Rehabilitating the nation's degraded forest lands is one of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry's most important priorities. It is an initiative that in principle has widespread support.

After all, by rehabilitating degraded forests we are taking away some of the pressure on Indonesia's virgin, primary forest. Indeed, rehabilitating degraded forest's production potential is essential to prevent further degradation of remaining forests.

But it is in the implementation of reforestation schemes where we find differences of opinion.

Some critics say the reforestation program is too driven from the center, resulting in irrelevant or impractical seedlings being handed over to regional districts where forests need rehabilitation.

Others support the government's reforestation program, but say it needs to put more effort into managing the trees once they are planted.

Others say there if there was more emphasis on preserving existing forests from fire and illegal logging there would be less need for rehabilitation efforts.

One thing in common to all of these concerns is that, to succeed, reforestation programs must take into account a range of common economic, environmental and social factors.

Growing a forest is a dauntingly complex task. It is not simply a matter of planting and watering trees like we might do in our front garden at home. Unlike the home garden with its tribes of garden gnomes, plastic furniture and imported shrubbery, a forest is a dynamic arena where human activities and mother nature interact at their most raw and primeval.

Economically, a forest may be a source of livelihood to different ethnic groups, a source of raw materials for industry, a source of employment for local residents, and a source of tax revenue for local governments.

Environmentally, a forest provides many services we take for granted, such as conserving soil, regulating water flow, reducing global warming by sequestering carbon, and providing a home for most of the world's land based flora and fauna.

In social terms, forests are often the key reference point for the cultural framework and social behaviors of local communities. In some countries they are integral to the nation's image, and often they contribute significantly to a society's rest and recreational needs.

Economic, environmental and social factors must all be receive due consideration in re-developing degraded forest.

For example, a local or central government policy that tries too hard to protect planted trees may very well have satisfactory environmental outcomes. But over the long term it may also lead to economic instability and even social unrest among the locally poor or disempowered groups who have traditionally relied on forests for livelihood support.

Or a local or central government policy that introduces strict controls on how forests are harvested may very well succeed in conserving the forests and the cultures of the people who live in them. On the other hand, such a policy may deprive the government of important revenue for building schools and health clinics. To repeat: growing a forest is a dauntingly complex challenge. But it is not impossible.

Nor is it a particularly new challenge. Vast amounts of funds, time and resources continue to be invested across the world to increase forest cover and enhance the productivity of degraded forests lands.

Crucial to successfully balancing the economic, environmental and social elements in rehabilitating a forest is that governments adopt a holistic approach that genuinely considers the needs of all - not just some - but all of the forest's stakeholders.

These may range from local forest communities, local urban residents, local industry, NGOs, other national government departments, and perhaps even international governments. Only then can rehabilitation programs begin to successfully embrace all of the economic, environmental and social issues involved.

This is not stating anything new. And no one is saying that ensuring greater stakeholder participation is easy. But anyone who knows anything about successful forest management will readily admit stakeholder input is essential.

Also crucial is that when stakeholders provide input for forestry decisions, they are aware of the ecological and socio-economic factors that have contributed to the success and failure of past reforestation efforts.

The Japanese government has long recognized the importance of forest rehabilitation research. In August it sponsored a week-long workshop on the forest rehabilitation at CIFOR's head office in Bogor. Representatives from Brazil, China, Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, and Viet Nam met and shared their experiences in past and ongoing rehabilitation projects. Participants were able to share lessons learned from past reforestation efforts and to develop potentially more effective strategies for future rehabilitation activities.

Meetings of the still fledgling Asia Forest Partnership (see page 4) over the past 12 months have also presented opportunities for learning from past efforts. AFP is a joint Japanese and Indonesian initiative established with CIFOR and the Nature Conservancy. The Partnership is an excellent example of bringing together diverse forest stakeholders. With its continually expanding international membership, AFP meetings have seen representatives from as many as 20 countries examining past experiences in tackling illegal logging, preventing forest fires and, of course, how to best implement reforestation activities.

While it is too soon to predict the ultimate success of AFP in helping to rehabilitate Asia's degraded forests, there is one thing we can be assured of: participants won't be criticizing each other's performance in forest management. Instead they will be working together, getting different stakeholder views, and trying to find a workable solution.