This issue of Unasylva forms a logical complement to issue No. 175 (on forest policy and legislation) in which it was stressed that, to lead to sustainable forestry development, the process of policy and legislative formation must be accompanied by the reform and strengthening of institutions that will have critical roles in putting these policies into practice. This issue examines the progress achieved by a number of countries in making institutional changes allowing the implementation of policies designed to support a more effective, sustainable performance of forestry in economic development and to ensure the sustainable livelihoods of rural people.
One of the most significant policy changes in forestry relates to the desirability of rural populations' participation in forestry activities, with a significant increase in their involvement in decision-making. The article by I. Guèye, A. Kane and O.N. Koné examines the process undertaken in Senegal with the aim of forging a partnership between forestry institutions and local people for sustainable forestry development.
In the past, government forestry institutions tended to have the single primary objective of profitably producing and marketing forestry products. Of course, to attain this objective, other factors need to be taken into consideration, for example the environmental function of forest ecosystems. As these other factors have taken on increasing importance, internal conflicts have arisen within forestry institutional structures. C.L. Brown and J. Valentine examine the New Zealand Government's decision to address this situation by abolishing the New Zealand Forest Service in favor of a Ministry of Forestry (responsible for research, training, advisory and regulatory functions); a Department of Conservation (responsible for natural forest conservation); and a state-owned Forestry Corporation (responsible for commercial, plantation resource-based forestry activities). Subsequently, much of the forest resources controlled by the Forestry Corporation have been privatized, and the privatization process is the focus of this article.
Questions regarding the merits of privatization are of high priority for decision-makers in countries currently in transition from centrally planned to market economies. L. Ljungman considers recent experiences of central and East European countries in the institutional reform of their forestry sectors, aimed at facilitating planning, management extension and administration; pricing; legislation and control; and human resource development. This article should also serve to "whet the appetite" of Unasylva readers for issue No. 179 (to be published in October 1994) which will focus on various facets of forestry in countries in transition to market economies, in Eastern Europe and in other regions of the world.
It is an unfortunate truth that organizations and their institutional environment tend to be caught up by a certain inertia which either prevents or slows down their adaptation to new policies or changing situations. Forestry institutions do not escape this phenomenon. The article by M.G. Morell and M. Paveri Anziani, which examines institutional change in forestry in Latin America, demonstrates the risks of not moving with the times - a lack of efficiency, a lack of political support and even the loss of authority or control over the resource.
A key question in institutional reform of the forestry sector concerns decentralization. Most traditional forestry structures have been highly centralized, with primary decision-making and control functions at the national level. More recently, the involvement of a wider range of actors in forestry and the diversification of objectives for the sector have led many countries to experiment with decentralization. The Italian experience, considered by D. Pettenella, is interesting because it involves a rapid transition from a heavily centralized structure to a combination of national, regional and local institutions of both a statal and parastatal character, with overlapping and sometimes even conflicting responsibilities.
In the Near East the marginality of forest lands in terms of commercial wood production has resulted in forestry being relegated to a position of low priority in government plans for development. More recently, however, the role of forests and trees in providing for the basic needs of millions of rural people and in protecting the environment has gained increasing popular and official support. M.H. El-Lakany analyses the changes taking place in the forest sector of the region and discusses the parallel institutional adjustments envisaged.
If there is a "lesson" to be learned from the analysis presented in this issue it is the need for institutional change in forestry to be a gradual but constant process, initiated from within. Forestry institutions must be pro-active rather than reactive; they must help to shape the future and not attempt vainly to retain the past. In too many countries, developing and industrialized alike, forestry institutions have become victims of their own immobility. The result in the face of a changing world with changing demands on forestry has been a decreasing effectiveness followed by the loss of political support. This has led to a lack of financial and human resources devoted to forestry institutions; in extreme cases the essential functions of forestry institutions have been reassigned to institutions with only marginal technical competence in forestry. This downward spiral can be arrested and reversed only if forestry institutions themselves take the lead role in conceptualizing and implementing the changes needed for restored and continued effectiveness.
