Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Assess the overall decentralization context. Forest
decentralization will generally be part of broader decentralization
initiatives involving the whole government, which
will largely shape what can be done in the forest sector.
Government-wide characteristics may impose limits as well
as offer opportunities to decentralization in the forest sector.
For example, some decentralized governments, such as
that of Switzerland, have strong locally elected bodies that
make local participation and downward accountability of
local public forest administration to local populations and
electorates easier to achieve. Other governments are not
inclined to go this far and their levels of local participation
and accountability may be lower. Project designers must
evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of public and
private sector organizations and their capacity to perform
the forest management functions before drawing plans for
forest decentralization interventions (see chapter 2, Engaging
the Private Sector in Forest Sector Development, and
note 2.1, Community-Private Partnerships).
Forest decentralization must be adequately linked to
overall decentralization processes because of the multidisciplinary
characteristics of forest administration and the
numerous cross-sectoral influences that shape forest governance
(see chapter 6, Mainstreaming Forests into Development
Policy and Planning: Assessing Cross-Sectoral
Impacts, and associated notes). For example, in Albania, a
Bank intervention observed that the Forest Administration
was unable to control illegal logging except in selected areas
where it was able to establish operational links with other
decentralized agencies. In this case, an interministerial task
force of various stakeholders at the national level was complemented
by the creation at the prefecture and district levels
of intersectoral task forces to organize collaboration
(World Bank 2004).
Get the legal framework right. A critical operational
consideration to making forest decentralization work is the
existence of a clear and consistent legal framework guiding
the distribution of responsibilities, resources, and authority
at the different levels of government and the relationships
between government and local communities and the private
sector (see note 5.3, Strengthening Legal Frameworks in the
Forest Sector). While this appears to be a self-evident aspect
of good governance, experience shows that, in practice, forest
decentralization often takes place in an environment of
considerable legal uncertainty (see box 5.3). This legal
uncertainty is a sure recipe for conflicts between tiers of
government and government institutions as well as between
public and private entities that defeat the potential governance
benefits of decentralization. Legal regimes should
provide local people and the private sector with enforceable
rights to resources and enable them to play a meaningful
Box 5.4
Legal Uncertainty in Indonesia
In 1999 the Indonesian government approved legislation
to decentralize government authority, resources, and
responsibilities to provinces (second tier government)
and districts (third tier). Districts, considered closer to
the people and therefore more apt to promote democratization,
were assigned primary responsibility for administrative
and regulatory functions. However, drafted in
haste, the decentralization laws were inconsistent or even
contradictory with other laws. And in the midst of the
instability that dominated the political scene after the fall
of Suharto, corresponding operational regulations to the
decentralization laws were slow to come, leaving much to
interpretation and to the discretion of local public officials
who were often inadequately prepared.
In the same year, the Basic Forestry Law was
enacted. This law and its regulations contradicted significant
parts of the decentralization legislation. A
decree issued a year later sought to clarify matters, limiting
forest sector decentralization to marginal functions,
and was resisted by some districts. Legal uncertainty
surrounding the division of powers and
responsibilities created a de facto movement toward
forest decentralization and intense conflicts between
the district governments and the center.
In these circumstances, and fearing appropriation
or interference by other levels of government, forest
resource–rich districts had a powerful incentive to
accelerate resource exploitation, giving only secondary
consideration to the long-term consequences of unsustainable
practices. In some cases, legal uncertainty
favored the creation of local alliances between powerful
groups and government officials. To a great extent,
the poor have yet to reap the benefits expected from
forest decentralization.
Source: Contreras-Hermosilla and Fay 2005; Boccucci and Jurgens 2006.
NOTE 5.1: DECENTRALIZED FOREST MANAGEMENT 161