National Forest Programmes (nfp), the origin of which dates to the mid 1980s, is a variant of Forest Master Plans (FMPs), Forest Sector Reviews (FSRs), and Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP). The aims of all these plans (FMP, FSR, and TFAP) have been to guide the positive development of the forestry sector in countries and to facilitate sustainable forest management. However, existing evidence suggests that these various forestry strategies have not had the desired impact because they did not adequately address the social, economic, institutional, and political arrangements instrumental in the success of such plans at the local, national, regional and international levels (Bekele 1998).
After more than a decade's careful and thorough reviews of the evolution of forestry planning processes in various countries based on the three strategies mentioned above, the Untied Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (UNCED or the Rio Earth Summit), as well as the series of Intergovernmental deliberations on forestry planning and development issues under: International Panel on Forests (IPF), International Forum on Forests (IFF), and currently United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), endorsed nfps as an important means of addressing forest sector issues in a holistic, comprehensive and multisectoral manner. Furthermore, these continuing international dialogue stress that for any strategy to succeed, there should be global consensus on the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests; and that the nfp should be seen as an iterative forest sector planning process leading to the development of a comprehensive forest policy framework (FAO 2001).
National forest programmes may be viewed from two different perspectives: from a broad based sense, the term national forest programmes (nfp) encompasses the full range of policies, institutions, plans and programmes to manage, utilize, protect and enhance forest resources within a given country; in the restricted sense, the term national forest programme (nfp) refers to a specific national process of planning, coordination, institutional reform and capacity building in the forest sector in accordance with internationally recognized principles and guidelines. For the purposes of this synthesis, the term is used in its broad sense. A noteworthy historical evolution of term nfp, is that towards the late 1990s, the designation nfp came to be known as National Forest Programme and no longer National Forestry Programme, to emphasize the cross-sectoral linkages outside the traditional forestry profession (African Academy of Sciences, 2000).
Several countries have begun formulation and implementation of national forest programmes. However the formulation and implementation of nfps within the past decade in many developing countries, have been constraint by a number of critical factors (FAO, 2001) especially the following:
In 1998, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) undertook a questionnaire survey to assess the overall status of implementation of national forest programme. In general, the survey revealed that the impact of nfp implementation has been extremely varied and in several cases the process has been too slow or even stalled for a number of reasons. In their earlier forms, variants of the nfps such as TFAP and NFAP were often initiated largely due to donor support availability in this area and this donor-dependency has arrested the development of sustainable programmes that rely on internal resource mobilization. Efforts, which were primarily donor-dependent could not be sustained once external support dwindled.
Thus revitalizing nfps requires a thorough assessment of the experiences in various countries and to identify what can be realistically accomplished. With this view in mind the EC-FAO Programme on Sustainable Forest Management in Africa ACP Countries undertook case studies in five countries in Africa (Gabon, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan) to provide a clear indication of the factors that have contributed to success or otherwise of nfp formulation and implementation.
These case studies have highlighted the divergent experiences with regards to the process of nfp and its implementation. Although the experiences of the nfp implementation process for the five countries cited above is now available in five separate volumes, it is however difficult to fully appreciate in a comparative and contrasting manner the constraints and enabling factors that have characterized the nfp implementation processes between these countries. Yet this comparative analysis is important because forestry planning and implementation policies could be more cost effective and politically feasible across countries or regions that share common characteristics and similarities in terms of ecological, economic and socio-cultural conditions.
The purpose of this synthesis report is to put together in a single volume, and in a contrasting and comparative manner the experiences of the formulation and implementation of the nfps in the five countries, with the aim of obtaining valuable information on factors that determine the success or otherwise of nfp formulation and implementation in five African countries south of the Sahara. The report will also attempt to bring out data on the economic viability of national forest programmes. Before focusing on how the five countries have fared in the formulation and implementation processes of nfps, a short brief on the experiences of all African countries is presented. This approach is essential for comparative purposes and appraisal of the factors that have enhanced or inhibited formulation and implementation of these initiatives
