Forest Agencies in Transition: New Roles and Responsibilities in a Changing World

1. Forest Agencies in Transition: New Roles and Responsibilities in a Changing World Andy White Rights and Resources Group Global Forestry Forum Oaxaca, January 2006

2. Sources • “Forest Governance in Federal Systems: An Overview of Experiences and Implications for Decentralization” • Prepared for CIFOR and UNFF by FT: (Hans Gregersen, Arnoldo Contreras, Andy White, 2004) • Australia Malaysia • Brazil Nigeria • Canada Russia • India USA • Bolivia Indonesia • Nepal Mexico • 2. FT Experience: India, China, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Russia, Papua New Guinea, etc. (Africa, E. Europe)

3. Perceptions of forests (and priorities) vary from country to country…. Per Capita Income Sustainable Development Conservation and Protection Subsistence Economic Development Per Capita Natural Resources Source: Jag Maini, UNFF

4. General Findings • About 70% of world’s forests in “federal” countries • Tremendous diversity in how rights and responsibilities distributed • Between levels of govt. and between govt and private/civil sectors • Moves to “decentralize” are widespread - a global phenomenon • Most forest agencies have very limited power – followers not leaders • Most forest agencies “in transition” – wrestling with roles

5. General Patterns • More public ownership of land, more corruption and illegal logging (some exceptions, e.g. Canada) • Dominance of “over-regulation” – “the almighty state” • Public ownership of large forest enterprises (direct or via cronies or corruption) remains common • Agency recognition/appreciation of communities or small enterprises scarce, active support even more scarce • General finding: Forestry sector, particularly in developing countries, remains feudal

6. Changing Context: Agencies Out of Step • Designed in 1900’s, since then: • Declining budgets, credibility, trust in many countries • Diminished focus on producing timber on public lands– (in N) • Rapid growth in community ownership of forests and increased timber supply from private lands • Increased role/voice of civil society, (net, and relative to industry) • Increased demand for tourism, ecosystem services • Reduced cost of information: generation and dissemination, expectation of transparence • Globalization, growing international trade – challenge of keeping industry competitive

7. (Some) Shifts Towards… • Agencies as “facilitators”: from “doing it” to “getting it done” with civil and private sectors • New South Wales and PES • CONAFOR and PES • Agencies as “enablers/service providers” to communities and NIPF’s • Mexico and community forestry • EU and “extension forestry” • New attention to international trade, subsidies, WTO, etc. (threats to the local from the global) • Canada, Sweden

8. (Some) Shifts Towards… • 4. From centralized “command and control” to “smart, outcome oriented” systems: • * From feudal Europe to Montana? • * regulatory systems that build on interests and incentives • Recognizing the absolute interdependence of healthy forests and healthy communities (and reorganizing accordingly): • * convergence of “forestry and “poverty alleviation” agendas • * rethinking mission: caring for the land AND the people: • * Mexico, India, China • What public forest agencies will the world need in 10 years 50, 100?

9. Thank You