Structural adjustment program: experiences from the forestry sector

Abstract

[Introduction]: The PNG forestry sector has been labelled a controversial sector both nationally and internationally. This is not because there are not enough forest resources (timber and other forest produce) for the use of the citizens and for development by the government for the national interest. It is not because there are no government policies or legislation to regulate the development of these forest resources. Many reports suggest that the controversy in the forestry sector has come about because of corruption, the land tenure system and the lack of resources (manpower, finance) both at the local level and at the national level. Over the years, the sector has enjoyed a steady increase in both the volume harvested and the value (monetary benefit) generated from the development of the forest resources. At one stage it was the second largest revenue earner for the government, behind agriculture. This has now changed with the development of resources in the mineral sector -including oil — placing forestry as the third largest revenue earner. Because of its contribution to the government revenue, necessary policies were developed to regulate its development. This however has not provided that impetus for the sustainable management of the forest resources of Papua New Guinea. Barnett (1989) documents the many examples of corruption and poor management in the sector. Further, Dubash and Filer (2000) outline the events leading to the conditionalities that have been attached to the forestry sector under the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) (see Appendix 1). This paper will highlight some of my personal experiences with the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ the forestry sector was identified as a target sector under the SAP in Papua New Guinea.