A summary of the overall flow of funds between the forestry sector and government in 1999 is shown in Table 7. For the countries analysed here, this table shows that, on average, the sources of funding to support government expenditure on forestry policies and programmes are split fairly evenly as follows:
26% from forest revenue;
33% from net domestic government expenditure (i.e. total government expenditure from domestic funding less forest revenue); and
41% from external funding.
Table 7 Summary of total forest revenue collection, government expenditure on forestry and sources of funding in 1999
|
Country |
Forest revenue |
Government expenditure |
Sources of funds |
|||||||
|
Domestic funding |
External funding |
Total |
Forest revenue |
Government (net) |
External |
|||||
|
Burkina Faso |
780 |
2,201 |
2,328 |
4,530 |
17% |
31% |
51% |
|||
|
Burundi |
50 |
193 |
1,198 |
1,391 |
4% |
10% |
86% |
|||
|
Central African Republic |
5,566 |
1,030 |
n.a. |
1,030 |
<541% |
n.a. |
n.a. |
|||
|
Chad |
60 |
471 |
3,960 |
4,431 |
1% |
9% |
89% |
|||
|
DR Congo |
803 |
1,277 |
0 |
1,277 |
63% |
37% |
0% |
|||
|
Côte d'Ivoire |
41,561 |
32,971 |
7,566 |
40,538 |
103% |
-21% |
19% |
|||
|
Ethiopia |
2,283 |
21,345 |
3,865 |
25,209 |
9% |
76% |
15% |
|||
|
Gambia |
225 |
242 |
445 |
686 |
33% |
2% |
65% |
|||
|
Ghana |
12,559 |
31,294 |
n.a. |
31,294 |
<40% |
n.a. |
n.a. |
|||
|
Guinea |
902 |
7,362 |
8,551 |
15,913 |
6% |
41% |
54% |
|||
|
Kenya |
1,845 |
17,407 |
1,054 |
18,461 |
10% |
84% |
6% |
|||
|
Lesotho |
44 |
521 |
119 |
639 |
7% |
75% |
19% |
|||
|
Liberia |
3,100 |
7,317 |
0 |
7,317 |
42% |
58% |
0% |
|||
|
Madagascar |
2,734 |
4,385 |
7,255 |
11,641 |
23% |
14% |
62% |
|||
|
Malawi |
110 |
3,992 |
n.a. |
3,992 |
<3% |
n.a. |
n.a. |
|||
|
Mali |
321 |
4,830 |
9,896 |
14,726 |
2% |
31% |
67% |
|||
|
Mauritius |
770 |
5,603 |
0 |
5,603 |
14% |
86% |
0% |
|||
|
Namibia |
68 |
2,548 |
2,787 |
5,335 |
1% |
46% |
52% |
|||
|
Niger |
351 |
773 |
6,612 |
7,385 |
5% |
6% |
90% |
|||
|
Nigeria |
2,572 |
12,580 |
8,241 |
20,821 |
12% |
48% |
40% |
|||
|
Senegal |
1,579 |
12,969 |
444 |
13,413 |
12% |
85% |
3% |
|||
|
Uganda |
763 |
1,282 |
2,386 |
3,668 |
21% |
14% |
65% |
|||
|
United Republic of Tanzania |
2,763 |
7,567 |
31,773 |
39,340 |
7% |
12% |
81% |
|||
|
Zimbabwe |
908 |
2,132 |
1,254 |
3,386 |
27% |
36% |
37% |
|||
|
Total (excluding CAR, Ghana and Malawi) |
64,482 |
145,975 |
99,735 |
245,709 |
26% |
33% |
41% |
|||
Source: country reports. Note: all figures are in US$ ‘000 at 1999 exchange rates.
However, this table also shows the tremendous variation between countries, in terms of their ability to finance their forestry policies and programmes from different sources of funds. Only Central African Republic and Côte d’Ivoire appear to collect sufficient forest revenue to cover their current levels of total government expenditure on forestry. None of the other countries collect sufficient revenue to cover their total expenditure or even their expenditure from domestic sources. Thus, in all of these countries, there is a net flow of money from the government to the forestry sector.
Figure 19 The main sources of funding for forestry
in Africa in 1999
The other main point highlighted by this table is that there is a great difference between countries in terms of where this net flow comes from. With the exception of Ethiopia, the countries with the lowest contribution from forest revenue collection are also the countries with the highest levels of external support. Countries with generally higher levels of forest revenue collection tend to have levels of domestic funding that are relatively higher than their levels of external support. These differences are shown in Figure 19, which shows the main source of funding for government expenditure on forestry in each country.
