2.1 Introduction 2.2 Policy Framework 2.3 Forest Sector 2.4 Livelihoods 2.5 Economy 2.6 Ecology 2.7 Summary |
First we set out the national policy framework within which the forestry sector must operate and respond. We establish the main players and boundaries of the sector. We then consider the contribution of forestry to the three arenas of primary interest: livelihoods, economics and ecology.
2.2 The national policy framework[1] Government commitment to poverty reduction is the overarching priority for all action within Cambodia, articulated in the second Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP II) and in the National Poverty Reduction Strategy (NPRS). This has been accompanied by an incremental evolution of a decentralisation policy which features both political decentralisation and deconcentration to deliver the poverty priorities.
The forestry sector is framed by these major national policy frameworks which should inform and help define the objectives for forestry policy.
Beneath these overarching frameworks there are a set of more technocratic policy processes that affect the future operation of forestry:
Nested under these are more technically focused policies, of which each may have impacts on the existing forest lands. These include policies defining protected areas, agricultural land-uses and the institutional arrangements for them, minerals and mining, and the forestry policy itself. However, the strategic frameworks are not clearly in place in all these cases allowing large areas for contestation to exist.
The critical points for the forestry sector are:
1. national goals will increasingly determine budgetary allocation to a particular sector; 2. sectoral plans will not, of themselves, determine the importance of a particular sector; 3. the forestry sector must respond and articulate its contribution to national policy goals i.e. it must demonstrate its contribution to poverty reduction and thus ensure its inclusion in high-level policy debate and documents.
2.3 The nature of the forest sector[2] This review has taken a holistic definition of what constitutes the forest sector. All ‘forest’ areas, irrespective of their legal or institutional claim, have been considered. We have included an assessment of their livelihood, ecological and economic significance; and we have considered the many institutions that have some role in how the sector is organised, governed and delivers benefits.
In institutional terms the forest sector is composed of different actors and rules that provide the incentives to behave in particular ways and ultimately determine the form that policy takes on the ground.
The major actors of interest to this review include:
1. The enabling agencies. These are the agencies that provide the specific policy context which is then implemented by different organisations:
(a) Government agencies that all have some ‘claim’ over the forest lands and therefore affect what happens on the ground including:
o The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries with its implementing arm the Forestry Administration (formerly known as the Department of Forestry and Wildlife) and, to a lesser extent, the Department of Fisheries; o The Ministry of Environment with its implementing arm the Department of Nature Conservation and Protection; o The Ministry of Land Management and Urban Planning and Construction; o The Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy and the Department of Mineral Resources.
(b) Civil Society Organisations. These agencies operate at two levels. They are sometimes advocacy organisations working on behalf or their members or on behalf of groups who would otherwise not have voice. Secondly, some CSOs act as delivery agencies providing technical or social services to communities and groups.
(c) Donors. The donors are international agencies of governments or multilateral organisations, who, by reason of their nature or funding, are able to influenced government policy.
2. The framing agencies. These are the agencies that set the broader political context within which the forestry sector must operate e.g. Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Council of Ministers
Their effect on the sector in terms of the policy and legal frameworks they establish is described in more detail in Part II.
3. The implementation agencies. These are the agencies and organisations that implement or deliver policy and who are affected directly affected by the policy framework and the formal and informal rules that determine who uses the forest resource, under what arrangements and for what purposes. These include public organisations such as Government Departments, private sector agencies such as concessionaires and non –governmental agencies.
These agencies build, interpret and implement policy on the ground, interact with each other both through the formal process that is provided through the legal framework and through informal processes based on networks of patronage and extraction. Power between agencies is exerted through their ability to capture resources and build stronger networks of allegiance.
4. End users of forest services, including, directly, forest livelihood-dependent groups and indirectly all citizens through a contribution to the national economy and the maintenance of environmental services. We can also recognise biodiversity and ecological services as an end in themselves.
In the report, we will explore the roles and functions of these agencies, their motivation and constraints and the incentives which drive their behaviour. We will also explore the relationship between the different agencies (Figure 2).
In Chapter 4, we address the specific issue of how the sector should be organised. In the following section of this chapter, we consider the impact of forest on the three categories of end users: livelihoods, economy and ecology.
2.4 The importance of forests to livelihoods[3]
Understanding forest-livelihood dependency relationships necessitates looking at both the nature of the resource itself and the institutions which determine who has access to that resource and how (Figure 3). The relationships between these two factors will determine the livelihood outcomes in terms of the resulting livelihood opportunities, the impact on vulnerability and implications for sustainability.
Figure 3. Relationship between forest and livelihoods
First we will consider the nature of forest livelihood dependency relationships distinguishing between forest resources and forest land.
In terms of forest land dependency, the most forest dependent group are the indigenous communities (Table 2). Forests are a basis for their economic livelihoods but perhaps, more importantly, the basis of their social and cultural identity. Their prior rights (both moral and legal – established in the Land Law 2001) have been overridden by the force of external interests, including logging, commercial plantations and the advance of settled agriculture.
Other groups which depend on the forest land include encroachers and others without clear land title. Some of these groups are migratory, others have expanded from the existing holding and others have acquired land speculatively for plantation crops, sometimes following behind forest cutting. Not all of these people are poor.
Table 2 Forest – livelihood dependencies: forest land
In terms of forest resource dependency, it is useful to distinguish between groups who use the forest primarily for consumption purposes (collection of domestic fuel wood, medicinal herbs and forest foods), those who generate small levels of income from the forest (through the collection of bush meat, non-timber forest products (e.g. resin, rattan), charcoal production and small scale logging activities) and commercial larger scale operators (logging concessionaries) (Tables 3).
The most striking message to emerge from the overview of livelihood relationships is the diversity of livelihood-dependency relationships, both in terms of how forest resources are used and also in terms of the groups who have a stake in the forest (Tables 2 and 3). A second obvious - but important - message is that interests in Cambodia’s forest clearly extend beyond the timber and conservation values that have dominated the debate on the role of forests in Cambodia.
Tables 2 and 3 also illustrate that a broad range of sections of Cambodian society have a stake in forest resources: in short, the livelihoods of both the poor and the rich and powerful are linked to forest resources. Much has been made of the differing agendas of these different groups but the tables also makes clear that there are differences among local communities and people in the way they use resources, and the outcomes/benefits they derive from forest use.
Table 3 Forest – livelihood dependencies: forest products
Livelihoods are determined not just by the nature of the resource but also by the institutional arrangements which govern access to the resource. In Chapter 1, we considered how (a) the absence of clearly defined and effective rights and (b) the ability of powerful groups to come together, allowed private capture of the forest rent, into the hands of powerful business, political and bureaucratic groups. As we consider different forest management options we will use this framework to determine the likely impact on people livelihoods.
2.5 The economic importance of the forest[4]
(a) Consumer demand Demand for forest products is increasing as the largely rural population continues to grow rapidly. Urbanisation is also increasing rapidly which increases the demand both for charcoal and for other wood products such as furniture.
As domestic disposable incomes rise there will also be a change in the nature of demand with more interest in the ‘luxury’ timbers for furnishings and furniture. For the poor, however, there will continue to be a high demand for forest products, such as small timbers and NTFPs that sustain different elements of their livelihoods. With burgeoning regional economies and reducing access to other national timber resources, demand for Cambodia’s forest products will increase from other South-east Asian countries.
Non-timber forest products will remain an important safety net for the rural poor. From experience elsewhere it is probable that the international demand for them will increase as access improves and knowledge of what is available also increases. This is the dilemma that PDR Laos, for example, is currently facing: whether to actively promote its NTFP sector or to hide it from the view of avaricious business that is not easily controlled and rarely delivers benefits to the rural poor or, indeed, more widely to the public.
(b) Environmental services Forests provide a range of environmental services, which have benefits outside the immediate area of the forests. In Cambodia, the forests provide an important source and protection for watersheds. In particular, they perform essential functions in ensuring fish breeding grounds and in regulating water flow to farmers in the lowlands.
(c) Contribution to revenue and GDP[5] Forestry has made a relatively small contribution to both national revenue and to GDP, not exceeding 4% and 8% respectively since 1994. There are several reasons for this including poor rates of recovery due to the high levels of institutionalised corruption; the restrictions on legal logging through the moratorium; and the relative decline in forestry’s contribution as a result of economic growth in other areas of the economy. This latter trend is likely to continue as Cambodia continues to diversify its economy away from direct dependence on natural resources.
|
