ASEAN Social Forestry Network Puts Communities at Center of Climate, Biodiversity and Food‑Security Plans

Southeast Asia’s push to tackle climate change and deforestation while preserving rural livelihoods is gaining momentum through the ASEAN Working Group on Social Forestry (AWG‑SF), which met this month to align national and regional strategies. The network, involving countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, aims to put forest‑dependent communities and smallholders at the heart of climate and biodiversity policies, rather than treating them as obstacles.​

At a January workshop hosted under the ASEAN‑Swiss Partnership on Social Forestry and Climate Change, participants shared experiences on community forestry, agroforestry, non‑timber forest products and benefit‑sharing mechanisms. Representatives from Laos and Cambodia described efforts to formalise community land rights and integrate social‑forestry models into national climate and REDD+ strategies, while Vietnam and the Philippines highlighted progress in linking community forest management to ecotourism and sustainable‑value chains.

The Food and Agriculture Organization and other partners stressed that agriculture and land‑use sectors are central to ASEAN’s ability to meet Paris Agreement targets, yet remain under‑served by climate finance. Projects that combine reforestation, climate‑smart agriculture and community‑based natural‑resource management could generate substantial mitigation and adaptation benefits, but require robust MRV systems, governance structures and financing instruments.

Laos, for example, is looking to scale village forestry and agroforestry models where communities are granted long‑term rights to manage and benefit from forest resources in exchange for sustainability commitments. Cambodia has similar schemes, but faces challenges in enforcement, illegal logging and balancing conservation with immediate livelihood needs. Both countries see opportunities in eco‑tourism, honey, resins, medicinal plants and shade‑grown crops, but need help accessing markets in Thailand, Vietnam, the Gulf and beyond.

The AWG‑SF’s work dovetails with broader agriculture‑sector readiness initiatives for climate finance across Southeast Asia, which are mapping pathways for agrifood systems to access Green Climate Fund and bilateral support. These programmes emphasise that “climate projects” cannot be designed in isolation from food‑security, land‑tenure and equity concerns; community forestry and social‑forestry approaches are seen as one way to reconcile these agendas.

For investors and climate‑finance intermediaries in Singapore, the Gulf and Europe, social forestry presents both opportunities and complexities. On one hand, high‑quality projects with strong community governance can yield credible carbon credits, biodiversity gains and social‑impact metrics that appeal to ESG‑oriented capital. On the other, land‑rights disputes, weak local capacity and political sensitivities can make such projects risky without long‑term partnerships and patient capital.

ASEAN officials argue that regional coordination is crucial to avoid a fragmented project landscape dominated by short‑term, high‑risk ventures. By sharing best practices on community engagement, benefit‑sharing and legal frameworks, the AWG‑SF hopes to help member states scale models that work while avoiding repeating mistakes.​

As Gulf and Asian investors deepen exposure to nature‑based solutions and regenerative agriculture, understanding the social‑forestry dimension will be vital. In Laos and Cambodia, the success or failure of community‑anchored forest projects will send a strong signal about whether climate and biodiversity goals can be met in ways that genuinely improve, rather than disrupt, rural livelihoods.