NGOs & Forestry: Dynamic Interactions

Gurmit Singh K.S.
Executive Director,
Centre for Environment, Technology & Development, Malaysia (CETDEM)

Mr. Chairman, Ladies & Gentlemen,

While forestry and forestry research are closest to the hearts and material well-being of the present audience, probably the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), especially those that focus on advocacy and direct action, are generally viewed with hostility, distrust and tolerated, at best.

But then the fact that I have been given the opportunity to deliver this keynote address at your World Congress as an NGO leader represents a sea-change in attitudes. It also means that the interactions between NGOs and forestry are not that simple or always negative. The fact that I am the only keynote speaker at this Congress from the South, specifically Malaysia, is both an honour and a challenge.

Allow me to share with you some of my views on the dynamic (or even see-sawing) interactions between these two sectors and what the future possibly holds for them.

The Range of NGOs

The word NGOs describes such a disparate group of organisations (from chambers of
commerce to professional institutions to environmental activists) that it is better to narrow the term for the purposes of our discussion. I will confine my remarks to professional and scientific organisations, nonprofit public interest groups, community bodies and indigenous people.

The motivations and modes of operation of these NGOs vary. The professional and scientific organisations are generally concerned with promoting knowledge of the science and the interests of their members. With rare exceptions, they shun controversy and avoid entangling with political and societal forces that impinge on forestry.

The public interest organisations seek a much broader mandate for their work. While some groups may only be interested in conserving forests and their ecosystems, others work to ensure that the rights of forest dwellers are not further diminished. Some engage in formal lobbying at the national and international levels for responsible management and others monitor the work of transnationals in forest exploitation and degradation. Yet others help to increase public awareness. Most of them do not shun controversy in furthering their causes.

Community bodies, very often, are concerned with how forestry affects them and their families directly. They sometimes work with public interest organisations, especially when specific interests coincide. Because they are close to the ground, they are able to mobilise for direct action like the Chipko movement in India.

Indigenous people, who have lived directly in the forests for generations or depended directly on them for their very survival, are often on the losing end of most forestry actions. They are no longer willing to be continuously displaced by the chainsaws and bulldozers. Their struggle is sometimes ignored by some conservation groups as merely one of human rights, which these organisations choose to shun.

Forestry

For much of the time, many scientists and professionals had viewed forestry as merely the range of activities related to managing forests for their supply of timber and other ,forest products for the use of humans. The study of forest ecosystems was for long geared towards these ends. Even now, many of these professionals are unwilling to deal with the issue of forest-dwellers. To them it is more of a human rights issue to be dealt with by politicians.

But forestry is more than trees and their harvesting for timber and other byproducts. In fact this was one of the main areas of argument at the recent meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development in New York. It is also one of the main reasons why NGOs have been so critical of the track record of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO).

Forests have increasingly become tension points - especially when often conflicting demands are made on them by various groups of humans. Their ability to supply timber indefinitely for commercial, residential and even firewood is in direct conflict with their role in providing natural habitats for a wide range of life-forms. Their role in natural cycles like the hydrological one cannot be sustained if the size and quality of forests keep shrinking. Climate change, at both the micro and global level, coupled with man-made pollutants are slowly but inexorably shifting forest boundaries and composition.

How Dynamically Have the Two

Interacted?

As man's understanding of ecosystems and environmental issues has improved, so have many NGOs been formed to take up the cudgels against threats to Nature. Naturally, forests have attracted some of the most passionate rhetoric and action. And of late tropical forests have become a major focus.

While the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP) has been supported by a couple of major NGOs from the North, it has irked most other NGOs, including those from the North. There remain major doubts among them as to whether the TFAP actually addresses their concerns or those of people depending on forests. Many of the plans produced so far seem to focus on better timber-extraction rather than the other equally important roles of forests.

Land-conflicts, whether at the local or at the State - Federal level, have also been a major area of concern for many NGOs. Political patronage systems, outright corruption or sheer inefficiency have been major targets of these groups as they have tried to pressurise for the equitable implementation of forests policies and regulations. Physical violence, either by the State or private apparatus, has many a time been used to counter such pressures. Chico Mendes was one victim of these forces.

In other cases, governments have resorted to detention without trial or banning individuals from entering forested areas. Almost all NGOs have had to fight at one time or another against the suppression of basic information on forests and their contents. In some countries, laws like the Official Secrets Act are used to block their attempts while in many countries the mass media collaborates in shielding such information from public scrutiny.

Land rights, especially over forests by tribal communities, has proven to be a flashpoint - as states, and sometimes corporations, have usurped many of the traditional rights. Very often, the guise used is modem law and at other times, outright force. Yet there seems to be no moral authority that can be used to justify such actions. Many NGOs continue to argue that since sovereignty resides ultimately with the people, no state has the right to take away traditionally recognised rights without the free consent of the affected parties.

A number of Northern NGOs have been actively organising boycotts of tropical timber imports and products in the belief that such economic action will force exporting countries to manage their forests in a more environmentally sound manner. Not many southern NGOs are convinced that this purpose has been achieved. Part of the problem is that these actions are seen as discriminatory - why only tropical timber, why only some countries, what has the record of forest management in Northern countries been? (to list only a few of the questions). In the process, aspersions have been cast on the motives of some NGOs. (but doesn't that happen far too often?)

There are some NGOs working with governments and the private sector to develop guidelines for sustainable management of forests. But it is not easy because the approaches are from disparate angles e.g. an NGO statement circulated at the recent CSD meeting started by claiming that "the global forests crisis has worsened, the rights and lands of indigenous peoples and local communities are under increasing attack, deforestation and forest conversion has accelerated, and forest quality is in severe decline." Some NGOs are content to agree to labelling of timber while others view that the fundamental issues remain unresolved.

There are also strong philosophical differences within the NGOs, as I indicated earlier. A number, especially from the North, believe in working from the international level down. Many from the South believe that it is action at the national and local level which will provide lasting solutions. But not all actually practise participatory democracy within their own organisations and many prominent NGOs in the South are urbanbased, not rooted in the forests. So who represents the real voice of the forests and their concerns remains open to debate.

This leads to another very serious question. The fate of the world's forests are being decided, more and more, by external forces like terms of trade, ITTO, politicians, foresters, and urban based NGOs. Is this equitable and which party is most qualified to protect the interests of the forests? Was the Industrial Revolution and the current wealth of the North built on the destruction of its forests as well as that of its major colonies? Have the developing countries no option but to do the same? Should all primary forests be strictly conserved?

I know that many of these questions have already been posed before but I consider them still relevant within the context of this address. I hope that you will help in resolving some of them.

The Challenge of the Future

Towards the close of this Congress, the challenge, in my opinion, should be how you, as forest researchers throughout the world, can improve your interactions with the diverse NGO community so that the sustainable future of all types of forests and their inhabitants can be assured. Not that the more important role of national governments and private entities should or can be ignored. But the researchers and NGOs combined make a formidable force for the good of forests in most circumstances.

However, the future is still fraught with many obstacles and problems, which have to be overcome, if the dynamic interactions between NGOs and Forestry are to yield positive results. The primary change required is that of values - from exploitation to stewardship, from short-term profits to sustainable availability, from overconsumption to equitable access.

The NGOs themselves have to broaden their horizons - from mere conservation to addressing the urgent problems of the deprived and marginalised, from mere preaching and criticising to collaboration with researchers for viable alternatives, from empty talk of solidarity to actual actions in working with other groups and local communities, from pointing fingers at the developing countries to assessing the performance of their own nations and communities.

Governments, especially in the South, have to move away from outright hostility against NGOs, whether from the North or their own lands, towards harnessing the enthusiasm and commitment of the NGO community. To continue to assume a monopoly on policy-making and shunning participation or public debate, will only condemn such governments to repeat the mistakes of the past. Progress into the 21st century will be difficult if the rights of indigenous people to land are ignored. Forests must cease to be treated as political footballs or active components of the political patronage system.

The business and industry communities have to stop treating forests as green gold to be mined rather than sustainably managed. They have to value them for their broader importance, including ecological. Logging and other extraction practices must change if conflicts and confrontations are to diminish. Business as usual is not a viable positive option.

Forestry researchers must continue to move beyond narrow perspectives and realise that they cannot ignore national and global controversies over forests and their future. To hide behind the fig-leaf of scientific neutrality is an illusion that will carry very little weight in the future. If the future of forests is to be assured, researchers must stand up for their findings. The commitment to truth cannot be compromised for the sake of personal promotions or the lure of large research grants.

From my viewpoint, research needs to be both problem-driven as well as anticipatory of potential problems. Ideally it should be comprehensive enough to cover both the micro and macro levels. But perhaps the greatest drawback with Westernbased scientific research is its very fragmented and specialised nature. Yet environmental problems demand holistic solutions which I doubt very much can be addressed by the mindsets of present researchers. At the most, we can only hope to get partial solutions which may not complete the mosaic for the real comprehensive answers.

Having made the above qualifiers, I would like to make the following 11 suggestions

1. All research, whether by the public or private sectors, should be subjected to significant levels of transparency and accountability, especially in addressing the more serious global and national problems;

2. There should be inputs from, not only the formal endusers, but as well as the general community which will have to live with the applications of research;

3. Alternative research should be facilitated by relevant agencies and it could be undertaken by NGOs and community groups;

4. Findings should be freely and easily accessible, especially to the mass media and the NGOs, so that they can facilitate their ease of understanding by ordinary citizens. Exceptions should not become the rule, in the true spirit of meaningful public accountability;

5. Researchers must resist elitism and arrogance especially when sharing their findings with NGOs, the mass media and ordinary citizens. Humility and a deep commitment to responsible ethics should be their creed;

6. Funding agencies should make more serious efforts to consult as widely as possible to identify the urgent areas requiring relevant research rather than dictating their wishes or listening only to the researchers;

7. The current inefficiencies in the utilisation of equipment, facilities and research expertise should be reduced through regular auditing and sharing. There should be optimal matching of resources to needs;

8. Researchers need to be fully aware of the socioeconomic and political context within which their work is done and the potential consequences of the "wrong" application of their research findings;

9. NGOs and the mass media should search more assidously for local research findings rather than relying exclusively on results from developed countries. Making linear extrapolations or drawing parallel inferences can often lead to misleading campaigns, which undermine NGO / media credibility;

10. Local research findings should be more frequently used by decisionmakers, especially those at the political and economic command positions. But in order to do this effectively, they have to develop a capability to evaluate such research, perhaps with the help of independent advisers;

11. There is an urgent need, especially in the rapidly developing countries, to direct more substantial local funds, from both the public and private sectors, to underwrite local research, including the establishment of local independent research institutes and thinktanks, rather than being perenially beholden to foreign governments and donors.

But the challenge is, ultimately, for the entire global community. Forests are literally the green lung of planet Earth and everyone has a vested interest in their survival. We must all rise up to the challenge!

Thank you for listening to a nonforester but NGO activist of many years.

Gurmit Singh K.S. is the Executive Director of the Centre for Environment, Technology & Development in Malaysia. He is the Founder President and an Advisor to the Environmental Protection Society. He also is a member of many national and international societies and committees.

Mr Singh K.S. is a well-known environmentalist and social activist. He has organised and managed national and international courses, workshops and studies on environmental issues. In 1993, he received the Malaysian Government's Langkawi Award.