Who is the community in Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM)?
This entry was posted on 6/21/2007 8:10 PM and is filed under uncategorized.
My exposure with the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) in one CBFM
site in Lantapan, Bukidnon and the retired logging employees of Lianga, Surigao
del Sur has drawn me to the persisting issue of defining, who the community is in
Community- based Forest Management programs?
In Mt Kitanglad there’s a conflict between two IP peoples
organizations (PO), both claiming authority
over a CBFM site. One PO claims they have
greater authority as they are actual occupants of the contested area. The other PO claims leadership over the
entire IP territory
of Mt Kitanglad and since the CBFM area is within the claimed territory the
actual occupants of the contested site have to submit to this bigger IP
leadership.
In addition, there are issues
between tenured migrants being considered under the program as a legitimate
community for forest management. Some
groups of IPs contested this because they claim themselves to be the “community”
with rightful claim in the management forests.
The question of “who is the community in CBFM”
is getting more and more attention today not only from different community
forestry practitioners but more so with the government. There is now more
literature about redefining the “community” and a continuous review of this
definition along with the evolution of community forestry in the country.
The CBFM under the SAMMILIA
federation of Surigao del Sur also underwent different conflicts in defining
the “community” in CBFM Program. Locals argue that the rightful claimants or
the “community” are the actual occupants of the area while others said that the
IPs should have more legitimate claim. Still others contested that the
displaced laborers of the previous company are the legitimate claimants because
they are the “community” affected by the conversion from TLA to CBFM and that
they are more adept in managing the area than any other groups or communities.
The SAMMILIA federation of
primary cooperatives from four different municipalities covered by the claim
now holds the legal rights to manage the CBFM area under the program. The
federation, under the provisions of the program, is the “community” in CBFM.
SAMMILIA is said to represent the communities since it is a federation of peoples
cooperative and they said that IP community is part of the federation and well
represented. On the other hand, accusations that most of these leaders and
managers do not occupy any area in the CBFM continues. In addition, some said
that most of these cooperatives are inactive or even non-existent at present;
therefore the federation has no representation from the real “community”. The
SAMMILIA leadership is said to have managed and resolved these conflict through
the help of DENR and some politicians. They are said to have proven to be
rightful community in CBFM.
