New Instruments and Policies in the Forest Arena Andy White

1. New Instruments and Policies in the Forest Arena Andy White Coordinator, Rights and Resources Initiative Augusta Molnar, Arvind Khare, Justin Bull

2. Outline • Background Comments • New Instruments and Approaches • New Policies and Organizations • Some Ideas and Challenges for the Future

3. Background Comments • We are in the midst of an active period in the history of “Forestry” – lots of ideas and initiatives • However, this flurry of change hasn’t (yet) produced many major impacts • Continued deforestation (with commensurate loss in biodiversity and watershed protection) • Unsustainable/Illegal logging/boom–bust industry the norm in most places

4. New Instruments and Approaches • Certification, independent monitoring, lobal Reporting Initiative, Corporate Social Responsibility (Codes of Conduct) • Compensation and Rewards for Ecosystem Services • Community Based Forestry

5. New Policies and Organizations • Reallocating forest ownership and tenure • Rethinking regulations • Rethinking forest subsidies • Rethinking forest agencies

6. Recent Research on Forest Governance • “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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. (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, climate change, subsidies, WTO, etc. (threats to the local from the global) • Canada, Sweden

10. (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 • * Mexico, India, China • What public forest agencies will the world need in 10 years 50, 100?

11. Thank You