IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES

This section provides an indication of the major accomplishments of the countries as a consequence of the national forest programme, as it compares and contrasts the situation.. In addition, this section presents an indication of the qualitative changes brought about by the nfp and examines whether changes in forest policies, legislation and institutional arrangements have influenced qualitative improvements as implied by the nfp process.

Policy and Institutional arrangements

Founded upon the recommendations of the sector review and strategic planning phases of the nfp formulation, a policy and institutional reform was carried out in all the five countries (Gabon, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan) to accommodate policies and laws which were recognized as critical to sustainable forestry development. As a matter of fact, Nigeria did not have a separate forest sector policy prior to embarking upon the nfp process. At the time, the national forestry policy was an obscure component of an overall  Agricultural Policy (Adedoyin 2001). The revised national policies to a great extent, are more comprehensive, imbibe the spirit and letter of the agreements made at the UNCED, as well as the principles derived from international dialogues (IPF/IFF/UNFF) on forestry as explained earlier in this document. In essence it laid down the framework for forestry to contribute to social, economic and environmental well-being of mankind. Across the five countries, it could be said that at the policy level the forestry sector is increasingly receiving attention, and the role of forests and trees in environmental protection, biodiversity maintenance and in combating land degradation and desertification is becoming increasingly appreciated. Again at the policy and legislative level the implementation of the nfp process in Nigeria, Namibia, Sudan and Senegal has contributed in building up an iterative forest sector planning process. For example Nigeria concluded a revision of its nfp in 2002, and has drafted its first ever National Forest Act; Senegal modified its forestry code in 1993, adopted a regionalisation approach in 1996, modied again its forestry code in 1998 and is at present 2003, in the process of updating its Regional Forest Action Plans. 

Implementation of the revised national forest policies brought about reforms within  the institutional framework for forestry in the five case study countries. Gabon, Sudan, Senegal, created various new institutions while Nigeria and Namibia revised the roles, mandates, rights and responsibilities of  existing institutions. A major phenomenon resulting from nfp implementation is the focus on the improvement of the organizational efficiency of the forest administration. The countries that are predominantly semi-arid (Namibia, Senegal and Sudan) made more efforts in recognition of the various categories of actors- government or public administration, the private investors, the local community and civil society and the non-governmental organizations; and the international community. Within each broad category are witnessed quite a number of smaller user-based or geographic-based groups. In Senegal, Namibia, Sudan and dry ecozone of Nigeria, the herders group are quite as influential as the farmer groups, while the timber logging companies are quite powerful in Gabon. The rights and responsibilities of these groups are changing. Recognition and identification of these institutions is a fundamental step into forest sector governance, despite the fact that these national institutions are weak, thus hindering effective implementation of the nfp process.

Decentralization

In Namibia it is presumed that the decree of decentralization witnessed in the forestry sector is not owed to the nfp process, rather that it stemmed from overall policy of the government to devolve more power to the regional and local governments. The forest service, however, is centrally planned and controlled, but has a network of offices in each of the 13 political regions of the country. In contrast, major shifts towards decentralization in Senegal was ushered in by the nfp process. For instance, the Forest code of 1993, revised in 1998 gave a legal backing to devolution of authority to regions, counties and rural communities in forestry matters. In addition Law 96 – 07, is viewed as the legal instrument ushering in decentralization in the sector. This decentralization  provided the forestry sector the opportunity to get integrated into the national framework of the evolving socio-economic scene in Senegal.

Despite a very long history of the concept of decentralization in Sudan dating back to 1824, decentralization process in forestry administration is still in its infancy in the country. Nevertheless, devolution of management authority and division of forest resources between federal government and state governments was achieved under the nfp, with the advent of a federal system of government in 1994. On a closer look, the enunciation of the decree allocating all  existing institutional, community or private  forests  to the entity which established them is a milestone in the decentralization process in the forestry sector in Sudan (Abel Nour, 2001).

In view of the preceding, it has been noted that weaknesses exist in forest institutions at the national level, across the 5 sub-Saharan African countries under review, which is a major factor hindering successful nfp implementation at the local level. Particularly pertinent are the lack of capacity and the lack of financial and institutional means for participation of rural populations in decision-making. Tackling these issues will require financial commitment and ingenuity of all parties involved.

Financing of national forest programme

In several African countries most of the investment made in the forestry  has been sourced externally. For example, Senegal contributes less than 10%  of additional funds required to implement its nfp and 90% of the funding of forestry initiatives comes from outside the country, in form of grants. Rural communities’ contribution to forest development is mainly in kind, while NGOs , like the State, also depend on external funding. Private sector’s  financial contribution to forest development is very minimal if not altogether absent due to unprofitability of such investments to date (Cissé. 2001). To halt and subsequently reverse this trend is one of the aims of the nfp process in Africa. The challenge is how African countries can position themselves in order to mobilize new and additional sources of internal funding to fill this gap and still keep investments at a reasonable level.

Analysis of financing of nfp in the five case study countries afforded us some clues, on efforts made so far along this line. In Gabon, some proactive logging companies have begun to made efforts to draw up forest management plans. This is an indirect way of making financial investment in the sector. Gabon also plans to reduce the nine different types of forest taxes to 2 or at most 3 to facilitate their recovering and contribution of the private sector more directly to investments in t he sector. Meanwhile Forestry Environment Sectorial Programme (PSFE) , which is a multi-donor programme has been established in Gabon with an estimated cost of  sixty two million US Dollars (62, 000, 000).

In contrast to Gabon, current levels of investment in the forest sector of Namibia have been dominated by the public sector and the nfp has not made noticeable changes in private sector investment in the forest sector. In Nigeria, positive pronouncements by government to invest in its forest sector has been clearly made but translation of these to actual investment has not been forthcoming  (FDF, 2001). To illustrate, one of the recommendations emanating from nfp process is to incorporate all aspects of forestry in the computation of national accounting and a working group was set up to this effect. Further more an awareness of the correct contribution of all aspects of forestry to the national economy was emphasized with the intention that it would spur the public and private sector and civil society to mobilize domestic funds to finance operations in the sector. The Federal government and State governments took the bold step and contributed to financing the nfp process from 1992 to 1996. The blue print on National Forestry Programmes was developed and Federal Executive Council approved US$ 112.5 million to execute the programme from 2000 to 2003, but these funds were never released to this end. In general finances mobilized at domestic level have not been comprehensively substantiated. On the whole, however, international community invested about US$ 156.5 million  between 1991 to 2001 in the forestry sector of Nigeria (Adedoyin, 2001).

In Sudan, the impact of the nfp process on the investment in the forestry sector both by GOS and donor community is positive as investment increased substantially (Abdel Nour 2001). Investment by GOS and donors was around LS 5.0 million1 (US$450,000) and US$ 7.5 million respectively prior to the nfp. With the advent of nfp, some 16 forestry projects were operating simultaneously in the forestry sector with a total finance of LS 101 million ( US$9.09 million); US$ 25.13 million; DM 21.52 and 1.0 million pounds sterling. It is important to note that since 1989 the GOS faced diplomatic and economic sanctions thus the overall foreign aid dropped from an annual average of  $900 million before 1989 to less than $ 50 million a year during the 1990s. Consequently nfp process in Sudan benefited nearly exclusively from domestic finances when external financial support was withheld due to political reasons and nfp had to be integrated into the country’s 10 year development plan, The Comprehensive National Strategy – CNS 1992 – 2002 (Abdel Nour, 2001).

Whiteman (2002),  reporting on an EC-FAO Project on sustainable forest management in Africa, where FAO  was working with African countries to examine the effect of fiscal policies on the implementation of sustainable forest management, declared that innovative or new sources of finance to support investment in the forestry sector are currently not very well developed. Analysis of current status of innovative financing in the sector identified three key sources, namely:       

The five case study countries collect forest revenue principally from taxes and fees on traditional forest produce such as timber, fuel wood, bushmeat etc .

Table 9 Major accomplishments from nfp implementation in the countries under study