|
'From Clash of the Commons to a New
Agenda for Forests'
14 July 2008
First, let me welcome you as the Director
of the Forest Peoples Programme (FPP), which is a UK-based human rights
organisation that promotes the rights of peoples who live in forests.
This meeting has been organised jointly with the Rights and Resources
(RRI) Initiative which is an international alliance of community organisations,
research bodies, conservation, human rights and development agencies
and think tanks that has got together to ensure that the needs and
rights of forest dependent peoples are accommodated by policies over
forest resources. The Forest Peoples Programme is the British member
of this alliance.
My job today is just to set the scene
for what follows and to provide some context for the findings that
Andy White will present, followed by Joji Cariņo of the Philippines
and Kyeretwie Opoku of Ghana. I also hope to clarify to you why we
have chosen the title for today's meeting - ' the clash of the commons'.
We have chosen this place to launch
our findings for two main reasons. The first is that we are here thanks
to the kind hospitality of Martin Horwood MP who, among his many other
responsibilities, is chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for
Tribal Peoples. Many thanks, Martin. The second reason is that the
House of Commons seems an appropriate place to draw attention to the
growing clash we fear between global forest policies addressing climate
change and forest peoples - the commoners - the rights-holders in
forests.
It's easy for us to overlook in 21st
century Britain how important common property regimes are in the rest
of the world. Yet these were once a prevalent system for organising
land holdings here in the UK. These systems were demolished gradually
between the 14th and 18th centuries by the Enclosures, which culminated
in the Highland Clearances of the 18th century when a million or so
Scottish crofters lost their rights and livelihoods to make way for
sheep. Today only vestiges of our commons remain in the UK but in
the rest of the world these common property systems are still the
norm. For example, in Indonesia, where I work a lot, and which is
a country of 230 million people, only 40% of land holdings have been
formally titled. All other lands are held by various informal and
customary means. Likewise in much of Africa customary laws regulate
land ownership with little connection to statutory law. All such peoples
are uniquely vulnerable to expropriation, especially when land values
rise.
It's thought that something like 1
billion people - amongst them many of the world's poorest - depend
on what we call 'forests' for their daily livelihoods. Their rights
to their forests are even less secure that other rural peoples, typically
because forestry laws classify forest lands as State or Crown lands
where local rights are curtailed or ignored. Again we can recall our
own history in which the notion of 'forests', which was introduced
following the Norman Conquest, led to the takeover of 1/4 of England
by the time of Henry II to reserve such lands for Royal Hunts and
timber extraction. Our first 'forest' - the New Forest - was only
established through the burning of Saxon settlements and many of us
think that the myths of Hereward the Wake and Robin Hood arose as
expressions of the resentment that English freemen and commoners felt
at this expropriation of their rightful domains.
This exclusionary model of forestry
was exported during the era of colonialism to the developing world
and its this kind forestry, which denies rights, causes poverty and
creates conflict and which is still the prevalent form of forestry
in much of the world, which FPP and RRI have been set up to challenge.
And now we face a third wave of enclosure.
Our global commons - the air we breathe, the waters we all rely on
to fall from the sky - is now in peril due to pollution from the burning
of fossils fuels and forests. An urgent cry has gone up to stop deforestation
- to 'save the rainforests' - and billions of dollars are being mobilised
to this end. But allocating these monies is not so simple - who will
be rewarded for storing carbon in trees? The companies who develop
carbon saving schemes? The governments of the countries where the
forests are? Or the local peoples, whose rights in their forests are
so insecure?
Obviously we think it is the local
people whose rights should be recognised - must be recognised - but
as Andy will now explain, the prospects are not so good. What we fear
is another wave of enclosure in which forests and lands for hundreds
of millions of indigenous people and rural poor are taken over by
companies and governments in the name of saving the planet.
So, Andy, over to you .....
[Link
to Andy White's statement ]
|