Policy Area

Current Policy

Issues regarding current Policy

Proposed Action

Future areas of intervention for RETA 5771

Rural Development

 Focal Site Strategy formulated as a framework for interventions

 The principle of compensating upstream populations for benefits accruing off-site is recognised

 Strategy is based on capital intensive interventions -> large areas, such as remote watersheds, unsuitable for this approach.

 Focal Sites identified based on ambiguous selection criteria -> implementation hampered by a lack of external support

 Implementation of the approach introduced in Nam Ngum watershed is stalled, economic justification as a basis for distribution of benefits is not clearly defined

 Revision of Focal Site Strategy with the objective of (I) including low-input models such as forest-based development into its scope (ii) ensuring that identification of sites is consistent with selection criteria

 Pursuing the implementation of arrangements in Nam Ngum watershed, development general guidelines to be applied in other areas

Within project area, if relevant

Forestry Development

 Extensive area of protection forest including watershed areas

 Local people’s right of access to resources is, in principle, recognised

 In production forests state-run forestry remains predominant, pilot experiments with village forestry

 Justification for current size of protected area network may be questioned on grounds that (i) it is an excessive infringement on customary rights (ii) area is too large for effective enforcement (iii) its large size excessively hampers economic development in a country which is largely dependent on natural resources (iv) many areas, especially in the north, are degraded and retain only limited conservation values

 Development of management models is focused on developing approaches, which ensure reasonable livelihood for local people. While this is appropriate, it is also necessary to ensure that the arrangements enable monitoring and enforcement at a reasonable cost, as they are likely to gain in importance in the long run

 Detailed regulations concerning forest use in watershed (protected) areas unavailable (other than the general guidelines included in Forest Law)

 Balance between state and village forestry models is not clearly spelled out. Pilot projects have not led to formulation of clear policy guidelines or legislation, which define the role of villages in forest management and enable further development of this approach

 Review of the structure and extent of protected area network. Special attention should be paid to ensuring that local people have sufficient incentives to contribute to protection.

 Continue experiments with current models expanding on the development of an accompanying, external monitoring system

 Accelerate the on-going work for developing forest regulations

 Formulation of policy guidelines and legal framework for continued involvement of villages in production forest management (modalities, geographic coverage etc.)

Within project area, if relevant

Agricultural Development

 Stabilisation of shifting cultivation main objective in upland areas

 Policy framework clear, but lacks concrete guidelines for implementation especially in terms of decentralisation-> only modest progress achieved

 Clarification of institutional lines of responsibility (see "Institutions")

Resettlement

 Resettlement continues but with reduced intensity and scope

 Lack of resources makes risk of failure high

 Review the current strategy in conjunction with a general revision of Focal Site Strategy (see "Rural Development")

Within project area

Land Tenure

 The principle of allocating land to local population based on customary rights is recognised

 Method of implementing land allocation is not uniform, customary boundaries are not fully respected, especially in production forest areas

 Insufficient allocation of agricultural land in areas, where alternatives to land-extensive shifting cultivation are limited

Rigid and time consuming procedure of land allocation involving

 Issuance of clear guidelines for field staff regarding considerations for customary rights in boundary demarcation

 Modification of regulations concerning allocation of agricultural land in order to accommodate shifting cultivation, where necessary

 Diversification of procedures for land allocation in view to develop an interim, low-intensity option (demarcation of village boundaries, basic land use zoning, otherwise reliance on customary arrangements). Accelerated implementation of this approach

 Prioritisation of areas for carrying out land allocation (production or protection areas, focal sites etc.)

Within project area

Institutions

 State still largely retains both regulatory and production functions in forestry, but devolution of authority to local level (local institutions, local people) has been declared as the future development strategy

 Policy function clearly assigned to ministerial level (esp MAF), departments entrusted with policy implementation

 Line ministries retain large autonomy

 Inter-sectoral co-ordination within MAF entrusted to Upland Development Unit, at national and provincial levels the task is assigned to Rural Development Committees

 Management and enforcement capacity of forest administration insufficient to ensure sustainable management -> involvement of local people is necessary. However, institutional structure and resources available to Government are not geared towards supporting people-centred development (e.g. in terms of extension capacity in forestry)

 Lack of extension staff in upland areas

 Lines of responsibility between central, provincial and district levels remain unclear (e.g. budget authority). Tendencies to retain central control can still be detected.

 Local NGOs are not recognised by the Government. International NGOs participate in field implementation, but are not involved in policy co-ordination or formulation

 Mandates of various Government agencies regarding implementation unclear and overlap occurs (e.g. Upland Development Unit of MAF and Centre for Protected Area and Watershed Management of Forestry Department are both involved in co-ordinating upland development activities)

 Existing bodies for inter-sectoral co-ordination lack authority

 Very weak capacity to monitor programme implementation

 Shift of resources in forest administration (esp. POF and DOF) towards providing extension services. Implementation of systematic and extensive training programme for staff and managers of village forests

 Gradual transfer of extension staff from lowlands to upland areas

 Issuing of clear regulations devolving increased authority to provincial and district levels especially in terms of budget management

 Explore ways to involve NGOs and possibly private sector in policy co-ordination and formulation and expand their role in programme implementation e.g. through sub-contracting arrangements

 Streamline and consolidate the present structure of MAF by (I) concentrating the co-ordination function within MAF into the Upland Development Unit to cover all programme activities (agriculture, forestry including management of protected and production forest areas) (ii) increasing its authority as regards programme planning and budget management

 Establish a unit within MAF for monitoring programme implementation, integrate CPAWM with this entity