Main Contents

5.1  Introduction

5.2  Reflection

5.3  Institution

5.1   Introduction

This final chapter considers the implications of the proposals and recommendations presented in earlier chapters.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend a period of facilitated active reflection on the analysis, recommendations and proposals set out in this report.

Future governance and management of the sector needs to be widely agreed and owned within Cambodia. One lesson of this review is that, although expediency were important at earlier stages, the time is now ripe for Cambodia to adopt a more considered approach and not to respond to new ideas without a deeper understanding of the implications of particular courses of action.  

The proposed period of reflection should precede any investment programmes and will need to be funded. After this and arising from this process, there are several areas in which external financing could be required. We have split these into those internal to the sector and those external to but supportive of transformation within the sector.

5.2   Period of active reflection

We recommend a period of active reflection in which the issues raised in this report are discussed and developed. This period of learning is not just a question of fact-finding but also one of building common understanding and exploring the implications widely.

The period should be facilitated – hence the term “active reflection” – so that lessons and consensus are built upon and developed in a managed fashion. A starting point is to consider and evaluate the outcomes of the Independent Forest Sector Review and the implications for the future of the sector as a whole.

The outline of a more detailed project proposal is outlined in Appendix 2.

5.3   Support to sector institution building

Consequent on the period of active reflection, the following activities may or may not be agreed upon. They are suggested here to provide an indication of a possible investment programme over the short to medium term.

The report identifies concerns about the current governance structures: in the competitive relationship between FA and DNCP, in the lack of checks and balances in the new structure for the FA, in the ability of both DNCP and FA to regulate and steer the activities of private sector and NGOs agencies delivering services in the sector: in the ability of both forestry and conservation to demonstrate a major contribute to national policy goals and, finally, to manage public voice and debate in a open and transparent manner. These are primarily questions of systems and structures, rather than capacity.

The new structure and mandate of the FA require increased capacity in terms of both resources and skills. The sorts of skills required for national and cantonment planning, with or without a landscape approach, are neither easily found nor easy to develop. 

Following on from these governance and institutional questions there is a need to develop specific areas of policy, namely:

a)                      Joined-up policy process – which: considers the whole forest resource base and its allocation to different objectives; removes the territorial competition and resource competition between institutions over forests to be protected and the flora and fauna within; and supports the development of an overarching sector plan (that includes the sub-sectors of protection and production).

b)                     Single sectoral governing body – which continues the on-going development and modification of the legal framework, but is also responsible for developing the capacity and structures of the organisation and, in particular, its regulatory policy competence. This would also require reallocation of staff through an open competitive process to the governing body from MAFF and MOE, and public competition across Cambodia. More substantially, the body would be responsible for the development of a regulatory framework, standards and certification and audit capability.

c)                      Management of finance, with the development of sustainable self-financing mechanisms and the pooling of external finance within an overarching sector plan (including protection and production) that supports the transformation process

d)                     Support to the judicial and legal reform processes, including ensuring channels of appeal outside government agencies involved in natural resource management and support to alternative dispute mechanisms enabled by central government, supported by NGOs and donors. Also support is required to build a competent, independent and informed judiciary and legal profession that acts with integrity and expertise related to natural resource crime.

e)       Supervision of the rationalisation programme that supports the:

·         restructuring of FA and DNCP to reflect their new roles whichever option is chosen;

·         shifting of the policy and strategic focus of MAFF and MOE to fit with their sectoral regulatory and management roles for the production landscapes and the protection landscapes;

·         building of the competence and skills of staff to fulfil their new roles;

·         settlement of indigenous collective title;

·         assessment and decision-making for a focused and rationalised protected area system.

·         demarcation on the ground of the forest areas to come under conservation through a protected areas system

f)         Piloting of new processes in one or more bio-regions or inspectorates, to test out and develop a methodology and gain experience in:

a.       the landscape planning approach in a number of forest regions to cover all aspects of forest land use and allocation, and  

b.      in Partnership Forestry

g)         Branding Cambodia as a “Green Economy”, based on principles of good governance, with an early win demonstrated through transformation of protected areas, and production forests operating through piloted partnership forestry, all within a strategic landscape approach to forest resource planning.

5.4   Support to Partnership Forestry

If, after the period of reflection, the partnership approach was to be accepted, a two-pronged approach would be required, to develop:

(a) Regulatory competence, along the lines outlined above, together with;

(b) Planning competence at the commune level.

Regulatory competence would include strategic and monitoring systems to enable the regulatory authorities to manage the incentives, rewards as well as sanctions would be required to ensure compliance with overall policy and the legal framework. Arrangements would also be needed to provide third party arbitration.