Title: Implementing National Forest Programmes: Small Steps for
Big Changes
Presented by: Simmathiri Appanah
(FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok) and Eduardo Mansour (FAO
Forestry Department, Rome)
The IPF/IFF Proposals for Action promulgate policy frameworks for forestry management that are based on the national forest programmes. But several countries in the Asia-Pacific region have been working on implementing the national forest action programmes, and are asking what would be the additional value of IPF/IFF’s national forest programmes. The national forest action programmes and related policy formulations are top down approaches that have been led by forestry departments, and offered technocratic solutions to forestry management problems. They were not participatory or multi-sectoral, and overly directed at commercial aspects of forestry. As a result, these policy programmes could not address the inequities and perverse policies, and were generally ineffective in bringing about sustainable forest management. The forestry policies, as they were framed, could not accurately demonstrate the contribution of the sector to national development nor make the linkages to poverty alleviation. In contrast, the national forest programmes aim to combine the social and political components of sustainable development into forestry management. Through a wide range of approaches, the nfps are attempting to introduce broad inter-sectoral and participatory approaches to forest management. The nfps promote a cyclic and iterative process of policy development encompassing both the planning and implementation stages at the national and sub-national levels. Within the framework, it also provides for a monitoring and evaluation system. This comprehensive forestry policy framework is able to link with other strategies and sectors involved in rural poverty alleviation. Through such a process the nfps are able to make the additional linkages as well as communicate effectively with the policy makers. Together with other agencies, FAO is actively fostering this process. One major objective is to link forestry with poverty reduction strategies.
Title: Addressing Priority Cross-sectoral Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region to Support National Forest Programme Implementation
Presented by: Jimmie Rogers and Aleki Sisisfa
(Secretariat of the Pacific Community, SPC)
The Pacific Islands region comprises twenty-two island countries and territories scattered over a vast area of ocean. The main challenges of the forestry sector in the very unique circumstances of the region are the following: (i) agroforestry in the Atoll Islands; (ii) watershed management and reforestation in the medium and high island countries; (iii) ensuring sustainable harvesting of the forest resources in the larger islands, including controlling foreign logging companies for their harvesting methods.
In many countries, efforts need to be strengthened to:
• sector-securing political stability;
• resolving conflicts in land tenure and ownership;
• develop or update forestry legislation and enforce the laws;
• increase political advocacy and awareness of decision-makers about the implications of round log exports, for example, benefits of downstream processing exporting of other forest products than round logs;
• opening the forestry sector and recognizing cross-sectoral linkages.
The forestry sector has not been conducive for donors although assistance to apply good practices and to implement sustainable forest management. SPC can assist to complement scarce national resources with regionally based resources. However, it needs to be noted that one of the major issues that donors emphasize is the integrated development, for example between forestry and agriculture.
More than ever before, cross-sectoral collaboration is
critical in the forestry sector in the Pacific region.
Title: Strengthening local stakeholder participation in national
decision-making
Presented by: Peter Walpole
(Asia Forest Network, Philippines)
In the last three decades, there have been many broad shifts in Asian societies reflecting both social change and resource access. Land allocation and tenure are part of these shifts and not surprisingly have affected the use and allocation of state forestlands as they cover more than fifty percent of the region. Areas of remaining good forest cover continue to be allocated to either timber production or conservation of wildlife and water. In areas where there are degraded forests and high social occupancy, different forms of social forestry and community forest management have emerged. The overemphasis on timber production in the past did not lead to communities becoming entrepreneurs in the production and marketing of NTFPs, and contribute to the national economic growth. Owing to failure of such expectations, continued loss and degradation of forests, and population pressure, forest management objectives have expanded into social and ecological considerations, and space has been created for a varied array of stakeholders to participate in national decision making.
Stakeholder participation may come in the form of coordination and feedback which in turn encourage transparency and accountability in national policy dialogues. Broad-based participation gives national decision making a chance to build from local experiences and integrate across sectors, budgets, policies and programs, an ongoing framework for forest management. Such stakeholder participation in national decision-making has been fostered by governments seeking active participation, lobbying by advocacy groups, and exposure for policy makers by regional interest groups. In Asia, there is a multitude of ways in which such multi-stakeholder dialogue processes currently feed into the national decision-making on forest management. These processes focus on different objectives and employ different strategies for generating interest, strengthen participation, and build partnerships. Effective approaches that the various groups employ include site visits, meetings and discussions with legislative officials, and other organizations which result in adjustments and reviews of polices and programs that are not sufficiently working. Support structures are also set up to allow for planning and management review processes to take place more openly, and decisions and responsibilities are reached. In the process, learning and providing relevant and contemporary information is made, which can assist local and central governments to be fully committed to devolution of governance in natural resource management. Participation may not overcome the conflicts between different stakeholders, but it would put communities on a more even keel and give greater ease to the process and equity of participation.
The present efforts of FAO to support participation of all stakeholders in the decision-making process of formulating a sustainable forest management program is much broader and more comprehensive, with a clearer timeframe and mandate.
Title: National Assessment of Vanuatu’s Progress in Implementing
the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action - A tool to Assist Countries to Measure
Progress and Establish Priorities for Sustainable Forest Management
(SFM)
Presented by: Peter Lawrence
(Australia) and Hanington Tate (Vanuatu)
In November 2003, Vanuatu and Australia conducted a national assessment of Vanuatu’s progress in implementing the IPF/IFF proposals for action following an invitation from the Vanuatu Department of Forests. Two workshops and a wrap-up discussion were held. The first workshop (two days) and a wrap-up discussion (half day) were held in Port Vila on the island of Efate, and the second workshop was held in Luganville on the island of Espiritu Santo. A broad range of stakeholders, including government agencies, landowners, sawmillers, environmental non-governmental organizations and representatives from the business community participated in the workshops.
A small two-person facilitation team from Australia helped guide the assessment. Using the Australian-PROFOR Summary of the proposals for action as the assessment framework and a simple assessment methodology developed by Australia, the workshop participants assessed the 100 summarized proposals for action in terms of their relevance to priority and implementation progress (achievements and impediments) in the Vanuatu context.
The overarching objectives were to:
• facilitate effective national forest policy planning;
• integrate national forest policy planning and national development planning; and
• identify progress against international actions.
The specific objectives of the exercise were:
• assess the relevance, priority and implementation progress against each summarized proposal for action;
• strengthen national SFM planning capacity;
• identify impediments to implementation;
• raise awareness and improve understanding of the international SFM discussion;
• link countries with donors; and
• provide the basis of a report to the UNFF.
Of the 100 summarized proposals for action, 68 were considered relevant to Vanuatu, out of which 45 were considered of high priority, all with varying levels of implementation progress.
The key lessons learned were that the assessment:
• facilitates the further identification and elaboration of national SFM priorities;
• enhances communication across government and between government and other stakeholders; and
• facilitates a more holistic, cross-sectoral approach to SFM and resource management generally.
In terms of the assessment framework and methodology (together they form the assessment tool), the key lessons learned were that the:
• assessment tool is effective, simple, cost effective and requires a small time requirement;
• for the exercise to be effective, the facilitation team needs to provide a clear assessment context that links the international and national levels and emphasises country achievements towards implementation; and
• facilitation teams need to have a detailed understanding of the local context and SFM situation.
Title: The National Forest Programme Facility
Presented by: Thomas Enters (FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok)
The National Forest Programme Facility (in short “Facility”) has established itself as an important source of information and support to countries which are either currently implementing a national forest programme (nfp) or are initiating a national policy dialogue on forests. Hosted by FAO, the Facility operates under the authority of a Steering Committee representing the key partners for forestry development in the developing world, through a multidonor trust fund supported by the European Commission, United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland, France and Norway, and with in-kind support from Germany.
The Facility’s trademark is to stimulate participation in the nfp process by providing grants directly to stakeholders in partner countries, based on a purely country-driven programme of activities. The emphasis of Facility support is on enhancing governance in the forestry sector through stakeholder participation in nfp development and implementation, formulation and adoption of policies, strengthening skills of stakeholders, and knowledge management.
The Facility has now 38 partners, including 36 countries of which 20 in Africa, 8 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 in Asia and the Pacific (China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and Vanuatu) and two sub-regional organizations in Central America. Facility assistance is “catalytic” in nature, complementing other domestic and international support to the nfp processes. For example, in China the Facility is facilitating the flow of information on forestry to interested stakeholders (national and international), and the development of a forestry strategy for a region. In the Philippines, support is given to NGOs and the Forestry Department to prepare a new approach for community-based forest management, while in Indonesia Facility assistance will lead to a new forest policy statement. In Mongolia, the Facility is stimulating a bottom-up approach to institutional improvements and capacity building. Facility work in Vanuatu and Pakistan will start later this year.
Besides direct country support, a second important function of the Facility is to strengthen the foundations for the effective implementation of nfps by sharing experiences and knowledge worldwide. These services are provided under (i) a forest information platform on the Web (using FAO’s existing structure) to facilitate the exchange of information and knowledge relevant to nfp processes world-wide; and (ii) dynamic methods of information and knowledge sharing based on regional workshops, networks and communities of practice to link nfp actors and provide them with access to experiences in other countries and to the global body of forest-related knowledge.
Title: Implementing the IPF/IFF Proposals for Action in Indonesia:
Five Years of Experience –
Presented by:
Agus Justianto (Indonesia)
In 1998, Indonesia reported a National Case Study evaluating the existing situation of the country and its forest resources, and assessing the relevance of the proposals for action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF-PfA) in Indonesia. The crisis in overall economies led Indonesia to adjust its policies related to the forest management and conservation. Some elements of the IPF-PfA were considered as highly relevant to Indonesia’s policies and priorities, whereas some others were considered as very important, important, or not very important. Those that did not fit with the country’s situation were considered as not relevant. The report also identified some priority actions to be taken to implement the related elements. Several actions have been taken to respond to the priorities, such as a new act on Forestry (Act No.41/1999).
In assessing the relevance and priority of IPF/IFF PfA’s, the five new national priority programs (launched in 2002) where taken into account, namely combating illegal logging, controlling forest fire, restructuring the forestry sector, rehabilitation and conservation of forest resources (including promoting forest plantation), and decentralization of forest management. These programs have been determined as mainstream of forestry-sector related policies to support the conservation and rehabilitation objectives within the coming 10–20 years.
There is a fundamental shift in priorities in forestry-related programs at all levels. Consequently, some of the IPF/IFF PfA’s may have lost relevancy, although quite a few components remain relevant and urgent. For them, concrete actions have been and are being undertaken, including through formulation of Strategic Plans and Annual Development Plans. Those actions merit reporting to present insight Indonesia’s activities, hence an indication of Indonesian’s commitment to the implementations of the IPF/IFF PfA’s. In general, the IPF/IFF PfA’s can be considered as a monitoring instrument for the implementation of the Indonesian priority programs in forestry.
Lessons learned from the implementation of IPF/IFF-PfA are: (i) slow pace in achieving results due to resource constraints; (ii) lack of adequate application of a new forest management paradigm; (iii) lack of government commitment and political will; (iv) relevance of some of the IPF/IFF-PfAs in the reform of the forestry sector; (v) a more participative approach in planning and implementing the sector’s actions; (vi) lack of adequate recognition of traditional forest-related knowledge; (vii) need to consider adding research support to forestry program in the national priorities.
Title: Implementation of the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF)
Presented by: John Eyre (New
Zealand)
Forestry in New Zealand is characterized by two features that are unusual compared to most other countries. Firstly, there is the very clear separation between the planted production forest estate and the conservation estate of mainly indigenous forests. Secondly, the planted production forests are mostly owned or managed by the private sector.
With its strong scientific basis and a range of legislative measures, forest management is practiced under a range of legislation, codes of practice which promote both efficient and sustainable management which include environmental, social and economic factors. New Zealand had already instituted sustainable forest management (SFM) practices ahead of the international guidelines like the IPF/IFF proposals for action, and so is not influenced by them. Nevertheless, it would like to promote SFM both internationally as well as domestically, and so adopted a reporting structure based on the UNFF system. The structure groups individual Proposals into logical clusters, and added examples of activities, codes, legislation, etc. to show how New Zealand is meeting the intentions of each cluster of Proposals. New Zealand convened an expert panel to work through the Proposals and assess how well it is doing relative to the Proposals. A scoring system has been developed for such an assessment.
Because SFM initiative in New Zealand predates that of
IPF/IFF proposals, it does not have a national forest plan or programme. Its
existing legislative and voluntary frameworks, and a holistic approach to
sustainable resource use legislation, negates somewhat the need for a formal
national forest programm. Both the government and the private sector are
committed to practice SFM. The government has included multiple objectives for
SFM, including good custodianship of multi-use resources. The private sector has
adopted SFM, which besides good custodianship, also helps capture and sustain
market share and ensure it can stay in business. The “New Zealand model” will
not necessarily suit other countries, especially where the government has a
greater direct role in ownership and/or management of production forest
resources. In such cases the national forest programme may be preferred.
However, the lessons learnt from the New Zealand experiences in implementing SFM
would prove valuable. New Zeland, on the other hand, can take cognizance of the
Proposals when it considers amendments to existing policies relating to resource
use.
1) Australia’s experience in promoting public participation during the Regional Forest Agreement process - by Edgar Jimenez (Australia)
Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) are agreements between the Australian government and State governments. They originated from Australia’s National Forest Policy Statement (1992), which calls for the assessment of environmental, economic and social values of forests, and recognizes the importance of community input to the decision making process.
The aim of the RFA process was to reach agreement between federal and state governments on how to best manage public forests, consistent with the principles of sustainability. To this end, the key outputs were:
• To establish Comprehensive Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserves;
• Management of the forests in an ecologically sustainable basis; and
• A competitive forest industry based on secure access to the forest resource.
Independent analysis of the RFA process and participatory forest management in Australia has identified key elements that deliver effective stakeholder involvement:
• Awareness of the participatory process taking place, and a clear definition of roles – effective participation requires a clear understanding of roles of the players in the participatory process. For example, understanding the difference between “transparency” and “communication channel” roles, and an “influence” role.
• Access to accurate and timely information – This gives communities independence to make informed decisions and the ability to articulate their opinions in order to negotiate effectively.
• Government understanding of community dynamics – This is essential for the design of participatory processes that take into account the participation requirements of communities.
• Trust in the consultation processes – It is crucial for the effectively engagement of communities. Simple gestures like holding meetings in the forest make significant contribution to generating trust in a participatory forest management process.
• Adequately skilled forestry officials – Liaison officers have an important role to ensure communities have an understanding of the decision-making processes, the extent of their influence, and generating a sense of responsibility and ownership in the participatory process.
2) Multi-Stakeholder Processes in Indonesia - by Agus Justianto (Indonesia)
Lack of mutual respect and trust among stakeholders caused lack of mutual benefits in the management of forest resources. The rich endowment of forest resources should play an important and strategic role in accelerating national economic development. However, recent acceleration in the exploitation of natural resources, particularly timber, has led to rapid forest loss, which exceeds the regenerative capacity of the resource. Therefore, involvement of all stakeholders on forest management process is fully needed to achieve a social justice and mutual benefits on the development results, which is followed by increasing of sense of ownership on forest resources. The necessity of participation and transparency in decision-making is widely supported but appears difficult to implement. National Forest Programme (NFP) is believed to be an effective tool for collaborating. In order to ensure transparency of the process and equity in benefit sharing an appropriate mechanism should be established including liability of stakeholders involved. Furthermore, a conflict resolution scheme is required.
Consultation process through multi-stakeholders participation is expected to be an effective way to reach agreement and commitment of all stakeholders to manage forest resource in a sustainable manner. In recent years, many Multi-stakeholder Processes (MSP) have emerged in Indonesia, particularly as a means to establish much needed dialogue on forest policy reform. The challenge lies on effective implementation. The wide range of interests and the knowledge gap among stakeholders need special attention.
An example of a MSP in Indonesia is decentralized and participatory forest management planning in West Kutai District – East Kalimantan Province, which is supported by the NRM/EPIQ-USAID and GTZ. The development of forest management planning in this District has contained the following steps: (i) establishment of a multi-stakeholder forestry working group, including formal leader and informal leader (e.g. customary community leader); (ii) arrangement of forestry portrait; (iii) formulation of scenario building; (iv) formulation of strategic planning; (v) prioritizing; (vi) program planning; (vii) designation of legal documents (i.e. government regulations related to forestry development). This process is followed-up by implementing, enforcing, monitoring and evaluating the resulted-forest management plan.
Lessons learned taken from the MSP in West Kutai are: (i) good impact of a learning process; (ii) on-going process in the MSP led to a good governance process; (iii) variaty on stakeholders views is a source of valuable information; (iv) there was a lack of commitment to follow-up activities (a long term commitment among stakeholders is needed); (v) the boundaries of the dialogue were not clearly established; (vi) stakeholders were not equally represented but dominated by local government members; (vii) lack of action at the operational level; (viii) contradictions between local and national regulations.
1) Vietnam’s Forestry Programme: 5 Million Hectare Reforestation Programme and the Forest Sector Support Programme – by Vu Van Me (Vietnam)
In Vietnam, the major concerns are forest protection and increasing the productivity of the sector to support the timber industry and secure the livelihoods of upland rural populations. Many agencies that include those dealing with forestry, agriculture and rural development have been incorporated within one ministry to bring about the joint implementation of the government’s development plans. The agencies in the provinces dealing with extension are also engaged in the broad cross-sectoral cooperation. A National Forest Development Strategy was prepared for the period 2001 – 2010. The strategy includes six major programmes: sustainable forest management, wood and forest products, forest resources inventory, monitoring and assessment, forest seeds, and human resources. The Forest Sector Support Programme was developed to bring together all the stakeholders and includes the donor community. A FSSP Steering Committee, with representatives from all the ministries and donors, receives comments through an “open dialogue.” The resulting inter-ministerial working group is responsible for coordinating the new forest strategy and developing an action plan. Vietnam, with a central planning system, has used the FSSP steering committee to bring about effective cross-sectoral collaboration among the various stakeholders in Vietnam.
2) Cross-sectoral cooperation: The case of forest management planning in Bhutan –
by Dechen Dorji (Bhutan)
In Bhutan, forestry gives less emphasis to timber production, and more attention is given to other aspects of forestry. There is a special need to support the livelihoods of people, and so the basis for planning relies on the watershed approach. For facilitating the cross-sectoral cooperation, attention is given to information needs, prioritization exercises, field implementation and monitoring. The stakeholders normally included in the planning come from tourism, livestock, farming community, park management, power corporation and monastic institutions. The various sectors have differing perspectives. For example, the tourism industry focuses on landscape, visual effects, scenic areas, access and camping facilities. In contrast, the farming sector is interested in production of wood and non-wood resources, irrigation, potable water, plant production and others. The concerns of the various stakeholders are captured in a GIS-based forest function mapping system. The results are used for decision making, and the cross-sectoral committees provide management prescriptions for such forest management units.
1) Forestry and Poverty Reduction – by Kodhandaraman Balasubramanian (M.S. Swaminathan Foundation, India)
Based on the results of three case studies from India, the dimensions of the relationship between forestry and poverty reduction are discussed. One study shows that public investments have made substantial impact in reducing poverty. Three interesting points emerge from the study: (i) Agricultural research and agriculture have a positive impact; (ii) While many foresters view roads as an indirect cause of deforestation, they can contribute substantially to reducing poverty in rural areas; (iii) Soil and water conservation, significant components of forestry in India also play a role in uplifting rural poor although their impact is less significant. It appears that if the efficiency and targeting of investments in agriculture including agricultural research, the provision of physical infrastructure, especially roads, and soil and water conservation can be improved and the utilization of funds optimized a considerable impact on poverty reduction can be expected. Information on the effects of investments in forestry on poverty reduction is scarce.
For forestry to have a long-term positive effect, poverty reduction strategies cannot be focus solely on income-generating approaches. They need to take a livelihood approach and consider capabilities, assets and activities. Although this requirement was not made explicit when the Joint Forest Management (JFM) was introduced in India in the 1970s and 1980s, it was integrated in the structure and function of the JFM programme. However, implicit assumptions did not help in defining the impact of forestry in poverty reduction. Very few attempts have been made to examine the real and potential asset, livelihood security and capability approaches vis-à-vis forestry.
Available evidence indicates that taking a holistic approach and building social capital are crucial in linking forestry with poverty reduction. With regard to the first, the five types of capital need to be considered: natural, financial, human, physical and social. Most forestry-related programmes focus on natural and human capital only. Only few attempts have been made to develop social capital relating to forestry. Regrettably in the JFM programmes most village groups are formed through a blueprint approach. Social capital needs to evolve through a greenhouse approach, i.e. a process of social mobilization, organization, technology incubation, capacity building, systems management as well as a redefinition of the role of the forest departments. Ultimately, in the greenhouse approach villagers are not seen as mere consumers of knowledge but participants in the generation and evolution of knowledge.
The formation of social capital and its linkages to other types of capital are crucial for addressing poverty. Social capital leads to a process of empowerment. Forestry needs to understand and acknowledge the value of social capital or it will not be able to contribute effectively to poverty reduction in rural areas.
2) Poverty Reduction and Forestry Protection in China -- towards a Win-Win Strategy
By Liu Jinlong (People’s Republic of China)
In China, about 29 million people live in absolute poverty, the vast majority in the hilly and mountainous regions. Linking poverty alleviation with forest rehabilitation and protection are thus a high priority for sustainable development and forestry needs to be considered in state and regional development plans.
After several devastating floods in 1998, environmental conservation became a high priority for forestry development and government investment in forestry increased considerably. Although forestry has shifted from timber extraction to ecological rehabilitation, the integration of other sectors and rural development in forestry development continues to be neglected. Decision making and implementation are still dominated by the state and government officials, although incentives schemes for the participation of the private sector in forestry development and protection have emerged. During the last ten years, China has tested several innovative initiatives to link forest management with poverty reduction, including:
• participatory approaches and tools to fit the diverse local conditions in China;
• change of attitude in the forestry sector to foster partnerships among different stakeholders;
• provision of information through farmer field schools, farmer self-help groups and technical assistance;
• documentation of indigenous knowledge;
• participatory and action research and extension;
• expansion of farmers’ asset base and the creation of income-generation opportunities that have positive impacts on forests;
• generation of new markets for forest environmental services, eco-tourism and non-wood forest products; and
• clarification of land and tree tenure through issuing tree and land tenure certificates, auctions of barren lands, extension of lease period of forestland, expansion of the household responsibility scheme to state forest regions in China’s North.
Many challenges remain if forestry and poverty reduction are to be linked effectively. Forestry institutions and forest policies need to be reformed and the contribution local communities can make to forest protection need to be considered. The regulatory framework needs to strengthen multi-purpose forestry management, protect indigenous technologies and genetic resources, advocate and provide incentives for cross-sectoral cooperation and promote stakeholder consultations. Finally community-based organizations need to be promoted and strengthened, farmer-oriented extension enhanced and forestry institutions restructured.