After a rather long break I am back to continue with the discussion on the challenges of Ghana's forest sector and will focus on information disclosure, transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder participation.
2.4 Inadequate
disclosure of information, transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder
participation
Along with the challenge of disclosure of information,
transparency and accountability, there is the problem of weak stakeholder
participation and consultation in the sector. Ghana’s VPA negotiations were
hailed internationally and locally as an inclusive, multi-stakeholder
participatory process. It was a marked improvement in the level of trust and
engagement between government and CSOs. As pointed out in the press release of
the first JMRM, the European Commission commended and encouraged Ghana to
continue with the participatory approach it had established during the negotiation
phase and to further strengthen stakeholder involvement.[1] There
was an indication from the EU that increased support to the forestry sector was
in recognition of these good governance and multi-stakeholder processes. However,
since the ratification of the VPA in 2009, the level of involvement and trust
between CSOs and government has dwindled. Although there has been one isolated
case[2] of truly
participatory and inclusive multi-stakeholder policy-making since the VPA was ratified,
the general multi-stakeholder and participatory governance environment in the
sector has been weak. It is hoped that the multi-stakeholder process that
characterized the review of the Forest and Wildlife policy becomes the norm
rather than an isolated case.
In general, participation and stakeholder involvement in
reform has amounted to little more than attendance at information meetings, at
which the government’s proposals are expected just to be rubber-stamped, since
concerns raised by CSOs are barely incorporated in the outcome of these
processes or in the final versions of the documents. The lack of a genuine
multi-stakeholder approach in the REDD+ process has undermined the FLEGT VPA process,
as they run parallel to each other. Even though both processes are managed by the
Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR),
there does not seem to be a common approach or any attempt to address synergies
on forest governance. CSOs are given less time and information to undertake
proper consultation to take into account the views of their constituents
(forest communities, etc). There has been a drastic change in approach by the government
in consulting with stakeholders, compared with the negotiation phase. For
instance, CSOs were barely consulted during the development of the VPA legality
verification protocols and manuals,[3] which are
a key element of the VPA.[4] Disclosure of information on the performance
of both parties to the implementation of the VPA has also been inadequate. In
the 4–6 July 2011 memorandum of the JMRM,[5] parties agreed
to publish an annual report on progress in implementing the VPA. Such reports
are important for CSOs to monitor the government’s performance and inform their
constituents. This encourages transparency, accountability and good governance
in the sector. Such reports will also help to expose malpractice, for instance
in the awarding of permits. Also at the last JMRM,[6] the government
encouraged CSOs to provide a list of information that it would be useful to have
in the public domain. CSOs have not responded to this request so far. It is
important that CSOs respond to the request by publishing a list of the information
that is needed to increase transparency and accountability in the forest sector.
While
the government clearly has not respected the multi-stakeholder nature during
the VPA implementation, it is fair to say that since the VPA was ratified in
2009, the CSO dynamics have also changed. Some key front-line CSO activists
have gone on to different assignments, leaving a vacuum. The transition process
has not been as coherent and effective as it should have been. This obviously
has taken some energy and enthusiasm out of the CSO movement in the sector. This
reduced civil society engagement might also have contributed to the slow pace
at which the Ghana VPA has been moving, since there is inadequate pressure from
CSOs on the government to move forward on meaningful governance reform in the
sector. In the VPA implementation phase, the CSOs’ campaigns have often been reactive
rather than proactive. There is obviously a need for reorganization and the injection
of some new energy and potentially younger activists into the civil society movement
to drive the agenda forward.
[1] Reference is made to the press release from the first JMRM meeting on 27–29
January 2010 and available on the FC website at www.fcghana.org
[2] With regard to the development of the new Forest and
Wildlife policy,
progress was made in the multi-stakeholder consultation process. There was substantial time allowed
for CSOs to consult with the constituents, and the views proposed in memoranda
and documented comments to the draft texts were on the whole incorporated in
the final document that was passed.
[3] CSOs’ concern about reduced consultations on the legality verification
protocols and manuals is contained in the 28–31 May 2013 JMRM memorandum.
Available at www.fcghana.org
[4] The third JMRM memorandum of 4–6 July 2011 states that these manuals
have been drafted and are ready to be tested on the field. Available on the FC
website at www.fcghana.org
[5] The memorandum of the JMRM of 4–6 July 2011 mentioned that a structure
of a 2010 report had been agreed and that the 2010 report would be published as
soon as possible. However, at the time of writing(August 2013) no such report was
in the public domain.
[6] Memorandum of the fifth JMRM held on 28–31 May 2013, andavailable at the FC website: www.fcghana.org
No comments:
Post a Comment