Food Security, WFP (2000) 113 Traditional Resource Tenure and Livelihood Systems of Ethnic Minorities, Paterson (1999) 114 Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests, Wunder (2001) 115 Clarifying the Links between Forests and Poverty Reduction, Arnold (2002)

43

4 Community Based Forest Management in Laos 4.1 National Frame Conditions 4.1.1 Country Background Information Laos is a landlocked country occupying app. 236 800 km2, almost 80% of the land surface are hilly and mountainous, only 9% is potentially arable land. It has been traditionally isolated amidst the booming regional economies in the neighboring countries. Major lifelines have developed along the Mekong floodplains and its tributaries in central and southern Laos. Especially the northern part is dominated by steep mountains.

The Lao P.D.R. was proclaimed in 1975. A constitution was adopted in 1991. Laos is a socialist country ruled by the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party that determines national policies through its Political Bureau and the Central Committee. In 1986 the “New Economic Mechanism” started to open up the Laotian economy, which lead to an annual economic growth of 5% to 8%. Structural reforms took place and the decentralization process has been initialized. The Fifth Party Congress in 1991 reaffirmed the government’s commitment to the development of a market-oriented economy. Within this frame the GoL also committed itself to decentralize the management of the natural resources. This process has been especially undermined in the year 2000 through the Instruction No. 01 issued by the PM that redefines the mandates and responsibilities of different hierarchy levels – from central down to the village level. In line with this the provinces are responsible for strategy development, the district for planning and budgeting, and the village for implementation.

Laos belongs to the Least Developed Countries (LDC). Its Government is firmly committed to free the country from underdevelopment and mass poverty, and to leave the LDC status by the year 2020. Poverty is especially widespread and severe in mountainous areas. The disadvantaged status of these areas is especially undermined by the fact that more than 50% of the population is living below the poverty line. The living conditions are characterized by insufficient access to services and markets, high illiterate rate, undernourishment and seasonal food shortages, and limited access to health care and education. The mountainous areas and their fragile ecosystems, characterized by a high ethnic and biological diversity, are nevertheless very important for securing strongly needed natural resources like timber and hydropower for the development of the national economy, as well as to provide various ecological services to the society. Laos is the most thinly populated country of mainland Southeast Asia with a total population of app. 5,2 Mio and a population density of 22 persons per km2. The majority of the population (83%) lives in rural areas, 66% of them relying on subsistence agriculture. The population growth rate of 2,5% belongs to the highest in the region. The population is heterogeneous with 230 distinct ethno-linguistic groups belonging to 4 linguistic families: Lao-Tai/ Tai Kadai (66,5%), Mon-Khmer (23,5%), Hmong-Mien/ Mia-Yao (7,5%) and Sino Tibetan (2,5%)116. 4.1.2 The Forestry Sector Forests contribute substantially to the national economy and the livelihood of the rural population. They provide a wide range of indispensable goods and environmental services. The forestry sector in Laos generates 7-10% of the GDP and provides 34% of total export

116 Participatory Poverty Assessment, Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious Minorities, Chamberlain (2002)

44

earnings. Forest royalties now provide 11% of total tax revenues, down from 20 % in the mid-nineties117. Wood products account for more than 30% of the total export revenues. Timber and NTFP’s are important not only for the national economy, they are also vital for securing the livelihood and cash income for almost one third of the population, especially in rural areas. Charcoal and fuel wood are still the dominant sources of energy and cooking, especially in rural areas. Under the centralized economy, 9 State Forest Enterprises (SFE’s) were established in the late 1970s, with each responsible for app. 200 000-300 000 ha of prime forest. With donor assistance and investment from the GoL, many of the SFE’s were equipped with modern logging machinery and large-scale wood processing factories. Huge financial losses to the government and the rapid degradation of forests caused that most of the SFE’s have been dissolved together with the majority of other State Owned Enterprises (SOE’s) after the Prime Minister has imposed a logging ban in 1991. Although Laos is still blessed with a rich forest resource base (forest area per capita 2,55 ha) compared to its neighboring countries in the Lower Mekong Basin (e.g. forest area per capita in Vietnam 0,12 ha), the forest cover has decreased from about 70% in the 1940’s to 47.2% (11.2 million ha) in 1989. Recent assessments by the MRC classified 9.6 million ha (40.6%) as forests in 1993 and 9,4 million ha or 39,7% in 1997118. More than half of the remaining forests are extremely degraded, with low stocking and productivity potential. Badly planned and executed timber extraction, illegal logging, forest conversion for permanent agricultural cultivation, pioneering shifting cultivation, forest fires, as well as infrastructure and hydropower development are therefore the main causes. In contrast, only 57,281 ha of timber plantations have been established during the past decade. Currently 106 production forest areas (PFA’s) exist in Laos with a total area of 3,207,000 ha119. Commercial logging is only permitted in the designated PFA’s with an approved management plan. In reality such plans rarely exist. It is further documented that current logging practices executed by the SOE’s, are based on a complex system of quotas and permissions, lacking clear procedures and are characterized by a poor accountability, as well as a lack of transparency leading to the loss of financial revenues for the GoL. Decentralization efforts and the restructuring of the SOE’s have promoted village-based management of forest resources. Although the area where village forestry approaches have been piloted are still limited in scale, they are the only PFA’s under properly planned and executed forest management so far120. The GoL is committed to preserve significant areas of natural forests to conserve the biological diversity and to maintain their productive, as well as their environmental and ecological functions121. So far 20 National Biodiversity Conservation Areas (NBCA’s) have been declared covering 3,3 million ha of natural forests equal to 12% of the total land area. Beside this, 201 conservation areas (1,4 million ha) and 75 protection forests (0,5 million ha) at provincial and district level have been established122. The forests harbor at least 10 000 species of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, bird, fish and vascular plants. Even taking the steady decline of the forest cover into consideration, Laos is still one of the biologically richest countries in the region. NTFP’s play a crucial role in rural household economies, are an important provider of food security (e.g. especially during emergencies) and contribute essential to the sustainable 117 Forestry Strategy to Year 2020-Draft, MAF (2003) 118 Lao P.D.R. Production Forestry Policy – Status and Issues for Dialogue, WB (2001) 119 Forestry Strategy to Year 2020-Draft, MAF (2003) 120 Lao P.D.R. Production Forest Policy – Status and Issues for Dialogue, WB (2001) 121 The Governments Strategic Vision for the Agriculture Sector, MAF (1999) 122 Review of the National Protected Area System in Lao P.D.R., Robichaud et. al.(2001)

45

livelihoods of the rural population. They have been ranked as 4th most important after rice, livestock and cash crops123, securing the subsistence needs and provide substantial cash earnings, in some cases up to 80%. NTFP’s are not only important for the rural and national economy; they also are an integral part of the rich biodiversity of Lao forests. Unsustainable management and the subsequent degradation of the forest resources, threatens already some of the NTFP’s (e.g. Eagle Wood, Aquilaria sp.) and will effect future biodiversity conservation efforts and their natural production potential124. 4.1.3 Emergence and History The GoL has created favorable preconditions for CBFM since the late 80’s through the introduction of the decentralization process. A Community Forestry Unit at the DoF has been established in 1993 supported by international NGO’s (CUSO, TERRA). The first initiative, the JFM in the Dong Khapo State Production Forest, started in 1993 with support from the Lao Swedish Forestry Program (LSFP). Community based reforestation has been initiated by the Industrial Tree Plantation Project (ITPP) supported by the ADB, and a few private companies (e.g. BGA, BURAPHA). The Forest Management and Conservation Project supported by the WB/ FINNIDA and GEF commenced in 1996, as one of the most significant initiatives in Laos. In the same year, the legislative frame conditions have been improved through the Adoption of the Forestry Law that encourages participatory management of forest resources, as well as the initiation of the nationwide LUP/ LA process through the Decree on Land Allocation for Management and Use issued by the Prime Ministers Office (PMO). Other projects supported by international donors related to Watershed Management and conservation followed integrating CBFM as a sub activity (e.g. NAWACOP, PROFEP). CBFM was further promoted through the development of specific policies in 1997, especially the Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation in Lao P.D.R. – Vision 2020 and the National Village Forestry Strategy defining the way for the development of CBFM in Laos. Another significant initiative related to community-based reforestation has been launched with the Forest Conservation and Afforestation Project (FORCAP) in Vang Vieng District assisted by JICA. In 2000/ 01 the most important initiatives, the FOMACOP and the JFM Dong Khapo, have been evaluated to decide upon further models for the scaling-up of community-based management of production forests. The NAFES has been established during 2001 as a result of the restructuring process at ministry level. Existing policies and laws related to CBFM have been further supplemented and specified by new decrees (e.g. No. 59/ PMO) and instructions (e.g. No. 10/ PMO). The formulation of the Forestry Strategy to the Year 2020 started in 2002 and the first draft is currently available. In this strategy the rights, roles and responsibilities of village based organizations and governmental agencies have been described and procedures, as well as revenue sharing arrangement are specified. In line with this new strategy and existing legislations, a new initiative supported by the WB will start to introduce the implementation of CBFM in production forests nationwide.

123 Existing Extension Approaches in Lao P.D.R., LEAP (2002) 124 The Use of NTFP’s in Lao P.D.R., Foppes, Ketphanh (1997)

46

4.1.4 Policies and Legal Framework The priorities of the GoL related to NRM and environmental conservation are advocated in various policy documents reflecting the intention to promote decentralized and community-based management and conservation of natural resources. Within the frame of the decentralization of the national economy, privatization of agricultural land and participatory management of natural forests are promoted as partnerships between local governmental authorities and rural communities. Beside agriculture, the GoL places high importance on the management of forest resources for poverty reduction and livelihood improvement. This has been underlined in the IPRSP by stating “Forest resources are potentially one of the country’s major sources of lasting poverty reduction”. Forest policy development has been initiated with the First National Forestry Conference in 1989 that lead to the elaboration of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan in 1991. Since then, forest policy went through a process of diversification evidenced by the elaboration of various strategies, laws and subsequent decrees.

The Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation in Lao P.D.R. – Vision 2020 from 1997 focuses on the conservation of biological diversity, rehabilitation of degraded areas, sustainable forest management, utilization of forest resources and links SFM and reforestation with the stabilization of shifting cultivation and the improvement of the living conditions of rural communities. The National Village Forestry Strategy was elaborated in 1997 to provide strategic guidance to decentralize forest management at provincial and district level, as well as to secure the participation of villagers. Village Forestry has been adopted as an official term for “Community Forestry” in Laos, specifically focusing on the management of natural forests. Village Forestry is defined as: “...the partnership between the state and organized villagers for the management of designated forests in order to sustain the flow of benefits, which are fairly shared by the villagers and the rest of the national community.” Village Forestry is understood (1) as a process rather than a predetermined output and (2) a continuum of approaches to people-oriented forest management with different intensities in the degree of participation.”125 The introduction and implementation of Village Forestry has been planned in three phases: (1) 1996-2000: piloting and system development phase through the introduction of various models supported by different donors, (2) expansion phase in which Village Forestry will be promoted extensively by the provincial and district authorities where it has been piloted and (3) large-scale implementation phase in which Village Forestry will be promoted to become extensively practiced nationwide.

The formulation of the Forestry Strategy to the Year 2020 was the result of a policy dialogue initiated in September 2000 during the 7th Round Table Meeting. The MAF has been appointed as the leading agency with a cross-ministerial steering committee established by the President of the Committee for Planning and Cooperation in April 2001. Several consultations and workshops were organized, a number of papers on status and issues in the sector produced and a first draft discussed at a meeting in July, 2003. The formulation process has been assisted and supported by SIDA and JICA. This strategy after being endorsed by the GoL will guide the development of the forestry sector in accordance with national socio-economic development plans and environmental conservation measures. It is the foundation for the formulation of annual and medium-term

125 National Village Forestry Strategy, MAF (1997)

47

forestry related work plans by the Government and cooperation programs with international donors126. After 1996, several laws related to forestry were approved and promulgated by the National Assembly, including the Forestry Law (1996), the Land Law (1997) and the Environment Protection Law (1999). The Forestry Law remains the governing legal document in Lao P.D.R., providing a framework and directions for all aspects of the forestry sector. Since then the MAF has issued several sets of regulations for its field implementation. Beside the sustainable management of natural forests, the promotion of tree planting has been a priority of the GoL during the last decade. With the Tree Plantation Development Plan until the year 2020 the GoL envisaged the establishment of app. 660 000 ha to reduce timber harvest from the natural forests and to increase the forest cover up to 60%. The legislative frame provides sufficient provisions to promote investment of farmers and the private sector127, especially related to permanent agricultural production systems and reforestation of degraded land through secure user rights and tax exemptions. The MAF Regulation on Management and Promotion of Sustainable Tree Plantation gives a comprehensive legal framework concerning tree planting and management. The GoL has created the necessary legal frame for the implementation of the participatory management of production forests including provisions related to the establishment and management of production forest areas, monitoring and implementation measures, the use of revenues, as well as rights and duties of the different stakeholders. Customary rights to access natural resources are acknowledged and secured. This is especially provided through the MAF Regulation No. 0535 (2001) and the PM Decree No. 59 (2002). The PM Decree Nº 59 on Sustainable Management of Production Forest has been issued, to address the shortcomings in production forest legislation. It provides provisions related to the establishment and management of production forests, and acknowledges the participation of villages in all aspects of their management, including planning, implementation, sale of timber and sharing of achieved benefits in accordance with contracts between villages and District authorities. 4.1.5 Tenure and Land Management Issues The formalization of land tenure through LUP/ LA has been addressed and initialized in Laos through the First National Agriculture and Forestry Conference in 1989 and was originally introduced as a strategic element to stabilize shifting cultivation activities, especially in the uplands. Tenure in Laos was traditionally obtained through the clearance of a piece of land for cultivation, particularly in rural areas, when the ownership rights remained even during fallow periods or through agreements made between concerned families and the village chief128. The LUP/ LA is now the basis for the national process of shifting from a socially accepted common land property with individual user rights towards a system based on certified land titles. The nationwide LUP/ LA process is aiming at providing tenure security for rural households to encourage private investment, to reduce shifting cultivation by promoting sedentarized land uses, and to conserve forest resources. Comprehensive procedures and methods have been developed and applied nationwide (see Table 5).

126 Forestry Strategy to the Year 2020-Draft, MAF (2003) 127 Tree Plantation for Livelihood Improvement Project, ADB (2002) 128 Forest Rehabilitation in Lao P.D.R. – Issues and Constraints, Gilmour/Tsechalicha (2000)

48

Table 4: Overview of the LUP/ LA Procedures in Laos

Main Activities Stages Eight-stage procedure129 Modified ten-stage procedure130

Stage 1 Preparation for the implementation of LUP and LA activities (training of staff/ preparation of materials, villager consultations).

LUP and LA preparation

Stage 2 Village boundary survey, land use zoning, forest surveys and land use mapping.

Village boundary delineation and land use zoning.

Stage 3 Data collection and analysis concerning land tenure, socio-economic conditions and needs. Data collection and analysis.

Stage 4 Village land use planning and land allocation meeting. Village land use plans.

Stage 5 Agricultural field measurements. Forest and agricultural land allocation decisions.

Stage 6 Preparation of forest and agricultural agreements and transferring rights to villagers.

Field measurements of agricultural lands.

Stage 7 Land use management extension. Forestry land agreements and transfer of rights to villagers.

Stage 8 Monitoring and evaluation LUP and LA information storage. Stage 9 - Agricultural land allocation records.

Stage 10 - Monitoring and evaluation. To initiate the process, 8 000 target villages were selected across the country located in priority areas, such as critical watersheds, protected areas and sites related to the shifting cultivation stabilization program. Initial emphasis was given to agricultural land. During the past decade approximately 5 400 villages, equal to about 50% of all villages in Laos, have completed the LUP/ LA process131. Although high commitment is given to complete the LUP/ LA until 2005, the program is facing difficulties in its implementation mainly due to the following reasons: lack of implementation plans and coordination among government agencies, limited personnel and staff capacity, irregular budget disbursements, lack of understanding of the LUP/ LA by villagers, weak information storage, inappropriate participatory monitoring and evaluation. Because of wrong implementation of the developed method, LUP/ LA often does not lead to the redistribution of land to disadvantaged groups and has caused partially negative impacts on the livelihood of rural communities, especially ethnic minorities, by reducing their agricultural production area132. At the central level the Office of the Committee for Land Allocation under the PMO has been responsible to coordinate, steer and monitor the nationwide process of LUP/ LA involving representatives of different line agencies. It has been dissolved in 2001 and its duties have been transferred to the newly created Department for Land Planning and Management at the PMO133. The Land Use Determination Unit under the FIPD/ DoF is responsible for technical aspects related to LUP/ LA. The Shifting Cultivation Stabilization Extension Center under NAFES is assigned to support the stabilization efforts especially with respect to technical aspects and capacity building134. However the institutional responsibilities for LUP/LA are still being

129 Instruction 822 on Land and Forest Land Allocation for Management and Use, MAF (1996) 130 Land Use Planning and Land Allocation Procedures and Methods, LSFP (2001) 131 Tree Plantation for Livelihood Improvement Project, ADB (2002) 132 Participatory Poverty Assessment Lao P.D.R., ADB (2001) 133 Land Registration and its Impact on Community-based NRM, Lunnay (2002) 134 Institutional Organization and Human Resources in the Forestry Sector, Xayvongsa (2002)

49

discussed between the DoF and the LPDD regarding the formation of a new institutional body for LUP/LA. Land Allocation Committees (LAC) on district and provincial level are responsible to coordinate and monitor the LUP/ LA process in their respective administrative areas. 4.1.6 Institutional Set-up, Responsibilities and Capacities Assisted by NGOs, the former Community Forestry Support Unit under the DoF provided strong leadership in policy development and coordination of the different initiatives until it has been dissolved in 1999. Although an opening towards a pluralistic institutional structure has been initiated, efforts related to CBFM have been implemented exclusively through government organizations (e.g. DoF, PAFO, DAFO) with support from international organizations and NGO’s135. Currently the main responsibilities for CBFM at central level are with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), especially with the National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES). Supporting functions are with the Department of Forestry (DoF) and the National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) and the newly created Department for Land Planning and Management for LUP/ LA. The decentralization efforts of the GoL have recently redefined mandates and responsibilities of concerned institutions. The MAF is responsible for the overall coordination and the management of the forestry sector on the national level. The DoF is one of its six technical Departments and responsible to assist the MAF in developing and implementing forestry policies, to formulate forestry sector plans, monitor forestry related development projects and to develop the legislative framework. It also has to coordinate the preparation of management plans for the production forests in cooperation with relevant sectors and local authorities. The Tree Plantation and Forest Rehabilitation Center under NAFES has a nationwide mandate to promote the establishment of tree plantations and the rehabilitation of degraded forestland136. The responsibility for extension related to forestry has been transferred to NAFES as a result of the restructuring process at the MAF. The Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Services (PAFS) and the District Agriculture and Forestry Office (DAFO) are in charge of CBFM at provincial and district level. The provincial authorities are required to carry out the field surveys, guide plan formulation, as well as to monitor and control their implementation. DAFO’s are responsible for organizing the district Forest Management Units (FMU) and implement the plans together with villagers. The Village Forestry Organizations (VFO’s) are assigned to organize villagers to plan and implement activities under a Village Forest Management Agreement (VFMA) signed between the VFO and the respective FMU. The VFMA specifies the rights and responsibilities of signatories, the scope of village participation, and the revenue sharing arrangement. The central village organization is the Village Development Committee (VDC) chaired by the village head and advised by the Council of Elders. It consists of two deputies, representatives of various national organizations (e.g. Lao Women Union), representative of the land tax office, village security, a representative for educational and cultural affairs, and various volunteers (e.g. village forest volunteer). Village-based organizations are dealing with CBFM are integrated in existing village structures and are very often a part of the Village Development Committee (VDC). Various experiences with village-based organizations exist.

135 For the Future: Building Capacity for Community Forestry in Laos, RECOFTC (1998) 136 Institutional Organization and Human Resources in the Forestry Sector, Xayvongsa (2002)

50

4.1.7 Networks Assisted by NGO’s, the former Community Forestry Support Unit under the DoF provided strong leadership, coordination and networking activities related to CBFM until it has been dissolved in 1999 within the frame of the restructuring process in the MAF. Currently networking and information exchange is a weak point within the NRM in general and especially for CBFM. Only one formalized and active network exists. The Lao Thematic Group on Rural Development and Food Security was initiated by the FAO in June 2002. It provides an informal inter-agency forum for exchanging and sharing of information related to best practices in rural development, including community based natural resource management and food security. It currently has 45 members from governmental agencies, bilateral donors, international NGO’s, media as well as UN organizations. The main objectives are to contribute to sound rural development at the national level through information exchange and to provide an interactive networking mechanism. The following technical sub-themes have been selected to be considered: Land and forest allocation policy, stabilization of shifting cultivation and its impact on food security and village-level planning for NRM. Experience exchange related to CBFM has takes place sporadic and at a limited scale, initiated by projects supported by international donors through the organization of workshops, seminars and field excursions. One of the reasons for this circumstance might be that stakeholders in CBFM in Laos are less divers and existing initiatives has been supported by a few international agencies and NGO’s. Nevertheless there is an urgent need to intensify information exchange and coordination between the different stakeholders involved in CBFM, which has been expressed frequently by representatives of various international donor agencies and NGO’s. 4.1.8 Extension System and Services The overall responsibility for forestry extension has been transferred from the DoF to NAFES as a result of the recent restructuring process at the MAF. NAFES has been created in 2001 to implement the new national extension concept with the mandate to provide extension services and disseminate agriculture and forestry related technologies, to study and adopt regulations, methods and policies related to agriculture and forestry extension, to transfer adapted technologies to end users and give feedbacks on shortcomings to technology generating institutions and to provide training for different levels. NAFES is currently assisted by the Laos Extension for Agriculture Project (LEAP) supported by Helvetas. The overall goal is to support the establishment of a decentralized, participatory and pluralistic agricultural extension system (see Annex 11). It therefore contributes to develop an efficient extension service to achieve food security and improve the livelihood of farmers, as well as to alleviate poverty in rural areas. It directly supports the Central Extension Training and Development Unit (CETDU) under NAFES and focuses on institutional development and capacity building based on a pyramid system (see Figure 15). LEAP also supports the establishment of extension services at provincial and district level in pilot provinces. It is testing and documenting effective extension methods and delivery mechanisms based on provincial support structures, district capacities and farmer needs137.

137 Project Information Leaflet, LEAP (2002)

51

Figure 15: Institutional Set-up for Agriculture and Forestry Extension in Laos

MAF

National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES)

Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (PAFES)

District Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (DAFES)

Farmers

Central Level MAF/ NAFES

Province & District

Village Level

Central Extension Training and Development Unit (CETDU)/ Master Trainers

Trainers/ Subject Matter Specialists

Farming System Extension Workers/ Generalists

Village Extension Workers

4.1.9 Research Emphasis of the GoL was given to create a decentralized national research system based on a variety of stakeholders of the public sector with complementary mandates. The continuous process of developing the national research system was characterized by intensive reorganization, institutional differentiation and capacity development supported through various donors during the past years. Prior to the creation of NAFRI, research related to natural resources has been organized and carried out mainly under the responsibility of research centers (e.g. FRC, NARC) under governmental line departments of the MAF (e.g. DoF), by Faculties at the NUoL and research institutes at the Science, Technology and Environment Agency supported by various international organizations. Multidisciplinary research based on national needs and the integration and co-ordination between the different research institutions was virtually lacking. Now NAFRI provides leadership for agricultural and forestry research by addressing problems related to poverty and environmental degradation through integrated and multi-disciplinary research.

52

Besides the restructuring processes at MAF (e.g. the creation of NAFRI, the transfer of the FRC from DoF to NAFRI), institutional changes have taken place also at other relevant institutions. The Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry was created and integrated into the NUoL in 1996 and separated into two independent Faculties in 2001. A first strategy focusing on forestry research at national level has been elaborated by the working group on forestry research at MAF in 1995. Emphasis was given to increase research efforts to be able to implement governmental policies and to strengthen the national research capacity. A clear definition of research and development, the creation of an appropriate institutional framework and capacity building for the involved institutions have been proposed to overcome existing weaknesses. The National Village Forestry Strategy provides specific guidance on research related to CBFM and the following is stated: “The adoption of village forestry as a key development strategy has implications on the research agenda and type of research to be conducted. Forestry research that would provide optimum support for village forestry should be holistic and inter-disciplinary, system- oriented, demand-driven, problem-oriented and pragmatic, beneficiary-oriented and participatory.” Needs have been identified related to policy and legal research (e.g. land and resource tenure arrangements), organizational and managerial research (e.g. organizational arrangements and capability development at village level), socio-economic and cultural research (e.g. indigenous knowledge on forest resource use, traditional tenure arrangements) and relevant technical research (e.g. growth and yield studies, regeneration and rehabilitation of forests). Limited research in the fields of CBFM is carried out by the FRC at NAFRI and the FoF at the NUoL. Issues related to CBFM have been integrated into the research priorities of the FoF within the frame of its recently elaborated research strategy until 2010. In contrast, CBFM is not considered within the four research priorities of the FRC. 4.2 Selected Initiatives 4.2.1 General Consideration and Overview In general CBFM initiatives are much less in number and limited to a few major initiatives (around 10) supported by international organizations and NGOs achieving remarkable area coverage. The first initiative related to CBFM started in 1994 with the introduction of the JFM approach followed by different models for community-based management of well-stocked natural forest with different degree of participation on pilot scale. Beside this the FOMACOP supported by the WB/GEF/ FINNIDA took off in 1995, as well as the Community Forestry Development Project in Khammouane province supported by JVC and CARE. The most outstanding models have been developed by the FOMACOP (Village Forestry) and the LSFP (Joint Forest Management Model 1 and 2). These models have been evaluated independently acknowledging the successful participation of communities in forest management, achieved sustainable forest management, improved forest conservation and significant contribution to general village development. Rehabilitation of degraded land with the objectives to enhance its productivity, as well as to secure ecological functions are pursued as important development goals. Experiences in this respect have been gained during the implementation of various projects. One of the first was the ADB supported Industrial Tree Plantation Project, which started in 1994 and was followed by the FORCAP supported by JICA. The establishment of tree plantations has been promoted to counter-act deforestation, to secure timber supply and to provide self-

53

consumption and cash income for smallholders. Various benefit sharing and loan schemes have been successfully introduced to stimulate reforestation.

NTFP’s play an important role in the rural economy and therefore are a key component of the rural household economy providing substantial cash income, are an important provider of food security and contribute essential to the sustainable livelihoods of rural communities. Within the frame of the Sustainable Use of NTFP Project supported by IUCN, experiences have been gained with collaborative management, conservation, marketing and domestication, as well as institutional arrangements at local level. This project was active from 1995 until 2001. Participatory and integrated approaches to natural resource protection and conservation, especially applying for the NBCA’s also use the concept of co-management of forest resources (e.g. FOMACOP, Phongsaly Forest Conservation and Rural Development Project/ EU). Alleviating poverty increases the interest and capacity for resource conservation. Involving local communities in the planning and management of natural resources and in the sharing of benefits increases the likelihood that people will practice nature conservation. Co-management of natural resources (e.g. NTFP’s, timber) have reduced the intensity and scale of negative impacts on the resource and promoted resource protection. 4.2.2 Forest Management and Conservation Project, WB/ GEF/ FINNIDA, Savannakhet The Forest Management and Conservation Project (FOMACOP) was supported by WB, GEF and FINNIDA and has been launched in 1995 to promote SFM and biodiversity conservation through the active participation of villagers and the efforts of provincial and district authorities. During 1995-2000 a trial scheme for Village Forestry has been developed and implemented in Savannakhet and Khammouane province. The Village Forestry model development did comprise village organization, village forest management and village development. A scaling-up from 2000-2010 was originally planned, but has not been implemented due to the decisions of the GoL to evaluate existing models before entering the scaling-up process. The FOMACOP model is based on a 50-year Forest Management Agreement and 10-year Forest Management Plans. This model for SFM is based on systematic planning procedure comprising village boundary mapping and PLUP, delineation of FMU’s, as well as forest zoning based on forest functions. Low-intensity harvesting has been introduced based on sustainable harvesting levels and environmentally sound harvesting techniques. During the 5 years of implementation it has achieved the most outreach impact in Laos. PLUP has been completed in 60 villages (app. 145 000 ha) and forest management plans have been prepared and executed for Production Forests covering app. 100 000 ha involving 41 villages of 3 districts in 2 provinces138. Village Forest Associations (VFA) integrated into the Village organization have been formed as formal organization out of initial informal Village Forest Core Groups as a result of an institutional development process. The VFA (see Annex 12) were created to facilitate participatory management of natural forests and closely cooperate with district and provincial authorities. At a later stage, Inter-Village Forest Association Committees have been created comprising VFA’s of a cluster of neighboring villages to coordinate forest management related activities and to facilitate conflict resolution. In general it has shown, that participatory management of natural forests can be ecological sound, contribute to biodiversity conservation and generates significant revenues enabling 138 The Village Forestry Handbook – FOMACOP Model, MAF (2001)

54

rural communities to finance village development and reducing poverty. This has been verified through an independent pre-certification assessment conducted by SGS. It has been suggested to replicate this model after limited adjustments. In 1998/99 3826 m3 of timber have been harvested and sold for app. 400 000 US$. The revenues have been distributed as following: 69% royalties and taxes (local and central government), 19% for felling and transport costs, 6% for forest management costs and 6% for general village development139. Basically based on the FOMACOP approach, a new initiative supported by the WB will start end of 2003 to bring all national production forests under participatory and sustainable forest management. The project aims at institutionalize the systematic management of production forests, alleviate rural poverty, protect biodiversity and to contribute to socio-economic development. The initial target areas are within 4 provinces and covering app. 530 000 ha of production forests. Institutional settings for the implementation have been decided upon (see Annex 13), giving significant responsibilities to the NAFES, the provincial, as well as district authorities140. 4.2.3 Joint Forest Management Dong Khapo, LSFP/ SIDA, Savannakhet The concept of Joint Forest Management (JFM) has been implemented since 1994 at the SPF Dong Khapo in Savannakhet province supported by the LSFP/ SIDA with the objectives to manage natural forests based on sustained yield of timber and NTFP’s to retain its production capacity, to conserve the biodiversity and involve local communities. The concept is based on a co-management of forests involving communities and local government authorities. Forest management planning is embedded in the PLUP and LA process and is based on a 50-year long-term management plan and joint annual operational planning. Both models involve villagers and governmental authorities, but differ in terms of the degree of participation, responsibility and rights of the actors related to management decisions, selling of timber and benefit sharing. In model 1 the villagers are authorized to manage designated forests in accordance with the approved management plan. Forestry staff from the district and provincial authorities support, facilitate and monitor the process. Villagers are further authorized to sell timber and keep the net profits after having paid taxes and royalties to the Government, and allowances to the field staff from the local authorities. Profits will be spent for investment into forest resources and general village development. In model 2 the provincial authorities are assigned to be the manager of designated forests in close cooperation with villagers, which more or less are acting as contracted laborers. Based on forest protection contracts the involved villages will receive additional money from the local authorities for their forest protection efforts for village development purposes. Village based organizations in form of JFM Boards (see Figure 16) have been established to facilitate the cooperation between the involved villages and the local authorities.

139 Evaluation of the Forest Management and Conservation Program, Saymountry (2001) 140 Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Project, WB (2003)

55

Figure 16: Organizational Structure of the JFM Board, Dong Khapo141

Chairman

1st Deputy 2nd Deputy

Harvesting Unit

Nursery Unit

Plantation & Protection

Unity

Finance

Administration Unit

Evaluations of the JFM models revealed that they contributed valuable experiences in piloting SFM with villager’s participation. They showed the capabilities of villagers and governmental line agencies to form partnerships to manage natural forests. Model 1 provides more benefits for the villagers, especially more capital for village development, that resulted in higher motivation, poverty alleviation and better forest protection142. 4.2.4 Forest Conservation and Afforestation Project, JICA, Vang Vieng The Forest Conservation and Afforestation Project (FORCAP) supported by JICA was initiated in 1998 and pursued the overall goal to reduce the trends of forest degradation in the upper Nam Ngum Watershed, especially caused by shifting cultivation. Activities did focus on capacity building for government staff at district level and local communities, the promotion of forest conservation and income generation activities to improve their living conditions. Village-based resource planning including PLUP was a precondition to initiate the establishment of plantations with exotic and indigenous tree species by farmers on their own land. Farmers have gained full ownership over the plantations and are exempted from paying land taxes. A benefit sharing system has been developed and introduced to promote the reforestation of highly degraded forestland. Farmers organized themselves in Village Forest Groups (VFG) as partner for the district authorities. The benefit sharing system is based on 15-year contracts between the farmers and the local authorities and has been defined as “a system of which the plantation is jointly established by the state and the citizen with the mutual agreement of benefit sharing”143. The district authorities provide seedlings, materials and extension services with the provision that the benefits from the plantations are shared between the farmers (75%) and the district authorities (25%). This system provides additional income for farmer families and enables the governmental authorities to generate funds for future support measures. Within the period from 1997 to 2002, 213 ha plantation have been established by 300 families with Eucalyptus camaldulensis., Pterocarpus macrocarpus and Afzelia xylocarpa, as

141 Joint Forest Management Model 1 & 2, LSFP (2001) 142 Evaluation of Joint Forest Management Model 1 and 2, Saymountry (2001) 143 Instruction of the Profit Sharing System, Chanthirath (1997)

56

well as 7 ha with Agroforestry systems. Additionally, 60 ha reforestation demonstration plots and 6,5 ha enrichment planting plots with 12 indigenous tree species have been created to demonstrate technical options for highly degraded land. 4.2.5 Industrial Tree Plantation Project, ADB ADB pioneered the tree plantation development along with some companies like BURAPHA and BGA in 1994 aiming at establishing plantations with exotic fast-growing tree species (e.g. Eucalyptus c., Acacia m.). Due to support provided by the project, app. 10 000 ha of plantations have been established in 7 provinces, in central and southern Laos, based on a developed loan scheme and loan delivery system implemented by the Agricultural Promotion Bank (APB). Clients were mainly smallholders with an average plantation size of 1,8 ha, a few private companies with an average plantation size of 200 ha and individual entrepreneurs with an average plantation size between 20-30 ha. Figure 17: Institutional Settings for the Credit System, ADB Industrial Plantation

Project

APB

Plantation

Farmers Individuals Companies

Lowland

ADB

MoF

BoL

In 2003 the ITPP has been transformed into “Plantations for Livelihood Improvement Project”. The new project aims at contributing to livelihood development, as tree plantations will produce a demanded cash crop capable of achieving and realizing attractive prices and thus generating income and creating employment opportunities. The purpose of the new project is to enhance the whole tree plantation sector in Laos144. As farmers ability to mobilize savings is considered to be very weak, new lending terms have been adopted so that farmers can grow also indigenous trees. Planting loans can be used for maintenance and intercropping and the first repayment will be after the first harvest. Activities comprise the strengthening of NAFES (e.g. institutional development, capacity building), the provision 144 Plantation for Livelihood Improvement Project. Draft Mid-term Report, ADB (2002)

57

of credits to farmers, individual entrepreneurs and companies, the piloting of forest rehabilitations, the creation of Forest Owners Association, the stimulation of the investment and business climate, the support to processing and marketing, as well as the support related research. 4.2.6 Training and Model Forest of the FoF, GTZ, Vientiane A Training and Model Forest (TMF) of app. 4600 ha for the FoF at the NUoL has been established with support from the Promotion of Forestry Education Project (PROFEP) to facilitate practical training, applied research and to demonstrate sustainable management of natural resources, focusing on rehabilitation practices, nature conservation, environmental awareness creation and Agroforestry. The management of natural resources in the TMF is based on participation and a multi-stakeholder partnership between communities, local government authorities and the FoF providing short- and long-term benefits for all of them in order to ensure social and institutional sustainability. The sustainable management and conservation of forests is promoted through the improvement of living conditions of the rural population and awareness creation measures. Extension related to agricultural land-use systems intended to increase the agricultural productivity and to reduce the pressure on the remaining forest resources. Aiming at ecological sustainability land-use management decisions and the choice of crop and tree species have been based on land capability and suitability classifications. Smallholder plantations with indigenous tree species have been especially promoted. Figure 18: Concepts of Participation in Forest Resource Management in the TMF145

Faculty Forest Forest Resources on Village Land FoF Communities FoF Communities

Joint Forest Management. The FoF plays the dominant role bycontrolling ownership and management ofthe resource. The communities are participating in theplanning, management and protection ofthe forest resources for a share of thebenefits in return.

Self-help oriented, community based management of the forest resource. The communities and families own the manager ship of the resource and are the sole beneficiaries. The FoF and other state agencies support the communities in managing theresource sustainable through the provision of extension services.

Special attention was given to incorporate local knowledge of villagers into the development of appropriate technologies. The FoF has considerable potential for innovative technology development related to the rehabilitation of degraded forestland and degraded forests, Agroforestry, nature conservation, and natural forest management.

145 Forest Resources Development, Capacity Building and Research, Braeutigam et. al (2001)

58

The extension did focus on a few model farmers per village to establish demonstration areas, which provided practical examples for different land use technologies. Knowledge and skills have been acquired by key persons, which are then able to transfer this knowledge to other farmers through farmer to farmer extension (Figure 19). Figure 19: The Concept of Model Farmers in the TMF Villages Villages within the TMF outside the TMF Village

ModelFarmer

4.3 CBFM in the Context of Watershed Management The country’s mountainous topography, its dependence on forest and water resources (e.g. electricity from hydropower is currently the second major source of foreign exchange earnings) and the interdependence of land use management upstream and water quantity and quality downstream, created a strong political will for the protection and sustainable management of the national watersheds. Therefore the GoL is committed to apply Integrated Watershed Management (IWSM) to combat poverty and to manage the natural resources, especially in the fragile upland areas that cover more than 80% of the country. A recent inventory revealed that 64 watersheds exist in Laos of which more than 90% drain into the Mekong River146. The IWSM approach is currently incorporated into the general national planning framework as a holistic area-based planning process. A concept has been elaborated and limited experiences on pilot scale have been gained. Essential laws with relevance to IWSM have been promulgated in recent years, but legal and regulatory framework is still in a transitional phase, lacking operational guidelines on the operational level. Key responsibilities to coordinate and monitor the IWSM process are with the MAF and the DoF. Especially the MAF has been strongly involved in the development of an IWSM concept and promotes this approach as a holistic area-based planning process, which reflects the government’s policy on sustainable natural resource management and their inter-sector development efforts. Nevertheless, institutional arrangements at district level are only established in selected pilot provinces and capacity of the governmental staff is very limited.

To sustain and extend the forest cover through sustainable management of existing forest resources and rehabilitation of degraded land is especially important in the uplands. This would especially be of importance for the steep headwaters contributing to reduce soil erosion and water run-off, as well as to secure water availability downstream. Further it

146 Strategic Vision on Integrated Watershed Management, MAF (2002)

59

would reduce siltation problems in river systems, prevent flash floods, conserve biodiversity and contributes to carbon dioxide fixation. Forests and related product still very important component in the livelihood of the majority of the rural population in Laos. Sustainable forest management and reforestation through local communities contributes to stabilizing wood supplies for fuel and construction and will provide direct income from sale of timber and NTFP’s. Community based sustainable management of forests and other natural resources will therefore especially contribute to the socio-economic development in the upstream areas.

60

5 CBFM in Laos and Cambodia, Comparison and Implications 5.1 Comparison of CBFM in Laos and Cambodia 5.1.1 National Frame Conditions National frame conditions, like governance, civil society, policy and legal framework, institutional setting, socio-economic and biophysical characteristics have major influences on the development of CBFM. The comparison of both countries revealed their specific conditions, similarities as well as differences. Different criteria have been selected to be able to compare them in both countries. The detailed results of the comparison are reflected in the following table. Table 5: Comparison of National Frame Conditions in Laos and Cambodia

Aspect Laos Cambodia

Governance

One-party socialist system, strong centralized administration, planned economy, beginning of 90s opening-up process, introduction of new economic mechanisms and decentralization process.

Post-conflict country, isolated until beginning of 90s, since 1993 constitutional monarchy, peace until 98, multi-party democracy, free market economy, promotion of decentralization since mid of the 90s.

Socio-economic & Biophysical Conditions

GDP ~ 330 US$, 16 Provinces, total land area 236 800 sq km, 80% of the land surface is hilly and mountainous, forest cover ~47%, total population 5,2 Mio (83% in rural areas), density of 22/ sq km, very divers population (230 distinct groups belong to 4 linguistic families, 66% Lao mainstream), annual population growth rate 2,5%.

GDP ~ 257 US$, 24 provinces, total land 181 500 sq km, forest cover ~58%, 70% covered by plains, total population 11,4 Mio (84% in rural areas), population density 64 per sq km, relatively homogeneous population (96% Khmer), annual population growth rate 2,5%.

Driving Forces

Driven by central Government with support from a few international donor agencies and international NGOs.

CF initiated and promoted mainly by various inter- national NGOs, networks and donor agencies, national NGOs, civil society, later by RGC.

Policies IPRS, NSEDP, National Forestry Action Plan (1991), Village Forestry Strategy (1997), Forestry Strategy 2020 (draft)

IPRS, II NSEDP (2001-05), National Forest Policy Statement (2002),

Legal Framework

Forestry Law (1996), Land Law (1997), Environmental Protection Law (1999), various instructions, decrees and orders (Decree No. 59, Instruction No. 10), still fragmented in various instructions, very limited involvement of stakeholders in dev.

Land Law (2001), Commune Adm. Law (2001), Forestry Law (2002), Law on Protected Areas (Draft), Sub-decree on Concession Management (2000), CF Sub-decree (Draft), partly conflicting/ not consistent, involvement of stakeholders in elaboration.

LUP

National Program on LUP/ LA initiated early 90s, creation of legal frame (Instr. LUP/LA, 1997), systematic land titling process since 1997 under the Committee for LUP/ LA under the PMO (since 2002 the DLPM), development of procedures/ guidelines 1998, until 2002 LUP/LA process completed in 50% of villages, limited mainly through capacity constraints of local authorities.

Concept of LUP introduced in 1999, elaboration of a PLUP manual (2001), DLMUPC organize and conduct PLUP training for trainers (initiated in 10 Provinces since 2002), implementation still limited to two pilot provinces, systematic land titling recently initiated in pilot provinces.

61

Extension System

Forestry extension integrated into a National Agriculture and Extension System (MAF), inter-sectoral, capacity limited on district level, pyramid system for capacity building exists, linkage between extension and research promoted through the NAFRI (MAF), promotion of integrated research.

Fragmented with different line agencies, main responsibility with the DFW, exists at local level only in pilot provinces mainly linked to projects, very limited capacity (number/ knowledge), high inputs by NGOs, not integrated with other sectors (e.g. agric.), importance insufficient reflected in institutional set-up (Unit in Office), limited extension-research linkages.

Research

Mainly implemented through NAFRI (FRC) and NUoL (FoF). Supported by a few initiatives.

Mainly implemented through the CFRP (IDRC/ RECOFTC) with key persons from the MAFF (DFW), MoE (DNCEP) and RUA. FWRI not yet active. Supported by several initiatives.

Importance for WSM

Has a high percentage (55%) of steep slopes that are critical for water and soil resources (Watershed Classification Class I and II). High potential especially for rehabilitation of degraded land and NFM in critical watersheds.

Has a very low portion (4%) of steep slopes that critical for water and soil resources (Watershed Classification Class I and II). Less important for WSM, because of limited number of critical watersheds.

Both countries went through a period of authoritarian rule and phasing still strong military influence especially in the remote areas. In contrast to Cambodia’s multi-pluralistic society based on the existence of different political forces, Laos still remains a socialist political system, still ruled by one party. Both countries did emphasis on economic reforms and the decentralization of the former centralized governmental system during the last decade through the adjustment of institutional set-ups and the introduction of market-oriented mechanism. Civil society and participating stakeholders in CBFM are more divers in Cambodia resulting in very divers landscape of initiatives. Both countries give emphasis on decentralized management of their natural resources and have initiated a transition process. The breakdown of logging activities based on a centralistic system (e.g. SFE, concessions) created a management vacuum in terms of unregulated responsibilities for large forest areas, creating favorable conditions for further forest degradation through illegal logging, land grabbing, conversion into agricultural use and uncontrolled shifting cultivation. Although Cambodia has twice the number of people as Laos, the demographic characteristics are similar. The majority of the people in both countries is living in the rural areas with subsistence economy and depends strongly on forest use for securing their livelihood. In contrast to Cambodia, the population of Laos is much more divers evidenced by various ethnic groups making up for a high portion of the total population. A significant difference between both countries related to the topography, as the main parts of Laos are rugged mountains with steep slopes. The Governments of both countries give special emphasis to the reduction of poverty and livelihood improvement. The policies and legislatives relevant for CBFM have been developed by both countries, nevertheless they did emerge earlier in Laos, since mid of the 90s. LUP and LA as important tools to provide better security of land tenure is more advanced in Laos, being a priority of the GoL since the last decade resulting in achieving its implementation in more than 50% of the villages nationwide. Extension related to CBFM in Cambodia is fragmented, carried out by different institutions and limited in scale. In contrast to Laos it takes place separated from other NRM sectors, especially from the agricultural extension. Linkages between extension and research are insufficient established.

62

5.1.2 CBFM Initiatives Differences related to frame conditions in both countries did cause remarkable differences related to various aspects of CBFM Initiatives. The results of the CBFM initiatives in both countries are reflected in table 7. Table 6: Comparison of CF Initiatives in Laos and Cambodia

Aspect Laos Cambodia

Definition of CF

“… Village Forestry is understood as a process rather than a predetermined output and a continuum of approaches to people-oriented forest management with different intensities in the degree of participation.”147

“Community Forestry is a Community conducting forestry activities within a Community Forest in compliance with a Community Forestry Agreement.”148

Emergence

First initiative related to natural forests started 1994, JFM Dong Khapo (LSFP/ SIDA), followed by FOMACOP in Savannakhet 1995 (WB/ FINNIDA/ GEF), reforestation initiatives since 1994 (ADB) and 1997 (JICA).

First initiative related to reforestation in 1991, MCC in Takeo province, followed by Concern in Kampong Chhnang and FAO in Siem Reap. Integrated approaches CBNRM in Ratanakiri in 1995 and the PMMP in Koh Kong in 1997.

Jurisdiction Rests sole with the MAF, especially with the National Agriculture and Extension Service.

Two ministries MAFF and MoE and their line departments (DFW, DF, DNCEP) with insufficient linkages/ coordination and different interests.

Current Area Coverage

Coverage app. 150 000 ha (app. 1,3% of forest cover).

Coverage app. 83 000 ha (0,8% of forest cover).

Focus & Goals

Aiming at SFM, rehabilitation, livelihood improvement and poverty reduction through traditional use of timber/ NTFP’s, including commercial use of timber/ NTFP’s.

Very much focused on rehabilitation, aiming at livelihood improvement and poverty reduction through traditional use of timber/ NTFP’s.

Support

Strong centrally driven with support of a few international donors and NGO’s, limited to less than 20 initiatives (but some significant), supported by local authorities and mass organization.

High diversity on stakeholders and initiatives (57), each covering relatively small areas (except FAO/ Concern), strong involvement of CNGO’s/ NGO’s, and international donors

Concepts

Application of integrated concepts for well stocked natural forest and degraded land (reforestation), LUP and zoning are preconditions, sophisticated procedures for forest management.

Sector based concepts applied for highly degraded forests, rehabilitation oriented, not yet integrated in LUP, increasing number of integrated approaches (e.g. CBNRM, PMMP) also in better stocked forests.

Institutional Settings

Good integration into local structures (e.g. VDC) and cooperation with local government authorities (e.g. DAFO). Partly very sophisticated structural settings (e.g. FOMACOP). VFA, VFC, Farmer Associations.

Good integration into local structures (Commune Council), various forms of Village Organizations. Structural settings less sophisticated. CCFC, VCFC, CFA, CFCC.

147 The National Village Forestry Strategy, MAF (1997) 148 Sub-degree on Community Forestry-draft, MAFF (2003)

63

Technical Interventions

Forest management planning based on FMU’s integrated into LUP, based on zoning for multiple use, low-intensity harvesting, sustainable use of NTFP’s, rehabilitation techniques, RRA/ PRA.

Forest management planning based on zoning, often not integrated into LUP, traditional use of timber and NTFP’s, rehabilitation techniques, thinning in naturally regenerated stands, RRA/ PRA.

Benefit Sharing

Benefit sharing arrangements between villagers and governmental authorities introduced for reforestation and natural forest management, different shares of benefits for villagers (natural forests – up to 6%, plantation up to 75%).

Limited benefit sharing arrangements, mainly within villages, no arrangements yet for benefit sharing between villagers and governmental authorities.

Although CBFM initiatives emerged in both countries beginning of the 90s the development, characteristics and current status are different. In both countries the initiatives are driven by the overall goal to reduce poverty and improve the livelihood of rural communities and to promote SFM through community based interventions. CBFM has been integrated and manifested into local structures and institutional set-ups at village level are similar, even though named different. The importance of NTFP’s in this context has been reflected in both countries. CBFM initiatives are Integrated approaches are being promoted Initiatives in Cambodia are mainly focused on degraded forests and reforestation with only a few exceptions. They are promoted by a wide spectrum of stakeholders including government institutions, international organizations and NGOs creating divers approaches and technical interventions, but achieving relatively small area coverage in total and with single initiatives. Benefit sharing arrangements between communities and local government authorities are still missing. Integrated approaches are nowadays growing in number, nevertheless the integration of LUP is still limited in scale. In contrast, CBFM initiatives in Laos have been strongly promoted by the central authorities supported by a limited number of international organizations and NGO’s. The focus has been placed on participatory approaches for the management of production forests without neglecting support to reforestation efforts. Single initiatives achieved quit significant area coverage and introduced technical interventions, as well as benefit sharing arrangements that could be applied for future scaling-up processes. The majority of the initiatives applied integrated approaches considering LUP as important precondition for CBFM. 5.1.3 Importance in the Context of Watershed Management Considering the different topographical conditions of both countries the importance of WSM in general is more significant for Laos than for Cambodia. Due to the fact that major part of Laos are made up by rugged mountains many of the high priority watersheds are located in this country. The sustainable management and conservation of natural resources, especially the forests in Laos will have implications on many issues related to water flow, quality and quantity in downstream in other countries of the Lower Mekong Basin. Assessing of the importance of WSM for the two countries is based on the portions of the different Watershed Classes. The WSC I is characterized by areas with steep slopes and rugged landforms, commonly in uplands are critical for water and soil resources and should be under permanent forest cover (e.g. hydrological protection forests). The WSC II comprise areas with steep slopes, usually at higher elevation, less susceptible to water and soil degradation, conservation and production forests, agroforestry (e.g. protection and limited production forests).

64

Laos has by far the highest percentage (55%) of Class I and II within the Lower Mekong Basin, Cambodia the lowest with only 4%. However large areas of the WSC I and II lost their protective forest cover due to various reasons. In Laos 20,6% of the WSC I and II are without forests, in Cambodia are 3,5% critically damaged. Immediate rehabilitation measures in these watershed areas are necessary to avoid further degradation and their negative ecological and socio-economic implications. Some of the most critical watersheds are shared by Cambodia and Laos (e.g. Se San, Se Kong). Watersheds in Laos have the highest percentage of erosion prone areas in the LMB and contribute the largest flow volume to the Mekong river system, accounting for 43%149. Beside the importance of CBFM for WSM it has significant relevance for other issues, like poverty reduction, biodiversity conservation, preservation of cultural and ethnic diversity and decentralization processes (see Figure 20). Figure 20: Overview on Linkages of CBFM to Crosscutting Issues

Watershed Management

Preservation of Cultural & Ethnic

Diversity

Biodiversity Conservation

Livelihood Improvement &

Poverty Reduction

CBFM at the Interface

Decentralization & Democratisation

Processes

149 Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Program for 2001-2005, MRC (2000)

65

5.2 Implications for Regional Experience Exchange CBFM should be promoted within the region, as it has not only potential to contribute to IWSM, but also has significant relevance for other high priority issues, like poverty reduction, biodiversity conservation, preservation of cultural and ethnic diversity and decentralization processes. Varying frame conditions within countries, related to aspects like governance, civil society, policy and legal framework, institutional setting, socio-economic and biophysical characteristics have major influences on the development of CBFM at national scale. The comparison between the two countries revealed specific conditions, similarities as well as differences, and made impeding as well as accelerating circumstances for the development of CBFM visible. Because of these national differences, the history and development dynamic of CBFM, concepts and approaches, as well as technical interventions have specific characteristics. Regional experience exchange could help to promote CBFM and facilitate a regional learning process related to best practices, but also in terms of identifying and promoting favorable frame conditions. Issues of special interest related to national frame conditions for CBFM are especially: Institutional set-up and procedures for the decentralization of forest management, refinement of existing laws into lower legislatives (e.g. instructions, regulations), appropriate policy development mechanism (e.g. multi-stakeholder process, NFP), approaches and experiences to improve tenure security (e.g. experiences with PLUP/ LA), institutional set-up and capacity building for extension services, participatory research methods and activities and network mechanism. Issues of special interest related to CBFM Initiatives are especially: technical interventions related to the community based management of production forests (e.g. low-intensity harvesting), experiences with the Joint Forest Management concept, benefit sharing arrangements for natural forest management and reforestation, conflict resolution mechanisms, documentation of best practices and dissemination mechanism, impact of PLUP/ LA on CBFM and indigenous knowledge and forest use practices based on traditional tenure systems. The overall goal of the MRC is to raise awareness and promote regional cooperation for sustainable development, through greater participation of internal and external stakeholder. Participation as general principle will be promoted to expand opportunities for participatory collaboration among MRC, the NMC’s and riparian government line agencies, enhance greater participation of external stakeholders who share MRC strategic objectives for sustainable development in the Mekong River Basin and to built capacity within MRC and the NMC’s150. Thematic programs under the umbrella of the Operation Division of the MRC (see Annex 14) like the Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Program (AIFP) with its Watershed Management Component supported by GTZ, should promote CBFM at regional scale as an important approach within the frame of WSM. This would correspond with the overall program objective to “achieve sustainable development and utilization of land and water resources to the benefit of the Basin community, and to contribute to poverty alleviation and food security”151. Based on the immediate target of the WSM component “to enable relevant institutions in the riparian countries to make increased use of regional cooperation, information exchange and

150 Basin Development Plan – Regional Sector Overview WSM, MRC (2002) 151 Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Program, MRC (2000)

66

sharing of improved approaches for sustainable WSM in the LMB”152, emphasis is further placed on improving the capacity of NMC’s and related line agency staff in the respective countries and promote holistic and inter-sectoral approaches through the support to cooperation and cooperative learning among the countries. This capacity building and learning process should involve different hierarchy levels (e.g. national policy-making level, middle level management in line agencies) and other stakeholders (e.g. international donors, NGOs, private sector) to address specific thematic issues and to facilitate awareness creation. Activities could comprise workshops and seminars on selected thematic issues and the exchange of field experiences through joint field excursions at regional or bilateral scale. Regional cooperation related to CBFM should emphasis on strengthen the dialogue between stakeholders, information gathering and sharing, and joint evaluation of lessons learnt. Collaboration in the fields of developing national CF Action Plans or Programs, a regional CF Strategy, information exchange on best practices and model development, better integration of CBFM into formal education could be facilitated through joint activities. Awareness creation within the region should focus on political level and international donors to promote scaling-up processes and secure needed funding within the countries. It would be important at regional scale to link existing national working groups and networks and to promote links between national CBFM initiatives. Major stakeholders for promoting CBFM are regional organizations like MRC (Operation Division), the NMC’s and relevant line agencies in the respective countries. Training institutions with regional experiences and commitment (e.g. RECOFTC) and international research institutions (e.g. IDRC) have to be considered. To promote CBFM the creation of partnerships between state sector, civil society organizations (NGO’s), the private sector, donor agencies and research institutions have to be supported. Cooperation could include bilateral linkages of relevant Governmental Institutions or other stakeholders. Enhancing information exchange could be achieved through the promotion of inter-institutional seminars, workshops and other forums. The creation of a regional Working Group for CBFM under the umbrella of the Operation Division of the MRC could facilitate cooperation between national Working Groups or other related entities and would contribute to the advancement of CBFM within the LMB. Initial bilateral exchange between Laos and Cambodia to the above mentioned issues would be of high importance to promote CBFM on national level and strengthen its relevance within the region.

152 Brief Introduction to the Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry – Watershed Management Program, van Tuyll (2003)

67

6 References ADB (2001): Participatory Poverty Assessment Lao P.D.R.187 pp. Vientiane. ADB (2002): Tree Plantation for Livelihood Improvement Project. Mid-term Report.

Vientiane. Arnold, M. (2002): Clarifying the Links between Forests and Poverty Reduction. International

Forestry Review 4 (3), 2002. Bottomley, R. (2000): Structural Analysis of Deforestation in Cambodia. Mekong Watch and

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Japan. Bräutigam, D.; Muziol, C; Phanvilay, K. (2001): Forest Resources Development, Capacity

Building and Research – Potentials and Challenges Illustrated by the Training and Model Forest of the Faculty of Forestry in Lao P.D.R. Paper presented at the International Conference on Forestry and Forest Products Research. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia.

Broekhoven, G. (2002): Sustainable Management of NTFP’s – Contribution to the

Discussion Paper for the Forestry Strategy 2020. IUCN. Bangkok. Thailand. Burgess, S. (1998): Evaluation of the Community Forestry Project in Kampong Chhnang.

Concern Worldwide. Cambodian Timber Industry Association (2002): Consolidated Environmental and Social

Impact Assessment as Integral Part of the Strategic Forest Management Plan for Kratie/ Stung Treng Forest Concession.

Carson, T.; Kalyan, H (2000): Site Profiles – Community Based Natural Resource

Management in Cambodia. WWF/ IDRC. Phnom Penh. Carson, T.; Kalyan, H (2000): Scoping Report Community Based Natural Resource

Management in Cambodia. WWF/ IDRC. Phnom Penh. CBI (2003): Cry from the Forest. A “Buddhism and Ecology” Community Learning Tool.

Phnom Penh. CBNRM (2001): Project Profile CBNRM Case Study and Network Initiative. Phnom Penh. CBNRM (2001): Memorandum and Articles of Community Forest. Som Thom Commune,

Oyadav District. In: Rock, F. (2001): Participatory Land Use Planning in Rural Cambodia. Manual for Government Staff and Development Workers. Phnom Penh.

CFRP (2002): Community Forestry Research Project. Annual Report. Phnom Penh. CFTF (2002): Sub-decree on Community Forestry. Official Draft (08.02.2002) CFWG (2003): The Proposed Goal, Objectives and Structure of the Community Forestry

Working Group. Draft Proposal. Phnom Penh. Chamberlain, J. (2002): Participatory Poverty Assessment, Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious

Minorities in Laos.

68

Chanthirath, K. (1997): Instruction of the Profit Sharing System. FORCAP. Vientiane. Chea, S.; Thea, S.; Somath,L. (2002): Community-Based Coastal Resources Management.

A Case Study from Preah Sihanouk “Ream” National park in Kampong Som Province and Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary in Koh Kong Province Kingdom of Cambodia.

CLP (2002): Strategy of Land Policy Framework. Interim Paper. Phnom Penh. Concern (2001): Example of Community Forestry Status in Chamkar Phnom Kly. In: Rock,

F. (2001): Participatory Land Use Planning in Rural Cambodia. Manual for Government Staff and Development Workers. Phnom Penh.

Concern (2002): National Community Forestry Program Cambodia. Project Completion

Report to DANIDA. Phnom Penh. Concern (2002): Community Forestry Program Cambodia – Program Proposal. Phnom

Penh. Cum, W. (1999): Evaluation of Concern Worldwide’s Community Forestry Project in

Kampong Chhnang Province. Summary Report. DAE (2000): The Organization Structure, Roles and Responsibilities of Offices at the

Department of Agricultural Extension, MAFF. Phnom Penh. Daren (2000): Ethnicity and Forest Resource Use and Management in Cambodia. Phnom

Penh. DFW (1999): Workshop on the Rehabilitation of Degraded Forest Ecosystems in the Lower

Mekong Basin – National Assessments of Forest Rehabilitation Policy and Practice. Workshop Proceedings. DFW/ IUCN/ MRC-GTZ.

DFW (2000): National Community Forestry Strategic Plan. Phnom Penh. DFW (2001): Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management. DFW (2002): Cambodian Forest Policy Review. Information Analysis for Sustainable Forest

Management Linking National and International Efforts in Southeast Asia. Phnom Penh.

DFW (2003): Cambodia: Forestry Statistics to 2002. Statistic Section/ Planning and

Accounting Office. Doyle, K. (2003): Developing Democracy. The Cambodian Daily. June 14. -15. Duemmer, I. et al (2003): Community Forestry Database Discussion Paper. Draft. Prepared

by the Community Forestry Database Working Group. DWG (2001): Report on Land Policy. Phnom Penh. Enters, T.; Durst, P.; Victor, M. (2000): Decentralization and Devolution of Forest

Management in Asia and the Pacific. RECOFTC Report No. 18. RAP Publication: 2000/1. Bangkok.

69

Evans, P. (2003): Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region – Project Information Sheet. Siem Reap.

FAO (2002): Guidelines for the Preparation of Management Plans for Community Forestry in

Cambodia. Draft. Participatory Natural Resource Management in the Tonle Sap Region Project.

FAO (2002): National Workshop on Community Forest Management Planning. Workshop

Proceedings. Fichtenau, J.; Beang, L.,C.; Sothea, N.; Sophy, D. (2002): An Assessment of ongoing

Community Forestry Initiatives in Cambodia – Implications for the Development of Forestry Extension Strategy. CGFP/DFW.

Fidloczky, J. (2003): Final Report on Comparative Study on Forest Vegetation Cover and

Land Use in Lao P.D.R. Vientiane. FLET (2003): Extension Material Assessment. Presentation Prepared for the Community

Forestry Network Meeting. FoF (2002): Research Strategy 2003-2010. Vientiane. Foppes, J; Ketphanh, S. (1997): The use of NTFP’s in Lao P.D.R. DoF/ IUCN – NTFP

Project. Vientiane. FORCAP (2000): Plan and Implementation Results of the Forest Conservation and

Afforestation Project Phase II. JICA. Vientiane. Fraser, T. (2000): Community Forestry Guidelines. Support to Community Forestry Policy

Development. MAFF/ADB. Gibbon, D. (2002): A Farming System Research/ Extension Strategy for the National

Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute in Laos. Vientiane. Gilmour, A.; Tsechalicha, X. (2000): Forest Rehabilitation in Lao P.D.R. – Issues and

Constraints. IUCN. Vientiane. Global Witness (2000): ADB Concession Review – Still Falling Short. Phnom Penh. Hardcastle, P.D. (2001): Evaluation of National Community Forestry Program Concern

Cambodia. Helmers, K. (2001): Working Report of the First Stage Development of a Needs Based

Forestry Extension Information System for the DFW Forestry Extension Unit. Henderson, D. (1998): Community Forestry in Cambodia. A Briefing Paper. Phnom Penh. Henderson, D. (1999): The Forest Sector in Cambodia: Crisis and Opportunity. Hess, J. (2002): Lessons Learnt from Contributing to the NFP-Process in Cambodia.

Presentation held during the Second Expert Consultation. Chiang Mai.

70

IDRC (1999): Ratanakiri NRM Research Project July 1999-2003. IDRC/ UNDP/ CARERE. IUCN (2001): Conservation for Sustainable Livelihoods – A Five-year Strategic Framework

for IUCN’s Program in Lao P.D.R. 66 pp. Vientiane. Kalyan, H; Carson, T. (2000): Scoping Report, Community Based Natural Resource

Management in Cambodia. Kamnap, P.; Sarin, K.; Phal, B. (2000): Initial Study on Interaction between Local Community

and Natural Forest Resources and Resource Tenure in Prey Yav Village, Sreiknoung Commune, Chumkiri District, Kampot Province. IDRC/ RECOFTC.

Kirsch, H.; Bunnara,M.; Duemmer, I. (2003): Participatory Land Use Planning in Cambodia:

Concept and Experiences after the First Year. Paper. Phnom Penh. Kollert, W. (2001): Project Strategy Refinement and Operational Planning. Report on a

Review Mission to the Cambodian-German Forestry Project. Koning, M. (2002): Non-Timber Forest Products and the Role of the SUNV Program in Laos

– A Strategy Paper. Netherlands Development Organization / United Nations Volunteers. Vientiane.

LEAP (2002): Project Information Leaflet. LEAP (2003): Contribution to the Formulation of an Extension System. Presentation. Vientiane. Limchun, H. (2000): The Valuation of Community Forestry Products in Pursat Province,

Cambodia. M.Sc. Dissertation. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University College of North Wales.

LSFP (2001): Joint Forest Management Model 1 & 2. LSFP (2001): Participatory Land Use Planning and Land Allocation. Manual – 2nd Edition.

Vientiane. LSFP (2001): Land Use Planning and Land Allocation – A Component Description.

Vientiane. Lunnay, C. (2002): Land Registration and its impact on Community-based Natural Resource

Management in Lao P.D.R. Presentation at the IDRC Workshop. NUoL. MAF (1996): Instruction 822 on Land and Forest Allocation for Management and Use. MAF (1996): Customary Use of Forest Resources. MAF Instruction 377. MAF (1997): Sustainable Forest Management and Conservation in Lao P.D.R. – Vision

2020. 21 pp. Vientiane. MAF (1997): The National Village Forestry Strategy. Vientiane. MAF (2000): Evaluation of 3 Pilot Models for Participatory Forest Management and Villagers

Involvement in Production Forestry in Lao P.D.R.

71

MAF (2001): The Village Forestry Handbook – FOMACOP Model. MAF (2001): Management of Village Forests. MAF Regulation 535 MAF (2002): Strategic Vision on Integrated Watershed Management Approach for

Sustainable Upland Development and Poverty Alleviation in Lao P.D.R. 15 pp. Lao-DANIDA Natural Resources and Environment Program. National Capacity Building Project. Vientiane.

MAF (2003): Forestry Strategy to Year 2020. Draft. Presented at the Consultation Meeting.

Vientiane. Makarabhirom, P.; Raintree, J. (1999): Comparison of Village Forestry Planning Models

Used in Laos. Consultancy Report. LSFP. Vientiane. MAFF (2003): Sub-decree on Community Forestry. Revised Version by DFW and MAFF

submitted to the Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee of the Council of Ministers. McKenney, B. (2001): Baseline Assessment of Cambodia’s Forestry Sector. Conservation

Program WWF. McKenney, B.; Tola, P. (2002): Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia: A

Baseline Assessment. CDRI Working Paper 23. Mieng Ly Heng Investment Co. Ltd (2002): Strategic Forest Management Plan for Kampong

Cham/ Kampong Thom/ Preah Vihear Forest Concession. MoE (2000): Cultural Resource Study: Impacts of the Hero Taiwan Company Concession on

Sites of Religious and Cultural Significance in O Chum District, Ratanakiri. MoE/ CIDSE/ UNDP/CARERE.

MRC (2000): Strategy Study on the Development of the Watershed Management/ Forestry

Sector in the Lower Mekong Basin. Strategy and Action Plan. MRC (2000): Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Program for 2001 – 2005. MRC (2002): Basin Development Plan – Regional Sector Overview Watershed

Management. MRC Secretariat. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. NA (1996): The Forestry Law. NA (1997): The Land Law. NIS (1999): General Population Census of Cambodia 1998. Final Census Results. Phnom

Penh. Nhor, S. (2002): Takeo Forestry and Integrated Development Program. Program plan for

2002. Nong, K.; Vanntha, N.; Marschke, Melissa (2001): Participatory Management of Mangrove

Resources Project. Annual Progress Report. IDRC. Phnom Penh. Nong, K.; Vanntha, N.; Ouk Lykhim (2002): Participatory Management of Mangrove

Resources Project. Annual Progress Report, Year II/ Phase II. MoE/ IDRC.

72

NREM, (2003): Mainstreaming Natural Resource and Environmental Management Project – A Progress Update. Phnom Penh.

Oberndorf, R. (2003): Overview of Land and Forest Land Classification under the Land Law

and Forestry Law. Paper. Oberndorf, R. (2003): Analysis of Laws and Regulations Impacting Upon Commune Councils

Involvement in Participatory Land Use/ Natural Resources & Environmental Management Planning in Cambodia. Working Draft. Phnom Penh.

Oberndorf, R. (2003): Review of Draft Community Forestry Su-decree as Submitted by

MAFF to the Council of Ministers. Draft. Phnom Penh. Paterson, G. (1999): Traditional Resource Tenure and Livelihood Systems of Ethnic

Minorities in Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia – Responding to Rapid Change. Paterson, G. et all (2002): Community Land Use Planning – A case Study from Krola Village,

Ratanakiri, Cambodia. Non-Timber Forest Products Project. Peterson, R. (2003): Draft Sub-decree on Community Forestry under Review by the Inter-

Ministerial Technical Committee of the Council of Ministers. Letter to the Council of Ministers. NGO Forum.

PM (2002): Sustainable Management of Production Forest. PM Decree 59. Poffenberger, M. et. al (1997): Linking Government with Community Resource Management.

A Report of the 5th Asia Forest Network Meeting. Surajkund.India. RECOFTC (1998): For the Future: Building Capacity for Community Forestry in Indochina.

Overview of Needs, Opportunities and Recommendations to RECOFTC for Supporting Community Forestry Training in Indochina. RECOFTC/ SIDA. Bangkok.

RECOFTC (1998): For the Future: Building Capacity for Community Forestry in Lao P.D.R.

Consultancy Report. Vientiane/ Bangkok. Rendall, M. (1999): The Constitution and Government of Cambodia. Community Legal

Education Center, University of San Francisco School of Law, Cambodian Law and Democracy Project.

RGC (2000): Sub-decree on the Forest Concession Management. RGC (2002): Statement of the Royal Government on National Forest Sector Policy. Phnom

Penh. RGC (2001): The Forestry Law. RGC (2002): Strategy of Land Policy Framework. Interim Paper prepared by the Council of

Land Policy/ LMAP. Approved by the Council of Ministers. Phnom Penh. Riebe, K. (2001): CBNRM Lessons Shared – A series of CBNRM Case Studies from the

Tonle Sap, Siem Reap Province. Results of a Training Course. Rock, F. (2001): Participatory Land Use Planning in Rural Cambodia. Manual for

Government Staff and Development Workers. Phnom Penh.

73

Rotha, K., S.; Rock, F.; Helmrich, H. (2001): Participatory Land Use Planning in Cambodia. Workshop Proceedings.

Samhath, U. (1994): Regulation of Inter-village Community Forestry Development

Association. Phnom Penh. Samountry, X. et. al. (2000): Evaluation of Joint Forest Management Pilot Models 1 and 2.

Technical Report. Vientiane. Samountry, X. et. al. (2001): Evaluation of Forest Management and Conservation Program

FOMACOP Village Forestry Pilot Model. Summary Report. Sigaty, T. (2001): Resource Rights and Responsibilities of Local Communities Regarding

Natural Resource Management and Conservation. Sigaty, T. (2002): Forest Strategy 2020. Review of Legal Framework in Forestry Sector, Lao

P.D.R. Vientiane. SL International Limited (2002): Strategic Forest Management Plan for Koh Kong and

Kampong Speu Forest Concession. Som Ath, L.; Sunho, K.; Vuthy, M.; Dort, M. (2002): Destroying Mangrove Forests and

Rehabilitated through Co-Management Approach. Sophal, C.; Acharya, S. (2001): Facing the Challenge of Rural Livelihoods: A Perspective

from Nine Villages in Cambodia. Working Paper 25. CDRI. Phnom Penh. Sophal, N.; Yem Sreng, N,; Linasnet, N.; Somphos, L. (2002): Depletion of Dense and Semi-

Dense Forest Areas. A Case Study from Srer Ampun Commune, Pichrada District, Mondulkiri Province, Kingdom of Cambodia.

Sovanna, N. (1999): Community Based Natural Resource Management – Project Steps and

Processes. Soydara, V.; Nurse, M. (2002): Conservation and Development: Finding the Linkages

Lessons Learned in Collaborative Management for the Sustainable Use of Non Timber Forest Products in Lao PDR. IUCN. Vientiane.

Sreymom, S. et all (2001): Successful Land Conflict Resolution between Community and

Company Somkanenh Village, Somthom Commune, Oyadav District. Tuyll, C. (2003): Brief Introduction to the Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry – Watershed

Management Program. Phnom Penh. UNDP (2001): The District in the Local Administration in Lao P.D.R.–Recent Developments,

Challenges and Future Trends. Vientiane. Vann, S.; Theun, K. (2002): Gender in Community Forestry Management. A Case Study

from Snam Phrah Commune, Bakan District, Pursat Province, Kingdom of Cambodia.

Vantha, N.; Virak, V.; Sotheavy, S. (2002): Finding Sustainable Livelihoods – A case Study

from Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary (PKWS) Koh Kong Province, Kingdom of Cambodia.

74

Wauters, J. (2002): Introduction of New Management Techniques to Improve the Conditions of Community Forests in Siem Reap. M.Sc. thesis.

WB (2000): Review of the Legal Framework Affecting Land Administration. A Technical

Working Paper. WB (2001): Lao P.D.R. Production Forestry Policy – Status and Issues for Dialogue.

Volume I – Main Report. Vientiane. WB (2001): Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Vientiane. WB (2003): Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Project. Project Presentation.

Vientiane. World Conservation Society (2003): A Study of Resin Tapping and Livelihoods in Southern

Mondulkiri, Cambodia with Implications for Conservation and Forest Management. Phnom Penh.

West, D. W. (2001): Institutional Arrangements for Forestry Extension in Cambodia. Mission

Report for CGFP. WFP (2000): Forestry and Food Security. Phnom Penh. Wunder, S. (2001): Poverty alleviation and tropical forests – what scope for synergies? In:

World Development, Vol. 29, No. 11. Xayvongsa, L. (2002): Institutional Organization and Human Resources in the Forestry

Sector. Vientiane. Yoshida, K. (2002): Study on Development of Forest Management Plans for Forest

Rehabilitation and Extension Stations. Draft Report. Important WebPages: FAO webpage: www.fao.org/forestry MLMUPC webpage: www.mlmupc.gov.kh MAFF webpage: www.maff.gov.kh RECOFTC webpage: www.recoftc.org/01country/cambodia Mekonginfo webpage: www.mekonginfo,org NGO Forum for Environment webpage: www.ngoforum.org.kh

75

7 Annexes

76

Annex 1: TOR for the Short-term Consultancy

“Analysis of frame conditions and selected examples of participatory forest management and rehabilitation approaches, and implications for the Community

Forestry Program in Cambodia” 1. Background In the countries of the Lower Mekong Basin governments, civil societies and the international donor community increasingly give emphasis on the dependency between poverty reduction, sustainable economic growth and functional natural resources. In particular forests play a vital role in poverty alleviation and support to livelihood systems by potentially providing subsistence and commercial goods as well as environmental services to local people. The sustainable existence of functional forest resources is also considered as a trans-boundary issue. In order to improve basin wide watershed management the MRC/GTZ Program has the task to support the strengthening of participatory forest management and rehabilitation approaches within the Lower Mekong Basin. Therefore the short-term consultancy will mainly contribute to analysis and reflecting on various frame conditions and selected examples of participatory forest management and rehabilitation approaches existing and practiced in different countries in the Lower Mekong Basin. Like other neighboring countries in the region, the Royal Government of Cambodia gives high priority to poverty reduction and sustainable economic growth, which still depends very much on its rich natural resource base, especially forests, and therefore emphasizes on the sustainable management and use of this natural assets by promoting community-based approaches more recently. The short-term consultancy will further compile and provide information complementary to those already documented in the National Community Forestry Assessment by DFW/GTZ CGFP and useful for the ongoing forest policy dialogue and elaboration of the Forestry Extension Strategy for Cambodia that are both supported by DFW/GTZ CGFP. 2. Tasks 1. Analyze and describe history, current policy and legal framework, as well as the

institutional set-up, concerned networks/ multi-stakeholder entities and responsibilities for participatory forest management and rehabilitation approaches (community forestry) in Cambodia.

2. In close cooperation with the Community Forestry Advisor of DFW/CGFP select and rank

suitable projects and approaches (e.g, FAO, Concern Worldwide, Santi Sena in Svay Rieng, CBNRM).

77

3. For the local level analyze and describe the selected project examples and approaches of participatory forest management and rehabilitation approaches (community forestry) in Cambodia with special emphasis on:

• Theoretical models (concepts/ principles), • Project objectives, • Institutional settings and responsibilities of involved stakeholders, • Methods and interventions, • Technical aspects (long-term/ operational planning, implementation issues), • Benefit sharing arrangements, • Response to local demands

and their contribution to the promotion of Sustainable Forest Management/ Biodiversity Conservation in Cambodia.

4. Synthesize the results and give an outlook on replicability of the selected approaches. 5. Give an outlook for a possible future Community Forestry Programme under the National

Forest Program (recommend future working modalities of networks and multi-stakeholder entities and possible next steps for the National Forest Extension Strategy)

6. Analyze the importance of community forestry for watershed management approaches in

Laos and Cambodia. 7. Compare and analyze the findings in Cambodia with those in Laos. 8. Prepare options for the exchange of experiences between Laos and Cambodia. 9. Orally present the results and major findings in an appropriate form, preferably in Power

Point, to MRC/GTZ, DFW/GTZ-CGFP and selected persons at the end of the consultancy.

10. Deliver a consultancy report. 3. Expected Results • Draft consultancy report (1 hard copy) on the last day of the mission in Cambodia. • Power Point Presentation of preliminary findings (wrap-up) at the end of the mission in

Cambodia. • Final consultancy report (1 hard copy and in electronic format) delivered latest until

10.07. 4. Personnel, Logistics and Time Frame The consultancy will be conducted within the frame MRC/GTZ Programme with close cooperation of DFW/CGFP and will take place in Cambodia, Phnom Penh and places of selected case studies, from 1 of June 2003 to 30 of June 2003 and comprises in total 30 consultancy days (26 days in Cambodia, 1 day preparation in Laos/ 3 days completion of final report in Laos).

78

Office facilities (printer, scanner) are available/ accessible in either MRC/GTZ Programme or the DFW/GTZ-CGFP office. During the mission the consultant will be supported by MRC/GTZ Programme and the Community Forestry Adviser of the DFW/GTZ CGFP and closely cooperate with the Community Forestry Unit of the DFW. Transport in Phnom Penh and for necessary field visits to selected case study areas will be facilitated either by MRC/GTZ Programme or the DFW/GTZ-CGFP. This arrangement is also valid in case that a translator is needed. 5. Preliminary Schedule of Activities

Period/ day Activity 1 day (1.6.)

Preparation in Laos

1 day (2.6.)

Travel Laos – Cambodia, meeting (briefing) with the TL-CGFP/ TA-Community Forestry, introduction to staff members (Community Forestry Unit, project staff).

6 days (3.6. -8.6.)

Acquisition/ compilation of information from different sources (libraries, projects, NGOs) related to national frame conditions (current policy/ legal frame, institutional set-ups, history of CF development, country data), interview key persons for information verification, analysis/ synthesis of data.

13 days (9.6. -21.6.)

Case studies (Compile secondary information, contact/ interview representatives of the projects/ NGOs in PP, if necessary/ feasible field trip to the project site, verification/ interviews with field staff/ villagers). Interviews and meetings with representatives of networks and multi-stakeholder entities at national level.

5 days (22.6. -26.6.)

Preparation of the first draft of the consultancy report and the power point presentation

1 day (27.6.)

Delivery of the first draft of the consultancy report/ oral presentation of the major/ preliminary findings/ discussions for CGFP staff and selected persons.

3 days

Delivery of the final consultancy report (latest until 10.07.)

79

Annex 2: Activity Schedule

Date Activities 01.06. (Su)

Preparation in Vientiane

02.06. (Mo)

Travel VTE-PP, meeting with Mr. J. Fichtenau/ TA CGFP (general info/CF assessment/ materials/ identification of key persons), meeting with Cornelis van Tuyll/ TL MRC-GTZ Cooperation Program (refinement of TOR/ work organization/ integration into MRC), meeting with Mrs. S. Mamier/ GTZ Office PP (Contract/ organizational issues).

03.06. (Tue)

Meeting with J. Fichtenau (ranking of CF initiatives/ selection of initiatives for the analysis), meeting with Mr. Dy Sophy/ Permanent Assistant to the Forestry Law Extension Team (Compile additional info on selected CF initiatives).

04.06. (Wed)

Meeting with Mr. Kim Nong/ Project Leader/ PMMR (general info PMMR/ activities/ institutional frame conditions/ experiences), meeting with Mr. Cheam Mony/ Team Leader/ Management of Strategic Areas for Integrated Conservation/ WWF (former Adviser CBNRM/ institutional arrangement at provincial-village level/ WWF case studies/ co-management issues), compile documents from the former SMRP at MRC, meeting with Dr. Juergen Hess/ TL CGFP (info forestry sector/ CF in cambodia/ legal and institutional aspects/ key persons), Mr. Jens Richter/ DED Adviser RUA (info forestry sector/ CF).

05.06. (Thu)

Analysis of documents related to national frame conditions, arrange further contacts with key persons, meeting with Mr. Nup Sothea/ Chief Forestry Extension Unit/ DFW (14.30), meeting with Mr. Fichtenau (work progress/ organization of field trips), meeting with Mr. Bill Magrath/ Policy Reform Adviser WB (15.30).

06.06. (Fr)

Meeting with Mrs. Andrea Babon/ Community Forestry Adviser/ Concern Worldwide (9.00), meeting with Mr. Larry Groff/ Country Representative MCC (10.30), analysis of documents related to national frame conditions, meeting with Mr. Kai Panzer/ Consultant CGFP (info forestry sector).

07.06. (Sat)

Background reading, review and analysis of documents related to national frame conditions in Cambodia/ field trip preparation.

08.06. Sun Day-off

09.06. (Mo)

Travel to Siem Reap (Dep.8.30 a.m.), meeting with Mr. Patrick Evans/ TL FAO Project PNRM in the Tonle Sap Region (Project objectives, history, CF activities, institutional settings, challenges ahead), meeting with Mr. Prak Marina/ CF Supervisor at the PFO (institutional settings, CF activities, planning procedures), compilation of documentations and data.

10.06. (Tue)

Meeting with Ms. Melissa Marschke/ CBNRM Facilitator IDRC (former Project Adviser PMMR), meeting with Mr. Kiran Paudyal (Associate Professional Officer/ FAO Project/ inundated forests and fisheries), meeting with Patrick Evans (national frame conditions, legal aspects CF), meeting with Mr. Paulin Van Im Program Officer/ ADB Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project, recording/ analysis/ synthesis of collected data.

11.06. (Wed)

Field trip to the FAO Project CF field sites (Bay Lech village) together with representatives of Concern Worldwide (aspects of CF management planning and technical interventions, potential, problems), discussion with villagers/ committee/ governmental authorities on the site, travel back to PP (Dep. 16.50 p.m.).

12.06. (Thu)

8.30 meeting with Mr. Sy Ramony/ Project Leader/ Community Forestry Research Project/ MoE (project goal, activities, cooperation partners, research priorities), 10.00 Team Meeting MRC/ AIFP (introduction of tasks and discussions, activities, coordination), 13.30 meeting with Mr. Robert Oberndorf/ CDC Adviser (legal frame for NRM/ forestry in Cambodia, future perspectives), 15.00 meeting with Mr. Lao Setaphal/ Chief Community Forestry Unit/ DFW.

80

Date Activities 13.06. (Fri)

8.30 – 11.30 CFWG meeting at the DFW/ goal, objectives, activities, procedures) 14.00 meeting Mr. Toby Carson/ Adviser WWF and Mr. Srey Marona/ Team leader CBNRM (general information on CBNRM, initiatives in Ratanakiri province), 15.30 meeting with Mr. Juergen Fichtenau (work progress, organizational matters), 16.30 meeting with Kengo Yoshida, JICA Adviser to the DFW (reforestation activities in Cambodia, institutions, concepts, activities).

14.06. (Sat)

Background reading, review and analysis of documents related to selected CF initiatives in Cambodia.

15.06. (Sun)

Day – off

16.06. (Mon)

Meeting with Mr. Steve Carson/ Basin Development Plan/ MRC, background reading, review and analysis of documents related to selected CF initiatives.

17.06. (Tue)

8.00 meeting Terry O Sullivan/ Team leader CAAEP – Cambodia-Australia Agriculture Extension Project/ MAFF (institutional settings, objectives, activities), 14.00 meeting with Mr. Harald Kirsch and Ignas Duemmer/ DED Advisers for LUP, Mr. Bunnara/ Project Officer/ CGFP (PLUP process, implementation, training, influence on natural resource management).

18.06. (Wed)

Visit MCC CF activities/ Takeo Province, meeting 9.30 Takeo MCC Office with representatives of the Community Forestry Association and the MCC CF coordinator (institutional arrangements, concepts, procedures, technical interventions, benefit sharing arrangements, problems, outlook), visit of the nursery, established plantations and the protection forest.

19.06. (Thu)

8.00 Mr. Nhem Sovanna/ Natural Resource and Environment Adviser/ UN Support to SEILA Program/ CDC Block E (Activities NRM Component/ SEILA Program/ CF support activities/ Ratanakiri Province), 10.00 Mr. Sok Khim/ Program Officer/ OXFAM GB (support to Senti Sena CF Initiative, institutional set-ups, activities, conflicts, benefit sharing), 14.30 Mr. Ly Chou Beang/ Deputy Reforestation Office/ DFW (CAMCOFFT –Cambodian Community Forestry Training Center/ Extension vision/ role of DFW/ networks).

20.06. (Fr)

8.30 meeting with Sarah Burgess/ DFW/ DANIDA (CF Networks/ CF extension at provincial level, opportunities), 10.00 Mr. Willi Zimmerman/ GTZ Team Leader/ Land Management and Administration Project (LMAP)/ MLMUPC (land titling process, implementation issues, security of land tenure, legal aspects), 15.00 meeting with Werner Kosemund/ DED CF Adviser (cross-cutting issues CF, practical aspects, institutional settings at provincial level, problems at local level), 17.00 meeting with Ms. Katrin Seidel/ Consultant LMAP (CF Ratanakiri, indigenous land use systems/ tenure systems/ LUP and land management issues in uplands).

21.06. (Sat)

Review and analysis of documents, synthesis of gathered information, elaboration of the presentation. Starting drafting the report.

22.06. (Sun) Day-off

23.06. (Mon)

8.30 meeting with Yann Petrucci/ Forest Planning Specialist/ WB (CF and Concession Management, CF in planning/ implementation issues), 9.30 meeting with Mr. Andrew Cock/ Forest Policy Adviser/ NGO Forum (CF policy issues/ perspectives for CF/ activities NGO Forum), 16.00 meeting with Mr. Ignas Dummer/ DED Adviser (CF data base, structure, objectives, institutional integration), elaboration of the presentation.

81

Date Activities 24.06. (Tue)

8.30 meeting with Mr. Bounna/ Deputy Head Department of Nature Conservation / MoE and Mr. Sy Ramony/ Deputy Head Community Forestry and Buffer Zone Management Unit (CF approach in Protected Areas, institutional settings, personnel, cooperation with other institutions), elaboration of the presentation and consultancy report.

25.06. (Wed)

Elaboration of the draft consultancy report, presentation, 15.30 meeting with Mr. Peter Balzer, CF Adviser DED (CF implementation, local settings, experiences).

26.06. (Thu)

8.00 meeting with Mr. Hak Sarom/ Forestry Program Officer/ OXFAM GB/ CF Initiative Senti Sena/ Svey Rieng, 15.00 meeting with Mr. Ly Sophea/ Permanent Assistant/ Forestry Law Extension Team, 16.30 meeting with Mr. Bunnara (results/ information on the CF Network Meeting in Pursat), elaboration of the draft consultancy report/ presentation.

27.06. (Fri)

9.00 team meeting AIFP at MRC, 14.00 Mr. Lic Vuthy/ Head of the Institute for Forest and Wildlife Research/ DFW (research related to CF, coordination, issues/ topics), elaboration of the draft consultancy report/ presentation.

28.06. (Sat)

Elaboration of the draft consultancy report/ presentation

29.06. (Sun) Day-off

30.06. (Mon)

10.00 debriefing on findings with Mr. Juergen Fichtenau/ Acting TL/ CGFP, refinement of the presentation, check prepare room, IT.

01.07. (Tue)

Completion of the presentation, 14.00 debriefing on findings/ recommendations with Mr. Kees van Tuyll TL/ GTZ-MRC Cooperation Program, prepare handouts for participants (30).

02.07. (Wed)

9.00-10.30 Presentation of preliminary findings at MRC, integrate issues/ comments raised during the discussions into the draft of the consultancy report.

03.07. (Thu)

Continue to draft the consultancy report. 15.25 Departure to VTE

82

Annex 3: List of Contacted Key Persons

No. Name Position/ Institution Contact 1 Dr. Cornelis van Tuyll Program Coordinator/

MRC-GTZ Cooperation Program tuyll@mrcmekong.orgH/P: 012 906 088

2 Dr. Juergen Hess Team leader/ Cambodian-German Forestry Project

cgfp@bigpond.com.kh H/P: 012 833 265

3 Mr. Juergen Fichtenau

Forestry Adviser/ Cambodian-German Forestry Project

cgfp.jurgen@online.com.khH/P: 012 895 620

4 Mr. Kim Nong Project Leader/ Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources

PMMR@bigpond.com.khH/P: 012 772 878

5 Mr. Cheam Mony Team leader/ Management of Strategic Areas for Integrated Conservation

cbnrm-cam@everyday.com.khH/P: 012 835 842

6 Mr. Ly Sophea Permanent Assistant/ Forestry Law Extension Team

cgfp.flet@online.com.kh H/P: 012 947 619

7 Mr. Jens Richter Adviser/ DED/ Royal University of Agriculture and Forestry

JRichter.mail@web.deH/P: 012 610 073

8 Mr. Nup Sothea Chief Forestry Extension Unit/ DFW dfw.extension@online.com.kh H/P:012 914118

9 Mrs. Andrea Babon Community Forestry Adviser/ Concern Worldwide

andrea@concerncambodia.net H/P: 012 651 941

10 Mr. William B. Magrath

Lead Natural Resource Economist/ WB Cambodia Country Office

wmagrath@worldbank.org HP: 012 656 872

11 Mr. Larry Groff Country Representative/ Mennonite Central Committee (MCC)

crmcc@bigpond.com.kh Tel: 023 216 387

12 Mr. Patrick Evans Team Leader/ FAO Project PNRM in the Tonle Sap Region

pte@online.com.kh H/P: 012 826 125

13 Mr. Prak Marina Supervisor CF Unit/ PFO Siem Reap fao-Sr@forum.org.kh Tel: 063 963 462

14 Ms. Melissa Marschke

CBNRM Facilitator/ IDRC (Former Project Adviser PMMR)

mjmarschkeca@yahoo.com H/P: 012 579 513

15 Mr. Kiran Paudyal Associate Professional Officer/ FAO Project PNRM/ Tonle Sap Region

kpaudyal@hotmail.comH/P: 012 660 392

16 Mr. Paulin Van Im Program Officer/ ADB Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project

adbcarm@adb.orgTel: 023 215 805/6

17 Mr. Sun Vann Project Officer CF/ Concern Worldwide

concerncf@bigpond.com.khTel: 023 214 897

18 Mr. Christoph Feldkoetter

GTZ Adviser/ MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme

cfeldko@mrcmekong.orgHP: 012 982 570

19 Mr. Sy Ramony Project Leader/ Community Forestry Research Project

ramony@bigpond.com.kh HP: 012 832 933

20 Mr. Robert B. Oberndorf

CDC Advisor/ CDC-DANIDA Natural Resources and Environmental Progr.

cdc_advisor@online.com.khoberndorfr@yahoo.com HP: 012 756 143

21 Mr. Lao Setaphal Chief Community Forestry Unit/ DFW dfwcf@online.com.kh HP: 012 827 915

22 Mr. Min Bunnara Project Officer/ CGFP/ DFW cgfpbunnara@online.com.khH/P: 012 839 960

23 Mr. Toby Carson Adviser WWF/ CBNRM toby@everyday.com.kh H/P: 012 962 092

24 Mr. Srey Marona Team Leader/ Community Based Natural Resource Management

marona@everyday.com.khH/P: 012 826 399

25 Mr. Chean Thayuth Forestry Project Manager/ WWF Cambodia Conservation Program

thayuth@everyday.com.khTel: 023 218 034

26 Mr. Kengo Yoshida Adviser/ JICA/ DFW - Reforestation Program

kengo@bigpond.com.kh012 909 269

27 Mr. Steve Carson Team leader/ Basin Development Plan/ MRC

83

No. Name Position/ Institution Contact 28 Mr. Terry O’Sullivan Team leader/ Cambodia-Australia

Agricultural Extension Project/ MAFF tos@bigpond.com.khHP: 012 213 011/012 903 088

29 Dr. Harald Kirsch Adviser/ DED/ PLUP haraldcm@hotmail.comHP: 012 785 514

30 Mr. Ignas Duemmer DED Adviser HP: 012 786 560 ignascommea@hotmail.com

31 Mrs. Sdoung Nhor Program Coordinator, MCC Initiative, Takeo Province HP: 012 997 272

32 Mr. Nget Ngorn Leader of the Village Forest Association (VFA)/ Takeo HP: 012 997 272

33 Mr. Van Vonh Deputy Chief/ VFA/ Takeo HP: 012 997 272 34 Mr. Soi Savanh Accountant/ VFA/ Takeo HP: 012 997 272

35 Mr. Nhem Sovanna Natural Resource and Environment Management Adviser/UNOPS-SEILA

sovanna@seila.gov.kh HP: 012 959 429

36 Mr. Sok Khim Program Officer/ OXFAM GB skhim@oxfam.org.kh HP: 012 856 012

37 Mr. Ly Chou Beang Deputy Chief Reforestation Office/ DFW

Baeng.cf@bigpond.com.kh HP: 0122 858 294

38 Mrs. Sarah Burgess CF Working Group/ DFW/ DANIDA sburgess@eudoramail.com HP: 012 803 872

39 Mr. Willi Zimmermann

GTZ Team leader/ Land Titling Project

GTZ>LMP@bigpond.com.kh HP: 012 518 595

40 Mr. Werner Kosemund DED Adviser CF Kampong Speu w_kosemund@web.de

HP: 012 698 482

41 Ms. Katrin Seidel Consultant, Land Management and Administration Project

Katrin_seidel_gtz@yahoo.com Tel:023 213 817

42 Mr. Kai Panzer Consultant, CGFP 012836014@mobitel.com.kh HP: 012 836 014

43 Mr. Yann Petrucci Forest Planning Specialist, WB Forest Concession Management & Control Project/ DFW

yann.petrucci@bigpond.com.khHP: 012 901 210

44 Mr. Andrew Cock Forest Policy Adviser/ NGO Forum on Cambodia

andrewcok@bigpond.com.khHP: 012 822 026

45 Mr. Bounna Deputy Director of the Department of Nature Conservation/ MoE HP: 012 954 838

46 Mr. Hak Sarom Forestry Program Officer/ Oxfarm GB hsarom@oxfarm.org.uk HP: 012 575 726

47 Mr. Peter Balzer Adviser for Natural Resources Management, DED

p.balzer@mobitel.com.kh HP: 012 928 975

48 Mr. Lic Vuthy Head of Institute for Forest and Wildlife Research/ DFW

dfw.syphan@online.com.kh HP: 012 967 865

49 Mr. Gordon Patterson NTFP Project Ratanakiri gordon@camintel.com H/P: 012 997 391

84

Annex 4: Overview on Institutional Set-up for CBFM in Cambodia

Council of Ministers

Ext.

MAFF MoE MLMUPC

Dep. of For. & Wildlife

Dep. of Fisheries

Dep. of Nature Cons. & EP

Dep. of Land Man.

Dep. of Land Reg.

Central Level

CF

CF Refor.

PAFFD

DAFFO

Communes RD Committee)

Inter-villag nizations (VFA)

Villages (VDC/ VFC)

Province &

District Level

Ext. EP

DoAE

CF & BZM

DLMO

Inter-sector ilitation Teams

PO

PLMO

Commune & Village

Level

Villages (VDC/ VFC)Villa DC/ VFC)

85

(CC/

e Orga

PD

al Fac

DE

ges (V

Annex 5: Organization and Functional Relationships of the Agriculture Extension System in Cambodia153

153 The Organization Structure, Roles and Responsibilities of Offices at the DAE, DAE (2000)

Other Provincial Departments and Research Stations

OAE & Other Offices of DAFF

IO’s, NGO’s, Donors, Private Sector

IO’s, NGO’s, Donors, Private Sector

MAFF

Provincial DAFF

Key Contact Farmers

Farm Families

DAE & Technical Departments

District Agriculture Office

Coordination, Links & Cooperation

Technical Support & Information Feedback

Technical Assistance & Feedback

Line of Authority, Coordination, Cooperation

Other Ministries

86

Annex 6: Overview on Selected CF Initiatives in Cambodia

87

Name of the

Initiative

Juris-diction

Sup-ported

by

Pro-vince

Con-

ditions

Objectives

Area

No. of

Villages

No. of People

Participat.

NRM/ Tonle Sap

MAFF/ MoE

FAO

Siem Reap

68 pp km 2, fw. dep. 96,1%, FC 50%

20 000 ha

90

69 000

CF Initiative Concern

MAFF

Concern World-wide

Kam-pong Chh-nang

76 pp sq km, fw. dep.95,8%, FC 35%

2 900

ha

26 23 000

Particip. Man. of

Mangrove Resources

MoE

IDRC/ RECOFTC

Koh

Kong

12 pp sq km, fw. dep.95,3%, FC 85%

10 000

ha

4 4 000

CBNRM

MAFF IDRC/

SEILA/ WWF

Rata-nakiri

9 pp sq km, fw. dep.96,2%, FC 83%

8 500 ha

32

18 000

MCC

MAFF AusAid/ SIDA/

PRASAC

Takeo

222 pp sq km, fw. dep. 96,2%, FC 3%

500 ha

18

11 700

Senti Sena

MAFF

OXFAM GB

Svey Rieng

161 pp sq km, fw. dep. 89,4 %, FC 3%

98 ha

10

8227

Empower villagers to manage their CFand ensure food security andlivelihood improvement. Increase organ. Capacity of village organization

Local communities develop, test andimplement methods and options forCBNRM as part of overall participatory development efforts.

Design part. Planning andmanagement strategies for PKWS,organization of local people, promotepart. of communities in themanagement and protection of NR.

Focus on forest management andlong-term strategies, including theintegration of community development.

To establish responsible, productiveand sustainable management of forestresources by local communities tomeet local needs/ stimulate localdevelopment.

Improve environmental management,rehabilitation of degraded forest landand preservation of traditional landuse practices.

Participatory Natural Resource Management Tonle Sap, FAO

Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources,

IDRC/ RECOFTC

CF Program, Concern Worldwide

Senti SenGB/ C

Community B Natural Resource Ma ment,

IDRC/ CEIL WF

Annex 7: Location of the Selected CF Initiatives in Cambodia

MCC Initiative, SIDA/ PRASAC/ Concern

ased nageA/ W

88

Map provided by I. Duemmer (2003)

a, OXFAM IDSE

Annex 8: Procedure for Community Forestry Management Planning154

Plan Writing

Discussion of Field Results with the Committee

Forest Structure Analysis

Participatory Forest Inventory

Block Verification

Block Division

Participatory Resource Mapping

Training of the Inventory Team

Community Meeting

Preparation of Field Work

Review and Completion of the Plan

154 Guidelines for the Preparation of Management Plans for Community Forestry, FAO (2002)

89

Annex 9: Planning for Community Forestry within the Frame of the Planning Procedure for CBNRM, Ratanakiri Province155

Preparation on Provincial Level

Step 1: Project proposal formulation

Step 2: CBNRM core team formulation

Implementation on Co

Step 1: Arrangements for pr Step 2: Introduction of p

Step 4: Managemen

Step 5a: Participatory land use planning

Ste

Step 5b. 1 Forest Boundary Mapping

Worksho

Step 5b.3 Zoning of forest

Formu

Step5b.5 Village workshop

155 Community Based Natural Resource Management, Sov

Step 3: Develop methodology

Step 4: Core team capacity building

mmunity Level

oject introduction

roject to village

Step 3: Information gathering

t planning

p 5b: Community Forestry

Step 5b.6 Commune meeting

Step 5b.7 District workshop

Step 5b. 2 p with neighboringvillages

Step 5b.8 Province

Step 5b.9 Implementation

Step 5b.4 lation of rules andregulations

anna (1999)

90

Annex 10: Institutional Framework for CBNRM in Laos Minister MAF Vice Ministers

Province &

District Level

Central Level MAF

NAFRI

Council of Science and Technology

Dep. of Planning

5 Technical Departments

Dep.of Inspection

NAFES

Cabinet Office

Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Service

District Agriculture and Forestry Office

DoF

VFA/ Village Volunteers/ Farmers

Village Level

91

Annex 11: Agriculture and Forestry Extension System in Laos156

CETDU Master Trainers Pool

PAFO/ PAFES SMS

OFSEW

NAFES

Government Extension Structure

156 Contribution to the Formulation of an Extension System LEAP (2

DAF

Village Cluster Village Extension

System

Village

003)

92

Annex 12: Organizational Structure of the Village Forestry Association, FOMACOP, Laos157

157 The Village Forestry Handbook – FOMACOP Model, MAF (2001)

Policy Committee (policy-making body)

Chairman Village Chief

Deputy Chairman Treasurer

Secretary, Members

Management Committee (implementing body)

Manager Deputy Manager

Bookkeeper Administrative and Finance

Audit and Inventory Committee

Election Committee

Education and Training

Committee

Working Team Working Team Working Team Working Team

General Assembly (highest decision-making body)

93

Annex 13: Institutional Arrangements for Implementing CBFM in Production Forests in Laos158

Project Steering Committee

National Project Director

NAFRI Research Support

Dep. NPD, DoF Sectoral

Support &

Dep. NPD, NAFES Field

Regional Training Center

DoF/ FIPD Identific. and mapping of

NPFAs

DoF/ PD Strategic

planning & monitoring

DoF/ FIPD Drafting technical

guidelines

PAFES

Provincial Training Station

PAFOs/ PFOs

About 300 VFCs/ VFAs

Impl. of forest management & village

DAFO/ FMTU/ FSEW

Impl. of forest management &

village

158 Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Project, WB (2003)

94

Annex 14: Functional Relationships in Organization and Management MRC, AIFP159

Monitoring and Evaluation

Small Community Grants Scheme

National Mekong Committees National Coordination, International Liaison

National Planning Authorities National Technical Agency,

Provides Specialist Staff

DP

Inte

Dis

Approval of Use of Grants

Commun

MRC Operation Division

159 Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Prog

Provincial Planning epartment Field Office rovincial Coordination rnational Provincial Level

Liaison

trict Planning Office DistrictCoordination/ Liaison

Water Supplies

Catchment

Health

Management Component Field Office

Infrastructure Environment

ity Based Projec

ram for 2001 – 2005, MRC (2000

Agriculture

ts

)

Forestry

Fisheries

Irrigation

95