Community Forestry and the Stewardship of Tropical Forests in Asia (Abstract)

Wil de Jong


Mark Poffenberger, editor
Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia
West Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. / Kumarian Press / 1990

M. Victor, C. Lang, and Jeff Bornemeier, editors
Community Forestry at a Crossroads: Reflections and Future Directions in the Development of Community Forestry
Bangkok / RECOFTC Report No. 16 / 1998

Char Miller, editor
“Forest History in Asia”

Special Issue of Environmental History 6 (2) 2001
Available online at

Christopher Barr and Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo
Decentralizaiton of Forest Administration in Indonesia: Implications for Forest Sustainability, Community Livelihoods, and Economic Development
Bogor, Indonesia / CIFOR Occasional Paper / Forthcoming

A heated debate has been going on for roughly three decades about who should hold stewardship over Asia’s tropical forests. Stewardship includes responsibility for the well-being of the forests, but also the right to benefit from their resources. On one side is the call for forest stewardship by rural communities living in or near the forest; on the other are those who are sceptical of its feasibility. This essay reviews how the debate evolved, as reflected in the four works above.

Communal forestry advocates like NGOs point out that local groups living in remote corners of countries like Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and India have been managing forests for centuries. Several contributors provide examples of successful precolonial communal management practices, which eventually gave way to commercial interests in the late nineteenth century. It was also in the colonial period that forestry departments were established; today they are the skeptics who deny the history of local forest management.

Postcolonial governments, backed by international organizations, continued to believe in modernist and exploitative forestry practices until the development discourse began to question the impact of economic growth on natural resources and the environment. By the 1980s, the idea emerged of putting local communities back in charge of tropical forests, both for their own livelihoods and the forests’ health. By the 1990s, community forestry coincided with the trend toward decentralization. Unfortunately, the result has often been more exploitation as newly responsible district authorities and village elites seek revenue through timber concessions and oil palm plantations.

Despite positive examples—almost 3 million ha under community control in the Philippines—the larger picture is of central authorities reluctant to give up lucrative sources of income. When they do grant local responsibility, it is often over degraded or low quality forests, a burden rather than an asset to local communities. Future agendas must recognize that forests are now of value to a growing number of stakeholders. Local communities may therefore play important roles in restoring forests—if they are compensated—but the complexity of rights and interests suggests that the future lies in co-management. The struggle will shift from who should have control, to how communal stewardship can become feasible and attractive to communities, while meeting the demands of other constituencies.

Wil de Jong
Wil de Jong is a scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research in Bogor, Indonesia. He can be reached at

Read the full unabridged article HERE

Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia. Issue 2 (October 2002). Disaster and Rehabilitation