Why institutional reforms in forestry? Lessons from international experience
Profound changes have taken place, worldwide, during the last decade. These political, economic, and institutional changes have contributed to redefine the role of the state in all sectors, including natural resources. This article discusses traditional shortcomings of forest departments and new challenges they face arising from the changes in national policies and global concerns. Worldwide trends, such as civil service reforms, decentralization of government, increased local community involvement in resource management, and divestiture of state-owned enterprises impact the forestry sector, already faced with shrinking forest areas, decreased revenues, and government downsizing. To survive, forest departments need to form strategic partnerships with other stakeholders, get out of forest activities where they do not have a comparative advantage, and focus on core functions that governments do best. Examples are given from countries in Asia and the Pacific. Two country case studies are presented discussing Nepal's experience with Forest User Groups and New Zealand's experience with privatization of forestry.
Sustainable public/private partnerships for public service delivery
This article defines three kinds of public/private partnership, lists their potential benefits and explains common issues and problems in their operation with examples from developing countries. It then defines and discusses the concepts of social sustainability and financial sustainability in relation to public/private partnerships, and emphasizes the importance of applying sustainability criteria to each partner. It is argued that essentially the same criteria apply to non-profit NGOs as to for-profit firms, despite their differences in goals and values. The article concludes with some suggested strategies for effective international technical co-operation in the establishment of public/private partnerships.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.