Forest policies and forest policy reviews in Asia
During the course of the workshop, the 11 representatives of the participating countries presented overviews on forest policies and recent policy reviews in their respective countries. The quality of the presentations was mixed. Some participants stuck closely to the outline that Ms. Ma had prepared (see above), while others provided only a very broad and descriptive overview of forest policies in their countries. Nevertheless, the country presentations provided sufficient food for thought and served their purpose of stimulating discussions on the outline for a major forest policy study (see below).
Despite the considerable differences among countries in Asia with regard to the importance of forestry to the national economy and environmental and socio-economic indicators, some common trends in forest policies can be observed. Over the last two decades, forest policies have been shaped by the problems of deforestation, the widening gap between timber supply and demand, the recognition that forests are a source of diverse goods and services besides timber, and the trend towards decentralization, devolution and privatization of forest management.
Forest policy reviews are either conducted internally or with external assistance, as has been the case in Pakistan and the Philippines. During a time of crisis reviews are even dictated by outsiders as the Indonesian case revealed. In a number of countries, forest policies have been scrutinized at a particular time in response to perceived or real forest management problems. In other countries, reviewing policies and their impact appears to be an ongoing process according to needs. In the past, non-foresters were rarely part of a review process. This has changed over time and today in most countries various stakeholders, including community groups and the private sector, are involved in revising forest policies. In some countries, policy changes have been rather smooth and have avoided disruptions. In other countries, changes have been too frequent and led to considerable confusion. In fact, as Dr. Amatya of Nepal pointed out, policies have changed more often than approaches to forest management, as policies were not translated into operational tactics. This explains at least partially why policies directed at SFM have been quite ineffective and instead deforestation and forest degradation have been common in all countries participating in the EC-FAO Partnership Programme.
What are the recurring problems? Most forest policies set very ambitious, if not unattainable targets. Envisaged forest cover is frequently set 10 percentage points higher or more than the current extent of forests. Forest plantation programs foresee ever-increasing planting rates while the reality on the ground indicates a very different picture.
If policies are translated into action, usually change is very slow, although as the imposition of logging bans indicates, change can also happen overnight, which indicates that earlier attempts to translate forest policy into SFM have failed. There are many reasons for this. One is that other stakeholders were only informed about new policy directions but did not play any role in policy reviews. Policies were just not accepted. An appropriate example here is probably the case of the monopoly of the State Timber Corporation in Sri Lanka, which was to be abolished many years ago but still exists.
Forest policies sometimes clash with other sectoral policies, which are rarely considered during "comprehensive" forest policy reviews. Even within forestry, policy objectives can be contradictory. There is frequently a conflict between the desire to conserve biodiversity and other environmental services and the need to produce timber for the wood-processing industries.
In most countries, forest policy reviews suffer from weak capacities to analyse the impacts of previous policies. Such assessments require accurate and relevant data, which are in short supply. Monitoring is often neglected, which is compounded by poor accountability and transparency. Finally, while attempts are made in many countries to provide incentives for improved forest management, disincentives are often overlooked and an enabling environment is often assumed where it does not exist.
Forest policy reviews are a major component of the EC-FAO Partnership Programme. To initiate updated reviews Ms. Ma presented a draft outline, which was discussed subsequently by the participants in breakout groups. In general, the outline was appreciated and accepted with some minor modifications that were suggested by the participants during a plenary session before the closure of the workshop. Subsequently, the outline was finalized by FAO staff in Bangkok and Rome (see Appendix 5). It was also decided that the documents would form the basis for country reports that APFC member countries will prepare this year for the 19th session of the APFC.
