1.1 What is a national forestry policy and what is it for?
1.2 Realism
1.3 Hitting a moving target
1.4 The process is important
1.5 Some common themes in the country papers
As the collection of Country Papers shows, most countries do have a National Forestry Policy statement, but there seem to be major differences in what the Policy means, in the force or authority that it bears, in the amount of guidance or direction given on how and when it is to be implemented and, last but not least, in how the policy was derived.
In some countries, such as Thailand and Indonesia, it is a statement prepared and issued on behalf of the government as a whole; in others (e.g. Malaysia and India) the primary preparation is by the Forestry Department, but it is then sanctioned and issued by the National government; in yet others (e.g. Bangladesh, Fiji and China) it is really only the policy of the Forestry Department or its Ministry.
If it is the policy of the entire government, we should expect it to have broad National support, and so be more effective in reconciling differences between government Ministries, particularly the thorny question of competing landuses. However, the paper from Thailand suggests this has not happened there. The policy statement may or may not be accompanied by a mechanism for resolving differences between Ministries or Departments.
We are all aware of instances where the pursuit of another sector's goals has had unintended negative effects on the forestry sector. Good intentions to protect and conserve forests have been swept aside in the face of imperatives to grow more food and provide more irrigation (as in India) or to generate more foreign exchange, from cassava exports in Thailand or from log exports in PNG and Solomon Islands. Even good intentions within the forestry sector may have had adverse effects, such as the Nationalisation of Nepal's forests in 1957; or trade restrictions to protect infant industries.
One fact is self-evident - as "statements of intent" all the national policies could not be challenged. It is obvious that much careful thought has gone into setting national ideals for the forestry sector -all the goals are worthy, even unassailable. As the Malaysian paper states succinctly, no government would ever knowingly choose policy objectives that were not socially ideal. However, as the Pakistan paper also points out, Policy is what is implemented on the ground. It is not what is preserved and decorated on the shelf. The taste of the pudding lies in eating it, and the test of policy lies in its implementation. There is no use in formulating a policy if it cannot be implemented.
So is a National Forestry Policy something that sits on the shelf? There may be a role as a reference but I believe its prime purpose is as a guide to making good decisions which can be effectively implemented, and as a standard by which results are assessed. As the Fiji paper stated, "Writing the policy is easy - but it is the implementation that counts."
This paper does not dwell on "what ought to be" - as professional foresters we believe we are all well aware of that, and have been so for many years. But is National Forest Policy the exclusive preserve of foresters?
The current international pre-occupation with the conservation values of tropical forests has been reflected in National Forest Policy statements of many countries represented here, for decades, even a century. What we need to be concerned about are:
whether the balance between production and conservation, between commercial, subsistence and social benefits, still accords with our societies' ever-changing priorities;whether the implementation of our policy intentions has been effective; and
whether there have been any unexpected or undesirable consequences of the way we have attempted to implement them.
Thus much of the controversy, and perhaps need for reforms, is NOT about what the ultimate social-welfare goals are, but about the efficiency and equity of the more specific strategies and tactics (the policy instruments) applied to achieve those goals.
Thus I suggest we do not need research on what policy goals ought to be, but we might usefully conduct research:
to obtain a thorough information base for policy formulation;to assess the impacts, effectiveness, equity and efficiency of alternative policy instruments; and
to analyse why apparently sound policies are sometimes implemented poorly, or not implemented at all.
It would be ironic to conclude that not only have we failed to achieve some of our policy objectives, but in some cases, the very measures we took have contributed to making matters even worse in some unexpected ways, or if the small gains made by good forestry policies have been overwhelmed by negative effects from agricultural, energy, international trade or transport policies, for example.
As the World Bank (1992) clearly shows, most of the major environmental problems in developing countries are not due to the pursuit of economic development, but rather are due to bad economic policies: poorly-defined property rights; under-pricing of resources; state allocations and subsidies; and neglect of non-marketed social benefits. Instead of trying to devise new policies to stop further resource and environmental deterioration while promoting real development, we should first try to eliminate those (legal, social, political and institutional) factors that cause or exacerbate the problems.
National Forest Policy should be based on a realistic assessment of the current situation as it exists on the ground.
Do the areas to be managed or protected as forests actually still exist as forests today? Do they have a resident population?
Should we declare a Class I watershed, in which no habitation or cultivation is allowed, if there are 500,000 people living there, with no other place to go and no other way to survive?
Should we assume that the State Forests and the Forest Department will be responsible for supplying the national requirement for timber and fuelwood, if in fact three-quarters is already coming from the household gardens and from farmers' plots, as in Bangladesh?
Should we assume that small farmers will grow trees, if their land tenure is still insecure, if the markets for the trees/products are uncertain, or if there are administrative impediments (like having to get a permit to harvest a crop of trees the farmer's family planted, especially of so-called "Royal" species)?
Some country papers contain unrealistic estimates of the remaining areas of natural forests. Not only can this be misleading when formulating effective programs, but can "backfire" against the forestry Profession and Departments. In some countries, including India, foresters officially denied the rate of deforestation for decades, insisting that everything was fine. When remote sensing revealed the facts, foresters were thought to be foolish, incompetent, malicious or negligent. As a result, governments and the public tend to lose faith in forest services as integrated resource managers, and forestry institutions are under serious challenge. Part of the backlash is an aversion to almost any form of commercial logging in natural forests, and often to exotic plantations as well. Defending unrealistic illusions can be fatal to our professional credibility!
Policies tend to be long-lived, but the socio-economic context can change quite rapidly. Occasionally we devise policies for situations which no longer exist. For example, over the past ten years there has been a tremendous increase in recognition of the importance of trees and forests in meeting the basic needs of subsistence farmers. Some countries' policies have been revised, to varying degrees, away from pre-occupation with industrial timber, towards these needs. However, in many (but certainly not all) countries or districts, subsistence farmers are rapidly disappearing. Very few farmers are untouched by commercial cash-cropping, markets and off-farm income. The type of forest and forest produce that people need, continually evolves and it is possible, to the extent that the market economy spreads, that remaining viable farmers may even prefer commercial timber trees than fuelwood and fodder species. We need to constantly monitor the direction our policies are aimed in, as well as their effectiveness and results.
Similarly, policies have been suggested to ease the transition from shifting to (more sustainable) sedentary agriculture, but the transition could be right out of agriculture! "Shifting Agriculture" has been used to cover a great range of different activities:
traditional/indigenous systems include: nomads; those who rotate their houses and gardens around defined territories; and those whose villages are fixed, but their gardens rotate.Alternatively, temporary slash and burn agriculture is often practiced by newcomers-squatters-lowland migrants, often with support from influential persons, to produce cash crops.
It would be very naive to assume all these people will become settled farmers, especially with intensification and mechanisation of agriculture. We should actively seek views from agricultural colleagues about trends in input costs and output prices, which will largely determine how many people can and do remain as farmers in future. It is quite likely throughout Asia, especially in the economies with relatively high economic growth and slower population growth, that the future number and percentage of farmers (or even rural population in total) will be much less than today.
I have already argued that getting effective results is more important than formulating a high-sounding policy which is a statement of good intent but could be either based on unrealistic data or mistaken directions. But now I want to argue that getting good results in practice, depends not only on having good policies (realistic, rational, consistent, efficient, etc) but also on the process by which the policy (and subsequent strategies) is formulated.
The Country papers generally refer only briefly to the process by which the National Forestry policy has been derived. For example, in Thailand, there is a large and very high-level committee representing almost every agency that could possibly be interested. In Indonesia, the Minister of Forests takes advice from his Directors-General, who are advised by Directors. In India, the Central Board of Forestry has the National Minister as chair, and all State Forestry ministers assisted by their Chief Conservators. In other countries such as Nepal and PNG, the national policy has recently been revised after lengthy consultations under the TFAP or "Forestry Master Plan" processes.
Despite all these differences, most National Forest Policy statements basically are pushed and driven by foresters - they generally arise through the national forestry agency (Department, Ministry, etc) and so tend to reflect the concerns, aspirations and professional views (perhaps even the social and political views) of the agency's staff. This can give a very narrow perspective, and a pre-occupation with the agency's functions, its concerns and the territory under its control.
Recognition of Stakeholders
In comparison, consider a broadly-based participatory process where ALL the interested Stakeholders have an opportunity to express their interest, concerns, ideas and energy.1 Social conflicts have arisen world-wide, where government forest services have recognised few stakeholders other than wood-processing industries. For example, India's 1878 Forest Act really only recognised the Forest. Department and the timber industry as having legitimate interest in forests (for industrial, urban and military use). Traditional users and uses were prohibited or heavily restricted. By defining collection of leaves and deadwood, or "Minor Forest Produce" as privileges (not a right) local people were excluded from any say in forest management and denied any traditional powers to regulate who used forests when and for what. Customary management of forests was replaced by an open-access regime. This is also true for many other countries.
1 Although Stakeholder theory was developed for the successful management of private corporations, it offers valuable insights into the management of any large complex structure, even Sectors or national governance. Survival and success depend not only on how well managers perform in furthering shareholders' or owners' interests, but rather on how well managers can balance the competing claims of all the stakeholders in the process.
Many of the unrecognised "stakeholders" in Asia's forests probably would support the National Forestry Policies as presented. However, receiving input and active participation across a wider range of stakeholders (not just Forestry Department and the timber industry) such as other agencies, companies, NGOs and environmental groups, could encourage:
a) better policies or better-informed, more realistic policies;There should be much less chance of pursuing policies which are out of tune with people's real needs and aspirations, or which are based on faulty premises or data, if all the issues and options have been widely discussed before reaching a consensus. Stakeholders' different perceptions can bring new insights into what is possible, causes of problems etc.
b) continuous feedback on the effectiveness of policy measures;c) greater commitment by all parties to seeing the policy successfully im«««Valoare a indentului diferita de cele prezente in lista actuala»»»«««Valoare a indentului diferita de cele prezente in lista actuala»»»plemented. Voluntary compliance of local communities in forestry programs may be higher when they have been involved in the formulation of those programs. One frequently cited obstacle to effective policy implementation is a lack of political will or support, but involvement of stakeholders in formulation is an effective means of getting widespread popular support, which could subsequently be reflected in politicians' attitudes to forestry and hence in budget allocations, legislation etc.2
d) clarification of all the actors and their roles. Forestry agencies (and the timber industry) are not the only players involved in the forestry sector; the other stakeholders are now being heard - not only what they want, but what they could contribute (skills, knowledge, labour) and what support or assistance (if any) they would need, to do so.
2 The success of urban forestry programs (although small and perhaps despised by conventional foresters) can contribute to establishing a strong political base and support for forestry in general.
What do China, the Philippines, Nepal and New Zealand all have in common? They are each exploring and implementing new perceptions on how forestry activities can be undertaken - Who should do what, and what reforms are needed to make it work? They have recognised that government forestry cannot (and need not) do everything needed in the sector, and so responsibility and authority is devolved to other players: farmers, community groups, NGOs or companies.
New institutions are emerging to redress the balance between all segments of society who claim an interest in the future use of forests.3 The 1988 Indian policy is quite "green" reflecting the political and institutional changes to incorporate environmental and NGO stakeholders.
3 For example, many traditional Forest Services are being subsumed into mega-Departments of Environment, Natural Resources, Conservation &/or Land Management - a political reflection of the loss of confidence in Foresters because we were seen to be too closely tied to the timber industry and ignoring the impacts on others. Forest Services in two Australian states no longer exist - their functions now subsumed within Departments of Conservation and Environment, and Conservation and Land Management (CALM). Responsibility for all natural forests in New Zealand now lies with the Ministry of Environment and the plantation forests have been privatised - NZ Forest Service has disappeared. The Philippines has DENR. The Indian Forest Service is now within the Ministry of Environment.
Nevertheless, there are potentially serious problems in arriving at a participatory consensus on forest policy:
Not all stakeholders have equal or similar information or power to negotiate - local communities may be disadvantaged; major stakeholders could be cabinet ministers or generals who also hold logging concessions;
Who is responsible for coordinating stakeholders' interests. Many Forest Services may no longer have the credibility to do so.
Perhaps if governments want to ensure real public participation in policy formulation and implementation, they may need to enable community groups and NGOs to participate, e.g. by providing grants to enable them to prepare submissions, to take time from daily work to participate.
The country papers contain three major recurring, common concerns:
Population pressure-encroachment-shifting cultivation
Industrial Forestry, Forest Industries, Markets and Trade
Farm Forestry, Agroforestry and activities outside forestry reserves.
In the following Sections, I attempt to address each of these, with particular regard to the impacts, effectiveness and unintended consequences of the existing policies; and the possibility for evolution of new policies, new instruments and/or new institutional arrangements.
Although the status quo has imperfections, it is often strongly entrenched. Perhaps by examining those countries where changes are underway, we might learn more about the process, as well as the content, of policy reform. Frequently the issues that arise in implementation, have their roots in how the policies were formulated, and by whom.
