Tag Archives: forest management

What future for reform? Tracking changes in forest tenure since 2002

by Alexandre Corriveau-Bourque

Alexandre Corriveau-Bourque is a Tenure Analyst with the Rights and Resources Initiative, and one of the lead researchers of “What Future for Reform?” along with Fernanda Almeida and Jenny Springer. He is currently managing and updating RRI’s various tenure tracking data sets and developing new methodologies to track changes in community tenure.

Few things are as political as the rights to the world’s remaining forest land. Forests are viewed by a wide range of actors as a source of timber, fiber, food, fuel, medicine, carbon storage, biodiversity, spirituality, and as sites of cultural belonging. Vast mineral, gas, and oil resources are also found beneath the world’s forests. As populations and incomes grow, pressure will continue to rise on the shrinking, yet increasingly important forest estate and the resources it contains. To understand the current contestation for these resources, it is important to begin with the following question: Who ‘owns’ or ‘controls’ these resources?

While the answers are rarely clear, and frequently contested, the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) and its Partners have been developing approaches to answering it since 2002. RRI’s recent report, What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002, is the latest in a series of reports tracking developments related to four different statutory forest tenure categories: 1) forest land under government administration; 2) forest land designated for Indigenous Peoples and local communities; 3) forest land owned by Indigenous Peoples and local communities; and 4) forest land owned by individuals and firms.

The report presents tenure data from 2002 and 2013 under these four categories for 52 countries, representing nearly 90 percent of the global forest area.[1]  Of these, the 40 countries that have complete data for each category and time-period exclusively inform the global aggregates. The aggregates for low and middle income countries (LMICs) are drawn from 33 countries.

Key findings

On a global scale, it is clear that while governments have increasingly recognized indigenous and local community control and ownership of forest land, governments retain the lion’s share of the global forest estate. Between 2002 and 2013, the proportion of forests owned or controlled by Indigenous Peoples and local communities increased from just over 11 percent of the global forest estate (at least 383 Mha) to 15.5 percent (at least 511 Mha). The proportion owned by individuals and firms only increased by 0.6 percent over this same time period.  Continue reading

Advertisements

What Rights? Comparing developing countries’ national legislation on community forest tenure rights

by Fernanda Almeida

Fernanda Almeida is the lead author of RRI’s “What Rights?” report and works as an international legal consultant on comparative legal, regulatory and policy research and analysis.

Indigenous Peoples and forest communities have long-established customary land rights to a large proportion of the world’s forests. The recognition of these rights by governments and international law and jurisprudence, has proven to be one of the few success stories in the wake of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Where these rights are recognized, Indigenous Peoples and other communities are not only able to enjoy their most fundamental human rights, but also to develop themselves sustainably.

For example, in the case of Amazonian traditional populations in the Extractive Reserve of Marajoí (Brazil), the açaí palm had virtually disappeared due to previous over-harvesting caused, at least in part, by unclear tenure. Once land tenure issues were resolved, traditional populations invested their resources in managing the açai area as a way to bring back wildlife, fish, and the açai palm itself. As a result, biodiversity was restored and the population had secured its means of subsistence.[1]

In spite of the importance of such rights to the promotion of a sustainable development agenda, very little was known about the extent to which governments around the world had recognized them and how. The What Rights? report by the Rights and Resources Initiative begins to fill this gap. It analyzes national laws that relate to the forest tenure rights of indigenous peoples and communities in 27 developing countries, home to 2.2 billion rural people, that collectively contain about 75 percent of the forested land in all developing countries.[2]

Continue reading

New RRI report (and upcoming guest post) on community land rights in tropical forests

by Rhodri C. Williams

The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) just released a new report indicating that forest peoples have “quietly gained unprecedented legal rights to the land and resources owned under customary law” over the last twenty years. However, the authors also express concerns about legal obstacles to the exercise of such rights and the risk of their rollback by elite groups seeking to facilitate international land and natural resource deals. According to RRI’s press release:

“Forest peoples are caught between the forces of a drive for environmental sustainability and the intense pressure of economic development”, said Jeffrey Hatcher, Director of Global Programs for RRI, and one of the authors of the new report. “Despite tremendous progress in establishing legal tenure regimes, a lack of political will and bureaucratic obstacles make it a struggle to implement any real action in most forest-rich developing nations. ….”

The report is described as providing “the most comprehensive global legal analysis to date of the status of forest tenure rights held by Indigenous Peoples and other local communities in more than two-dozen developing countries”, which together account for “approximately 75 percent of the forests of the developing world, home to some 2.2 billion people.” It was released together with a separate study on the positive development effects of recognizing customary forest tenure. Both reports taken together constitute the results of an analysis undertaken by RRI on the twentieth anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, in order to inform the upcoming Rio+20 Conference on June 20-22.

I am very pleased to announce that Fernanda Almeida, the lead author of the report, will be guest-writing on TN next week in order to provide further analysis of the results of RRI’s research and insights on how these findings may be of practical assistance in efforts to secure the tenure rights of forest peoples.

Fernanda’s guest-posting can now be read at the following link:

– What Rights? Comparing developing countries’ national legislation on community forest tenure rights (11 June 2012)

 

 

The World Bank on ‘sleaze timber’

by Rhodri C. Williams

The BBC reported today on a new World Bank analysis of the scope and detrimental effects of illegal logging worldwide. There is of course no shortage of commentary on the challenges facing global forestry management and the consequences of failure to improve our performance. Just last month for instance, TN covered the latest report on the topic by Rights and Resources Initiative, which linked the failure to protect local forestry rights to the broader vulnerability of marginal communities to global patterns of large-scale investment in land and natural resources.

Nevertheless, the World Bank report does a neat job emphasizing the ties between illegal logging, corruption and chronic patterns of weak governance. In other words, the analysis supports a broadening in focus from the ‘blood diamond’ problem of natural resources supporting active conflict to a ‘sleaze timber’ (you read it first here!) emphasis on how natural resources can undermine the conditions for sustainable and equitable development. The report also does a good job foregrounding some fairly shocking statistics:

Every two seconds, an area of forest the size of a football field is clear-cut by illegal loggers around the globe.

The World Bank estimates that illegal logging in some countries accounts for as much as 90 percent of all logging and generates approximately US$10–15 billion annually in criminal proceeds.

Mostly controlled by organized crime, this money is untaxed and is used to pay corrupt government officials at all levels.

The report focuses on criminal justice means to track the income generated by illegal logging and prosecute those responsible. While such approaches are important in terms of both returning ill-gotten revenues and preventing further cutting, they are unlikely in the short term to be able to address the social and cultural devastation wrought where past cutting has erased the spiritual homes and economic resource base of indigenous peoples and subsistence farmers. While it would be good to see more serious efforts to end the enormous damage caused by illegal logging, it is not at all clear how much of it can actually be undone.

FAO Voluntary Guidelines on land, fisheries and forestry governance near approval

by Rhodri C. Williams

The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has announced the recent conclusion of a lengthy negotiation process to shape a set of Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. The resulting final draft will soon be published and is meant to be adopted at a special session of the body’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in mid-May. Afterwards, it is expected that the document will provide authoritative guidance to governments in drafting laws and policies in this area, with its legitimacy derived from the inclusiveness and extensiveness of the three year drafting process.

The scope of the voluntary guidelines is broad, and includes “promoting equal rights for women in securing title to land, creating transparent record-keeping systems that are accessible to the rural poor, and how to recognize and protect informal, traditional rights to land, forests and fisheries.” While numerous recent cases of abuse of state prerogatives over customarily held land demonstrate the needs for such guidelines, the experience of actors such as the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) counsels a degree of caution. As noted by the IDLO’s Erica Harper in these pages, prescriptive approaches to customary systems have tended to be counterproductive in the absence of an intimate understanding of local context:

…what works in a given country context is situation-specific and contingent upon a variety of factors, including inter alia, social norms, the presence and strength of a rule of law culture, socio-economic realities, and national and regional geopolitics. In order to make strategic decisions on what is likely to yield sustainable and positive impact, development practitioners need to possess in-depth knowledge of the target country, its people and its customary legal systems, as well as the theories and practicalities pertaining to legal development and customary justice programming.

At the same time, the scope of the new guidelines is limited in certain interesting respects. For instance, the FAO PR notes that they “come within the context of intensifying competition for land and other natural resources resulting from a variety of factors, including population growth, urbanization and large-scale purchases of farmland in the developing world by both overseas interests and domestic investors.” However, unlike the FAO, IFAD, UNCTAD and World Bank Principles for Agricultural Investment, the new guidelines provide only indirect guidance on addressing the ‘global land-rush‘.

In fact, the FAO has a separate drafting process underway to address large-scale land investment. As reported in TN last January, the FAO commissioned a project team to examine the issue of land tenure in the context of international investments in agriculture, developing recommendations for the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the CFS. The issue had been discussed at a policy roundtable at the CFS’ 2010 session (contrast the erudite overview provided by ILC with the Quatar National Food Security Program’s impenetrable defense of responsible investment). With the issuance of a July 2011 report and further side-event discussion at the October 2011 CFS session, the process seems to be underway.

However, the foreword to the July 2011 report clarifies that the issue is to be handled in a separate standard-setting process, resulting in “the elaboration of principles for responsible investments in agriculture with due consideration to the framework of the Voluntary guidelines on the tenure of land, fisheries and forests.” Muddying the waters slightly, the FAO also cooperated with Transparency International to develop a December 2011 working paper on how corruption in the context of weak governance undermines both land access and development. As reported here in TN, pervasive corruption in transnational land investment may be the crucial damning factor that has swung development opinion against the practice in recent months. In its press release, however, FAO referenced the forthcoming voluntary guidelines as its response to bad governance practices without mentioning the expert group on international investments.

More broadly, the new FAO guidelines will provide new material for the ongoing debate over corporate social responsibility approaches to land and natural resource exploitation, as well as non-state actor abuses more broadly. Two years ago, Chris Huggins posed the basic question of whether the lengthy and uncertain route of punitive enforcement measures should be chosen over the more forthcoming but less tested route of voluntary compliance. This question arguably remains as debated today as it was then. However, it is worth noting that Peter Spiro recently waxed optimistic in Opinio Juris, raising the possibility that Apple’s recent accession to the Fair Labor Association standards and auditing process could be “the biggest thing ever to happen in the world of private, rights-related codes of conduct” and “a major test case for the efficacy and legitimacy of non-governmental rights regimes.” So, onward FAO, and let a thousand voluntary standards bloom!

Waking from a dream in Bolivia: The TIPNIS victory that never was

by Nicholas A. Fromherz

Caption: Highlands indigenous leaders prepare for a hunger strike in Cochabamba, showing their support for the lowland tribes fighting against the road through TIPNIS. Photo credit: Nicholas A. Fromherz

On October 24, 2011, Bolivians breathed a collective sigh of relief.  After a two-month struggle, culminating in massive protests in front of the Presidential Palace in La Paz, Evo Morales signed a bill declaring the Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro-Secure (TIPNIS) “untouchable.”

The controversial road connecting Villa Tunari with San Ignacio de Moxos would not pass through the national park and protected indigenous territory.  The peoples’ cry to defend TIPNIS had been heard; “Evo Pueblo” had lived up to his moniker, even if only under extreme pressure, and had listened to his constituents.  He even said so himself:  “The TIPNIS issue is resolved,” he declared. “This is governing by obeying the people.”

Or so we thought.  Though many were probably skeptical from the start, many others—myself included—thought the case was closed.  The government would still likely construct a road between Villa Tunari and San Ignacio de Moxos, but the new law dictated that it would skirt the park.  That, not prohibition of a road altogether, had always been the goal.

As the last few weeks have shown, however, the victory dance was premature.  On February 10, 2012, President Morales signed a new law bringing back from the dead the possibility a road through TIPNIS.  Three-and-a-half months after declaring the park “untouchable,” Morales signed a law calling for a “prior consultation” to determine whether the road should go forward as originally planned. How did this happen, and how can we make sense of it?

Continue reading

Nicholas Fromherz to guest post on the Bolivia TIPNIS debate

by Rhodri C. Williams

Land issues in Bolivia made their debut on TN last Fall, when a dispute over President Evo Morales’ plan to run a road straight through the center of the the  Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park (TIPNIS in Spanish) came to light. Commentators fastened on the seeming irony of Bolivia’s first emphatically indigenous head of state’s decision to compromise the integrity of indigenous land without even observing the constitutional necessity of prior consultation. At the time, I contrasted the problem of lack of democratic accountability in simultaneous land riots in China with the problem of overreliance on majority rule in Bolivia:

The rationale for recognizing the territories of indigenous peoples is typically the need to protect them – as minorities – from the effects of democratic decision-making processes they can never win. This is what makes both the failure to consult with the affected communities in advance and the proposal for a referendum now more than dubious. Even at the regional level, a majority can surely be found that would prefer commerce with Brazil to the less tangible benefits of living next to some of the world’s last functioning indigenous societies. At the national level, support for the road may be even stronger. Mr. Morales may be indigenous, but he is also an elected politician.

 As subsequent analysis would in fact demonstrate, “indigenous peoples” are no more a monolithic category in Bolivia than minority groups are anywhere, and many of the key backers of the road were also indigenous groups with diverging economic agendas and political links to the President. Accordingly, even as protesters forced the government to negotiations by October, the outcome of the issue remained uncertain. At that point, I quoted an interesting commentary in Foreign Affairs chronicling the “tremendous damage” the mishandling of the TIPNIS issue had done to President Morales’ credibility. Unbeknownst to me, the author, Nicholas Fromherz, was a fellow blogger at South American Law & Policy. When Nicholas later picked up on a TN piece on Colombia, I began to realize how much good, locally informed analysis is out there on the TIPNIS controversy.

As a result, I am very grateful to Nicholas for agreeing to post on TN with an update on TIPNIS that will pull together some of the threads from the various media and blogosphere sources Nicholas covers. To update the story a little since TN’s last coverage, South American Law has chronicled the progress of the protesters, their arrival in La Paz, Morales’ initial acquiescence to their demands, and the adoption of a bill in late October quashing the road project. However, by December proponents of the road had organized, leading to legislative reconsideration of the TIPNIS bill and a decision by Morales to revisit the issue in consultation with all affected parties. Nicholas also provided an analysis of the requirement to consult in the Bolivian Constitution, linking it with broader research he is undertaking on whether resettlement standards should require actors to merely seek or actually secure informed consent.UPDATE: Please see Nicholas’ guest-posting here.