Forests in Transition
Multi-stakeholder
processes
and forest politics
in Cambodia
Community forestry
early 1990s • a few CFs
mid 1990s • ~ 40 CFs
•
•
•
•
units in 2 nat’l agencies
Network
nat’l MS
Working Group
platforms
training team
Community forestry
early 1990s • a few CFs -- int’l NGOs
mid 1990s • ~ 40 CFs -- int’l NGOs & IOs
2001
•
•
•
•
support units in 2 nat’l agencies
Network
Working Group
collab. training team
•
•
•
•
~ 200 CFs (100,000 ha)
many organisations & locations
experience in MSP
need to clarify policy
Multi-stakeholder Task Force & Consultation
Major stakeholders involved
in community forestry
RGC Institutions
CF Working Group
NGO’s
Communities
TASK
FORCE
periodic
meetings
small
working
groups
Others
workshops
draft
Community
Forestry
Subdecree
Multi-stakeholder Process
Result: success !
• draft Community Forestry Subdecree
(national policy that recognised pluralism)
• integrated CF & Forestry,
overcoming ‘turf’ struggles
• elevated MSP (policy formulation)
• demonstrated MSP effectiveness for
resolving contentious problems
Community Forestry Subdecree
• Task Force ► Forestry Dept / MAFF
• revised Subdecree -- important MSP
agreements lost
• many stakeholders opposed revisions
• but the revised Subdecree was approved
• the MSP had not succeeded
Why had the MSP failed?
• Immediate cause
RCG under pressure to demonstrate
Forestry reform to donors,
especially to the World Bank &
IMF
• General cause
differences between CF & Forestry
as ‘policy streams’
Policy streams: CF & Forestry
Community forestry
Forestry
• aim:
• aim:
communities benefit
improve large-scale
from forests (CFs)
forest concessions
• main stakeholders
• main stakeholders
– communities
– Forestry Dept / RGC
– NGOs, IOs, MoE
– donors / World Bank
– Forestry Dept
– concessionaires
Some commonality, but different ‘centers of gravity’
Forestry
early 1990s • logging escalated rapidly
1994-1997 • rampant corruption & logging
• emblematic of Cambodia’s problems
Forestry
early 1990s • logging escalated rapidly
1994-1997 • rampant corruption & logging
1998 -
• donors acted; World Bank took
lead
• Forestry reform = improving
large-scale forest concessions
Forestry
early 1990s • logging escalated rapidly
1994-1997 • rampant corruption & logging
1998 -
• donors acted; World Bank took lead
• Forestry reform = improving forest
concessions
• marginalised Community Forestry
Forestry
early 1990s • logging escalated rapidly
1994-1997 • rampant corruption & logging
1998 2000 -
2003 -
•
•
•
•
donors acted; World Bank took lead
reform = improving forest concessions
marginalised: CF “policy stream”
IMF & World Bank conditionality:
reform included new Forest Law
• RGC approved draft Forest Law
(& ‘revised’ CF Subdecree)
policy streams, MSP, & power
Community forestry
Forestry
MSP success
MSP failure
differences between ‘policy streams’
• aims & priorities
• stakeholders (center of gravity)
• relative power
‘Real-politic’ of forests
Cambodia in the 1990s:
• multi-dimensional transition
• intense political struggles
• leaders / factions: financial
needs & desires
‘Real-politic’ of forests
Forests as ‘currency’ in power struggles
‘Real-politic’ of forests
all leaders / factions: logging & log trade
“mutual accommodation of elites”
‘Real-politic’ of forests
RGC: promises vs. actions
“public transcript” vs. “shadow transcript”
‘Real politic’ of Forestry
“Public transcript”
“Shadow transcript”
‘reform’ policy:
improving forest
concessions
policy: enabling
logging & timber trade;
controlling land
main stakeholders
main stakeholders
– Forestry Dept / RGC
– elites / patrons
– donors / World Bank
– networks / clients
– concessionaires
‘Real-politic’ of Forestry
“Public transcript”
“Shadow transcript”
reform policy:
improving forest
concessions
policy: enabling
logging & timber trade;
controlling land
2004: no credible since 1989, timber
evidence of reform
exported worth
est’d $2.4 billion
policy streams, power, & MSP
Community
Forestry
communities
benefit
from
forests
Forestry
public
transcript
(‘reform’)
&
shadow
transcript
Real-politic
of forests
shadow
transcript
(forests as
political
currency)
MSP seminar
participants?