Common property forest management and community forestry: Case study from Morocco
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•1,042 views
Pierre-Marie AUBERT, Maya LEROY, Laurent AUCLAIR, Didier GENIN, Bruno ROMAGNY AgroParisTech-ENGREF / IRD Presentation for the conference on Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry Montpellier France March 24-26, 2010
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Common property forest management and community forestry: Case study from Morocco
Ähnlich wie Common property forest management and community forestry: Case study from Morocco (20)
Mehr von CIFOR-ICRAF
Mehr von CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Common property forest management and community forestry: Case study from Morocco
- 1. Common property forest management and community forestry Pierre-Marie AUBERT, Maya LEROY, Laurent AUCLAIR, Didier GENIN, Bruno ROMAGNY AgroParisTech-ENGREF / IRD Case study from Morocco
- 2. INTRODUCTION • From common property theory to community forestry : analytical and normative dimensions • The case of Moroccan forestry : degradations explained by : - the “poverty-environment nexus” and people’s inability to manage forest - people’s dispossession of forest by the state and disappearance of traditional forest management • A change in Moroccan forest policy ? An analysis through the example of the Aït Bougmez valley
- 3. CONTENTS W hat’s the respective role of analytical and normative dimensions of the “common property model” to account for forest policy and local forest management system transformation ? 1 The Aït Bougmez case study 2 The Moroccan forest policy transformation 3 The local forestry management system transformation
- 4. I THE AÏT BOUGMEZ CASE STUDY
- 5. Local forestry management, local rules and its implementation Access and use rules
- 6. A common property theory model to analyse the situation • The Aït Bougmez forest as a typical “Common Pool Resources System” • The institutional design principles considered as important (Ostrom, 1990) : Group and resource system well defined Rules appropriate to the local context Individuals allowed to participate in rules negotiations Self monitoring system Graduated sanctions exist Low cost conflict-resolution mechanism
- 7. Source : Aubert, 2010, d’après Hammi, 2007
- 8. A model with two dimensions • An analytical dimension, which helps us to analyse and make intelligible the situation… • from which has derived a normative model : community forestry
- 9. II THE MOROCCAN FORESTRY POLICY TRANSFORMATION • The spread of the community forestry model in international institutions : World Bank, FAO, PNUD… • Its appearance in Moroccan forestry : the role of international environmental conventions and international donors — participative forestry more than “community forestry” • Few legislative evolutions and weak enforcement… • … except through the creation of a new tool
- 10. A key hypothesis “revisited”… … however : both still coexist inside of the forestry administration Source : Aubert, 2010 Local populations were able to manage their forests through customary organisation, which no longer exist : the forestry administration has to revivify and empower these organisations and contract with forest management rules Local populations are unable to manage forests; the forestry administration needs thus to educate them and manage itself the forest Current hypothesis Hypothesis 1970
- 11. III Local forestry management and forestry policy : hybridisation and recomposition ? - a relative loss of legitimacy of the village assemblies, due to several factors - the importance of informal regulation and negotiation • A need to shift from common property theory to a more strategic analytical framework : - conflict regulation through the forester intervention
- 12. The implementation of a new policy tool (1) • Objective : exclude sheep and goats from reforestation perimeters • The creation of an association to contract with the forestry administration • A process still ongoing • A financial compensation of 250 Dh / ha (around 25 € / ha)
- 13. The implementation of a new policy tool (2) • Participation through financial compensation… • … but a de facto territorial exclusion… • … and a contract of which neither the terms nor the objective can be discussed • Negotiated between rural elites and forestry administration supervisor
- 14. CONCLUSION • An analytical model which had led the forestry administration to recognise the existence of common property forest management • A normative model “imposed” to the Moroccan forestry administration by the international context… • … but a selective reappropriation • A theoretical perspective insufficient to understand forest management system transformations: the need for a more strategic and political approach
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Good afternoon everybody, thanks for being here. First I’d like to apologize for my English, which may not be always as correct as it should be. I’ll do my best to be understandable, but feel free to correct me. What am i going to talk about ? This presentation, as the whole seminar, is of course about community forestry. I’d like here to shed light on two contrasted — but linked — dimensions of what is usually called « community forestry » : community forestry as a normative model and as a theoretical and interpretative model. To do so, I’ll focus my presentation on a case study, the Aït Bougmez valley, located in the High Atlas, in Morocco. Moroccan’s forests are indeed said to suffer from important degradations, particularly in mountain areas. Two explanations, to argue for two really different forestry policy schemes : the first The second If the first had been dominant for decades, followed by quite coercive and hierarchical approach to forestry management, the second is now gaining important recognition, if not in the fields, at least in strategies and programms. This argumentation turn is partly due to several field analysis that have L’idée est de dire : ce changement d’argumentaire est du à la mise en évidence de l’existence de nombreux systèmes de gestion des forêts — et plus généralement des ressources naturelles en propriété commune. L’idée de s’appuyer sur ces systèmes de gestion pour aller vers une politique forestière plus “participative” est maintenant largement acceptée et discutée, à défaut d’être concrètement mise en oeuvre. Comment ont joué, dans ces transformations, les dimensions normatives et analytiques du modèle de la gestion communautaire ? Comment sont-ils ou peuvent-ils être aujourd’hui mobilisé ? C’est ce que nous allons chercher à montrer dans cette présentation, nous appuyant sur l’exemple de la vallée des Aït Bougmez, dans le Haut Atlas central. Je commencerai donc par présenter le cas de la vallée des ABG, un cas d’école du modèle de gestion en propriété commune. Puis je m’intéresserai aux transformations de la politique forestière marocaine, avant de revenir sur le cas des Aït Bougmez, pour comprendre comment les changements dans la politique forestière ont modifié le système de gestion local de la forêt. Both of them, however, are characterized by the same bias : thinking separately public intervention and rural communities dynamics, they seem unable to take into account possible hybridisations or recompositions, and, crucially, the role of public policies on forestry management system transformations. Though, more than 20 years of observation in the ABG valley has shown how important these recompositions are, and that the state intervention plays — or tries to play — a key role in it. I’ll first present the ABG case study, and the way the theoretical model of “community forestry”, associated to the segmentarity theory of Gellner, can help to understand forestry management system. Presentation of Moroccon forestry policy transformation since the 70’s will follow, and will shed light on the role of the normative dimension of community forestry model. Third, I’ll come back to Bougmez to show how public policy transformations have affected forestry management system. I’ll conclude on the role of th
- 30 villages, altitude ranging from 1800 to 2200 Organisation : from the bottom upward : irrigated crops (2000 ha of irrigated crops), wooded area, asylvatic space for grazing Farming systems : complementarities between all spaces : irrigated crops, forest areas and pasture lands. Role of the forest : provide firewood, leaf fodder, timber and grazing area => of a great importance for the local farming system and economy, even if some changes have occurred during the last decade : tourism and commercial agriculture development mainly. The population has almost doubled between 1960 and now. Since the forest plays an important role, how has it be managed over years ? That’s what we’re going to look at in the following slides.
- it exists several rules, but the one we’ll focus on is the « agdal » one. What is an agdal : it’s a forest where cutting branches or trees is strictly forbidden throughout the year except in cases of heavy snowfall or when somebody needs wood to build a house. But grazing of sheep and goats is always allowed. Outside the agdal , other rules exist and are defined by the village assembly. When somebody breaks one of the rules concerning a “village forest”, he gets fined and has to pay a fee to the village, which can be up to 200 Dirhams. Rules definition by the jmâa, I.e. the village assemblie. More generally : no open acces forest in reference to Hardin’s tragedy of the commons, and thus a perfect case of “CPR” system in Elinor Ostrom’s sense
- a typical situation of the common property theory, a kind of perfect “case study” relevant to understand how people have set up rules and enforce them collectively. Case of local forestry management which resembles most of the accepted institutional design considered as “important” for sustainable resources management. But : last principle challenge by the arrival of the forest guard in 1985 This collective management of natural resources wad however insufficient to preserve forest stands, and several reports explained that in the middle of the 80’s. Should we keep the same analytical framework to analyse the forest guard arrival and its consequences ?
- I’ve said
- We now need to come back to the Aït Bougmez valley, to Donc ici vite fait on présente ce qui s’est passé pendant les 20 dernières années, et la mise en œuvre de « l’ancienne » politique forestière, et puis il faut garder de la place pour raconter la mise en place de l’arrêté de compensation sur les mises en défens, car ça n’a rien d’évident de le raconter « vite ». Beyond these two elements, mainly related to the ancient forestry policy implementation, I’d like to discuss these of the « new » forest policy through the enactement of the compensation for grazing animal exclusion tool in the village of Ighirine. This tool, which is said blablabla Montrer aussi que le système est déstabilisé au delà de la seule intervention de l’AEF : le local a sa propre dynamique qui entraîne en partie une fragilisation de l’agdal. Le forestier joue un rôle de régulation dans ces formes de gestion communautaire d’une certaine manière Ces points là ne sont pas mis en exergue ni par l’AEF, ni par la théorie, même s’ils montrent aussi une certaine prise en compte, et dans ce contexte apparaît un nouvel élément qui se ressaisit d’un modèle très appauvri : la compensation pour les mises en défens.
- Exclusion ? Oui, en termes territorial, mais pas une exclusion des personnes, puisque — d’un point de vue économique, il y a réintégration des personnes via les compensations. Permet de répondre au cadre technique que les forestiers connaissent, et peut donc poser problème vis à vis de ce que font le populations. Ne parle de participation qu’en terme financier : pose la question du montant de ces compensations, et de l’adéquation de ces compensations financières avec les attendus de ces populations.
- Ce qu’il faut montre