Annex 3

THE FACILITATION PROCESS AND OUTPUTS OF THE WORKSHOP¹⁹

Meeting facilitation²⁰

With reference to Chapter 2, and the concepts of:

· Symmetric reciprocity - mutual respect of knowledge

· Recognition of contribution of key stakeholders

· Facilitation of equitable access to platforms of negotiation - assisting weaker stakeholders to participate effectively

· Negotiations in the framework of sustainable plantation forest management

There were eight components of the meeting.

· The introductory session, including the presentation of the FAO-commissioned study on outgrower schemes, and recent developments in Australia/New Zealand

· A group of Indonesian presentations, including CIFOR's presentation on mutually beneficial outgrower arrangements

· A group of South African experiences

· Presentation of IIED's company-community forestry partnerships: from raw deals to mutual gains

· Introduction to framework of principles and indicators to assess forestry outgrower schemes to implement outgrower schemes based on best practice

· Group work based on stakeholder groups

· Group work on participatory action research based on countries

· Wrap-up session and synthesis

The conceptual framework of the meeting was in several steps:

Prior to the meeting all participants had received the background document prepared by Ms Månsson summarizing four key research inputs to the meeting, outlining the basic principles, criteria and indicators of sustainable plantation forestry management, and attempting to place them in the context of the latter.

At the meeting, various experiences of different stakeholders from the two countries including NGOs, private companies and government were presented on the first day. Three major research inputs were also presented from FAO, CIFOR and IIED.

The principles of sustainable plantation forestry management were presented in plenary and participants requested to prepare cards with ideas of criteria and indicators to enrich the content of these principles, based on their own experience and the presentations made during the day. From this exercise a rich list of issues to consider in the effective implementation of the principles, and indicators of the same were generated. This list formed the basis of discussion in the next days' stakeholder groups.

On the second day the participants were divided into stakeholder groups of research; government; NGO and private sector.

Each group reviewed the list generated the previous day according to their needs, views and context. The results of these stakeholder discussions contributed the richest input to the results of this meeting - both in content and in the experience generated from the intra- and intergroup perceptions and interactions. The results of these stakeholder groups discussions are presented in brief in plenary, and are fully documented and annotated here.

After introduction to the concepts of participatory action research, participants were placed in their two country groups. The assignment was to develop a list of tools, research and policy to be able to apply the principles of mutually beneficial outgrower schemes to country specific experiences. The South Africa group and the Indonesia group were joined by CIFOR and ICRAF; IIED and ANU had been assigned to work the South Africa group but opted not to join them, therefore the output from South Africa is entirely generated by private enterprise, NGOs and government. The different perspective this created however was beneficial, as:

· it provided an indication of the range and prioritization of tools, research and policy issues that would arise without the perspective of an external research input; and

· the difference in the richness of the presentation between Indonesia and South Africa, however, reflects the potential role of research organizations in enhancing joint learning activities.

Plenary brainstorming output on principles and criteria

Cards added in plenary to suitable plantation forest management (SPFM) principles:

MANAGEMENT

Need for clear objectives

· clear prioritized objectives

· common objectives among stakeholders

· all people in community obey terms of the agreement

· agreement signed by everyone in community

· good functioning of grassroots organizations

· special unit in company to deal with community

· strong institutional frameworks devised and implemented

· agreement among key stakeholders

· clear rights and obligations

· clear management plan

· management must deliver on promises

· well-documented project plan (implementation dates, responsibilities of stakeholders, project leader)

· ease of interpretation of management plan to both parties

· more local adaptation of contracts and plans (reliant on autonomy of company field staff)

Strong organization

· systems to enhance transparency and accountability within community and between partners

· clear social objectives and monitoring objectives

· local socio-economic needs, e.g. for religious purposes, fulfilled or at least considered

Information systems

· technical information available to all stakeholders

· market information accessible to stakeholders

· species match site and market

· indigenous knowledge recognized and adopted

· farmers provided with technical backstopping

· rules and guidance for good practice available

· silviculture BOPs (best operational practices) part of contract

Promote capacity

· mechanisms for transfer of technology, information and skills from stronger to weaker partner

· private extension opportunities captured

· fair organizational capacities of both parties

· company staff improve skills and performance (backed up by career opportunities)

· both parties understand criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management

Technology

· germplasm available

· technological innovations give rise to new partnership arrangements

· species match site and market

ECONOMICS

Principle one: long-term viability

Valuation

· adequate definition and identification of community needs

· adequate definition and identification of community costs, especially opportunity costs

Diversification

· diversified income streams for farmers

· contingency plans - diversifying products to reduce risk

· community members have access to associated money-making options, e.g. secondary processing and service industries

Information and analysis

· economic risks are anticipated and forecasted

· growers have absolute clarity on economic implications

· mechanisms for information distribution are controlled and clear

Monitoring

· measurement of economic improvement at micro and regional levels

· companies improve market standing

· research results needed

Market access

· realistic choice of products and activities

· accessible markets

· scheme is commercially viable for key stakeholders

Principle two: returns reflect inputs

Valuation

· fair valuation of stakeholders' inputs

· economics measured in not just money terms

· "sweat equity" versus "financial equity"

Process mechanisms

· mechanism for economic power sharing

· systems for determining shares within stakeholder groups

Information

· both parties are transparent with financial records and information

· farmers have access to market information

Risk

· risk shared not equally, but equitably

· both parties prepared to accept risk

Change

· benefit sharing can change with changing inputs

· possibility to review

· changes in estimation of returns possible

· both growers and companies benefit

· fair and equitable benefits

· outgrower may not attract to the results of original estimation of economic returns

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

Power balance

· mechanisms to balance power among stakeholders

· collective bargaining is institutionalized

· resources for capacity building

· principles of learning partnerships/flexibility

· fair and equitable distribution of benefits

· not entrenching the status quo

· local livelihoods are secure (buffered from risk)

· community development support

· going beyond direct benefits of scheme

· simple, effective and efficient contract mechanisms

· institutional development in communities beyond community and other stakeholders

Integration among stakeholders

· forestry better integrated in local development plans (suite of options)

· open for third party involvement (if needed)

· formalizing links with other key stakeholders, e.g. local and national government

Local people form local and broader alliances for action

· representative structures for all outgrowers for effective lobbying of government and markets

· memorandum of understanding between parties drawn up and reviewed periodically

Defining and monitoring objectives

· social objectives recognized and met

· robust, recognized, representative structures at community level

· systems to enhance transparency and accountability within community and between partners

· clear social objectives and monitoring objectives

· local socio-economic needs, e.g. for religious purposes, fulfilled or at least considered

· local ethics and traditions acknowledged (may be trade-offs)

Ungrouped

· Sufficient knowledge and awareness of the community members

ECOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENT

Integrity

· unused and wasteland reclaimed

· ecological integrity increased

· ecosystem function maintained, or enhanced

· ecological risks minimized

· involve the community to minimize fire damage

· provisions for the prevention of disease outbreak

· subsistence living may hamper the consideration of ecological integrity (balance between social and ecological)

· rules and guidelines of good practice

Diversification

· species/landscape diversity increases

· freedom for outgrowers to combine multiple land uses

Non-forestry resources

· environmental disturbance, e.g. roads for logging, decreases (roads should also be considered in social and economic assessment)

· positive and negative impacts on wildlife taken into account

· downstream water use considered

Planning and monitoring

· environmental management plan jointly compiled and implemented

· ecological parameters identified and met before initiation of project

· mitigate impacts through proper planning, risk analysis and monitoring

· enforce and ensure environmental accountability, e.g. via certification

· sufficient knowledge and awareness among community members

Ungrouped

· contract mechanism should be simple, effective and efficient

POLICY

Government commitment

· bureaucratic processes/requirements simplified

· coherent intersectoral policies

· precautionary policies

· institutionalizing the role of mediator/facilitator ("champion agency")

· cater to different product development needs

· supportive local and national government

· no policy disincentives to growing and harvesting

· government departments improve in capacity, relevance and coordination

· government sorts out facilitator versus regulator role

· legislation and certification accessible for smaller companies

· enabling government policy for all stakeholders

· no conflicting policy between central and local authorities

· enforcement, not just policy statement

· appropriate but not artificial government incentives, e.g. soft loans and tax breaks

Land tenure policy

· property rights/land boundaries secured

· clear land status

Transparency and broad understanding

· companies and communities better able to understand and utilize policy

· extension aspects covered in terms of information distribution on laws, policies

· all parties must work to same policy

· systems to enhance transparency and accountability within community and between partners

Ungrouped

· conducive tax policy is preferred

· downstream water use considered

· both sides predict and plan for policy, market, social (e.g. AIDS) and environmental change

· conducive policy on land tenure

Session 1: Stakeholder Group work to discuss application and development of principles and criteria of mutually beneficial contracts

GROUP ON GOVERNMENT POLICY Sonja Vermeulen (IIED); Graeme Harrison (DWAF , South Africa); Benni Sormin (FAO Indonesia)

ROLES OF GOVERNMENT

KEY OBJECTIVE

To work for the public good (more broadly than the direct participants in the joint venture) through improving:

Local livelihoods

National economy

Environment

The government group discussed in detail (i) the role of government in joint ventures and (ii) a framework for criteria and indicators to evaluate joint ventures.

Role of government

Government aims for returns to the public good over and above benefits to the immediate participants in a joint venture. Therefore the criteria and indicators for success chosen by government to assess schemes would include broader outcomes to local communities and to the country as a whole (or district/province in the case of local government). Diagram 1 shows the various routes by which government can be involved in company-outgrower joint ventures in order to achieve government objectives with respect to local livelihoods, the national economy and the environment:

Route 1: Where there is a market for the products of company-outgrower joint ventures, government can set basic rules of engagement, but essentially be hands-off. Social and environmental responsibility will, ideally, be built into the private sector market system (e.g. via certification).

Route 2: If there are some problems with the system at the market, community or policy level (e.g. the private sector goes elsewhere because rules are too restrictive) then government can tackle these problems via policy change, or else through direct support: by mediating between the parties or providing precautionary backups (e.g. checks on environmental impacts).

Route 3: Where the private sector is not interested in investing in company-outgrower joint ventures, the government needs to support alternative local development pathways.

Framework to evaluate joint ventures

Rather than a detailed examination of individual criteria and indicators, the government group took a broad look at the principles under which the criteria were clustered. The clusters appeared to fall into a sequence of outcomes, mechanisms and prerequisites, which are illustrated in Diagram 2 and explained below.

The proposed five clusters that formed the basis of our working framework during the workshop are policy, management, environment, sociocultural and economics. These clusters differ in terms of the extent to which participants in a company-outgrower joint venture are able to make direct changes. Companies and outgrowers can make direct changes to management and lobby for changes in policy. These changes will then have indirect environmental, sociocultural and economic outcomes.

Company-outgrower joint ventures will be judged as successful or not depending on their outcomes. This suggests that the first point of assessment should in fact be the environment, sociocultural and economics clusters, which describe the full set of desired (and undesired) outcomes of the joint ventures. Next companies or outgrowers would want to assess why they were or were not succeeding in achieving desired outcomes. To do this they would assess their management of the joint venture, in particular the institutional mechanisms they have in place for decision-making and accountability. These are the mechanisms of the venture, which they are able to change directly.

Supportive government policy is a prerequisite for joint ventures, and would not need to be assessed separately for all individual schemes, unless participants identified specific problems with the policy environment. Another prerequisite for joint ventures is a set of objectives - every scheme has slightly different objectives and schemes can only be assessed in terms of what they set out to achieve.

GROUP ON RESEARCH James M. Roshetko (ICRAF); Ani Adiwinata Nawir (CIFOR); Digby Race (ANU)

· Clarifying overlapping topics

· Criteria in conflicts (environment versus economic) _ the diagram reflects how to conceptualise the interrelating uses (which can be controlled by company or cannot)

· Third parties roles important in different aspects to influence company management aspect (different players have different roles: government, NGOs)

· Diagram reflects the overlapping

Monitoring and Evaluation, based on the principles, criteria and indicators was discussed as an overarching topic:

· Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E)

· Independent

· Periodic

The umbrella for implementation is: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

INTERRELATED GROUPING OF PRINCIPLES, CRITERIA, AND INDICATORS

SOCIOCULTURAL

Defining objectives:

· Comprehensive sociocultural objectives understood, accepted and met

· Balancing power ... for fair and equitable distribution of benefit

· Effective mechanisms to balance power among stakeholders identified (e.g. collective bargaining; independent/third parties; transparent and accountable processes)

· Capacity building so that communities can take an active role in the development processes (e.g. learning partnerships; institutional development).

Integration

· Working relationships between partners

· Biomass production with wider commitment development agenda

The research group consisted of CIFOR, ICRAF and ANU. The group concluded that many of the listed bullet points were either complemented, redundant, and could be integrated for developing a more cohesive set of mutually beneficial partnership under outgrower schemes. The group also agreed that the applicability of the set is very useful as the tool for Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, which could be conducted by independent parties periodically.

The group observed most of the management aspect principles, criteria and indicators are the ones that the initiator of the outgrower scheme (usually private company) can control and manage internally, while the other aspects depend on other key stakeholders actions (tree growers, government, NGOs). Therefore, the diagram describes the management aspect as being in the centre. Also described in the diagram, the five different aspects are also interrelated.

NGO STAKEHOLDER GROUP Rory Mack (LRDF); Arif Aliadi (LATIN); Christine Holding Anyonge (FAO)

The NGO group had some substantive changes and recommendations to make to the original listing generated the previous evening.

Social principle and criteria

Considerable discussions had taken place in the meeting already about the power balance between companies and communities - however, the NGO group felt that more attention should also be paid to the power balance within communities. Transparency and accountability within communities and between parties should be addressed by different mechanisms.

Within communities, discussions had often been held between the company and the formal leaders of the community. These discussions and contractual details are not shared throughout the community, although community members are committed by contract. Difficulties inevitably arise on both sides in terms of returns to community members, and implementing management plans. These difficulties can be resolved to a certain extent by companies recognizing that communities are not homogenous entities, but are made up of individual households with different requirements and needs. Two suggestions were:

· that informal leaders are party to the contractual negotiation and witnesses to the agreement; and

· that the contents of the agreement are widely disseminated, by means of posters and radio. As many of people who live in outgrower areas are migrant workers, meetings are not effective means of information dissemination.

Contracts are also discussed between government officers and company employees. Often these staff are transferred and negotiations have to start afresh. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the parties means that incoming officers and staff can start from what is written in their files - this means momentum and objective of purpose is maintained.

Management principle and criteria

The group said that the agreement should be negotiated, documented and disseminated in a transparent manner.

Social, cultural, economic and ecological parameters should be identified and met before the institution of the agreement and monitored for the duration of the agreement.

The original items on the management list entitled information systems and promote capacity should be combined into one entitled knowledge systems.

Recognition of validity of all forms of knowledge.

Basically all stakeholders have different forms of knowledge, each equally valid. The original list talks of transfer of technology, information and skills from the stronger to the weaker partner; this conventional concept does not encourage recognition or incorporation of knowledge from participating stakeholders. Companies transfer technology (BOPs) and market information; equally indigenous knowledge (e.g. soil fertility and pests) can be recognized and incorporated into management plans.

Although there is much talk of power balance and benefit sharing in the section on social economics, a crucial element is not explicitly included in the original list: the requirement to empower communities before negotiations start to enable them to articulate their own perceptions and own demands prior to agreement. This would be another key element within knowledge systems.

Policy principle and criteria

The group felt that an enabling government policy environment that facilitated and encouraged multistakeholder dialogue is an essential prerequisite to the creation of equitable status among negotiating parties.

Creation of a forest industry forum, where all stakeholders have an equal voice, was suggested as one possible tool towards this.

Land tenure

With regard to land tenure, the group felt that there had been an overemphasis on defining boundaries (and the resultant preoccupation with "GPSing" boundaries). The more important issue is clarifying the status of the different types of land available for use by the communities and farm foresters: the long-term projected access, utilization and tenure thereof.

Transparency

Public dissemination of relevant government policies to the sector, in understandable and transparent media, such as radio and printed leaflets. Companies and communities to negotiate in the context of the relevant government policies. Communities, as part of the empowerment and capacity building facilitation, to be aware of implications of policy in decision-making processes.

Environment principle and criteria

The environmental plan of any scheme should be jointly compiled with stakeholders.

Practical implications of plans with regard to germplasm supply, site selection, and road routing to be considered.

Economic principle and criteria

The group had some overview comments on the economics section:

The discussions on markets as indicated on the lists appeared to consider only local markets, not national or international market trends, which are essential to long-term viability of any contractual undertaking by the communities or farm foresters.

The group agreed with the items listed under point 3 (defining and monitoring objectives).

GROUP ON PRIVATE SECTOR Agus Pratomo (ARARA ABADI); Slamet Irianto (WKS); Markus Sudibyo (RAPP); Dutliff Smith/Carl van Loggerenberg (SAPPI Forest Products, South Africa); Syamsul Fikar (PT FINNANTARA INTIGA)

Policy: sliding scale of certification costs according to scale of operation of the company

· Government commitment

· Is there a government policy?

· Does project proposal fail within guidelines of government policy?

· No relevant government policy - continue discussion with local community and local government

· Fiscal policy must be conducive to assisting small companies - government (soft loans, tax incentives)

Environment - incoherence policy on different sectors (agriculture, etc.)

· Assess all government legislation

· Environmental impact assessment

· Basis for Environmental Management Plan: social environment, political environment, biophysical (animals, plant, water), economic

· Auditing and monitoring

Economics

· Marketing plan, possible different market

· Promotion of independent economic entities within the localities (SME)

Management

· Clear objectives:

Disagreement to item 1.4

Participatory rural appraisal

· Strong organization:

To merge point on "organization" with point on "promote capacity (staff training)"

Extension and training to the local community (company contribution for sharing local knowledge)

Promotion of small and medium business

Establishment of local nursery/ seedling

· Information system:

PROJECT TIME LINE

Results and observations of stakeholder group discussions

Several issues emerged from the presentations of the group work:

· The Government group did not discuss the list of principles as a whole, but focused on policy issues and the role of government: prerequisites for such schemes to be created, and the role of government in supporting, and creating an enabling environment. Focusing on policy, and the role of government, the presentation did not tackle the everyday processes of negotiations and implementing outgrower arrangements.

· The Research group indicated that they had discussed in great detail and that they found the experience of discussing together extremely useful. They focused on conflicts between criteria, and the role of third parties in outgrower schemes. They did not get beyond discussing the sociocultural list. Though they indicated their discussions were rich, the content of their presentation was less detailed than that of the other stakeholder groups.

· The NGO groups' foci were on the sociocultural and management dimensions, and they made concrete suggestions for adaptation and representation of content, particularly in the management section to greater encourage language of equity and mutual respect of knowledge. The economic section was recognized as being currently weak.

· The Private sector group focused first on policy issues. The maze of environmental legislation also caught their attention. Management and economic sections were discussed briefly and obviously felt they could handle. The social checklist was discussed last, but other than policy it was the one discussed in most detail. The synergy between what the NGOs are proposing and what companies are proposing as necessary for sustainable outgrower arrangements is startling. The private sector group emphasized the need for trust between parties.

· The ways in which the different stakeholder groups applied themselves to the task reflected the nature and differing perceptions of the stakeholder groups. The private sector for example, was open and willing to find ways forward to address the difficulties they are having in working with diverse farmers groups and communities. It is evident that all stakeholders have a crucial and complementary role to play. It is also evident, that each has differing incentives for engagement, different forms of knowledge, held and expressed in different ways. Incremental adjustments and trust between the stakeholders, along with organizational and facilitation skills are required if these groups are to negotiate on a basis of mutual trust and respect.

· Owing to budget constraints the meeting lacked a professional facilitator, and relied instead on a four-team group drawn primarily from the research group. This in hindsight was not an effective mechanism for facilitation, and a professional facilitator would have greatly assisted in resolving emerging issues. In another situation where a professional facilitator was not available, it is recommended that the facilitation team would be drawn from each stakeholder group.

· Research, has its own objectives, agendas and expected outputs. If activities are to be operationally focused, research may not be the most appropriate leader of joint stakeholder activities. In this context the research agenda, to be effective and have a sustainable impact should be accountable to the other stakeholders.

Session 2: Country Group - Group work on scoping of direction, future collaboration and partnership, and joint programme conceptualization

INDONESIA GROUP

Problems/challenges

· Wood price low (compared with other commodities) - economics/market

· Long rotation/ time frame - economics/management

· Outgrowers widely dispersed (size, distance) - management/economics

· Land status (more than tenure) - policy, sociocultural

· Community capacity needs (skills, knowledge) - management, sociocultural

· Community finance - policy, economics, sociocultural

· Short-term income (tumpangsari only for one year) - management, economics, sociocultural

· Develop trust between partners - sociocultural, management

· Recognize/use local knowledge/system - sociocultural, management

· Government support/action - policy

· Non-formal actors (irregular, illegal, invisible) - policy

· Infrastructure - poor (market/management/policy/economics)

· Partner (community) representation (all subgroups represented) - sociocultural, management

IDENTIFICATION AND FOCUS OF FUTURE PROGRAMMING

Problem Problem	Tools	Research	Policy
Wood price	Transparent market/price system Information on price (newspaper, radio) Guidelines explaining outgrower scheme Guidelines about market channels and options	Comparative study price/location/scheme/company, etc. Alternative use of wood-producing species
Rotation age/time frame (one short-term income)	AF/diversification of crop Employment opportunities (with company/other off-farm) Training/ awareness of BOP (best operational practices)	Analysis of land use/crop options Minimum livelihoods requirement/ household Improved farmer-level silviculture guidelines: best operational practices (BOPs) Other crops which are feasible	Reducing rotation time (5-8 years)
Outgrowers widely dispersed	Fact sheet about economic returns by tree farm size and distance from factory Minimum scale of operation
Land status	Clarification/verification of land status (ownership, use rights, tree rights)	Identify traditional land classification and regulations Identify sacred/ historically/ culturally important site	Regional land use plans Land classification Recognition of adat land
Community capacity, skills knowledge	Training Farmer appropriate documents Cross visits	Training needs assessment Looking at appropriate existing (PAR) social institution	Community financial capacity empowerment options
Community finance	Local social-economic infrastructure	Try cooperatives/loan programmes (PAR) Looking at appropriate existing (PAR) social institution	Community financial capacity empowerment options
Develop trust between partners	Regular dialogue Newsletter Advertise CD programmes Agreement document	Analysis of community perception Existing customary laws/ community institution	Partnership: government - private sector - civil society
Use of local knowledge	Cultural sensitivity Training conflict resolution	PAR of traditional NRM (natural resource management) -medicinal plans, fruits, spices, rattan Integrate (tested) in scheme
Government support	Socialization, fact sheet about government policy regulations Maintaining good interpersonal relationships Forum to discuss the impact of policy to different parties	Research on effectiveness governance/government supports Research on effectiveness of government funding	Regional autonomy needs to be more effective/more locally specific legislation
Non-formal actors (irregular, illegal, invisible)	Mobilize judicial system/law enforcement
Infrastructure (poor)	Regional development plan	Local government annual development plan forum (from village up to district level)	Priority scale in support to spatial development
Partner representation

Scoping of direction and future participatory action research

PRIORITY ONE

Developing trust between partners/partners representation (conflict resolution mechanism)

PARTIES CONTRIBUTION

· LATIN (NGO roles): facilitator and trainer (for cases in outer island)

· Companies

· Research

ACTION

· Dialogue between NGOs and companies (to identify type of activities and budget requirements)

· Meeting with broader stakeholders (to identify type of activities and budget requirements)

· Research institution to identify different mechanism for conflict resolution (practical applications of conflict resolution issues and identify root of problems)

PRIORITY TWO

· Clarification of government roles/expectations/regional land use plans/supports/regulations/perceptions on regulation

PARTIES CONTRIBUTION

· LATIN: through the local institutions, to empower capacity in having dialogue with governments

· Companies

· Research (CIFOR)

STEPS

· Making an inventory of issues and related other parties

· Forum exchange information on related problems in different provinces (WKS, Arara, Finnantara, RAPP)

· Informal dialogue with NGO (Latin) and CIFOR to plan on initiating dialogue with government and privates

· Formal dialogue with government

· Formal dialogue for action

· Activities to address the problem

· Developing trusts b/w partners/partners representation

· conflict resolution mechanism

· Parties contributed:

· LATIN roles: facilitator and trainer (for cases in outer islands)

· Companies

· Research

STEPS

· Dialogue between NGOs and companies - to identify type of activities and budget requirements

· Meeting with broader stakeholders - to identify type of activities and budget requirements

· Research institution to identify different mechanisms for conflict resolution (practical application of issues and identify root of problems) - identify activities and budget requirements conflict resolution

SOUTH AFRICAN GROUP

Tools

· Project assessment/ guidelines tool (FAO)

· Spatial information system for site selection, strategic planning using wide stakeholder input:

· Environment

· Geophysical

· Social

· Water

· Infrastructure

· Centralized, on-line information database

· General process for facilitating contractors SMMEs

· Develop procedures for certification of small-scale growers

Research (PAR)

· Socio-economic impacts of existing projects

· Baseline economic studies in "new" project areas

· Hydrological studies in certain "oversubscribed" catchments

· Identify research priorities through consultative forum addressing key issues:

· Interim livelihood (during plantation establishment and maturation phase)

· Impact of HIV/AIDS on existing plantation schemes

· Benefit sharing - communal schemes

· Institutional

· Designs within communities

· Lambasi Project for PAR proposal

· Maputoland PAR (Sappi-linked)

Policy/support (local)

· Programme for capacity-building within stakeholder groups

· Overarching government policy statement of intent recording forestry outgrower programmes resulting in better cooperative governance

· Outgrower representation - how to handle

· Information dissemination (radio)

· Market information

· Legislation

· Technical

· Support programme for independent growers

· Marketing

· Certification

Social	Economics	Environment	Management	Policy
Baseline study <-->				Nsobani Plant (DWAF)
		Biophysical study
			Constitute project team Institutional arrangements (trusts)
				Water licence Environmental authorization Legal
	Funding -->start-up --> operational
				Information sharing (institutionalizing)
			Operational project agent
Develop assessment guidelines

¹⁹  Workshop facilitation process outputs were compiled by Christine Holding Anyonge.

²⁰  In reading this Chapter, please refer to Annex 1 (Meeting agenda).