|
This appendix expands on the proposal for an active reflection project set out in Chapter 5.
Purpose:
Outputs: o agreed support programme for policy process for forestry sector (including production and protection elements) o agreed reform process for forest sector institutions (including FA and DNCP) to introduce structural accountability and public accountability. This will include a capacity building programme for forest management, moving the focus from just commercial forestry to multiple product forestry. o Project concept notes developed for landscape/cantonment planning; testing out the process and criteria for developing effective commune forest plans; considering certification processes; a human resource development programme o development of an overarching policy body empowered to develop a sectoral policy process i.e. one policy process for protection and production directly linked to national policy objectives of poverty reduction o development of permanent multi-stakeholder bodies (at different levels)
Activities: This active reflection programme should be a facilitated exercise, targeted at key individuals in key agencies. It would include study visits, short courses, continuation of the workshops held as part of the review, presentations by outside specialists, small commissioned studies to address some of the outstanding issues highlighted by the review.
a) Study visits should be focused around a particular theme, with participants carefully chosen to reflect the nature of the theme.
b) A set of facilitated workshops with the different players focusing on the main report of the Independent Forest Sector Review; these workshops should be used as the basis for agreeing the main issues that need to be resolved and mechanisms through which to do this. In addition to these workshops, a series of commissioned presentations on best practice and experience from other countries to inform individual understanding of different approaches to forest management and institutional relationships should take place.
c) Study tours to neighbouring countries to, for example:
1. Laos to consider their experience with village forestry in production forest areas, to look at their NTFP work; 2. Indonesia to consider their experience with decentralisation and its effects on forests; 3. Vietnam to consider their experience with plantation forestry; 4. Thailand to review their approach to National Parks and its effects on local livelihoods.
Other issues to be considered could include indigenous rights, co-management of protected areas; multi-output forest management.
These tours should be carefully facilitated processes with a small number of carefully selected participants. The tour should be focused on building understanding around a set of key issues that have emerged from the reflection (in workshops) on the Independent Forest Sector Review report. The facilitator(s) should be knowledgeable of the Cambodian experience and be able to support the daily reflection of participants to ensure that by the end of the study tour they are able to present a) their understanding of the issues as they relate to the country being visited and b) the implications of what they have learnt for policy in Cambodia.
The specific outputs of this process would be:
1. Design of an overarching policy support programme for the whole sector (production and protection) to include consideration of establishment of sectoral policy body
2. Design of pilot projects focusing in one landscape (bio-region e.g. the South West) to implement an overarching planning process to include production and protection forests, landscape (cantonment) planning, co-management arrangements for protected areas, partnership forestry and the institutional arrangements necessary to put this in place.
3. Design and implementation of permanent multi-stakeholder bodies at different levels of administration depending on the institutional arrangements for management that are put in place. The minimum should be a national body and provincial bodies, but could also include landscape (or bioregional) bodies.
4. Monitoring and analysis of the implications of emerging civil administration legislation. This would include the Organic Law and developments in terms of fiscal decentralisation.
Duration of reflection period In order to ensure there is a concentrated period of activity, focus and debate the reflection period should last for a minimum of 6 months and no longer than 12 months. At the end of this time, there should be an agreed road-map for the future of the sector that covers the outputs described above.
Management of process The whole reflection programme should be managed by one organisation to ensure continuity and coherence between the different elements. It could be contracted out to a regional centre, for example, with access to good resource people and facilitators.
|
