311

INTERNATIONAL TROPICALTIMBER COUNCIL

Distr.
GENERAL
ITTC-JC(XLV)/2 – Annex II
26 September 2011
ENGLISHFORTY-SEVENTH SESSION
14-19 November 2011
La Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala

META-EVALUATION OF PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED ITTO
PROJECTS
Lessons learned & good practices towards sustainable
management of tropical forests
Summary Report
5. Community forest management and enterprise

Markku Simula, Hosny El-Lakany and Ivan TomaselliPage 2
THEMATIC SUMMARY REPORT No. 5
COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND ENTERPRISE

1.

INTRODUCTION

Community Forest Management (CFM) and Community Forest Enterprises (CFE) have gained considerable
grounds as an approach to sustainable forest management in the past two to three decades. The concept ofcommunity development appears to be a fundamental part of almost any SFM related project. The main
objectives and to some extent achievements have included: (1) empowerment of local communities’
leadership, promoting democratic approaches of CFM/CFE projects, including women’s participation; (2)adequate information to local people about SFM and its benefits; (3) clarification and recognition of rights oflocal people over forests and forest land; (4) respect for local traditions, especially indigenous people’s
customary rules; (5) assisting local or indigenous leadership in contacting and consulting with national orregional government authorities; (6) training of indigenous or local people and identification of champions offor CFM/CFE promotion; (7) clear up-front arrangements for sharing of profits and other benefits from forest
activities for the community and its members, and (8) strengthening of community organizations. Two mainprerequisites underline successful CFM and CFE: (i) clear definition of land tenure and forest access rightsand (ii) equitable sharing of expected benefits.
Most CFM and CFE projects have common support elements: (1) natural forest resources management
and/or reforestation; (2) direct long-term social and economic development of communities through SFM andassociated productive activities involving local poor farmers and indigenous people; (3) rehabilitation of
degraded forest lands; and (4) management of buffer zones around protected areas.
Research and demonstration activities are often part of larger CFM/CFE projects which may include:
implementing approaches and technologies for the socially, economically and ecologically sustainableutilization of forest resources in compliance with the national laws; and diversifying the tropical timber supply
in the regional, national and international markets. Many projects include community based reforestationplans for production of timber and NTFPs, rehabilitation of degraded forests, as well as agro-forestry
components.
The expected outcome of CFM/CME projects may include a fully operational management plan being
implemented by the community enterprise, a strong and consolidated community forest enterprise; andimproved income and employment for community members.
ITTO has been active in supporting CFM/CFE projects in its member countries since its inception. In 2008,
the Thematic Programme on Community Forest Management and Enterprise was launched as a strategic
tool to enhance on-going efforts.

2.

KEY ISSUESThe status of land tenure and property rights is often not well defined in the community-based project
proposals although they are critical project elements. When population density increases, land tenure
becomes a serious issue and may need to be addressed separately.



Although improvement of livelihoods and mitigation of climate change are frequently stated as ´project
benefits in proposals, they tend to be mentioned as catchwords without further elaboration.

In many cases the project concept and strategy are not extensively and comprehensively discussed withthe local population before the project approval.

A great deal of the active participation of the community members in plantation establishment or otherfield activities is achieved through direct payment (e.g. money or food) and only exceptionally by meansof voluntary work. Not all members of the communities are interested in the project or in its outputs and,as a result, their participation varies.

In several cases trying to meet short-term economic needs of local people has been through suchactivities as promoting growing new crop varieties, agroforestry, cultivation of NTFP species, and rural

Page 3extension. While these alternatives help local people, they may diffuse stakeholder interest in SFM ofexisting forests and development of tree planting.
Social aspects such as stimulating active participation, improving environmental and forestry awareness,promoting community organization and community enterprises as well as training, are usually needed.



Decentralization and democratization pave the way for the people’s own initiative in sustainablecommunity development. However, their appropriate introduction needs careful consideration of how
these principles can be promoted in the national and local contexts.



CFM projects may be instrumental in providing diverse important benefits to the communities (including
roads, medical facilities, higher crop productivity or facilitated contacts with authorities) but often fail toeffectively improve community incomes which may jeopardize investment in planned forestry activities.



Poor and illiterate rural people, living in agriculture-forest frontiers, may well understand and accept theneed for sustainable forest management and forest plantations, but have no economic possibilities topursue the required actions without financial assistance to sustain or expand project activities



Economic viability of CFM/CFE activities continues to be a key issue for most projects in this field.
Emphasis in the past has been given to social and environmental aspects without due consideration ofprovision of tangible economic benefits and other incentives to community members.



In many countries, failure in CFM/CFE development has been attributed mainly to the lack of clear
policies and support from the government agencies that may not approve the management plans, grantrights on the forests to the community, or provide any post-project support to the activities started.



Ecological zoning practiced in many countries may not provide an appropriate framework for forest
management planning which can extenuate problems in the approval of plans.

3.

LESSONS LEARNED

Project designThe potential of local communities to implement forest management and conservation is enormous, if
well directed. The local people’s response and the maintenance of their interest to participate in projectsof this kind, despite the occasional absence of practical results, is a clear indication that the community
forestry approach, if coupled with adequate technical and economical inputs, can be successful.

The key prerequisites for a successful planning process at community level aiming at producing a forest
management plan are: (i) careful assessment of economic and environmental viability of different
production options, (ii) the scope and quality of the plan which complies with the national regulations
enabling its rapid approval by authorities and thereby swift start-up of its implementation, and (iii)
community’s commitment to implement the plan for its entire validity period. There should be at least
some kind of evidence that these prerequisites exist or can be met before starting a planning process.
Some CFM projects have not been implemented due to unresolved legal matters, loss of commercial
value of the species that originated the project, and as a consequence of a government and community
decision.



The main problems of community forest management projects in or around protected areas include: (1)location of project sites in strictly protected forests without a previous analysis of other available options;(2) absence of economic studies that could justify the feasibility of CFM; (3) low quality of forest
management plans; and (4) lack of consideration of economic alternatives such as progressive
substitution of natural forest utilization by planted forests, ecotourism, compensation for environmental
services, etc.

Some CFM projects are located in protected areas, often inside forest reserves, buffer zones or acorridor between two protected areas. There is a risk that conflicting interests may lead to unrealized
outcomes.

Page 4

Not all members of local communities living in agriculture-forestry frontiers are willing or interested toparticipate in forestry programmes. Often most of them prefer to make their living out of agriculture or
shifting cultivation, extensive grazing or other activities. This needs to be considered in project design.

Women development can be an important objective in CFM projects. Women benefit directly from someof the activities such as forest nurseries, food processing and NTFP production but, more important, theyclearly play an undisputed and respected leadership role regarding project objectives. Strong womenleadership is also an added outcome of many projects.

In spite of relatively well done forest inventory, forest management plans may lack all required
characteristics of a real management plan, even though they may apparently comply with the national
regulations. Such management plans demonstrate excessive emphasis on short term aspects, such as
Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) practices, but give almost no consideration to long-term planning,
including a sustainable cutting cycle and harvesting intensity, road design and construction, silvicultural
practices, biodiversity conservation, market for the planned products, costs and economic analysis. RIL
is obviously necessary but it is not sufficient to achieve SFM.



Many projects have failed in giving adequate economic consideration to the productive activities
proposed to the communities. As for any other economic venture, CFM/CFE proposals have to bepreceded by a feasibility study based on technical forestry matters as well as on a sound cost-benefit
analysis. Income generation needs to be addressed as a community or family business enterprise andnot as a project activity.

The ecological sustainability of CFM projects has proved difficult to assess. Some project strategies
assume that a natural forest managed for production by a community, is also effectively conserved
compared to a legally strictly protected forest where it may be impossible to avoid illegal logging due to
weak enforcement. Every case should be carefully analyzed in this respect.



Most CFM/CFE projects have no quantified baseline information on the pre-project situation. This makes
it very difficult to evaluate project impacts; especially those related to natural forest management,
restoration of degraded forests, tree planting, and agroforestry activities.



Project sites should not generally be located in very distant areas. As ITTO projects are intended to be
demonstrative, they should be developed in readily accessible areas, where possibilities for successexist and where the ground-level results can be seen.



Lack of trained human resources at several levels and cumbersome bureaucratic procedures frequently
lead to significant delays in decision making and implementation. This can be associated with the lack ofinterest, commitment and capacity of other line ministries to support project implementation.

Study tours to community projects in other countries in the region are extremely useful in informing
community leaders and other project participants.

Project proposals on NTFPs need explanation on the species used, economic feasibility and social
livelihood dependence to enable assessment of meeting the project objectives. Proposals focusing on
management of NTFPs that fail to show relevance to SFM should be reoriented within the context offorest sustainability and the ITTO Objective 2000.

Research-to-impacts should be outcome oriented. If the focus is on outputs, only l under-achievements
occur. Research should consider that new technology has to result in livelihood and income positive
impacts and that accessible demonstration plots are most useful.

Technical and market knowledge is necessary but not sufficient condition for success. Other criticalelements may include entrepreneurship development, micro-credit facilities, market linkages, but these
may be difficult to integrate in targeted CFM projects.



In protection forests, benefits through community management are often largest in sustainable use of
buffer zones and biological corridors between protected areas.

Page 5
Project implementation

Awareness raising and organization of community members is often unproductive unless there is alreadya tradition of working in groups. However, it is possible to make people understand that their livelihood
depends on forest protection, tree planting, and finding suitable alternatives to be adopted within a shortperiod. It can, however, be difficult for local beneficiaries to accept that they must work without being
paid for a long-term objective, even when they recognize that it is for the benefit of the community.

The generation of project outputs and results does not necessarily imply achievement of development
objectives. Failures in this respect can be due to: (1) project design errors, especially overly ambitious
objectives related to available time and resources and inappropriate strategy; and (2) low quality of somekey products, results and outputs, such as forest plantations that die after planting or grow below
expectations and management plans that are useless and cannot applied. A clear symptom of theunsuccessful achievement of development objectives can be the abandonment of essential forest
activities such as planting and replanting, nurseries, weeding, pruning, thinning, and fire control as soon
as the project ended or when resources to pay for services became unavailable.



A serious problem in CFM projects involving natural forest management has been the low quality offorest management plans.



Local communities understanding of the need to organize themselves through a forest committee isessential in order to ensure their full participation in the achievement of project objectives.



The time constraint of project implementation is often the cause of serious mistakes. Usually a full year isnecessary for a CFM project to become fully operational (The second year is used essentially to initiate
operations and training. Therefore, it is impossible challenge for any forest project to produce significant
additional income for the community (apart from wages) before the end of the third year. In tree planting
and other restoration activities projects, the minimum time period is usually five years.

In many community-managed reforestation projects there have been serious errors in site and species
selection. Maintenance and silvicultural treatments (weeding, fertilization, thinning, pruning, and fire
control) have sometimes been lacking, especially after project completion. Most forest nurseries areabandoned immediately after projects ended. The main reason for the halting project activities has been
the “lack of financial resources”.

Two major reasons can lead to failure of CFE wood production and processing projects: (i) thecommunity around the factory cannot simply be changed from primary and subsistence farmers toindustry operators; and (ii) the technology introduced may not be compatible with traditional livelihoods.



Implementation of sustainable livelihoods activities within the framework of a community managed
conservation projects requires a broad range of skills that may not be present within the project teams.



It is very important for project teams to be based in the project area in order to be able to make frequentcontacts with communities and local partners and thus ensure relevance of the activities.



Support to livelihoods activities can often be channeled through specialized local NGOs as medium andlong-term partners of the Executing Agencies, using a focused village planning and corresponding
business plans.

Sustainability


Substantial contribution to livelihood improvement of the poor communities as well as to forest protection
and biodiversity conservation are critical for sustainability, particularly if the results can be sustained
without outside subsidies and are replicable. Without provisions for sustainability upon the conclusion of
the project the local population will be disappointed.



Economic sustainability must be addressed separately for natural forest management projects and forforest plantations, as their realities are quite different.

Page 6
Sufficient time is needed for social processes for developing adequate approaches and ownership by thebeneficiaries and partners. For this reason a minimum duration of three years should be planned for
CFM projects. The initial plan should already give consideration for how the follow-up activities can besustained.



Successful CFM and CFE models may also serve as a basis for development of the legal framework(new forest law and regulations) especially as related to participation of the local communities in thedecision making process related to the use of natural resources.



Strong leadership and competence of the technical team and the preparedness of the recipient CFE areimportant for project sustainability. Strong commitment and good professional skills of the forest
administration staff are also required.



Access to financial capital often leads to success, otherwise CFE projects easily get bogged down withthe first difficulties in business development and the accumulated social capital is lost.

4.

GOOD PRACTICES

Project designAn early clear commitment by the government enables effective development of community forest
management and enterprises.

Participatory planning can be successful if based on the priorities and needs of communities and rely on
bottom-up approach.

Provision of adequate information to communities and their formal commitment to implementation in thedesign phase helps successful implementation.



Addressing the actual problems in the field orients preliminary analyses on strategic options; in general
blueprint solutions have limited value due to diversity of local conditions.



Establishing economic feasibility of the planned approaches from the perspective of community
members based on a cost-benefit analysis is useful for identification of successful project strategy.



Early consideration of benefit distribution, gender and socio-cultural aspects helps avoid confusion andconflicts during implementation.

Adequate baseline information on the resources and socio-economic conditions is necessary forplanning and to allow assessment of impacts.

In countries with no or limited practical experience in community forest management, a national strategy
would be useful.

Formal commitment to the project implementation by partners and relevant stakeholders during thedesign stage can ensure effective implementation.

Clarification of the tenure and legal access by communities to the forest resource and their right to use
the resource avoids designing unfeasible projects.

Confirmation of the government capacity to effectively apply the forest legislation and to process
authorizations of forest use is also a good practice.

Technical aspectsAll forest goods and services including non-timber forest products, fauna and environmental services
merit consideration at the planning stage.



In restoration projects of secondary and degraded forests, appropriate use of low-cost naturalregeneration can be feasible.

Page 7
In plantation projects, critical elements have been species selection to local conditions, seed availability
to meet demand, quality of planting material, as well as phasing of targets to ensure continuous flow of
benefits in the long run and to learn from experience.

Economic aspects


Incentives can be effective if they provide tangible benefits for the community during the whole cycle ofthe operation and beyond.

Community forest enterprises need to be oriented for profit generation.

Engaging those community members who are committed to work for community forest enterprises canensure efficient operations and targeted results.

Engagement of the private sector as commercial partners is often highly desirable to have access tomarket, technology and finance.



Cooperation between communities can ensure sufficiently large supply capacity to customer demand for
products.

Wages paid in community forest management and enterprises need to be considered costs, not benefits.

Mitigation of economic risks of the community forest enterprise requires specific measures.

Social aspects


Consistent effective participation of communities can be ensured by adequate prior consultations,continuous information flow, as well as transparency on project implementation arrangements andfinancial flows.

Appropriate sharing of benefits, including to the poor members of the community, helps broad support toeconomic activities based on forests.

Continuous monitoring of the gender aspects helps ensuring participation of and benefits for women.

Capacity building

In addition to technical skills, business management and organizational capacities need to be built up.



The approach of lead/promotion producers can be useful for effective grassroots level dissemination of
results.

Training needs to be demand driven and practical but carefully planned. Target groups of the training
strategy need to cover all the actors, not only technical staff or community leaders.



Production of adequate tools for implementation (guidelines, manuals and technical packages forcommunity forest management and enterprise) in local language(s).contributes to the project’s broader
impacts.



In natural forest management projects, relevant training covers planning (inventory work, environmental
impact assessment, other studies, identification and assessment of strategic options, elaboration ofmanagement plans), production (particularly reduced impact logging), commercialization of products,
and organizational aspects.

Dissemination and mainstreaming of experienceBroader application of key success factors, lessons learned and constraints requires their properinterpretation in the local context to allow general conclusions.



Various dissemination mechanisms (e.g. community visits, community business forums) can ensure
effective sharing of experience.

Community networks are highly useful for dissemination.

Page 8
To remove the constraints encountered in community forest management the project’s policy
recommendations need dissemination to decision-makers and follow-up.

In order to gain broad acceptance for CFM/CFE as a development strategy, effective communication canensure awareness on the credibility of communities as responsible stewards in the sustainable
management of their forests

Implementation arrangementsTo ensure accountability and capability of non-governmental intermediaries need careful assessment(including, among others, technical knowledge, social organization, associated transaction costs,
sustainability of commitment, capacity to continue support after project termination).



Adequate field presence of project staff is necessary in CFM/CFE projects.



Ownership and management of project assets after termination (e.g. nurseries, vehicles, laboratories,etc.) need to be clarified early in the project planning.

Community engagement in monitoring and evaluation during and after the project is useful and costefficient.

SustainabilityLinking with national forest programmes and similar initiatives can help ensure post-project government
support.

Engagement of commercial partners can ensure post-project revenue generation.

Linking the project with micro-credit, seed financing and credit schemes can help ensure post-project
financing.

Phasing of project interventions is often advisable to keep specific project objectives attainable.

Specific exit strategies need consideration already during the planning stages and their finalization isnecessary well before the project completion.

Page 9SOURCESThis thematic summary is based on the ex-post evaluation reports of the following projects:
PD044/99 Rev.2 (F)PD021/97 Rev.2 (F)PD 15/96 Rev.2 (M,I)
PD 24/00 Rev.1 (I)PD014/92 Rev.2 (F) I

PD026/92 Rev.2 (F,I)
PD033/93 Rev.1 (F) I

PD018/94 Rev.1 (F) II
PD037/95 Rev.2 (F)PD013/96 Rev.1 (F)PD010/97 Rev.1 (F)PD014/98 Rev.1 (F)PD038/99 Rev.1 (F,I)
PD049/99 Rev.2 (F)PD289/04 Rev.1 (F)PD 58/99 Rev.1 (I)

IMPLEMENTATION OF A MANAGEMENT PLAN BY THE CHIQUIACA ANDOROZAS COMMUNITIES IN TARIJA, BOLIVIADEVELOPING TROPICAL FOREST RESOURCES THROUGH COMMUNITYBASED FOREST MANAGEMENT, NUEVA VIZCAYA, PHILIPPINESUTILIZATION, COLLECTION AND TRADE OF TROPICAL NON-WOOD FORESTPRODUCTS IN THE PHILIPPINESPROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF RATTAN FROM
PLANTATION IN THAILAND
A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM OF SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF
TROPICAL FORESTS BY MEANS OF DIFFERENTIATED MANAGEMENT IN
HAINAN ISLAND, CHINA - PHASE I
DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS AND STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINEDMANAGEMENT OF MOIST TROPICAL FORESTS IN CAMEROONCONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT, HARVESTING, AND INTEGRATEDSUSTAINED USE OF FORESTS IN THE CHIMANES REGION, BENI, BOLIVIA PHASE I
PARTICIPATORY FOREST DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALTO MAYO REGION FOR
THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MOIST TROPICAL FORESTSMANAGEMENT OF CATIVO FORESTS AND NON-TIMBER PRODUCTS WITH
THE PARTICIPATION OF RURAL AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES, DARIEN,PANAMA
MULTIPLE-USE MANAGEMENT IN THE MACAUA NATIONAL FOREST BASEDON RUBBER ESTATES - PHASE I: DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLAN TOSUPPORT COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONA SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT MODEL IN THE IWOKRAMA RAIN FORESTSUSTAINABLE USE AND REFORESTATION OF AMAZON FORESTS BY
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIESDEMONSTRATION COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE NATURAL
CLOUD FORESTS OF THE URUMBA BASIN, SAN IGNACIOPILOT PLAN FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF 10,000 HECTARESOF SECONDARY FOREST IN SAN LORENZO, ESMERALDASMANAGEMENT OF THE EMERALD TRIANGLE PROTECTED FORESTSCOMPLEX TO PROMOTE COOPERATION FOR TRANSBOUNDARYBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BETWEEN THAILAND, CAMBODIA AND
LAOS (PHASE II)INTRODUCTION OF A VILLAGE INDUSTRY IN THE COMMUNITY AROUND AN
INDUSTRIAL FOREST PLANTATION IN INDONESIA