| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
I GLOBALISATION, LOCALISATION AND TROPICAL FOREST MANAGEMENT: INTRODUCING THE CHALLENGE OF NEW MARKETS AND PARTNERSHIPS
This issue of ETFRN News brings together knowledge, experience and lessons learnt with respect to the potentials and bottlenecks of new markets and partnerships which result from globalisation and localisation. The article below introduces the theme, while those of Arturo Escobar, Marcus Colchester, and Melissa Leach and James Fairhead provide a conceptual framework for the debate on partnerships, models of dialogue, networking and the role of science.
INTRODUCTION
By Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen
Globalisation has often been considered a threat to tropical forests since it opens up markets and may boost international demand for hardwood and other commodities. Some fear that free trade arrangements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will give a further impulse to illegal logging and the clearing of forests for large-scale export-oriented agrobusiness firms and plantations. At the same time, in many countries the responsibility for forest management is being transferred to local authorities, which see new opportunities to mine the forest and generate new revenues. This doom scenario leaves little room for optimism about the future of tropical forests.
The other side of the coin is that globalisation creates niche markets for environmental services and sustainably produced timber and non-timber forest products. These markets give an impulse to sustainable forest management and create new opportunities for low-income producers.
Globalisation also implies a globalisation of environmental concerns. In a world 'that is growing smaller every day' (De Ruyter, 1997) actors at multiple scales find each other in new partnerships which were hardly imaginable in a world without internet and e-mail.
As a result of decentralisation and the devolution of land rights to indigenous populations and forest users at community level, the actors involved in forest management are more connected to the forest resources than before. In theory, this greater involvement gives an incentive to preserve the forest and manage it sustainably.
Thus, in contrast with the doom scenario outlined above, there is also scope for optimism with regard to the prospects for responsible forest management in a globalising world where rights to control forest resources are increasingly being devolved to forest users.
This issue of ETFRN News brings together knowledge, experience and lessons learnt with respect to the potentials and bottlenecks of new markets and partnerships resulting from globalisation and localisation processes. The papers in this issue (most of which will be presented at the congress on 'Globalisation, localisation and tropical forest management in the 21st century') are categorised according to eight sub-themes related to markets and to multi-scale partnerships.
The potential of responsible
trade
Several tools exist to enhance sustainable forest production through the market.
Such market-related incentives include:
These market-related incentives have in common that they seek ways to compete with more lucrative, but also more destructive land uses, with the aim to contribute to forest conservation, sustainable forest use or improved livelihoods for the poor in tropical forest areas. Such market-related strategies often involve new partnerships between international, regional and local actors, as well as supplementary actions by the state and societal actors to evolve a supportive regulatory framework and 'greener' policies.
Together, the contributions on this theme illuminate (i) the conditions, institutional requirements, policies and development actions required to bring about sustainable and pro-poor forest management through international markets; (ii) the lessons learnt; and (iii) the implications for research.
The potential of global-local
partnerships
A second aspect of forest management in a globalised and localised environment
concerns the change of actors involved in forest management. Instead of forest
management being in the hands of a single entity, new partnerships for the protection
and co-management of forest resources arise, involving international donors,
government agencies, national and international NGOs, private sector actors,
research organisations and communities. These multi-scale and multi-stakeholder
partnerships in forest management have the potential to link global conservation
objectives with local needs, thus creating synergy. They do not, however, resolve
power imbalances and conflicting interests.
The papers in Part VI (on the link between global conservation objectives and local development needs) and Part VII (about global-local partnerships for sustainable forest management in Latin-America) address the question to what extent and under what conditions multi-scale partnerships can regulate such power imbalances and conflicting interests and promote democratic governance of forest resources.
Part VIII specifically deals with the impact of decentralisation and devolution of land rights on the emergence of new actors and partnerships, and the effects they have on the democracy and sustainability of forest management. A common thread running through all contributions related to this theme is the conflict between central and local control over forest management and the danger of overexploitation following the need to generate revenues at local level, while the potential advantage of more democratic forest management has not (yet) become a reality in all cases.
In response to the processes of change, the roles and responsibilities of groups and organisations dealing with natural resource management are reviewed and questioned. The involvement of various (community) groups and organisations at various levels, each with their own agenda and interests, imposes special requirements on work processes to ensure durable agreements and solutions. Adaptive learning, through which actors develop an appreciation of other stakeholders' interests and perceptions, and an awareness of their own mental models, plays a specific role in collaborative management schemes. How and under what conditions this works in practice, and what is the potential of such social learning methods to enhance partnerships at the local and regional level, are questions addressed in the contributions in Part IX.
General perspectives
The newly emerging global-local partnerships and increasing participation of
the poor suggest that the voices of people living in and around forests are
increasingly heard. Although terms such as stakeholder participation, partnerships
and negotiation are now commonplace, the following contributions in this introductory
part indicate that this process of increasing local participation is still at
risk of stagnation or reversal.
Leach and Fairhead argue that such 'invited' participation often means that poor forest users need to comply with pre-set objectives and frames of debate. Also Arturo Escobar challenges existing models of dialogue and negotiation, for taking for granted modern (expert) categories of nature and social action such as 'management', and dealing inadequately with the often quite different understanding these actors have of such notions as 'nature', 'the forest', 'management', 'partnership' and 'negotiation'. All authors in this section also emphasise that, the same processes that seem to be so promising with regard to people's decision making in forest management 'may create new divisions and possibilities of social exclusion' (Colchester) if the problem of unequal power relations is not addressed. According to Leach and Fairhead, science has a role to play in this respect: through participatory research and deliberate procedures to involve poor forest users in setting agendas and research questions, a pro-poor forestry science can be built, giving ample space to the perspectives of poor forest users. With respect to this, Escobar argues that much can be learnt from the strategies and knowledge of social movements and organisations.
Reference:
Ruijter, A de (1997). The era of glocalisation.. In T. van Naerssen, M. Rutten
and A. Zoomers (eds.) The diversity of development. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Further information:
Dr Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen
Research Institute for Global Issues and Development Studies (AGIDS), University
of Amsterdam
Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E-mail: m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl