Asia |
|
|
|
Political factors affecting SARD The strength of local political will and determination, with the backing of national authorities, can be decisive in determining the success of a SARM programme. Technical and policy recommendations may fail if they run counter to the interests of those with political influence and economic power (e.g. landlords, business men, commercial loggers etc). For instance while land tenure reform or a ban on logging, may be highly desirable, it may end up blocked by those with most to lose. Where the political environment is controlled by vested interests it may require a national disaster such as occurred in Southern Thailand in 1990 and Ormoc in the Philippines in 1991, to generate sufficient public concern for the politicians to take action. In both cases tropical cyclones produced heavy rainfall over severely degraded watershed areas leading to flash floods. Heavy loss of life and destruction of property shocked the general public, thereby raising the political profile of conservation concerns in both countries and bringing pressure for a total ban on logging. Political instability can also be a factor against SARM. In its most severe form it may lead to civil war, ethnic clashes, tribal fights and the presence of armed dissident groups, all of which may disrupt agricultural activities at the field level. When such conditions prevail land use activities will be directed exclusively at short-term survival, which may be to the detriment of long-term sustainability. The Asia Pacific region has seen its share of such instability in the form of past and ongoing conflicts in such countries as Sri Lanka (Tamil separatism), the Philippines (communist and muslim dissidents) and Papua New Guinea (Bougainville). Even when there has been a return to peace and order the legacy of past conflict in the form of mines and unexploded ordinance may make the resumption of agricultural production a hazardous exercise. In this regard the Asia Pacific region has one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, Cambodia, where civilian casualties amongst the farming population are an everyday occurrence. Political instability also affects the policy environment in which farm households operate. A change in regime, civilian or military, can result in changes in development priorities. Changes in priorities produce changes in public resource allocations which affect policy sustainability and growth performance. A change in regime will not only result in change in political leadership, but can also lead to changes in senior administrative posts within the public bureaucracy. This can result in a degree of decision-making paralysis, sometimes lasting months, when there are delays in appointing the new political and bureaucratic leadership, who then require time to study the files and get informed on the policies and programmes of the previous `discredited regime' (Idachaba 1987). |