Social forestry in Southeast Asia : Evolving interests, discourses and the many notions of equity

Southeast Asia has long promoted social forestry (SF) in conservation areas, fallow forests, tree plantations, areas in timber concessions and locally managed agro-forest systems, with the engagement of diverse actors and objectives. SF has evolved from early aims of empowerment and devolution of rights advocated by global reform movements, and is now reframed in the market ideal as a win–win–win endeavor for sustainable forest management, climate change mitigation and robust entrepreneurial livelihoods. Southeast Asian states have formulated numerous standardized SF programs and policies that are often linked to broader development goals and priorities, but which have not always been a ‘win’ for local communities in falling short to provide full tenure rights. Civil society organizations that have provided grounded perspectives on environmental justice and rights have also converged with states on entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. Meanwhile, the private sector actor that is seen as key to these solutions is conspicuously absent within the SF policy space. Within this space of diverse and at times contradictory objectives, whose interests do SF policies serve? We examine the social forestry assemblage to investigate the different discourses, interests and agendas in the implementation of SF schemes in Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Malaysian state of Sabah. The formal SF schemes involve shifting or reinforcing old discourses around forest problems and possible solutions, territorialization processes that can lead to inequities in the exclusion of rights, participation and access, and risks exacerbating contestations and inequities in claims to forest land and resources.Peer reviewe

A Political Ecology and Economy of Key Trends in International Forest Governance

This chapter identifies key trends in International Forest Governance1 (IFG) over the last decade. The trends are analysed through a combined lens of political ecology and political economy that considers how the shifting coalitions of actors, interests, ideas, and institutions in IFG have intersected with broader political and economic trends across global and regional scales, and how these international dynamics interact with different national and local contexts. Overall, we find that IFG continues to expand in scope and complexity to address an increasingly wide range of forest-related environmental, social, and economic priorities. At the same time, it faces ongoing contentions over who writes the rules, for what purpose, and for whose benefit. In general, we see a growing expansion of market-based approaches, in tandem with the adoption of increasingly ambitious global performance targets and the financialization of forest values. These trends exist in tension with efforts to decentralize and devolve forest and land rights to Indigenous peoples and local communities. One key trend at the global level is the expansion of decision-making on forests within institutions, agreements, and processes outside the forestry sector. This includes a ‘climatization’ of forest policy within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), for example through the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism, as well as the growth of public and private markets for forest carbon. Largely in parallel, it includes rising ambitions under the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to halt biodiversity loss and expand protected areas while protecting Indigenous rights. At the same time, other institutions, agreements, and processes have aimed expressly to bridge sectoral divides, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the promotion of landscape approaches in the public and private sector as a strategy for integrating the governance of forest, agriculture, climate, and other sectors. While these various global initiatives often struggle to reach consensus on binding commitments and finance, an increasing array of actors have turned to regional, bilateral, and unilateral approaches to pursue their particular interests among smaller ‘coalitions of the willing’. This is observed within and across the Global North and South. This bypassing of international negotiation has recently gained momentum with the passage of the European Union’s (EU) Deforestation Regulation 2023/1115 (EUDR). The EUDR bans the import of forest risk commodities such as palm oil and soy unless due diligence is demonstrated that they are deforestation-free, regardless of whether the deforestation is legal according to the laws of the producing country. In other words, the EU aims to leverage its large market share to stop deforestation without the need for agreement from non-EU countries on whether and how this goal should be prioritized and achieved. In terms of outcomes, there is some evidence of decreasing global rates of tropical deforestation, but also a rising sense of crisis over climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing social and economic inequalities (McDermott et al., 2022). IFG has failed to transform the power dynamics driving these crises (Brockhaus et al., 2021; Delabre et al., 2020). Yet, as was noted over a decade ago in the 2010 “Embracing Complexity” report on IFG (Rayner et al., 2010) may still be the best hope, in that the wide diversity of actors, ideas, and institutions expands the possibilities for positive change and transformation through the co-creation and sharing of power, benefits, and knowledge, both within and beyond IFG.Peer reviewe