Main Contents

3.5.5 Summary

In this section, we have reviewed the current and emerging forest production management arrangements. Our major is that attention has been focused on commercial logging and the associated illegal logging, while the “grey areas” of post-concession and degraded deciduous forest have been ignored. Since these areas are not recognised in policy and are subject to uncertain legal control on the ground, the result has been the capture of the forest rent by a nexus of powerful people, who can extract a share of the forest rent. More importantly, this reality creates no incentives for forest management or protection.

The debate on illegal logging has been fuelled not just by its volume and value but also by a sense of injustice since it is seen as operating in parallel to the concession system, adding illegal rewards to the initial arbitrary allocation of concession areas. 

However, we have tried to argue that, given the nature and value of the product, the length of the borders, the size of the area, the current level of installed milling capacity, prevention of illegal logging cannot be stopped by merely increasing the resources allocated to prevention and enforcement. Hence, we have proposed a system of Partnership Forestry, which establishes prior rights to communes, legitimising the informal revenue collection and bringing it under public (commune) control. In this way, Partnership Forestry would act as an incentive for sustainable forest management.

Our recommendation is, therefore, that the concession system is closed and that the moratorium on cutting remains in place. Given the current lack of confidence and indebtedness felt by many of the concessionaires, continuation of the system would result in a one-off attempt to recoup the losses of the past few years. In addition, it would be unlikely to restore confidence in the system and therefore would be unlikely to lead to long term sustainable management. Continuation of the logging moratorium would reduce the supply of legal wood and as a result would increase the value of “grey area” material and, therefore, the incentive to manage these areas.

The new structure and systems introduced by the FA are a response to criticism and are a logical attempt to rationalise management and protection resources. The new structure breaks the links with civil administration and other units, enabling the FA to control their own staff and the issuing of titles and licences. However, it also centralises accountability without introducing new checks and balances. We would recommend that such checks and balances are put in place, largely through the separation of regulatory and planning functions and through the development of mechanisms for increased public accountability.  

While we recognise the logic of the new structure and that illegal logging has declined since the introduction of the moratorium, we do not believe that the FA could ever have sufficient resources to effectively protect the forest and hence our arguments for widespread prior claims. This leads us then to our recommendation that the partnership approach is considered.

We distinguish the “Partnership Approach” from “Community Forestry”. We would expect community forestry to be expanded and developed within the partnership approach, at a community level, within the commune forest plan. Critical to the development of community forestry is the need to establish incentives – and secure rights to benefits – which would allow community forestry to become self-financing and self-sustaining. Under the partnership approach, some communes may manage their commune forests entirely through community forestry groups, others will opt for less direct management – through private contractors - and others will have a mix of arrangements.

Whatever form of management evolves, either estate management or partnership, there is a need for high quality technical management plans. These will require professional forestry support, which will need to be place.