I was visiting Dayak villages in the Sintang regency of West Kalimantan (Borneo) last week. Despite the expansion of palm oil plantation in lands leased out by the government and also in private lands, there are communities which continue to use and protect forests there. These wet-tropical forests provide a variety of products which enable these communities not only to meet their subsistence needs but also to earn a decent income to meet their growing requirements of money. 

One common sight in Borneo is small tower like structures without windows. One can see these closer to houses and these are not built by destroying forests. While walking nearer these towers one can hear the rattling sounds of birds. These are coming from carefully designed CDs to attract birds. People collect bird nests when these are abandoned by birds. (Apparently birds will try to come back to the same place to make their nests). These nests are exported to China where these are highly valued. It is an important source of income for people in Borneo.

I was taken to these villages by an organisation called Forest Wise. It collects nuts from Ilippe tree (Shorea Stenoptera), processes into a variety of cosmetic products and exports these to international markets. These nuts can be collected in a way which does not harm the undergrowth in forests. The collection of these nuts can generate notable incomes to those who could sell these to a company like Forest Wise. 

There are other products which include honey and a variety of wild fruits (including different species of Jack fruit family). Sustainable harvest of bamboo and rattan can also be a source of livelihood. Timber if it is harvested sustainably and carefully can meet their housing requirements and be a major source of income to local people. A few villages attract tourists and there is a potential for ecotourism. Hence there are different ways to meet the needs of cash income for these forest-dependent people. 

Forests also meet the subsistence needs of people. People can practice slash and burn cultivation with adequate fallow period in between. This is the way they cultivate paddy, which is the main staple food for these communities. They may cultivate cassava in small plots without destroying forests. There are different fruits (including durian, jack fruit, etc.) which can be important ingredients to food. Water is cleaner (if cared well), and some of these villages also produce hydropower locally.

It is not that getting more money is the sole incentive to protect forests by these communities. There is community cohesion and the life in these villages with their cultural attributes is meaningful to these communities. It is possible for one member of the community to take actions that may destroy forests but community pressure is adequate so far to prevent such actions. Hence the value attached to community life and culture is also enabling the protection of forests. 

There are possibilities and challenges in this regard. More and more companies like Forest Wise which are concerned about protecting forests and wildlife but at the same time interested in giving a sustainable income to these communities can play a positive possible. There may be a need for scaling up their actions focussing on not only one or two products but a variety of goods and services which can be provided by wet-tropical forests on a sustainable manner. In that sense, carbon finance can also be useful. However despite all the talk globally about carbon and biodiversity finance, this money has not reached communities.

There are challenges too. Youngsters in these communities are getting educated and migrating to cities. They may lose interest in activities (like the collection of ilippe nuts) which can generate income from forests. It is good if their migration leads to the non-use of forests, but a non-dependence on forests can also lead to their conversion for commercial purposes. 

Though there are companies like Forest Wise (and I have seen such private investments/firms in other countries like Brazil), these do not make much money. Hence they may not be in a position to scale up their operations. Their operations currently depend on the good-will of a few individuals who invest their money, time and probably life. Though there is a lot of talk about `businesses protecting forests and land’, the size of their operations is very small compared to the need. 

These indicate that we need to have a realistic understanding of the role of communities and private business in protecting forests. There are communities which protect forests but their incentives may change over time due to the process of economic and social change. All these changes are not undesirable for conservation but some of these can have negative impacts. Similarly, private business can help in certain cases, especially when these are also driven (partially by) environmental goals. However the whole needs of conservation cannot be met by private companies. The income that can be generated depends on the nature of forests. Though forests that I have seen in Borneo can give a higher revenue, that may not be the case of peatlands. Forests in Savannahs of Africa, though is not dense, enables wildlife viewing but that may not be the case of wet tropical forests. 

There are positive externalities in forest conservation. Yes private individuals or for-profit actors can provide these externalities to some extent. But the crucial insight from economics that individuals and private firms may undersupply those goods and services which have positive externalities continues to be relevant for forest conservation. This is where the state has to play an important role. Unfortunately, the governments of many poorer countries do not have enough resources and the policy-readiness to serve that role effectively. International interventions may have to enhance this capacity in a viable manner. 

End Note: The content and opinions expressed are that of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by/do not necessarily reflect the views of Azim Premji University.