1 / 22

Forests in Transition Multi-stakeholder processes and forest politics in Cambodia

Forests in Transition Multi-stakeholder processes and forest politics in Cambodia. early 1990s mid 1990s. a few CFs ~ 40 CFs units in 2 nat’l agencies Network Working Group training team. Community forestry. nat’l MS platforms. early 1990s mid 1990s 2001 .

calida
Download Presentation

Forests in Transition Multi-stakeholder processes and forest politics in Cambodia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Forests in Transition Multi-stakeholder processes and forest politics in Cambodia

  2. early 1990s mid 1990s a few CFs ~ 40 CFs units in 2 nat’l agencies Network Working Group training team Community forestry nat’l MS platforms

  3. early 1990s mid 1990s 2001 a few CFs -- int’l NGOs ~ 40 CFs -- int’l NGOs & IOs support units in 2 nat’l agencies Network Working Group collab. training team ~ 200 CFs (100,000 ha) many organisations & locations experience in MSP need to clarify policy Community forestry

  4. Multi-stakeholder Process Result: success ! • draft Community Forestry Subdecree (national policy that recognised pluralism) • integrated CF & Forestry, overcoming ‘turf’ struggles • elevated MSP (policy formulation) • demonstrated MSP effectiveness for resolving contentious problems

  5. Community Forestry Subdecree • Task Force ► Forestry Dept / MAFF • revised Subdecree -- important MSP agreements lost • many stakeholders opposed revisions • but the revised Subdecree was approved • the MSP had not succeeded

  6. Why had the MSP failed? • Immediate cause RCG under pressure to demonstrate Forestry reform to donors, especially to the World Bank & IMF • General cause differences between CF & Forestry as ‘policy streams’

  7. Community forestry aim: communities benefit from forests (CFs) main stakeholders communities NGOs, IOs, MoE Forestry Dept Forestry aim: improve large-scale forest concessions main stakeholders Forestry Dept / RGC donors / World Bank concessionaires Policy streams: CF & Forestry Some commonality, but different ‘centers of gravity’

  8. early 1990s 1994-1997 logging escalated rapidly rampant corruption & logging emblematic of Cambodia’s problems Forestry

  9. early 1990s 1994-1997 1998 - logging escalated rapidly rampant corruption & logging donors acted; World Bank took lead Forestry reform = improving large-scale forest concessions Forestry

  10. early 1990s 1994-1997 1998 - logging escalated rapidly rampant corruption & logging donors acted; World Bank took lead Forestry reform = improving forest concessions marginalised Community Forestry Forestry

  11. early 1990s 1994-1997 1998 - 2000 - 2003 - logging escalated rapidly rampant corruption & logging donors acted; World Bank took lead reform = improving forest concessions marginalised: CF “policy stream” IMF & World Bank conditionality: reform included new Forest Law RGC approved draft Forest Law (& ‘revised’ CF Subdecree) Forestry

  12. Community forestry Forestry policy streams, MSP, & power MSP success MSP failure • differences between ‘policy streams’ • aims & priorities • stakeholders (center of gravity) • relative power

  13. ‘Real-politic’ of forests Cambodia in the 1990s: • multi-dimensional transition • intense political struggles • leaders / factions: financial needs & desires

  14. ‘Real-politic’ of forestsForests as ‘currency’ in power struggles

  15. ‘Real-politic’ of forestsall leaders / factions: logging & log trade“mutual accommodation of elites”

  16. ‘Real-politic’ of forestsRGC: promises vs. actions “public transcript” vs. “shadow transcript”

  17. “Shadow transcript” policy: enabling logging & timber trade; controlling land main stakeholders elites / patrons networks / clients “Public transcript” ‘reform’ policy: improving forest concessions main stakeholders Forestry Dept / RGC donors / World Bank concessionaires ‘Real politic’ of Forestry

  18. “Shadow transcript” policy: enabling logging & timber trade; controlling land since 1989, timber exported worth est’d $2.4 billion “Public transcript” reform policy: improving forest concessions 2004: no credible evidence of reform ‘Real-politic’ of Forestry

  19. policy streams, power, & MSP Community Forestry Forestry Real-politic of forests public transcript (‘reform’) & shadow transcript commun- ities benefit from forests shadow transcript (forests as political currency)

  20. MSP seminar participants?

More Related