Annex 3 : Key note presentation by Fredrick Owino
Some lessons from capacity building
for national forest programmes in selected African countries
Presentation prepared for the
Second Technical Meeting convened by the Forest Policy and Planning Division
of FAO, November 24 – 25, 2003, Rome.
Fredrick Owino
Forest Resources International, P. O. Box 13762, Nairobi,
Kenya. [email protected]
Preamble
In the period between 1998 and 2003,
the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) implemented a capacity building for
national forest programmes (nfp) project which revolved around regional workshops
for training of key actors in nfp from 16 African countries, with support
from the European Union, DFID, FAO and UNEP. The project also supported in-country
training workshops on nfp process. The specific objectives of AAS nfp project
were (i) to develop nfps as the framework for ensuring new, alternative and
country-specific solutions to central forest policy and institutional issues,
and (ii) to promote the application of nfp process, through training of key
actors from participating countries. The project programme provided the much
needed support to the selected countries (Senegal, Mali, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon,
Gabon, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
Namibia and Botswana). The project also made significant contributions to
the on-going global dialogue on sustainable forest management (SFM) through
its African Forestry Experts Group (AFEG). For example, AFEG made substantial
impacts in the deliberations of the African Forestry and Wildlife Commission
(AFWC) and the Inter-governmental Forum on Forests (IFF). Having served as
the co-ordinator of this project, I wish to share some of the experiences
from the project with participants at this meeting.
Variation in nfp progress among countries
The 16 countries had been deliberately
selected to represent the wide variation, which exists among African countries,
in progress with their nfps. The countries had the following profiles:
Most of the countries had Tropical Forestry
Action Plan (TFAP) based forest master but the processes had stalled either
at the early planning phase, or immediately after the planning stage had been
completed. In both cases, lack of local support, declining external support
and weak political commitment have hampered smooth progress of the process;
Though participation of NGOs, the private
sector and civil society had been encouraged in some countries, the degree
of their active consultation still leaves a lot to be desired;
Only a few of the countries (like Uganda and Malawi) had
adopted cross-sectoral approaches in formulating their nfps in the overall
context of the agriculture and land use policies. But even in these countries,
dialogue and coordination still remained constrained by weak articulation
of sectoral policies and often dispersed and uncoordinated institutions;
Updating of the nfps had been carried out
within a 5-year period of implementation in only three of the countries (Tanzania,
Cameroon, Ghana). Interestingly, a few nfps, which could not be implemented
due to lack of support, had also been revised (Ethiopia), even before they
been implemented on the ground; and
Most of the countries had embarked on their
nfp process at the instigation and support of donors and the process stalled
upon withdrawal of donor support.
Objectives of the qualitative assessment
General
Towards the end of the AAS nfp project,
an attempt was made to assess progress made in some of the countries in moving
their nfp process forward, as supported by the project. The main objective
was to determine the extent to which project beneficiaries (key actors) had
achieved any improvement/facilitation in their roles back in their countries.
The approach and methods adopted in this assessment recognized that an nfp
is a country-specific and country-owned process, which aims through multi-sectoral
collaboration to negotiate, re-examine and design new roles, rights and responsibilities
of various stakeholders towards SFM. It was recognized that the nfp process
requires changes in working style such as sustaining participatory consultations
with a broad array of stakeholders. Realizing that there is no single factor
or mix of factors that will guarantee nfp effectiveness, and with the limited
experience at that time, it was decided to approach the assessment from a
qualitative viewpoint and with an impressionistic view. For example, the assessment
aimed to identify and evaluate the deliberate choices, decisions and implementation
initiatives developed by each country to design and put into practice an nfp
process. The assessment attempted to unearth (i) how past planning and policy
processes had taken shape, (ii) what the implications of these efforts are
in terms of forest policy development and institutional reforms, (iii) how
successful they have been in retrospect, and (iv) what still needs to be done.
Towards that end, the evaluators developed
an Evaluation Framework (EF) that attempts to demonstrate past lessons and
experiences through an elaborated set of criteria and indicators. While this
enabled rational comparison of progress in the four countries selected, it
is essential to realize that each process is different and therefore requires
an innovative, flexible, and adaptive approach to its assessment. Furthermore,
it is important to note that this three-tiered framework is a first attempt,
drawing from little monitoring and evaluation experience on nfp processes.
As a result, the EF remains a working document consistently being redrafted
in accordance with greater understanding of the requirements that will make
the process an effective agent of change.
Level I Assessment: Design and
implementation arrangements
This level of assessment focused on the
structural arrangements in place to get the NFP up and running may be defined
by a well-positioned cohesive system of individuals and organizations that
make the best use of their resources to attain high levels of widespread political
commitment and momentum. The organization and composition of these structures
are without a doubt a key factor in mobilizing interest from within and outside
of the forestry circles. This mobilization is perhaps the greatest added value
of the nfp approach - achieving consent and agreement by all stakeholders
on a vision for the sector and way forward by all those contributing to the
management of forest resources.
Assessing the key institutional government apparatus designed
to drive the process from inception to the implementation and monitoring phases
will be crucial in gaining a better understanding of why successes and bottlenecks
to progressive change are occurring. A useful start in evaluating these structural
arrangements moving the process is to document who has been and who is involved
in the various units, groups, committees and forums to allow for quality consultations
and dialogue
Among other things this level of investigation
included evaluating the:
-
Positioning of appropriate structures
(i.e., nfp Coordination Unit being built upon existing mechanisms);
-
Definition and agreement of mandates, roles and functions
of these structures (i.e., nfp Steering Group has wide representation of
strategic members to provide oversight of the process);
-
Quality of management and leadership within these structures
(i.e., nfp Coordinator effectively works with various individuals and institutions)
-
Working relations between these structures (i.e., nfp
Coordination Units are well connected with a flexible and supportive 'donor'
constituency).
Level II Assessment: Procedural
requirements
There are several procedural requirements
that should be followed when developing an nfp process. Experience from elsewhere
suggested that there are three critical internal processes needed - information
gathering, building consensus and policy building. In practical terms this
means that there are key initiatives needed, such as sector reviews that aim
to fill information and analysis gaps, eventually assisting in the design
and feasibility of future policy measures. At the same time, the value of
these reviews will only remain high if proper country led discussion and negotiation
is undertaken to gain widespread understanding and agreement amongst the multiple
stakeholder groups who have a role in making the nfp a reality on the ground.
Ownership at all levels, will be required to instigate the necessary policy,
legal and institutional changes that are needed to encourage participation
and foster horizontal and vertical partnerships within and across sectors.
The goal of the nfp in this regard is to promote ownership and keep the widespread
debate of forestry issues 'alive' continuing throughout society to overcome
the limitations of past planning frameworks (i.e., Tropical Forest Action
Plan) that were never fully endorsed or implemented.
In the aspects of policy, planning and reform
initiatives, various elements that the nfp concept is based upon were
chosen for detailed evaluation, in an effort to improve the policy and regulatory
environment, promote collaborative initiatives and strengthen sector institutions.
In constructing a picture of how these elements are being put into practice,
the evaluators have loosely appraised what specific actions have been taken,
their direction or purpose and sequence in which they are taken, and the environment
in which they occur. Consequently, the evaluators intended to measure what
extent the process is progressing via the central Forest Authority (FA) initiatives.
Based on experiences thus far it becomes evident that the FA will undertake
various critical steps in their national strategic planning efforts. Some
criterion demonstrating these efforts is highlighted in the EF as illustrated
below
In terms of process principles, it was recognized
that the nfp approach is unique in its significant emphasis placed upon how
these processes are initiated, designed, debated, agreed, promoted, implemented
and monitored. Some key traits of what makes the nfp different from past national
planning processes in the forest sector include whether or not the FA and
other key stakeholders have:
-
Secured widespread commitment at various
institutional levels expressed in a national forest policy statement.
-
Maintained sovereignty and established national priorities
through country leadership.
-
Recognized and institutionalized ownership of the nfp
within the FA.
-
Promoted and designed decision-making process that are
inclusive, transparent and participatory.
-
Promoted and maintained systematic raising of awareness
on forestry issues at all levels of the society.
-
Promoted and supported the preparation, adaptation and
modification of prioritized strategies through iterative planning procedures.
Level III Assessment: nfp in the context of overall national
development
The profile, whether high or low placed
upon forests by governments, is largely based upon the overall contribution
forest resources make to the national economy and wider society, is reflected
through the adoption of varying management practices (i.e., emphasis on production
versus conservation). Some countries are way ahead of the game in achieving
sustainable forestry principles, have overcome challenges faced by others,
and as a result will have varying priority areas of concern in the nfp process.
Consequently, experience suggests that the content of each nfp product will
be shaped according to the strategic intervention point and foundation it
is built upon (i.e., commercial/production, poverty alleviation, environment
or rural development), and therefore will vary from one process to the next.
Main points and lessons learned
General status of forestry institutions
As compared to other sectors, forestry institutions
in the sub-region are weak. Despite frequently expressed government concerns
with environment and forests, the sector is accorded low development priority
in most of the countries. For example, in Ethiopia the once strong Forest
Department has to a “Forestry Team” within a department of Environment and
Forestry within the Ministry of Agriculture. The once robust and respected
Kenya Forest Department has lately been much maligned and is currently undergoing
a complete purge. The key problem with this progressive weakening of forestry
institutions is that they have become marginalized in national development
priority. It is real dilemma that as the countries wake up to the critical
roles of forests and environment, they have greatly weakened relevant institutions
with which to address the imperatives. Moreover, the weak institutions are
pushed to the periphery in pecking order for both local and external support.
Thus, government budget allocations to forestry institutions have steadily
declined in all the countries.
The factors which have led to the above
unsatisfactory situation include inappropriate policies and weaknesses in
their implementation, rising land use conflicts, illegal forest activities
including corruption among forestry staff, declining donor support, etc. There
is need for radical policy and institutional reforms to re-orient and revamp
the current weak forestry institutions. Once this is accomplished, more resources
can be realized for the institutions, including forestry research institutions.
It is unlikely that increased support for research can be sustained without
the policy and institutional reforms. It is important that research managers
and researchers also address the underlying policy and institutional issues.
Uganda is one of the leading countries in addressing the necessary policy
and institutional reforms.
Participation
In sharp contrast to the previous
situation where the public forest administration (PFA) was the referee as
well as the dominant player in the sector, it is becoming the practice, in
most of the countries, to formulate and implement national forest programmes
which recognize and promote roles and contributions from various players ranging
from government agencies, NGOs, tree farmers, private sector, local communities,
etc. Thus, the roles of new players and actors like the private sector, NGO,
CBO, civil society, etc. are now fully recognized and articulated in the new
national forest programmes (nfp) while there is significant role change in
PFA from the previous centralized executing/implementing agency to a largely
regulatory and standard setting agency. The key actors and their roles are
shown in Table1.
Specifically, new forest policies of the
countries give more emphasis to community, tree farmer and private sector
participation forest management. This emphasis on participation by other players
is not only in line with the new forest principles but is also in recognition
of the direct roles which forests play in providing basic needs and in poverty
alleviation for local communities. For example, managing forests with people
participation is fast gaining popularity in different parts of the world where
it is practised in the forms of “Collaborative Forest Management” or “Joint
Forest Management” or simply “Community Forest Management”.
While these community based initiative show
some promise in the future, they are still beset by deep seated mistrust between
PFA and community organizations with PFA retaining decision making and community
groups lacking know how and negotiating powers. In most cases, community groups
merely offer labour for forest protection and management.
Table 1. Key actors and corresponding roles
in the forest sector
Actions
|
Actors
|
Central government
|
Local government
|
NGO/Civil society
|
Private sector
|
Formulation and revision of policy and legislation
(all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Minor contributor
|
Minor contributor
|
Observer
|
Development of national strategies and plans (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Observer
|
Minor contributor
|
Minor contributor
|
Management of forest reserves and protected forest
areas (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Secondary responsibility
|
Communities provide support
|
Contributor
|
Management of plantations on government land
|
Lead responsibility (all countries)
|
Supporting role (all countries)
|
May provide support
|
- Observer (all countries)
- Limited participation (Uganda and Tanzania)
|
Forestry research (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Observer
|
International NGOs contribute
|
Contributor
|
Forestry extension (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Supporting role
|
Contributor
|
Observer
|
Management of private plantations/woodlots (Kenya,
Uganda, Tanzania)
|
Advisory role
|
Supporting role
|
Secondary role
|
Lead role
|
Licensing of activities under the Forests Act
|
Lead responsibility (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility for Local Council forests (Kenya,
Uganda, Tanzania)
Observer
|
Observer
|
Observer
|
Training for forestry staff (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Observer
|
Supporting role
|
Contributor
|
Integration with regional/international forest initiatives
(all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Observer
|
Contributor
|
Contributor
|
Development of investment and trade
|
Lead responsibility (all countries)
|
Observer
|
Supporting role
|
Emerging lead responsibility (Kenya, U ganda, Tanzania)
Observer (other countries)
|
Monitoring and evaluation of implementation (all countries)
|
Lead responsibility
|
Contributor
|
Contributor
|
Contributor
|
The need to sustain an active nfp team
Experience in some countries indicate that
best practice in nfp implementation is to put in place an effective “NFP Team”
to drive the process. The team, constituting the key actors in the process,
must be clearly defined and enabled to operate with maximum flexibility across
sectors. The team need to be fully supported to ensure continuous participation
by the many stakeholders. The extent to which the team remains active and
well co-ordinated is an important determinant of nfp progress.
Support for policy and institutional reforms
The AAS nfp project learnt some important
early lessons were learned which should inform future directions for such
support. Firstly, that existing capacities in many African countries to formulate
and implement holistic nfps is very limited and calls for more substantial
and longer-term support. Secondly, that in the early stages, support should
focus on the needed policy and institutional reforms. For countries, which
have already accomplished these, the support should focus on strategic planning
for forest sector activities. Thirdly, that the issue of country ownership
of the nfp process should be addressed right from the onset of intended support.
The complementary roles and responsibilities of country and regional organizations
in the capacity building initiatives need to be clearly defined.
Regional collaboration
Learning from the above lessons, it has
become clear that new partnerships are needed for sustained and more effective
capacity building for nfps. For example, there is need to forge partnership
with other continental organizations and to work with, and through the existing
sub-regional organisations and initiatives such as the African Timber Organisation
(ATO), the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS), the Permanent
Inter-States Committee for Combating Drought in the Sahel (CILSS), the Inter
Governmental Agency for Development (IGAD) and the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), the Congo Basin initiative, CEFDHAC, COMIFAC, etc. Moreover,
the support should be linked directly to relevant country processes/initiatives
in order to ensure country ownership.
The potential role of NEPAD
Perhaps the most important lesson, learnt from AAS nfp project,
is that the required policy and institutional reforms often call for high-level
political advocacy and sharing of experiences among countries. The New Partnership
for Africa Development (NEPAD), being the highest profile political forum
on development has great potential role to play in mobilizing political and
material support for nfps in the continent.
Some suggestions for future development
The experiences from this project
have clearly indicated that, for the primary target beneficiaries (key actors)
to better positioned to make a change in their countries, they need more follow-up
support in their in-country processes.
Training of trainers approach adopted can
be efficient and effective. However, for an area which is new to most beneficiaries,
they need several exposures to the workshop to attain reasonable proficiency.
Such initiatives should therefore be planned over much longer time frames.