3.1.           Introduction

In this Chapter the second question is addressed: how could forests be managed? The current policy context is considered first in Section 3.2 , then a framework is set out to address this question, before consideration of issues relating to indigenous people (Section 3.3), protection (Section 3.4), production (Section 3.5) and, finally, conversion (Section 3.6).

3.2.   Policy Background

3.2.1 The policy vacuum

The recent history of the forest sector has overshadowed ‘normal’ processes of policy formulation. It has been in transition and transformation since the early 1990s when the first international concern was raised about the abuse of forest resources. For international donors, forestry became the emblem of the governance problems facing the Cambodian state. There have been sustained attempts over nearly a decade to reform the sector and put in place a policy and legal framework that clearly defines the parameters of the sector.

However, the sector has been marked by an acute polarisation around the problematic history of concession allocation; abuse of the resource has been serious with evidence of over-logging and corruption (Part II, Chapter 3). Despite a series of critical reviews, the concession system was accepted by major donors as the most effective form of institutional arrangement for resource management. This acceptance has cast long shadows over the policy debate and the management of the sector. In effect, it has meant that forest policy has become equivalent to the management of forest concessions rather than starting from a broad societal viewpoint of agreement around what forest resources there are, how they are to be managed and for whose benefit. This legacy now affects the current situation and the implicit rationale around which forestry institutions are organised.

This situation has left the sector without direction, vision and an arena in which issues of poverty, human rights and biodiversity can be discussed. Despite this, there has been progress over the past few years including the establishment of independent monitoring systems, legislative reforms, a Forest Policy Statement, steps towards institutional reform and the recent establishment of the Forestry Administration. However, at no stage has a process been in place to consider the sector in total.

The lack of an overall policy vision has hampered implementation. Such a vision would allow the bureaucracy across the sectors to develop strategies and time lines for how to reach the goals. The absence of a politically approved vision to guide negotiations on the sector has some important implications. It creates space for decisions and regulations to be made outside the overall context of a vision and strategy, potentially leading to a fragmentation of the process. It also creates space for the hijacking of certain processes and securing of certain results without widely based consultation. It allows decisions over strategic direction to be taken through negotiations over the content of laws, sub-decrees and prakas, which are often not public processes.

Many commentators argue for the need to focus on implementation rather than further investment in developing and negotiating policy. However, as long as the sector remains unguided by policy where a public process has clearly articulated the choices and agreed priorities, it is vulnerable to the continued development of a fragmented application of process which is dominated by the strongest and most powerful voices.

The need for a full and broad-based consultative policy process is clear and forms one of the major mechanisms through which to bring different actors together to address the fundamental questions that frame this review.

3.2.2 The major policy issues

There are a set of fundamental policy choices that need to be addressed in order to answer the question of how forests should be managed and for whom?

Before any other decisions are taken there needs to be clarity about Cambodia’s state public property, so that it is agreed as to (i) what is to be retained as forest land in the public interest and as a productive resource, (ii) what is to be retained as forest land for biodiversity protection and other environmental services and (iii) what is then available for conversion to other land use. Without this clarity and a process to establish it, it will continue to be difficult to:

a)     allocate claims and enforce them;

b)     define responsibilities to institutional structures; and

c)     resolve the existing conflicts between competing land uses which will otherwise continue to undermine the future of the sector as a whole.

These choices depend on high level policy decisions on how forests are to be used and for whose benefit. Forests can be viewed as an asset:-

1. contributing to rural livelihoods and to the reduction of poverty through retention as forest cover and the harvesting of the increment as finance for development. If realised as finance for development, a major issue is whether the revenue should be channelled through:

                                                               i.      the national budgetary processes, or

                                                             ii.      more directly through decentralised processes;

2. contributing to rural livelihoods and to the reduction of poverty through conversion to alternative land-uses;

3. protecting areas of international, regional, national and local biodiversity and environmental significance and

4. securing the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous people.

The balance between these four objectives will determine the nature of forest management and the institutional structures. In particular, a major decision must be taken regarding how to channel funds from forest production – either centrally through the national budgetary system or directly through decentralised structures.

The current formal context to forest land allocation and use is described in Figure 6. This also captures the major questions that need to be answered to determine the future of the forestry sector. The arrows between the different boxes represent the formal and informal decision-making processes. There are many more arrows that could be placed on this diagram connecting the different decisions that are represented in the boxes but, for simplicity, this figure concentrates on the most critical questions: These include:

In an attempt to simplify and clarify reality, Figure 6 has been reduced to a series of steps, set out below, which concern the division and allocation between forests under (1) indigenous title, as provided in the Land Law, (2) forests for protection, (3) forests for production and (4) forest lands for conversion, all under Forestry Law.

Of course underneath each of these steps is a set of decisions – most of which are more complex than as represented in the analysis. However, the steps are an attempt to focus thinking around the major policy choices. Figure 7 illustrates the set of steps and the associated policy choices. These are:

Step 1.     Identify prior claims to forest land as established under the Land Law – i.e. those lands to go under indigenous title

Step 2.    Identify those areas that Cambodia, as a nation, wants to and can commit to protect

Step 3.    Identify those areas that can be brought under production for a set of agreed objectives

Step 4.    Identify those areas that can be converted to other land uses again for a set of agreed objectives