5.1 Policy research
5.2 Institutional support and reform
In the three preceding sections, I have argued that if policies and strategies are not soundly based, it will prove very difficult to implement them successfully. Moreover, if there is not broad public and political support, it will be very difficult to implement them successfully, even if the policies themselves are correct. Both these arguments can be seriously addressed (but of course not totally solved) by a broadly-based participatory process that clearly defines the roles and contributions expected from all parties concerned.
Thus formulating, implementing and monitoring forestry policy is a dynamic process - it is subjected to extraneous and often unpredictable international and intersectoral events, as well as by the local experiences in practice. Policy formulation and forestry sector planning should not be done only by an isolated cell in the backrooms of the Ministry. Strengthening national capacity for forestry policy formulation and implementation, means more than technical and planning skills. While such people can certainly contribute analysis into the process, the real need might be for a capacity to manage the consultative process that defines and formulates policy (and gathers information and understanding, and indirectly provides the public support to get it implemented).
Many outsiders detect a "disharmony between policy and reality" which those directly involved may not recognise. Before identifying policy research priorities, do we really want objective policy research? Are we concerned about:
"What the policies ought to be?"
"What instruments work efficiently?"
"How to implement policy more effectively?"
Can we admit that there are problems and concede that existing polices (and the strategies that flow from them) are not optimal, but may in fact be the source of some problems. Only the China and Philippines papers concede that there are serious deep-seated institutional and policy problems - not just minor technical questions or a shortage of funds!
Research can be "applied problem-solving". If we monitor what is happening and decide it is not good enough, we should seek reasons and explore alternatives - open-minded, exploratory, nothing taken for granted just because it is the status quo.
Few organisations (anywhere) are prepared to willingly relinquish authority, or to overturn the status quo even in the face of visible failures. Why should influential Forest Department bureaucracies, in any country, voluntarily relinquish power, especially over vast areas of land, even if management is difficult, degradation is occurring, or it has been occupied by farmers for years?
Again the Philippines, where the foresters are incorporated within DENR (and have lost much of their autonomy) seems to point a way ahead. Perhaps in other countries, if governments look critically at the performance of "State Forestry", similar institutional reforms may be imposed.
Most agencies are in favour of Human Resources Development, although some institutions retain old or colonial procedures (in staff selection, promotion, training programs) which are incompatible with modern Western approaches to HRD. Effective policy implementation cannot be separated from "management for results" and continuous monitoring. This requires all staff to be performance- and results-oriented, and internal management procedures must provide an appropriate incentive structure. We have often discussed the difficulties in attracting high-calibre staff, particularly with multi-disciplinary expertise, when salaries and/or status are relatively low, yet some Forestry Departments fail to deploy their existing staff effectively, and to use all the talents and skills these people have, because of bureaucratic constraints which may be quite unnecessary or counter-productive.
