SOCIAL FORESTRY AS A DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Lucrecio L. Rebugio

At the operational/practical level, social forestry can be viewed as a program designed

to promote natural resources as well as social development. In the sense that all development
programs basically involve some degree of natural or social intervention (intervention with the
functioning and process of relevant natural and social system), they can be appropriately
viewed as interventional system.

As a development program or intervention system. Social forestry may be

goal/objectives, technology, agency and impact. It operates/ functions within the context of a
given social and bio-physical environment.

1 Environmental Social Forestry

Environment is the situational context within which the social forestry system
functions/operates. It generally defines the basic constraints (and opportunities) for the
practice of social forestry. As such, a clear understanding of the environment with a view of
identifying what the constraints and opportunities are and how they affect the elements,
process, and outcome of social forestry is basic to social forestry development programming.

1.1 Conceptual view of the social forestry environment

The environment of social forestry can be viewed spatially, structurally and temporally.
Viewed spatially, it could be a) micro environment - refers to the local or immediate context to
social forestry; directly influences social forestry practices and therefore is more generally
perceived (or misperceived) as more relevant; Or b) macro environment (national or
international)- may seem irrelevant to location-specific social forestry practices. In reality,
however, its effects although generally subtle and indirect are as significant as, if not more
than, those of the micro (Rebugio 1984).

Structurally, the social forestry environment can be divided into two broad interacting
categories: a) biophysical - described in terms of its edaphic (soil), physiographic (topography),
climatic, vegetative, and land use characteristics. And, b) socio-economic-described in terms of
its demographic, economic, cultural, and political characteristics.

Table 1 shows a more refined (but no means detailed) structural categorization of the social
forestry environment. It includes the biophysical and socioeconomic parameters at the micro
and macro levels, which could be relevant to the practice of social forestry.
Table 1. Structural and Spatial Parameters of the Social Forestry Environment.

Structural Categories Spatial Categories

________________________________
Micro Macro

________________________________
Local National International

1. Biophysical Environment

1.1 Edaphic
o Soil structure x
o Soil – water relations x

1.2 physiographic
o topography x
(altitude and slope)

1.3 Climatic
o Rainfall distribution x
o Precipitation-evaporation difference x
o Temperature regimes x

1.4 Vegetative (shrubs, trees, grasses, etc.) x

1.5 Land-use patterns

o Types (agricultural, residential, forestry, etc.) x x
o Intensity (intensively used vs. idle lands) x x

2. Socioeconomic Environment

2.1 Demographic
o Population density x x
o Age and educational structure x x
o Migration patterns x x
 o Settlement patterns x x
2.2 Economic (wealth)
o Income and occupational structure x x
o Land tenure x x
o Market and credit facilities/organizations x x x
o Work alliances/organizations x

2.3 Cultural environment

o Forestry beliefs/values x x
o Available knowledge/technology x x x
o Work alliances/organizations x

2.4 Political environment

o Decision-making structure x x
o Forestry and other relevant policies
(price and trade policies) x x x
o Development policy priorities x x x

Temporally, the environment of social forestry can be viewed as past, present, and
future. A past or historical view may shed light on the circumstances that brought about
present conditions that strongly justify the practice of social forestry in a given country, and the
prevailing factors that presently constrain such practice. A future view may suggest present
courses of action geared towards desirable social forestry ends (goals and objectives).
The temporal dimension implies that the environment of social forestry is dynamic; it
continuously changes through time. As such, social forestry constrains and opportunities also
vary with time as the environment changes.
Indeed, a three-dimensional view presents a complex picture of the environment of
social forestry. Not only is it structurally and spatially diverse, it is also dynamic (changing
constantly). Effective forestry programs must necessarily find a way to cope with this
bewildering complexity.

1.2 Environment structure and social forestry practices

Generally, the structure of the environment defines the constraints (limits and
opportunities) of social forestry. Theses constraints depending on their locus, directly or
indirectly influence social forestry practices and outcome.
 More specifically, biophysical aspects of the environment define the types of social
forestry practices that are possible (but not necessarily economical and socially acceptable). On
the other hand, the socio-economic structure defines the social forestry practices that are
culturally consistent, socially acceptable (but may or may not be economically gainful), and
technologically feasible (physically and socially).
In addition, environmental characteristics, both physical and socioeconomic, influence
decisions on, and the functioning of, the target system. They also help define the
environmentally-related goals of the social forestry system (i.e., minimizing constraints and
maximizing opportunities).

1.3 Understanding/learning about the social forestry environment.

Because the environment significantly influences the functioning of social forestry
system, understanding its structure and dynamics is imperative to the success of social forestry
development programming.
There are many ways by which we learn about the biophysical and social-economic
environment of social forestry (Nichols and Hyman. 1982; Korten, 1981). These approaches vary
in their level of sophistication and the cost of undertaking them.
Being basically participatory, social forestry programming need not be based on
environmental information and knowledge gathered through sophisticated conventional
approaches. These are generally costly; hence, most developing countries cannot afford them.
An alternative and cheaper way to understand the relevant environment is to be
accumulated/generated as social forestry development program progresses (Korten, 1981).

2 Elements of the Social Forestry Development Program

Table 2 outlines the five key elements (subsystem) of the social forestry development program
with the corresponding systematic functions and processes. They are briefly discussed below.

2.1. Target subsystem

The target of social forestry program has dual components: biophysical and social. Biophysical
targets are the areas which social forestry seeks to develop, i.e., forest lands, community/village
lands, river banks, roadsides, etc. the social target is the individual or group who is expected to
benefits from social forestry development
In the design of development programs, social targets usually include only the intended
direct or primary beneficiaries. However, we know well from experience the aide from the
intended targets there are other individuals or groups also benefits if not more (usually more,
based on the experience of many developing tropical countries) from development programs
such as social forestry. Therefore, it is useful to categorize social targets into direct/primary and
indirect/ secondary.
 Since they constitute the majority in the tropics, the most logical direct/primary targets
of social forestry development are the upland forest farmers. Landless workers and other
segments of the rural poor. Examples of secondary/indirect targets are rich landowners,
middlemen, suppliers of inputs, the local money lenders, the forest officer, or even the
expatriate consultant.
The concept of multiple targets is particularly important in determining who benefits
most from social forestry development. “Who benefits?” is a key question in ascertaining the
degree to which a social forestry program has achieved social equity, the sufficient condition for
social forestry.
Decisions on the target subsystem should be based on an intelligent/rational analysis of
biophysical and social situations in a given country. To insure greater likelihood of program
success, decisions on the target system should be made by resource managers, planners, and
the intended primary social targets themselves. In the past many forestry development program
failed because they were unilateral decisions of resource managers or planners unmindful of the
needs and desire of the relevant social target.

2.2 Goals/objectives
Goals/objectives are the changes/condition which social forestry development programs
seek to create/achieve in response to the needs, problems, and demands of the target and other
relevant systems.
The goals/objectives of social forestry dev’t can be expressed/described in various ways
(Table 3).
First, they could be described temporally, as short or long-term goals. In social forestry
development, the temporal dimension is very important because of the necessity to reconcile
the generally long-term/perennial nature of forestry with the short-term needs of the primary
social target, the rural poor. Social forestry goals/objectives must be so well balanced and social
forestry practices/technologies well designed to respond to the short-term needs of the rural
poor for food, fodder, fuelwood and other basic needs, and the long-term need of the
community for social and environmental stability.
Second, goals/objectives can be described hierarchically, implying that lower-order
(specific or elemental) objectives lead to achievement of higher-order goals (generally/ultimate
or systemic). The specific goals of social forestry programs vary from place to place (spatially)
and from time to time (temporally) because problems/needs of target systems in different
localities at different times differ. Regardless of the place and time, however, the specific
objectives of social forestry may reflect one or any combinati0on of the following needs
(Rebugio, 1983).
 1. Self –sufficiency in food, fuel wood, fodder and other basic needs;
2. Soil stability, water conservation, and wind protection;
3. Aesthetic improvement; and
4. Higher income of local people and communities.
The above objectives may be similar to those of other forestry activities. However the
difference is that the objectives of social forestry are deliberately link to the needs of
local people and communities.

While the specific objectives of social forestry program vary, the ultimate goals, are
basically the same. Generally reflecting tropical land-use and social problems, the goals of social
forestry development program are ideally land productivity, technological sustainability,
ecological stability and social equity, with the latter on top of the hierarchy. This implies that
the ultimate goal of social forestry is not physical but human. While social forestry is concerned
with the development of forestry areas, that means towards the development of human
communities. In this sense, the people and the community, not the forest, are the final
indicators of a successful social forestry program (Rebugio, 1983).

Third, social forestry goals/objectives can be described by their degree of durability, priority,
consciousness of intent, and type of impact.

Program-goal formulation, it is usual to highlight only the desirable, high priority, and
intended goals/objectives. The unexpected/unidentified outcomes, whether desirable, of low
priority, or undesirable, are normally neglected, yet in practice they often have stronger
influence on the course which social forestry development takes. For example, in some social
forestry projects, the desired goal is fuel wood for the poor, but the course of social forestry
practices usually leads to fuel wood/timber for the rich. Therefore, in social forestry program
formulation, it may be wise to develop a high, degree of deliberate consciousness not only of
the desirable intended outcomes which social forestry seeks to achieve but also of the
unintended goals which social forestry seek to avoid or minimize.

The latter may serve as an effective warning system for social implementers when the
direction of social forestry programs runs an undesirable course. They also serve as additional
control indicators for social forestry impact evaluation.

To many, goal formulation appears easy. In fact, however, goal decisions, whether in
social forestry and/or other development programs, are difficult to make, because these are
often based on conflicting problems/needs/demands of the target system and the relevant
systems in the environment. To facilitate goal decisions, a participative mechanism for effective
goal articulations, aggregation, and resolutions is imperative.
2.3 Technology
Technology refers to the set of biophysical/mechanical and social processes involved in
the achievement of social forestry goals and objectives

Some production processes includes possible range of technologies for social forestry. It
suggests that social forestry need not be confined to forest production. It must include forest-
product utilization and other forestry-productions as well.

Social forestry activities must be aimed at promoting integrated forestry

practice/technologies. These include not only the growing of trees, for immediate consumption,
but also their harvesting and conversion into finish or semi-finish products, and finally their
distribution to the market.

The promotion of integrated social forestry technologies implies a long-run commitment

to develop participants not only as suppliers or consumers of raw forests products and other
related materials but also as manufactures and distributors of forests and other related
products. In other words, a commitment and goal to develop participants into self-reliant,
economically productive, small-and medium scale entrepreneurs is necessary.

The nature of the target system, its characteristic, needs and problems, and the types of
goal/objectives set, directly influence the choice of technology most appropriate for a given
program. Appropriate social forestry technology must be relevant or goal-oriented, sustainable,
and culturally consistent. Considering that the primary target is the rural poor, technologies are
cheap, simple, and duplicable are generally preferable (Matela 1981).

In social forestry, decisions on the most appropriate technology start with what are
indigenous or locally available. If local technologies are found to be effective they must be
diffused on a wider scale through effective extension techniques. If indigenous are found to be
wanting, more desirable alternatives should be developed.

Research is normally the process by which alternative technologies are developed.

Research employs a variety of techniques, but regardless of the techniques or approach used, it
must build on whatever technology is already available locally. This way, the resulting
technology will have a greater likelihood of being socially accepted.

2.4. Agency system

The agency system refers to the structure of social forestry program implementing
agencies, the various types of resources used, and the production and para-production
strategies adopted.
2. 4.1 Structure.
The structure of social forestry implementing agencies varies from one country to
another depending generally on the level of forestry development in each country.

The organization of social forestry may be specialized or highly differentiated such as a

social forestry division within a forestry development bureau having different section and field
units performing different but interrelated functions.

It could also be fused or undifferentiated like a reforestation division performing small

hold tree planting and other social forestry activities that are not clearly distinct from its
function which is reforestation on denuded forest lands.

The implementation of social forestry programs may be lodged in just one or few
agencies or may be diffused to many multiple agencies. Where social forestry
activities/programs are implemented by numerous agencies, a superstructure for effective
coordination and control may be desirable.

Social forestry agencies may have varying degrees of autonomy. Some may be highly
autonomous and self-sufficient in resources, but many if not most have very scarce resources
thus they are highly dependent on other local and external agencies.

In addition to its organizational characteristic, the structure of social forestry agencies

can be described also in terms of how decisions are made and how communication flows
vertically and horizontally. Regardless of its organizational structure, social forestry agencies
will have a higher chance of achieving their objectives particularly that of social equity if they
lean towards a more decentralized (bottom up) pattern of decision making and an open or two-
way communication system.

In the tropical country of Asia, decision making is still generally highly centralized. But
the peculiarities of social forestry as a development alternative necessitate a decentralized
form of decision making that could insure meaningful participation of all concerned parties. The
success of social forestry program in these countries, therefore, will depend largely on the
extent central decision makers share their decision-making prerogatives to other people
concerned.

2.4.2 Resources.
Resources refer to the financial, physical and human resources available for the
development of social forestry.

Financial resources include all budgetary allocations from all sources, local or external;
physical resources include supplies, equipment, building and other infrastructures; and human
resources include all staff at all levels included I the design and implementation of social
forestry program.

The level of resource support for social forestry varies from one country to another, but
at the moment, financial and physical resources for social forestry are generally scarce and the
manpower/staff are few and inadequately trained. The primary reason for this is that new
program such as social forestry are seldom accompanied by adequate budgetary allocation.
However, resource scarcity in social forestry has recently been abated by the extensive support
by external aid and finance agencies (World Bank, 1983; Myers, 1984).

2.5 Strategies
Strategies refer to the various means employed by the social forestry agency to develop
program, to organize resources for effective project implementation, to maximize people’s
participation, and to improve systems/program effectiveness.

a. Program development.
In search for an appropriate program development strategy in social forestry, rural
development programming experiences in the tropics offer at least two alternatives --- the
blue-print approach and the learning process approach (Korten, 1981).

a.1. Blue-print approach. This is the more conventional to development programming.

According to Kortin, 1981:

This approach, with its emphasis on careful pre-planning, reflects the textbook version
of how development programming is supposed to work. Researchers are supposed to provide
data from pilot projects and other studies from which project designers will choose the most
cost-effective design for achieving given outcomes. Administrators of the implementing
organizations are supposed to execute the project plan faithfully, much as building contractor
would follow construction blue-print, specification and schedules. Once implementation is
complete an evaluation researcher is supposed to measure actual changes in the target
population and report cycle so that blue-prints can be revised.

While the blue-print approach in quite appropriate to certain types of development

projects, notably physical infrastructure, where the tasks and outcomes are well defined, the
environment stable, and cost predictable, it has not worked as well in rural development and
other projects including forestry, with objectives that are often multiple and subject to
negotiated change, task requirement unclear, the environment constantly changing, and cost
unpredictable. Yet, paradoxically, its assumption and procedures continue to dominate most
rural development programming and to provide the core content of most training course in
development management. The primary reason for this could be that the conventional
programming approach is better adapted to the implementation of massive programs which
understandably are more politically and “economically” attractive.

a.2. Learning process approach. This is an alternative approach which has been
successfully tried in three Asian countries on a scale of operation beyond the pilot project
stage. This approach assumes that the success of development programs in promoting the well-
being of a target group depends on the fit or close correspondence between beneficiary needs
and program output, between programs task requirements and the mechanisms for beneficiary
demand expression and the decision processes of the assisting organization (Figure 2)

Kortin describe the dynamics of this approach as applied in Asia:

Examination of the three Asia success suggests that the blue-print approach never
played more than an incidental role in their development. None was designed and
implemented. Each emerged out of a long-term learning process (underscoring mine) in which
villagers and program personnel shared their knowledge and resources to create a fit between
needs, actions, and the capacities of the assisting organization. Each had a leader who spent
time in the villages with an idea, tried it, accepted and corrected his errors, and built a target
organization around the requirement of what he learned.

In each instance the overall process can be broken down into three stages, each with its
own unique learning requirement. The element of each stage can be describe roughly as
follows:

Stage 1: Learning to be effective;

Stage 2: Learning to be efficient;

Stage 3: Learning to expand.

In the cases examined there was no though given to simply testing a program model and
a pilot context and then leaving it to other implement. To the country each was distinguish by a
substantial continuity of personnel. The people who had the experience of figuring out an
original program design capable of doing the job were the same people who then built an
organization around that model adapted to its requirements.

Because of its participatory nature, the learning approach could be intuitively perceived
as the more appropriate program development strategy in social forestry. However, although
affective in the longer run, it would appear to many forestry decision-makers as a relatively
slow process considering the enormity of the problems social forestry has to address.
 However, in an attempt to develop an appropriate program development strategy in
social forestry, social forestry planners should be guided by useful insights derived from the
application of the learning process approach.

b. Organizing For Project Implementation

Depending on the number of interest group involved and the types of available resources
(inputs), implementation of social forestry projects can be designed in various ways. Patterned
after Palin (1980), Wiersum (1984) illustrates eight organizational models/designs for
implementing social forestry projects (Figure 4). These models highlight the various roles which
a public forestry agency can play in social forestry project implementation. Regardless of what
organization design would be deemed appropriate, social forestry success largely hinges on the
extent to which it can elicit meaningful participation from the target system and other relevant
groups.

c. Maximizing local and other relevant group participation

As noted earlier, meaningful participation of the social targets in all aspects of program
development is necessary for the success of social forestry program. There are an increasing
number of cases in rural development and small-scale social forestry which show the
possibilities for both efficient and equitable social forestry development by engaging the ideas
and efforts of rural people more fully at all stages of the process (Uphoff, 1981). In massive
social forestry activities however, the evidence for participatory approach is rare, and its
application to social forestry is far from general realized (Sarma, 1984). The primary reason for
this is that participation is generally a complex process conceptually and practically. Its affective
varies cross-culturally and is influenced by a myriad of contextual factors (Figure 5). However, it
can be made simpler by breaking the concept into specific and concrete components along
three dimensions – what kinds of participation are occurring, who is participating in them, and
how .

The who and what dimensions imply some capabilities that are necessary for
meaningful participation in some types of activities. And the how dimension implies some
means or strategies to motivate capable participants to participate actively in social forestry
activities. The assumption is that capable participants do not necessarily participate or involve
themselves in social forestry unless they are motivated to do so.

Based on the implications of the who, what, and how dimensions of participation,

3 types of strategies to maximize local participation in social forestry projects become evident;
(1) the development of local institution/organizations for participation,
 (2) education and training to improve the capability of local people to participate meaningfully,
and;

(3) the provision of incentives such as land and project tenure security, favorable market for
products, technical and support service, favorable loan arrangement, etc. to
motivate/encourage local targets to involve themselves actively on a sustained basis.

d. Promotions or extension of social forestry resources practices/technologies

Most forestry extension strategies in the developing countries are patterned after the
classical diffusion model develop mainly in the U.S. land-grant colleges (in conjunction with
their mission to increase agricultural productivity of rural America). This model has been
criticized for being agency-centered and biased towards alien or externally developed
“modern” technologies. Being participatory and locally oriented, social forestry is not
compatible with the classical extension model. To promote desirable social forestry
practices/technologies, a balanced model that recognizes the importance of both indigenous
and external developed technologies and the positive role and limitation of both
extension/social forestry agents and local participants/social targets in the extension process is
required.

A balanced and effective social forestry extension strategy must be based on the
adequate knowledge/understanding of the following major elements/process:

1. Attribute of the social forestry change agent/agency.

2. Characteristic of the social forestry target system.

3. Attributes of the social forestry practices/innovations. (Four types of innovations

namely technology, taste, role, and values are in fact implied in a given resource practice.

4. Media/channel used to communicate information about the desired resource

practice.

5. Dynamics of individual and group processes such as individual decision-making and

types of social exchanges involve in the adoption of resource practices.

Result of empirical studies on the adoption process (Table 8), suggest the relative extent
to which some of the above factors affect the promotion/transfer of social forestry
practices/technologies.

Based on these empirical knowledge and the peculiarities of social forestry, a model for
the promotion of social forestry practices can be adapted.

This is a balanced model and has the following unique characteristics.

 1. Both the change agent and change target are possible source of
appropriate/desired technologies.

2. Both the change agent and target system are potential adopters of innovations
implied by given resource practice.

3. A fit between technologies and the capacities of the social forestry agency, and
the needs of the target system is implied.