CIFOR at the XVI Biennial IASC Conference ‘Practicing the commons: self-governance, cooperation, and institutional change’

Two major governance regimes have been applied over the past decade to the management of production forests in the Congo basin. One, older, is the classic state-driven approach, with forest management rules and regulations adopted by the state and enforced by the relevant ministries. Another, more recent, is the market-driven approach, where state rules and regulations still apply, but are coupled with more stringent criteria regularly monitored by third-party auditors. Although the two governance regimes present many differences in their theoretical background and in the way they are actually implemented on the ground, one important similarity, especially related to the sustainable management of forests, is that they both apply almost exclusively to the large-scale, export-oriented, timber concessionary regime of colonial origin. Because of such focus, the forest sector in the countries of the Congo basin has always been identified with the operations of large-scale logging concessions, or forest management units (FMUs). In recent years, however, also because of improved economic conditions, more and more evidence has become available that indicates that this historical interpretation of the forest sector needs to be reframed. In fact, what is generally identified as the small-scale, informal forest sector, has been producing larger and larger volumes since the beginning of the 2000s, engaging thousands of people and positively impacting many rural and urban economies. This is not only, of course, a problem of how to define the forest sector. It is also, and foremost, a question of rethinking the two major governance regimes, which seem unable – because of their historical focus on FMUs – not only to address the current needs of smallholders and local producers and traders, but also to drive and support them through processes aimed at their better integration in a sustainable and inclusive national economy. In fact, both current regimes tend to alienate, criminalize or stigmatize smallholders and local timber operators. The latter, in turn, find it close to impossible to join national processes or discussions aimed at finding solutions for the better management of the forest. This happens not only because smallholders are scattered across the national territory and find it very difficult to organise and speak with a common voice, but also because resistance to their engagement often occurs from within the government, which has many vested interests in maintaining a status quo whereby criminalized smallholders and operators are easy targets for indelicate state officials regularly asking for bribes all along the production value chain. Through the assessment of recently collected evidence from several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the paper presented in this session highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the two major governance regimes vis-à-vis the informal, small-scale forest sector, and discusses possible ways forward for its better inclusion in sustainable development pathways.