There have been major advances in the past decade, away from 1950s thinking about the role and contribution of forestry in development, in some cases even from older colonial policies. Nevertheless, there is a need for continuing policy reform or refinement, and the question thus arises, who should drive it and in what directions? The whole process of formulating Forest Policy could become more democratic, more broadly-based and multi-sectoral (as in Pakistan and the Philippines). The policy formulation process may take longer, but the result will probably be more realistic, effective and workable.
Common underlying policy issues throughout the Country Papers include:
the integration of national forestry sectors into the world market economy, without first having clearly defined and enforceable property rights over forests and forest lands. Where State ownership has been claimed but was not enforceable for technical or administrative reasons, landuse conflicts arose, which underlie some deforestation. Perhaps no-one (loggers, squatters, indigenous people or Forestry Agency) really has secure enforceable property rights and managerial responsibility, which militates against long-term stewardship of forests. If forestry agencies do not have the resources to use and protect territory they claim, perhaps they should hand over the lowest priority areas and concentrate on managing a smaller area very well.the divergence between excessive logging of forests (for commercial gain to both private and government sectors) and protection and sustainable management of forests for the longer-term public good. As the owner of National/state/public forests, some governments have acted as if commercial benefits are top priority - social benefits of watershed protection and the importance attached by indigenous peoples seem to be consistently underestimated. Log allocation and pricing, and industrialisation subsidies have benefited private individuals at the expense of government revenues and the forest environments.
"Forestry" has been seen as administration of large government estates as a raw material source for large scale (usually private) processing industries. In practice, there has been less time and effort for:
managing social, environmental and off-site impacts, which should also be high priority;involving local people in the management of government, private or communal forests; or
mediating with agriculture or environment agencies over landuse allocation.
Typically management has been on an area or volume basis, e.g. to maximise the volume of output, rather than the social and economic net value of production.
Much could be learnt from the experience of the Philippines:
In 1908, 80% of the country was under dense forest of valuable species, under state ownership;The denial of local involvement in forestry damaged traditional management practices and lost some important traditional ecological wisdom;
The first country into large-scale log exports, to earn much-needed foreign exchange, created enormous market opportunities at a time when there were few traditional or modern controls. The major emphasis was on regulation rather than incentives (and disincentives) to achieve voluntary compliance;
Huge concessions were granted to the private sector at very low rents and stumpages, the government assisted with infrastructure and forest inventories;
Despite the introduction later of long-term (25 year) tenures, in practice tenure was still insecure because of political uncertainty (so operators still behaved in very short-sighted ways);
The "command and control" approach extended to industrialisation. Mandatory construction of mills by all concessionaires led to over-capacity, token mills, political games, and generally a gross waste of scarce economic resources. This has been superseded by tax incentives and amendments to foreign investment laws.
Only certain stakeholders dominated - mainly industrial users. Within that group, the owners and the customers counted much more than the workers, the suppliers and local communities. The public at large, the traditional forest dwellers, and the migrants-settlers-squatters were typically ignored and received little benefit. Did government policies and enforcement fail to keep these people out of the forests, or did other government policies encourage or force them to go up into the forests?
Now a radical departure is underway:
devolution of control, responsibility and authority, decentralised decision-making;recognition of indigenous knowledge of management and use of forests;
community-based forest management often for non-timber outputs, and generally using simple labour-intensive techniques;
increased emphasis on collection of the revenues due to the State from commercial logging.
"Good" results are impossible, if the whole policy framework is distorted. The present problems are more than just technical matters or a shortage of funds or of trained manpower, although of course these are important. To get the policies right we also need improved understanding of how people and institutions behave. Many foresters, and bureaucracies in general, are accustomed to operating in a "command and control" mode, as if all parties involved (stakeholders) will do exactly what they are told, or exactly what the planners expect. Yet many of the parties involved are NOT under control -and so planners need to understand the incentives and disincentives people will voluntarily respond to.
This will also help clarify all the possible implications of the policies and measures proposed, as a check on unintended adverse effects. Accelerated industrialisation could encourage greater illegal logging, or subsidising agriculture or high crop prices could encourage illegal encroachment.
Protection Forestry, Industrial Forestry and Social Forestry have all been tried throughout the region -each has generated some successes and some failures. All have a valid role in specific conditions. The challenge now is to analyse the policy measures that led to the results and to learn from that. In all cases, we can ask:
Is the principle sound?How complete is our knowledge/understanding of socio-economic processes?
What are the most appropriate means?
What could possibly go wrong?
Can we continuously monitor impacts and progress, and periodically revise as necessary?
Radical reforms of forestry institutions (as in Philippines, India and Nepal) are imminent elsewhere. Forestry agencies need to be more successful in their assigned responsibilities - protecting natural forests and recovering for the public the full economic benefits from the exploitation of those forests.
