NGO Forum Preliminary Submission on Forest Concession Management Plans

Overview

The following submission, undertaken by NGOs, and submitted collectively by the NGO Forum on Cambodia, provides a broad overview of forest concession management plans, and areas where we feel significant work is required in order to demonstrate that concession companies are able to meet the broad policy objectives of the Royal Government of Cambodia.  The principle criteria used in our analysis of the plans is that Cambodia’s forests should be used for the highest public benefit, taking into special account those living in and around concession areas.[1]  Few plans make even a reasonable case that logging at the scale proposed in Management Plans would be of net public benefit.  

Our general finding is that it is clear that if Forest Concession Management Plans and ESIAs are approved in their current form, deforestation by forest concessions and impacts on local communities will increase to levels similar to worst excesses of the mid 1990s.  All companies overestimate the forest resource base, underestimate the socio-economic and environmental impacts of logging operations, and propose to log forests at a rate, and in a manner that will lead to the permanent loss of many forest areas.  This applies particularly to plans to cut deciduous forests.  While the plans vary greatly in both quality and detail, none has credibly sought to show how they will conduct logging operations at both a scale and in a manner that will prevent significant and protracted conflicts with local communities.  The reasons for these broad findings are detailed below, with this preliminary submission broken down into five sections:

1. Impacts on communities: 

• The plans suggest that concession activities will have serious impacts on livelihoods: there are no protections against the cutting of resin trees, access by villagers to forest areas will be restricted in many cases, and excision of parts of the concession for the creation of community forests is entirely inadequate. 
• Concessions can be expected to continue to pose security threats to communities, and there has been little effort to remove areas such as villages and farmlands from the concessions. 
• Communities’ physical environment can be expected to worsen, in particular water supply will be affected.

2. Inventory of the forest resource base:  The calculation of annual allowable cut (AAC) is very dubious, and the level of cutting proposed will be much more higher that in the past.                                                                                    [TOP]

• 1997 rather than 2000 forest cover data is used.
• A range of forest types are combined together for the purposes of calculation, resulting in high variations and imprecise results.
• Many concessionaires plan to cut deciduous forest (which other companies recognize should not be logged[2]) and mixed evergreen, which concessionaires show has been destroyed by logging. 
• Severely damaged forest is not removed from the productive forest area.
• Calculation of the allowable cut in most cases does not account for the excision of inoperable areas or protected trees (community forest areas, buffer zones, resin trees, etc.)
• Yield calculations are often dubious because they are based more on the amount of large trees (60cm and up diameter range) than on the replacement rate and amount of trees in 50-59 cm diameter range. 

3. Economic viability of concessions:  A number of concessions show they are planning to buy timber from other concessionaires, raising doubts about their viability.

4. Planning and scheduling at a compartment and coupe level:  Many concessionaires do not show their proposed annual coupes or clearly indicate the order in which they will be logged; some make it clear that they will not log consecutively.

Public consultation and the planning process

Three recent decisions by the Cambodian Department of Forestry and Wildlife have significantly impacted on the integrity of the planning process, significantly undermining the credibility of all Management Plans. 

The first was the allowance of only 19 days (starting on a public holiday, including the Water Festival break, and ending on a Saturday) for public comment.  This arguably cynical consultation time frame raises questions about the legitimacy of the entire planning process and whether the Department of Forestry is making a good faith effort to ensure that Cambodia’s forests are being utilized for the highest public benefit.  If further time is not permitted for a more detailed reading of all elements of the Management Plans prior to their approval, the Department of Forestry risks its own credibility and jeopardizes the legitimacy of all management plans subsequently approved. 

The second decision concerns the statement by the Department of Forestry that Compartment (5 year) level planning be no longer required in order for concession companies to obtain a cutting permit.  Removal of the compartment level from the planning process also calls into question whether the Department of Forestry and Wildlife is making a good faith effort to ensure that the Management Planning Process results in the sustainable use of Cambodia’s forest resources, whilst protecting the rights of forest dependent communities.  At a practical level it also means that the Strategic (25 year) level of the planning process be substantially broadened to ensure that all elements of concession management planning that were to occur at the Compartment level are now incorporated into the Strategic Plan.  These include:                                                                                                    [TOP]

•          detailed mapping, delineation of compartment and annual coupe boundaries

•          demarcation of conservation areas and SMAs within compartment

•          secondary road network alignment for successive annual coupe operations

•          5 percent systematic to enable calculation of AAC for each coupe

•          direct consultation with communities, collective agreements establishing rights, responsibilities and obligations of both concessionaire and communities concerned. 

However, the preferable alternative would be for the Compartment Level planning process to be reinstated.  Any cutting permit issued without the undertaking of this planning level will be considered illegitimate by both NGOs, the broader Cambodian community, and most external observers. 

The third was the decision to remove information on economic viability from plans publicly disclosed.  Cambodia’s forests are a state asset under the stewardship, but not owned by the government of the day.  As such the Cambodian government has no legal right to prevent the resource owners (the Cambodian public) from considering and reviewing information which would help to determine whether industrial timber production is the best use of Cambodia’s forest resources. 

Guiding Principles for Revision of Forest Concession Management Plans

Detailed recommendations for plan revision are outlined below.  The rationale for these recommendations is that there are certain guiding principles which should not be violated:

•          Cambodian law should be upheld.

•          Communities should not be impoverished, and existing livelihood strategies should be protected where they are consistent with the sustainability of the resources.

•          The sustainability of the forest ecosystem should be maintained.

•          Communities should be able to live free from fear.

•          Communities’ physical environment should not deteriorate. 

Necessary Revisions                                                                                                                [TOP]

1. Impacts on Communities:  Many plans outline the impacts of logging operations on communities.  Those mentioned include:

•          loss of income from harvesting NTFPs

•          Pollution of water sources used by local communities. 

•          Roads and skid tracks to remove over 10% of forest cover.

•          Social impacts caused by having large numbers of migrant workers based in villages, including the spread of HIV and other problems. 

 We consider impacts in three areas in particular:

 Livelihoods:  The most important livelihood implications outlined in the Management Plans are:

·         Resin: Resin trees are noted in the majority of plans to be essential for the livelihood of local communities and some plans indicate the prevalence of resin trees.  For instance, Cherndar Plywood FCMP (pg. 22) notes: “In year 2000 and 2001, the Prime Minister advised MAFF to inform all concessionaires to temporary cease cutting Keruing [resin] trees as to await the study of socio-economic aspect relating to the communal villager’s domestic use of resin trees.  This study now has already been done in the new FMP where ESIA is incorporated.  So, almost half of the AAC too in coupe 6A and 6B were Keruing trees which have been becoming the residual trees.”  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it clearly prohibits the cutting of resin trees and protects the rights of villagers to tap resin trees and sell the resin to earn income. The provisions in Cambodian forest law that prohibit the cutting of resin trees should be upheld.  Whereas in the past, communities have been allowed to tap resin trees and concessionaires have not been allowed to cut the trees (although many did), many concessionaires plan to restrict tapping of resin trees and there is no acknowledgement in the plans of the legal prohibitions on the cutting of resin trees. (Forest Law, Articles 29 & 98 B5)  Instead the issue of resin tapping is called “politicized”, and the right of communities to tap trees to generate income is disputed.  

·         Community Forests:  An essential measure in protecting the livelihoods of local communities in concession areas is the allocation of community forest areas.  Within these areas, harvesting operations would be excluded.  There is no consistency in how concessionaires have chosen to deal with the allocation of community forests.  Some include community forests in their strategic plan, some preferring to wait until the coupe level planning, some proposing community forest areas without consultation, and others giving non-forest areas.   For community forests to serve the intended purpose of providing for NTFP needs, they should be designated in areas where communities most need them for NTFP collection.  And this process should be done through a process of negotiation, as many concessionaires recognize.  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it calls for the allocation of community forest through negotiation with communities, at the strategic planning level, in areas on which communities depend for their livelihoods, and taking into account all communities that use the forest areas.  The formula outlined by some companies, such as Cherndar Plywood is quite reasonable.  For instance they note on pg. 24 of the FCMP: “For the special management area purpose, the concessionaire has agreed to set aside suitable nearby forested areas at not less than 3 hectares per household as Community Forest Reserve to be solely managed by the community themselves under the Community Forestry Sub-decree and other relevant regulations…”.                                                     [TOP]

·         Access Issues:  Many plans seek to place restrictions on the freedom of movement in concession areas.  These planned restrictions are unacceptable and must be removed from management plans.  Whereas in the past, communities have mostly been allowed to travel freely throughout the forest, and have done so to collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs) on which they depend for their livelihoods, many concessionaires intend to impose restrictions on this movement.  They have defined free-access zones near villages, and delineated boundaries with the forest concession beyond which villagers need to ask prior permission from the concessionaire.  Some concessionaires will also increase checkpoints into the forest.  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it protects the rights of villagers as well as outsiders to access all areas of the concession.  

Security and conflict:  It is clear that concessionaires continue to hire armed guards and work closely with military.  Two concessionaires make this very clear: Timas (FCMP, Section 1.2.6) and Samrong Wood (FCMP, Section 1.2.6). [3]  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it demonstrates a commitment to eliminate the use of armed guards.

Only a few of the management plans mention actually changing the concession boundaries to eliminate areas around villages.  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it calls for the removal of all non-forest areas from the concession.

Physical environment:  Concessionaires themselves make it clear that logging activities will adversely impact on water supplies, and some call for buffer zones along streams.[4]  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it calls for adequate buffer zones along all streams where logging is not allowed.

2.  Inventory of the forest resources.  The concessionaires calculate an unrealistic level of annual allowable cut.  Many Plans indicate a level of harvesting substantially higher than past years.  This is of great concern.  For instance, Cherndar Plywood FCMP (pg. 23) notes that it has logged 58,445.868 cubic meters in the four years since it began logging operations in 1999.  However based on its new plan, it intends on logging 68,041 cubic meters annually over the next 23 years.  Other problems include:

·         Some concessionaires use 1997 forest cover data (for example, Pheapimex Stung Treng-Ratanakiri, ESIA, pg. 11), which other concessionaires demonstrate is invalid.  A minimum standard should be that any management plan be based on 2000 forest cover data.

·         Rather than a complete inventory, the forest is broken down into four major forest types and averages are found for each.  Areas where there has been widespread anarchic logging are lumped together with pristine forest.  There is only a vague definition of the forest types.  There is as much variation within forest types as between them.  For instance, Cherndar Plywood FCMP (pg. 21) says: “At least four major forest types have been recognized in the forest area, these major types are further sub-divided into many sub-types based on differences in the physical environment and floristic compositions.”  There are very high variations within the data for standing wood volume, making the results questionable.  Almost invariably, logged forest is reported to have more large trees than unlogged forest, calling into question the data. For instance, Pheapimex Kompong Thom-Kratie (FCMP notes on pg, 24) the volume of the Unlogged Evergreen forest in the >80cm diameter range as 21.997 cubic meters per hectare and the Logged Evergreen forest is the same diameter range (>80cm) as having a volume of 24.042 cubic meters per hectare (FCMP, pg. 30).  Pheapimex Stung Treng-Ratanakiri Unlogged Evergreen forest in the >80cm diameter range as 14.665 cubic meters (FCMP, pg. 45) and the Logged Evergreen in the same diameter range (>80cm) as 23.896 cubic meters per hectare.  The implication seems to be that the logged forest contains more large trees than the unlogged forest.  In addition, areas that have been logged will be logged again before 25 years.[5]  A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it does not group different types of forest, or calculates standing wood estimates within a reasonable level of certainty.                                [TOP]

         ·         Many concessionaires plan to cut deciduous forest, and none excise it from their productive forest area.  This calls into question every concessionaire’s calculation of their resource base (see Cherndar Plywood’s comments noted above on why deciduous forest should not be cut).  Plans also fail to make clear how past “illegal” or “anarchic” logging will be reflected in compartment/coupe scheduling.  Some plans indicate that in the past, the resource base has been mined over its most valuable forest areas.  For instance: Cherndar Plywood FCMP (pg. 22) notes: “A few months before closing coupe 1, the Company has to do the ALP/AOP [Annual Logging Plan/Annual Operations Plan] for the next coupe which is supposed to be coupe 2 and subsequently by numbered.  But, coupe 2 has already been illegally logged by BLP.  So, in order to maintain more residual trees for the next cutting cycle within the sustainable objective, the Company in this first compartment amongst the 6 remaining coupes found that coupe No. 6 had more trees as seemingly virgin forest.” Some Plans schedule a second cycle of logging in areas logged in the current cycle; that is before allowing 25 years of forest regrowth.  Mien Ly Heng correctly states that these areas should be included in the plan but made inoperable for a 25 year interval.   A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it does not include deciduous forest, mixed evergreen forest, or severely damaged forest in the permanent production forest. 

·         Most concessionaires do not remove inoperable areas (such as buffer zones, resin trees, community forest areas, etc.) when calculating standing wood volumes. Although companies recognize that 10% of forest cover will be lost to making roads and skid tracks, few companies subtract this from their operable areas. Some concessionaires (like Kingwood) say they haven't done a thorough enough study to identify forest zones.  For instance, Kingwood (FCMP, Khmer version, pg. 73) states: “In order to use the forest in the area appropriately following the goals of the forest, it is necessary to divide the land area in the forest concession clearly according to type of forest, operable areas, inoperable areas, protected areas, forest conservation areas, and other areas within the concession for development, and reforestation.  In order to identify the area within the concession clearly, it is necessary to fly over and examine the general characteristics of the area and then make comparison of the result to a map.  As the area of our concession is large, therefore going to actual areas to verify the characteristics of the forest will be done at the time of the study at the compartment and annual coupe level.” Many plans do not identify conservation areas and Special Management Areas, or these areas are not shown on maps. A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it excludes all inoperable areas from calculations of AAC. 

·         The calculations of AAC are based on all species of trees, though only a few will be cut (in most cases).  The calculation of the annual allowable cut shows that the rate of replacement (calculated on trees in the 50-59 cm range) is negligible compared to the trees to be cut (over 60 cm).  A minimum standard for any management plan should be that it allows for no more cutting than the replacement volume. 

3.  Economic viability and the resource base.  The economic information that is available calls into question the credibility of many plans.  For instance:                                                                                                                                    [TOP]

·         Cherndar Plywood – Calculates its annual log requirement at between 100,000 and 120,000 cubic meters.  However its projected annual production volume is only 68,041 cubic meters.  The difference (39,700 cubic meters) is to be made up through the purchase of logs from other concessionaires.  But Colexim plans to buy logs from Cherndar Plywood, Mien Ly Heng and Pheapimex (Colexim, FCMP, Khmer version, pg. 10).  Meanwhile, Mien Ly Heng plans to buy logs from overseas (Mien Ly Heng, FCMP, Khmer version, pg. 18).  

·         Colexim, in the future plans to process planted trees from the concession areas as well as buying trees from other areas (FCMP, Khmer version, pg. 10).  

A minimum standard of any management plan is that concessionaires do not base their viability on the purchase of timber from other local of international log suppliers.   

4.  Scheduling into compartments and annual coupes.  

Many plans do not include maps showing compartments or coupes and provide little information on the different compartments or coupes.  Few indicate the sequence in which the coupes will be cut.  Some clearly say they will not log sequentially.   A minimum standard for any management plan should be that all annual coupes are indicated and the concessionaire demonstrates that it proposes to log them sequentially.  

Conclusions and next steps

Minimum standards can be summarized as follows:

• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it clearly prohibits the cutting of resin trees and protects the rights of villagers to tap resin trees and sell the resin to earn income.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it calls for the allocation of community forest through negotiation with communities, at the strategic planning level, in areas on which communities depend for their livelihoods, and taking into account all communities that use the forest areas.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it protects the rights of villagers as well as outsiders to access all areas of the concession. 
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it demonstrates a commitment to eliminate the use of armed guards.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it calls for the removal of all non-forest areas from the concession.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it calls for adequate buffer zones along all streams where logging is not allowed.
• A minimum standard should be that any management plan be based on 2000 forest cover data.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it does not group different types of forest, or calculates standing wood estimates within a reasonable level of certainty.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it does not include deciduous forest, mixed evergreen forest, or severely damaged forest in the permanent production forest.
• A minimum standard of any management plan should be that it excludes all inoperable areas from calculations of AAC.
• A minimum standard for any management plan should be that it allows for no more cutting than the replacement volume.
• A minimum standard of any management plan is that the viability of a concessionaire is not premised on it being able to buy wood from other local or international log suppliers. 
• A minimum standard for any management plan should be that all annual coupes are indicated and the concessionaire demonstrates that it proposes to log them sequentially.

Without substantial changes to these plans, and a broader rethink of concessions based forest management taking into account the very limited achievements of many of these planning documents, forestry reform in Cambodia is dead.

[TOP]       [Back]       [Home]