Differences in Community Forestry implementation in the three zones

In addition to the shared features discussed above, differences were found in CF implementation depending on the zones. The first difference was found in the extent of participation by villagers to form CFUGs, and management regimes in CF at the village level. As we saw in the Dry Zone and the Hilly Zone, CFUG consists of all households in the village. Although CFI focuses on a self-selection process in formation of CFUGs, in practice all households joined the CFUG in such cases because they desired to share

benefits equally and to avoid conflicts between members in relation to resource use. This finding is supported by a recent study in Myanmar by Okamoto (2014) since local people, in Okamoto’s study, perceive the CF program as a village-wide activity and products from the community forest are used for community purposes, benefiting every villager almost equally. In contrast, in the Delta Zone, not all villagers were involved in CFUG as in the other two cases. Only some households formed the CFUG, and therefore, there were variations in benefits flowing from CF to each member. Based on the cases in the three different zones, this thesis can draw an insight that a CF program in which the whole village is involved (see Chapters 4 and 6) contributes community benefits rather than household benefits whereas a CF program in which some households are involved (see Chapter 5) contributes household benefits rather than community benefits. Although Tint et al. (2011) found that collective management and protection of community forest areas split into individually owned plots seems to prove more efficient and effective in managing community forests, there are equity risks with this approach (see below). Yet, in line with their findings, the community forest area in the Delta Zone was split into individual plots at the outset, and legally allocated to individual households, allowing them to earn income from forest resources and so that the area could be managed more effectively.

The second difference involves the objectives of CF. In the case of the Dry Zone, CFUG members established the CF plantation primarily in order to produce fuelwood, and the members manage their community forest collectively. However, CFUG members in the Hilly Zone formed their community forests from natural forest stands and collectively manage them to protect their CF for ecosystem services. In contrast, CFs in the Delta zone are a mix of plantation and natural forest, and community forest areas are split into individual plots and formally allocated to CFUG members to manage their plots in order to get economic return from CF.Basically, those who had pre-existing informal claims to that land maintained those claims in this case. Insights from this research suggest that different kinds of CFs with different objectives and management regimes turn out different results regarding livelihoods of villagers, species planted, and the condition of forests.

Revisiting the principles of CFI, the overarching objectives of the CF program are to fulfil the basic needs of local communities and to reforest degraded areas. At the time of the research, CFUG members in the Delta case had started thinking that they could generate substantial income from the community forests and aspired for CF to improve their

livelihoods and tackle food insecurity. Therefore, they wanted to produce high-value timber from their community forests rather than low-value poles. Increasing the potential for timber supply from community forests has interested local investors in community forests for commercial production. Therefore, the objectives of the local communities for implementation of CF seem to be changing over time (Executive Director, Land Core Group, Yangon, December 2015), and will be an issue for CF programs to address in the future.

The differences between household and village-level management of CF deserve further comment. As noted earlier, although community forest management should be collective under CFI, in practice FD recognised households’ individual claims for land use rights in the study area based on instructions of the state (see Chapter 5). This contrasts with village-level management in the Dry Zone and the Hilly Zone. Although the CF area in the Dry Zone case was providing some fuelwood to CFUG members and the Hilly Zone CF case showed improved forest condition, the greatest reforestation gains were seen in the Delta Zone case wherein CFUG members increased household incomes by managing community forest plots, and forest condition has improved. Yet the evaluation of CF effectiveness is more complex than this suggests. Pagdee et al. (2006) point out that determining the effectiveness of CF needs to consider several key issues at the same time, in line with the livelihood and environmental goals of CF, as well as other goals related to governance that may not always be explicit.For example, the primary policy objectives may relate to improving livelihoods of the community and ensuring that forests are managed sustainably, while part of the rationale of implementing CF may be to support decentralisation as a means to reverse deforestation (ibid). Nevertheless, most observers agree that community-based forestry aims to deliver two key outcomes: improved forest condition and enhanced livelihoods of those managing the forests. This thesis provides evidence to support this argument: in the Delta Zone particularly, CFUG members have had significant effects, improving livelihoods and forest condition, but this has come with the exclusion of forest access for non-CFUG members as I discuss below.