| SEARCH | |
updated on Oct 27, 05 | 11:27 am |  |  | 
Analysis of Multistakeholder Forestry Processes
Summary and comments on a study report (2003) by INSIST and Partners, Yogyakarta commissioned by DFID?s Multistakeholder Forestry Program (MFP) and GTZ?s Strengthening the Management Capacities in the Ministry of Forestry Project (SMCP). In recent years many Multistakeholder Processes (MSP?s) have developed in Indonesia particularly as a means to establish much needed dialogue about forest policy reform involving all relevant stakeholders, from government officials to local community members. A study, commissioned by DFID?s Multistakeholder Forestry Program (MFP) and GTZ?s Strengthening the Management Capacities in the Ministry of Forestry Project (SMCP) examines the impact of these processes in relation to decision-making on forest resources, sustainable forest management, conservation and improvement in the life quality of the communities living in and around the forest. This analysis of MSP?s is placed within the broader context of Indonesian forest sector policy. The conceptual framework for MSP?s and methodological considerations are also reviewed by the study. Focusing on 5 case-studies from around Indonesia, the study finds that most multistakeholder forestry processes have tended to result in dialogue dead-lock. The implementation of decisions that have been reached in the multistakeholder dialogue has been incomplete. The transaction costs are high, while results ? in terms of delivering improved conditions for the forest dependent poor ? are so far behind expectations. According to the study part of the problem is in the process design and implementation. The dialogue boundaries are left unclear at the preparation stage of some MSP?s and at times the nature of the process itself is misunderstood. Not all relevant stakeholders are involved. It is difficult to ensure that community members are true representatives of customary or farming communities. Community representatives also suffer from a lack of organisational capacity and from conflicting interests. There is inequality between stakeholders because of unequal access to knowledge, time and resources. The stakeholders most at risk (the community) can be left exposed. There is a general lack of commitment (by process initiators and funders) to follow-up activities generated by the process. Lack of commitment not just to the follow-up but to the process itself comes from central government. While MSP?s may generate individual attitude change, Government officials are moved frequently from post to post, making it more unlikely for change to occur in institutional culture. In the broader context obstacles include the ongoing conflict between centralised forestry laws and the decentralisation process. In addition the existing arrangements have allowed corruption to flourish and have often favoured rent-seeking activities over dialogue and change. The study recommends improvement in process delivery through better identification of particular problems, analysis of obstacles and opportunities and commitment to follow-up actions. There is room for improvement in supporting processes, especially in providing long-term support to the stakeholders most at risk from the ensuing decision-making (the community), but the broader context of Indonesian forest policy limits MSP?s effectiveness in delivering forest policy reform. The MSP?s in this study are nevertheless valuable as a learning process despite their high transaction costs. In the absence of many pro-people and pro-environment forest policy initiatives, multistakeholder processes are better than nothing. It is a case of choosing the lesser evil: minus malum.  Download "Analysis of Multistakeholder Forestry Processes " in PDF file format (294 KB).
|
||
| Copyright © 2005 MFP | Multistakeholder Forestry Programme |
|