Forest concessions have been an important element of forestry and forest management in many countries, including developing countries. However, if sustainable management of tropical forests is to be achieved and deforestation brought under control, the allocation, management, and supervision of forest concessions will need to be strengthened. This study examines the failures of forest concessions over the last 20 years, and highlights the potential gains resulting from concentrating on improving procedures, introducing performance incentives, and monitoring key performance elements.

This report forms part of a review aimed at providing advice on improving forest concession systems in tropical forests. The review was carried out by FAO in cooperation with the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Brazilian Forest Service, the Center for International Forestry Research and Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement. The report is based on three regional reports produced by consultants, discussions at an expert meeting in Rome in November 2015, and a literature review

The specific objective of these Voluntary Guidelines is to promote the sustainable management of public production natural forests in tropical countries through forest concessions, thereby fulfilling their potential contribution to the achievement of Agenda 2030. Forest concession regimes are treated here as forest policy instruments, and should be aligned with the sustainable forest management objectives agreed by countries in the UNFF. The current Guidelines intend to serve as guidance for making forest concessions an effective economic instrument of forest policy in the context of the 2030 Agenda, transforming them into an instrument capable of delivering sustainable forest management in all its dimensions, and generating socio-economic benefits to relevant stakeholders.

Since the collapse of Soeharto’s New Order regime in May 1998, Indonesia’s national, provincial, and district governments have engaged in an intense struggle over how authority and the power embedded in it, should be shared. How this ongoing struggle over authority in the forestry sector will ultimately play out is of considerable significance due to the important role that Indonesia’s forests play in supporting rural livelihoods, generating economic revenues, and providing environmental services. This book examines the process of forestry sector decentralization that has occurred in post-Soeharto Indonesia, and assesses the implications of more recent efforts by the national government to recentralize administrative authority over forest resources. It aims to describe the dynamics of decentralization in the forestry sector, to document major changes that occurred as district governments assumed a greater role in administering forest resources, and to assess what the ongoing struggle among Indonesia’s national, provincial, and district governments is likely to mean for forest sustainability, economic development at multiple levels, and rural livelihoods. Drawing from primary research conducted by numerous scientists both at CIFOR and its many Indonesian and international partner institutions since 2000, this book sketches the sectoral context for current governmental reforms by tracing forestry development and the changing structure of forest administration from Indonesia’s independence in 1945 to the fall of Soeharto’s New Order regime in 1998. The authors further examine the origins and scope of Indonesia’s decentralization laws in order to describe the legal-regulatory framework within which decentralization has been implemented both at the macro-level and specifically within the forestry sector. This book also analyses the decentralization of Indonesia’s fiscal system and describes the effects of the country’s new fiscal balancing arrangements on revenue flows from the forestry sector, and describes the dynamics of district-level timber regimes following the adoption of Indonesia’s decentralization laws. Finally, this book also examines the real and anticipated effects of decentralization on land tenure and livelihood security for communities living in and around forested areas, and summarizes major findings and options for possible interventions to strengthen the forestry reform efforts currently underway in Indonesia.

REDD+ must be transformational. REDD+ requires broad institutional and governance reforms, such as tenure, decentralisation, and corruption control. These reforms will enable departures from business as usual, and involve communities and forest users in making and implementing policies that a ect them. Policies must go beyond forestry. REDD+ strategies must include policies outside the forestry sector narrowly de ned, such as agriculture and energy, and better coordinate across sectors to deal with non-forest drivers of deforestation and degradation. Performance-based payments are key, yet limited. Payments based on performance directly incentivise and compensate forest owners and users. But schemes such as payments for environmental services (PES) depend on conditions, such as secure tenure, solid carbon data and transparent governance, that are often lacking and take time to change. This constraint reinforces the need for broad institutional and policy reforms. We must learn from the past. Many approaches to REDD+ now being considered are similar to previous e orts to conserve and better manage forests, often with limited success. Taking on board lessons learned from past experience will improve the prospects of REDD+ e ectiveness. National circumstances and uncertainty must be factored in. Di erent country contexts will create a variety of REDD+ models with di erent institutional and policy mixes. Uncertainties about the shape of the future global REDD+ system, national readiness and political consensus require  exibility and a phased approach to REDD+ implementation.

This paper reports on three regional assessments carried out to identify and draw lessons from on-the-ground initiatives in multiple-use forest management in the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. In all three regions, information was collected through interviews with country-based forestry experts, forest managers and technicians. A complementary, web-based questionnaire further examines the reasons for the successes and failures of multiple-use forests management initiatives.