Future Challenge: A Paradigm Shift in the Forestry Sector - Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services - page 454

negotiations; planning and leadership, and possibly in the concepts of environmen-
tal services (CIFOR 2000; Tipper 2002). In the long-term, this type of community-
level capacity building may be the most significant contribution to the development
of a successful, low-cost smallholder tree planting process that supports local liveli-
hoods and environmental services (Roshetko et al. 2007a).

21.7.2 Establishing Clear, Stable and Enforceable

Rules for Access to Land and Trees

Clear land tenure and tree use rights are imperative for the successful implementa-
tion of any tree planting activities or environmental service program (Scherr 1995;
Scherr 1999; Potter and Lee 1998; Desmond and Race 2000; Predo 2002; Tomich
et al. 2002; Yuliyanti and Roshetko 2002; Barney Chapter 13, this volume; van
Noordwjik et al. Chapter 20, this volume). Without guaranteed rights to utilize the
trees, smallholders are not likely to plant nor tend trees. Delineating and defining
land and tree access rights, whether individual or commonly held, must be a high
priority for the program. Securing tenure rights can be one reward resulting from
the program; however it should not be the only 'carrot' to get people to plant trees.
Tenure rights must be part of a wider negotiation process that addresses the com-
munities' broader development needs. Such a negotiation process should be a fun-
damental part of the project design, as discussed below (Roshetko et al. 2007a).

21.7.3 Managing High Transaction Costs

A successful environmental services program will require close collaboration
between various types of partners - program staff, governments (both local and
national), communities of smallholder farmers, and independent local institutions.
All parties should be treated as equals and actively participate in the project design.
The objectives and activities of the project, as well as the responsibilities and bene-
fits of each party should be determined through negotiation - not unilaterally set
(Brown et al. 2001; Desmond and Race 2000; Mayers and Vermeulen 2002;
Tyynela et al. 2002). This negotiation process must be participatory, transparent and
agreeable to all partners. Specifically, farmers must understand the services they are
providing and agree with the benefits they are to receive. The terms of engagement
should be equitable, realistic and formalized in a legal contract. It is likely that there
will be misunderstandings and conflicts. Thus, the contract should be flexible and
renegotiable (CIFOR 2000; Desmond and Race 2002; Tyynela et al. 2002; Fikar
2003). With these requirements and the likely engagement of numerous small-
holder farmers, the single largest hindrance to program development is high trans-
action costs that include: (a) the costs associated with making information (e.g., on
technology, markets and market players) accessible to multiple clients; (b) facilitat-