Dramas of the CPRs:
CPRs logicaldevelopmente e op e too takea e lessons
esso s foroREDD+ implementation（共用資源のドラマ：
REDDプラスへの教訓を得るための論理的展開）
Makoto Inoue
The University of Tokyo

Plenty of arguments over safeguard issues,
i l diincluding
llocall people,
l bby experts
t off REDD+
mechanism……………… (>｡<)

I’ll try a logical development of dramas….
 A new drama of CPRs stimulated by REDD+↓ < to foster the new drama > An original drama of sustainable resource use↓ < but when focusing on the forest > A hard drama of participatory forest
management↓ < then expanding our perspective > Implicative drama of sustainable livelihoods

1. A new drama of CPRs stimulated by REDD

Two attributes ofCommon Pool Resources (CPRs)•Low excludability:
o It is difficult to exclude individuals from usinggoods.
o Similar
Si il to ‘‘public
bli goods’.
d’•High subtractability:o The benefits gotten by one individual can notb consumed
bedbby others.
tho Similar to ‘private goods’.
4

SUBTRACTABILITY
LowHighDifficult

PublicGoodsCPRs*vulnerable!
vulnerable!

Easy

Toll Goods/
Club Goods

PrivateGoods

EXCLUSION

5

Conditions for self‐governing associations/collectivell ti actions
ti• To avoid social losses,
losses the users of a CPR will; organize themselves
 take collective actions
 form self-governing associations
 under certain conditions.
 So what are the conditions for it?
• Some scholars identified factors to help for predicting
situation for a successful CPR regime.
 Ostrom (1990) suggested a list of 8 design principles
that characterize the configuration of rules devisedand used by long-enduring CPR institutions.
6‘Design Principles’ for durable CPR institutions(O t(Ostrom,1990)
1. Clearly defined boundaries
2. Congruence
3. Collective-choice arrangements
4. Monitoring
5. Graduated sanctions
6. Conflict-resolution
Conflict resolution mechanisms
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize
8. Nested
es ed enterprisese e p ses ((foro C
CPRss thata aaree pa
partof larger systems)
 This issue is argued here.
7

“Gap of the interest”
Cityy dwellers(domestic/ international)
Attention to specific functions(biodiversity, environment, CO2)

Conflict !
Village community

Forests

Rural residents（forest dwellers）

Dependence oflivelihood

Three strategies for sustainable resource
use & managementt (Inoue, 2004; Inoue, 2013)
Resistance strategy

1
1.


Adjustment strategy

2.


3
3.

People do not adapt to globalisation and mostly refuse
involvement by outsiders in order to preserve their autonomy.
Attribute: closure

People assimilate the benefits of globalisation.
globalisation
Attribute: openness

Eclectic strategy
strateg

A compromise that incorporates a partial resistance strategy
and limited adjustment strategy.
‘Collaborative
Collaborative governancegovernance’ of natural resources could beachieved under this strategy.
This type of governance is organised through collaboration
among various stakeholders who have a range of interests inl
local
l resource use andd management.
9Collaborative governance as an eclecticstrategy forf resource use & management(1) ResistanceR i t
strategyt t‐Main actor: local people
Philosophy: autonomy‐Philosophy:‐Attribute: closure, reciprocity
contradiction
t di tiintegration/ sublation(2) Adjustment strategy-Main
Main actor: NGO, consultant-Philosophy: environmental
conservation, sense of citizen-Attribute: openness, publicness(3) Eclectic strategy-Main actor: local people with various
stakeholders ((NGO and consultant))-Philosophy: principle of subsidiarity,
consensus building-Attribute: collaboration, networking-Embodiment: Collaborative governance(Inoue 2004; Inoue,(Inoue,Inoue 2013)

Degree of decision‐making authorityof the local people(1) ResistanceR i tstrategy
t t‐the local people ≅ 100 %(3) Eclectic strategy- 50 % ≤ the local people < 100 %contradiction
t di tiintegration/ sublation(2) Adjustment strategy-the local people < 50 %

Which will be a new drama?:
Implication for REDD+(1) ResistanceR i t
strategyt t‐the local people ≅ 100 %contradiction
t di tiintegration/ sublation(2) Adjustment strategy-Degree of decisionmaking
ki authority
th it off ththelocal people < 50 %(3) Eclectic strategy
50 % ≤ Degree of decisionmaking authority of thelocal people < 100 %* Which will REDD+ support ?
* Importance to avoid making thesocial safeguard issue indulgence.

2. An original
gdrama of sustainablelocal resource use

Various uses of rattan basket by the Kenyah in East Kalimantan

A picture
shownhb
by a scholar
h l ini 1987 att SSamarinda,
i dor a capital city of East Kalimantan
Trees

Swidden for upland rice

Reality
y in Apop Kayan,yor central plateau of Borneo island
Trees

Swiddens for upland riceQuestions• Was understanding of the scholar wrong?
 Field reality denied the explanation by the scholar.
• How do the Kenyah people explain their localpraxis?
i?
“I stopped cutting trees because I have already got
enoughh area off swidden
iddforf thisthi year.””• For other praxis ,such as rotation system of swiddens,
how do they explain the reason?
“To reduce labor input for weeding is the mostimportant factor to keep the rotation.
rotation ”• Importance to discover the gap in between emic
and etic perspectives

Category of sustainable resource
utilization (Inoue 1998; Inoue 2000; Inoue 2011)• Haphazard
H hd su/偶発的なsu:/偶発的なthe mode ofutilization whereby unconscious action brings aboutsustainable use of resources.
resources• Incidental su/副産物としてのsu: the mode ofutilization whereby conscious actions for otherpurposes achieve sustainable use.

• Intended su/意識的なsu: the mode of utilization
wherebyhb sustainablet i bl resource managementt iis
intended. Some regulations are incorporated into
customary law.

Ex) Haphazard: Trees left in the swiddens(to prevent soil erosion)Ex) Incidental: Rotation system of the swiddens(avoiding weeding  longer fallow period sustainability)
Empaq
JJekau Lataq
qJekauJue Dumit
Bekan

Categoryg y of secondaryyg
growth at Longg Betaoh villageg(Inoue, 1990)

Ex) Incidental: Spiritual tree
( t cutt tto avoid(notid calamities
l iti  conservation)ti )Ex) Intended: Iriai
Iriai‐rinrin (communal forests) in Japan(tight regulations in terms of tools, seasons and species, etc.)

Ex) Intended: Tana’ ulen (customary forest) by theKenyah in Kalimantan(loose regulations to the trees marked by a member)Can the local people create an original
ddrama?:? IImplications
li ti
ffor REDD
REDD+
Sustainable local resource use(1)Haphazard s.u.
(2)Incidental s.u.
(3)Intended s.u.

Great possibility to collaborate with‐ though concrete measures will bevaried according to the category.

Un‐sustainableUnsustainable local
resource use

Both are realities‐ Neither the culprit nor the innocent‐ Neither always conservator nordestroyer

The local people as stakeholders of REDD+:×

Main drivers/culprit of deforestation and forest degradation○ Main players/partners for SFM and forest conservation

3. A hard drama of participatory forest
management (PFM)()PFM’s challenging
g g road to REDD+• Is REDD+ activities through incentivizing forest
conser ation underconservationnder existinge isting PFM regimes promising?
• Mainly degraded and/or low value forests (Inoue(Inoue, 2004;Ribot et al., 2006)  forests are of little or no interest to
powerful actors difficult to maintain• Many and small in size  increases transaction costs perttonon CO2 sequesteredtd (Balooni(B li & LLund,d 2013)• Deforestation outside ‘conservation islands’(partially‘leakage’)  also occurs in the countries as globalg((Balooni &leaders in decentralized forest management
Lund, 2013)

Evidence: Statistics from five global leaders
iin ddecentralizedt li d fforestryt (Balooni(B li&L
Lund,d 2013)
CCountrytP
ProgramNo. offN
decentra‐lized
manage‐a a ementunits

AverageA
forest size
permanage‐a a ement unit(ha)Share offSh
forest areaunderde e t ali ed
decentralized
management(%)

AnnuallA
forest areachangerateate
during
2005‐2010
(%)

India

JFM

112,816

218

36

4.66

pNepalCF

17,685

93

45

‐6.77

Philippines

CBFM

1,786

907

21

7.7

MexicoEjidos

8,400

5400

70

‐2.92

Tanzania

CBFM,
JFM

2,323

1,775

12

‐10.77

Many

Small

Deforestation happened

4. Implicative drama of sustainable
livelihoods, based on various land uses
CustomaryForest(tana’ulen)

Agriculturalarea

Settlement
Agriculturalarea

Communal
forest (baí )Agriculturalarea

Communal
forest (baí )27

Case study:y main land uses

Borneo islandNEast Kalimantan

Traditional land uses：
swidden, rattan garden,
traditional rubber garden,
orchard
New land uses：
rubber plantation, cacao garden,
oilil palml plantationl t ti●●Oil palm plantation in W.K.D.：
WK D ：
Planned area: 62% of other land
National program:：・ Land allocation: company‐80%,villagers 20%
villagers‐20%

LT village
BM village
SD village
ill g：Forestland●●：Other lands
BS vilage
50㎞
0West Kutai District28

Traditional land uses

R bb garden
RubberdOrchard

Rattan garden

Swidden agriculture29

New land uses

CCacaogardendRubber plantation*Oil‐palm plantation,
managed by private company,
needs at least 3,000 hato get benefit.
Oil palm plantation30

Peoples’ preference of land use(Inoue et al, 2013)
Ranking

LT village

BM village

BS village

SD village

1stSwiddenagriculture

Rubberplantation

Traditionalrubber garden

Rubberplantation

2nd

Traditional rubbergarden

Traditionalrubber garden

Swiddenagriculture

Traditionalrubber garden

3d
3rd

R bb plantation
RubberlC
CacaogardendRubberplantation

Swiddenagriculture

4thCacao ggarden

SwiddenagricultureOrchardOrchard

5th

OrchardOrchard

Rattan garden

Oil‐palm
plantation

6th

Rattan garden

Oil‐palm
plantation

Oil‐palm
plantation

Rattan garden

7th

Oil palm
Oil‐palm
plantation

Rattan garden
31

Results(Terauchih et al,l 2010; Inoue
Iet al,l 2013)
 Rubber
R bb plantationl t ti& ttraditionalditi
l rubberbb garden:
dhi
highh
preference  because of high profitability
 Swidden agriculture: high & medium preference 
important in terms of staple food security
 Orchard: medium preference  because of medium
profitability
 Rattan garden: low preference  but still important assafety net because of flexibility of production
safety-net
 Oil-palm plantation: low preference  because of social
anxiety though expecting high profitability Combination of various land use  in accordance
multiple livelihood needs  based on respective
attributes of each land use
32

Policyy Implication
pfor REDD+(Terauchi et al, 2010; Inoue et al, 2013)

 Desirable institutional/project design:
be profitable,b iimplementedbelt d without
ith t social
i l anxiety,i t
be expected to satisfy various livelihood
needs,needsnot only on forest land but also non-forestland
a d (agricultural(ag cu u a land,a d, etc.),e c.),on condition that safety-net (forestecosystem, swidden agriculture) for theirli lih d islivelihood
i ensured.
dWhat is ‘livelihood’?
33Livelihood(Ch b(Chambersandd Conway,C1992
1992; DFID,DFID 1999)• Definitiono A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities
requiredqfor a means of living.
g• Sustainability
y of the livelihoodo A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with andrecover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance
its capabilities and assets both now and in the future,
future while
not undermining the natural resource base.

• Four dimensions for analysis
o Environmental / Economic / Social / Institutional

Messages to REDD+ experts
ffrom
ffour ddramas•

D
Degreeoff ddecision-makingii
ki
authority
th it off theth llocall peoplel :o hopefully be increased•

Shift of REDD
REDD+ experts
experts’ mindset, based on the local reality :o the local people: as main drivers/culprit of deforestationo  as principal players/partners of forest conservation andsustainable forest management•Difficulties of Participatory Forest Management:o Allocation of degraded and/or low value foresto High transaction cost  many, and small sizeo Deforestation outside ‘conservation islands’•Institutional design:o Livelihood-oriented institution, including variety of activities onboth of agricultural and forest landsLiterature
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Balooni, K. and Lund, JF. (2013) Policy Perspective: Forest rights - the hardcurrency of REDD+. Conservation Letters, online (doi: 10.1111/conc.12067)
ChChambers,bR
R. anddC
Conway, GG. (1992) SSustainablet i bl rurall lilivelihoods:lih d P
Practicalti lconcept for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS.
DFID (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department forInternational Development.
Inoue M.
Inoue,M (1990) Changes in the swidden system of the Kenyah Dayak Tribe.
Tribe
Southeast Asian Studies, 28 (2): 222-255. (In Japanese with English summary)Inoue, M. (1998) Evaluation of local resources management systems as thepremise for introducing participatory forest management. Journal of Forest
Economics, 44 (3): 15-22.
Inoue, M. (2000)() Participatory
i ifforest management. In: Guharidja,
i j E., Fatawi,iM., Sutisna, M., Mori, T, and Ohta, S. (Eds.) Rainforest Ecosystems of East
Kalimantan: El Nino, Drought, Fire, and Human Impacts. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo,
pp.299-307.
Inoue, M.
M (2004) In search of the principle of commons.
commons Iwanami
Iwanami-shoten
shoten (inJapanese).
Inoue, M. (2004) Participatory forest management policy in South andSoutheast Asia. In: Inoue, M. and Isozaki, H. (Ed.) People and Forest: policyand local reality in Southeast Asia, the Russian Far East, and Japan. Kluwer
Academic Publishers,Publishers pppp.49-71.
49 71
Inoue, M. (2013) Eclectic collaborative commons as an integration of closureand openness. In: Murota, T. and Takeshita, K. (Eds.) Local commons anddemocratic environmental governance. United Nations University Press, pp.1939.

Literature (cont.)
••
•

•
•

•

Inoue, M. (2011) Local commons in a global context. In: Osaki, M, Braimoh, AK.
and Nakagami,Nakagami K.
K (Eds) Designing Our Future: Perspectives on Bioproduction,Bioproduction
Ecosystems and Humanity. United Nations University Press, pp.254-266.
Inoue, M. & Lahji, A.M. (1990) Dynamics of swidden agriculture in East Kalimantan.
gy Systems，12(3):y( ) 269-284.
Agroforestry
Inoue, M. et al. (2013) Implications of local peoples’ preferences in terms ofincome source and land use for Indonesia’s national REDD-plus policy: Evidencein East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int. J. of Environment and Sustainable
DDevelopment,lt 12 (3)(3): 244
244-263.
263 (DOI(DOI: 1010.1504/IJESD.2013.054951)
1504/IJESD 2013 054951)
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.
Ribot, JC, Agrawa,l A, and Larson, AM (2006) Recentralizing while decentralizing:
how national governments reapprooriate forest resources
resources. World Development
Development,
34: 1864-1886.
Terauchi, D., Setsuda,T. and Inoue, M. (2010) Preference of Swiddenners to Rattan,
Rubber and Oil Palm: Based on the Evidence from Besiq Village
Rubber,Village, Indonesia
Indonesia’ss
Province of East Kalimantan. Journal of .Japanese. Forest Society. 92: 247‒254. (inJapanese with English summary)Thank you for your attention!

Children in Laos