Decentralize to save the forest

Decentralize to save the forest

Luca Tacconi, Senior Economist, Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor

In recent times the media has carried a number of stories
about the government's reforestation program. While this is a
laudable initiative, given the current governance problems
affecting the management of Indonesian forests and forest land,
the initiative may prove unviable.

The government intends to spend Rp 12.7 trillion to reforest 3
million hectares of degraded land over 5 years. In 2003, Rp 1.2
trillion will be spent in an attempt to replant 300,000 hectares.
The program will be implemented soon even if it is not yet clear
what its real goals are, how it will be implemented and
monitored, and what accountability mechanisms will be put into
place.

Indonesia has some 100 million hectares of forest and it loses
about two million hectares every year, an area almost four times
the size of Bali. Reforesting 3 million hectares over five years
will have a relatively small impact on national forest cover.
Over five years, on the basis of current trends some 10 million
hectares of forest will be lost due to a range of causes,
including illegal logging.

The benefits of a reforestation program would be mainly felt
at the local level. But what are these supposed benefits? Until
appropriate assessments of target degraded areas are prepared, it
is impossible to say whether any benefits, such as improved
watershed functions, will be derived from reforestation.

Without specific assessments of local conditions it is not
even known if reforestation is the most appropriate land use of
supposedly degraded lands.

Decentralization is needed to improve the management of
forests and to ensure the success of any reforestation program.
There is a need to make local assessments of environmental
conditions, current land uses, preferred land uses, and best
approaches to improving the environmental conditions and the
productivity of degraded lands.

Decentralized administration, close to the local situation,
would not only facilitate these assessments but are also more
likely to be able to monitor progress and find more effective
ways of managing forests and forest land.

The forest legislation that gives authority over forest
management to the central government needs to be rewritten. It
conflicts not only with the spirit of the decentralization
legislation. But also with the Indonesian Constitution's
recognition of the need for "broad decentralization" of functions
including forestry, as noted in a recent report from the World
Bank.

District and provincial governments should be given authority
and clear functions relating to forest management. If this does
not happen, reforestation efforts will fail, large sums of money
will be wasted, and deforestation will continue unchecked.

However, authority and functions attributed to the regional
governments should be matched by clear environmental standards to
make them accountable to both their citizens and the central
government.

Many countries, such as Turkey, Australia and the United
Kingdom, have performance standards for local governments. The
need to establish environmental performance reporting was
recognized at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro over 10 years ago.

Local reforestation initiatives should have clear goals, be
scientifically sound, and have clearly established progress
indicators. They should be monitored over time, and the outcomes
made available to the public.

It is not sufficient to say contractors for reforestation
programs will be selected through tender. Without full
transparency, contractors could win the tender and than do a
terrible job at replanting and maintaining the trees. Or even
worse, they could bribe public officials in order to avoid
compliance with the terms of the tender.

Environmental standards for regional governance should also
address the maintenance of a certain level of forest cover. If a
percentage of central government funds to regional governments
was tied to environmental performance, they would have an
incentive to perform, and to address the illegal logging problem
among other issues.

Decentralization of forest management would allow the Ministry
of Forestry to redirect its efforts towards monitoring the
performance of regional governments and providing them with
advice and support.

If designed and implemented well, decentralization could
provide a more appropriate system of checks and balances. It
would also be an important step towards halting the loss of some
two million hectares of forest and trillions of rupiah in revenue
every year.