SYNTHESIS REPORT: Experience of Implementing National Forestry Programmes in Gabon, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan

In general, all the five countries have formulated nfps. Nigeria and Sudan had similar experiences, to an appreciable extent, in the period leading up to drawing up their respective nfps. Both countries faced political and economic isolation from international community. Namibia and Senegal enjoyed technical and financial assistance from bilateral and multilateral agencies. Key elements of the nfp ( forest policy, legislation strategic plans) have been revised in Nigeria, Namibia, Sudan and Senegal, since its initial formulation. The five case countries made some efforts to address the following basic forest principles: national sovereignty; country led process; stake-holders involvement; poverty alleviation; capacity building; decentralization; linkages with related sectors; economic viability of the forest sub-sector. In the end, they adopted nfps that met some of the essential forest principles, a few like Senegal, Sudan and Namibia went beyond traditional forest concerns to address issues of environmental protection, drought and desertification, biodiversity and conservation of natural resources.

Sustainability of forest development

The rational of the National Forest Programme is to ensure the conservation and sustainable development of forest resources. The formulation of nfp in Sudan, Namibia, Senegal were internally driven, reflecting the felt need of their government and people. Namibia started in 1994 without any prodding from any external aid. A key motive, among others, behind this was the fact that the young Directorate of forestry created in 1990, after existing as a small division under agriculture for over 70 years represented a new political support for the sector and in itself a major challenge for the Directorate to demonstrate its worth in an arid and semi-arid country. Namibia opted for a planning process that took about a year to carryout and christened its approach National Forestry Strategic Plan. In Sudan, the nfp was conceived simultaneously or just before the official launching of the TFAP (1985), yet Sudan’s nfp formulation to a large extent reflected the essence and main purpose for which the IPF established the process. Senegal, like Namibia being a semi-arid and arid country conceived its nfp as a response to a combination of factors that eroded the natural resource base of Senegal namely: drought; soil salinisation; bush fires; subsistence agriculture expanding horizontally and wittering away forest land; and over-harvesting of woody materials.

In the cases of Nigeria and Gabon, the nfp was initiated at the behest of the donors, however prior to assistance by the donor community, successive administrations in Nigeria made various attempts to ensure the efficient management of her forest resources. These include the setting up of the forest service, the creation of a Federal Department of Forestry in 1970 and the enactment and promulgation of various laws, edicts and decrees by various governments. Furthermore, some programmes and action plans were developed to achieve sustainable forest development in the country, prominent amongst which are Reservation Policy, Establishment of Industrial Plantations, Land Use and Vegetation Survey, Perspective Plan for Forestry Development and the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP). Of all these programmes in Nigeria, it was only TFAP that was process oriented, had a national scope and took into consideration key contemporary issues in its formulation. Gabon, like Nigeria has internalized the nfp process, though the process was a response to donor prodding. Gabon has evolved from having a commission for classification of forests as its institutional framework for concertation on forestry matters to putting in place a Programme for Investment in Forest/Environment Sector (PSFE). One of the main reason for this is the decision taken by the government of Gabon to diversify its economy given that petroleum production which until 1996 contributed 80% of Gabon’s GDP was declining. Gabon has come up with a comprehensive forest policy Framework that is national in scope and formulated in a participatory manner.

An important factor to the sustainability of the nfp process is the existence of several institutional and planning frameworks in the countries. The practical influence exerted on the nfp formulation/implementation process by the multiplicity of forest related institutions and planning frameworks (Table 7) appears to be positive and may contribute constructively to nfp sustainability. Nonetheless, in some countries (e.g., Madagascar, Mali and Guinea), this multiplicity of institutional and planning frameworks has resulted into conflicts and institutional paralysis.

Notwithstanding that in Senegal, Nigeria and Gabon some difficulties were experienced by forestry staff because donor agencies had their preferences relative to particular institutional or planning framework, the proliferation of national planning frameworks in line with the different international conventions and agreements (Table 7) tend to have a mutual reinforcing effect and throws light on the necessity for interdependencies and interlinkages between sectors. Moreover, the emerging quest for overall protection of the environment and Poverty Reduction have also recognized the need for synergy among the various planning frameworks.

TABLE 7. Major International conventions and agreements ratified by the case study countries.

Country	STATUS OF RATIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS							International Tropical timber Agreement 1994 (ITTO members)
Country	Convention on Biological Diversity	FCCC	Kyoto Protocol Of (FCCC)	Convention to Combat Desertification	CITES	Ramsar Convention	World Heritage Convention
Gabon	X	X	-	X	X	X	X	X
Namibia	X	X	-	X	X	X	X
Nigeria	X	X	-	X	X		X
Senegal	X	X	-	X	X	X	X
Sudan	X	X	-	X	X		X

Source: State of the World’s forests 2001 ( FAO 2001).

In full recognition of the socio economic situations as in the five sub-Saharan African countries under review, nfp formulation process had been innovative, integrating basic elements (such as a participatory approach, focus on creating enabling policy and institutional environment) that should ensure its sustainability. Moreover the 5 countries demonstrated their commitment in continuing making efforts in this direction by the various policy reforms already effected.

Broad based approach to nfp formulation involving other sectors and Actors

One of the basic principles for nfp is to ensure that the policy and institutional framework is conducive to sustainable forestry development and should address policy and institutional issues in a comprehensive manner, recognizing the interdependence and linkages between sectors. There is ample evidence that Senegal, Namibia, Nigeria and Sudan adopted a broad based approach in formulation of their respective nfps. In Senegal, decentralization process was initiated in 1984 within the framework of the new agriculture policy. Within this fertile soil of decentralization and inclusiveness, the Senegal Forest Programme was formulated in 1992, with the fundamental concept underpinning Senegal’s forest policy being development of sustainable partnership in management of forest resources. Furthermore in 1998 Senegal reviewed its decentralization process and adopted a programme approach which focuses on comprehensive programmes rather than individual projects. Gabon involved other sectors such as environment and private investors (logging companies), bilateral and multilateral organizations. Gabon also carried out consultations to rural areas. However due to absence of extension and information services participation of rural communities was limited.

Nigeria is an interesting case study as it has just concluded a revision of its National Forest Programme in December 2002. Nigeria has a federal system of government in which responsibilities are shared between the federal and state governments and local authorities within the states. It has an established mechanism for consultations with stakeholders over the development of the forestry sector. The National Forestry Development Committee is a forum for the state forestry departments and other stakeholders to come together to review progress in implementing the forestry programmes in each state and to discuss the broader aspects of nfp implementation. Currently the composition of the National Forestry Development Committee includes the 36 Directors of the State Forestry Departments plus about 15 other stakeholders from NGOs, CBOs, academia and representatives from other sector sectors of the economy such as agriculture and energy. Similarly, Sudan started operating a federal system of government in 1994, in which the country is administratively divided into 117 provinces, grouped into 26 states. Although Sudan could not get the full participation at a national scope as a result of the civil strive, nevertheless, a local preparation effort aimed at initial data collection for nfp formulation, together with the process of consultations, enabled the various agencies involved in the nfp formulation, to understand better their mutual interests and specific requirements.

Factoring in key social, economic, institutional and political development into nfp process.

One of the common features of the nfp formulation across the five case study countries is that the process accommodated key socio-economic, institutional and political development of their various nations. In Namibia, planning of the forestry sector development to ensure that the sector makes meaningful contribution and improvement to Namibia’s economy, is guided by four long-term national objectives: reviving and sustaining economic growth; creating employment opportunities, which is a priority for the Government; poverty alleviation; and reducing inequalities in income. In addition, the Directorate of Forestry started to prepare a forestry strategic plan (national forest programme) in 1995, in order to address the problems of production, protection and participation in the forestry sector. Namibia notwithstanding that it introduced in 1992 its first National Forest Policy, reviewed it in 1998 to conform to the major development objectives outlined in the National Development Plans I and II, and to be in line with the global policies of the 1992 UNCED. And in November 2001, a revised Forestry Development Policy for Namibia was approved. The national forest programme was developed with the following broad principles in mind: Forestry development ought to be guided and must contribute to National Development Objectives; Any planning in the natural resources field requires a thorough analysis of institutional capacities, macro-economic frameworks and general issues of economic performance; and Forests and forest resources need to have local relevance to justify local investments and in addition, they have global benefits, which should then be balanced with local needs. Indeed the following four programmes areas constitute Namibia’s Forestry Strategic Plan: Public sector capacity building; Community-level management of natural forests; Farm forestry; and State management of environmental forestry. These concrete steps demonstrate that Namibia updates its nfp to include emerging local, national and global socio-economic, political and institutional issues and also is evidence that its nfp is designed as long-term and is iterative.

The case of Gabon compares well with that of Nigeria. The strategic orientation for Gabon’s nfp focused on the following three priorities: (i) Conserving and tracking the quality and quantity of the nation’s forest resources; (ii)Sustainable management of the forest resources leading to economic development, poverty reduction and reduction of unemployment level in the country; and (iii) Participation of all concerned partners and groups in the sustainable management of the forest ecosystem.

The process of nfp formulation in the five countries under review has experienced several changes all in an attempt to adjust to prevailing socio-economic, political and institutional changes, becoming more proactive to emerging ones. A typical example is Senegal where forest sector programming started in 1979 with the National Forestry Development Plan (PDDF); replaced by tropical forest action plan (PAFT, 1984); followed by Plan of Action for Senegal’s Forest (PAFS) in 1991; the Higher Council on Environment and Natural Resources (CONSER) in 1993; Regional Forestry Action Plans and Environmental Action Plan (PAFR and PNAE) in 1997 and the National Programme for the Fight Against Desertification (PAN/LCD) in 1998. The nfp in Senegal was adopted in 1992 by the government and was immediately followed by an international round-table which witnessed the participation of the civil society, NGOs, aid donors, and partners for development. Senegal’s nfp emphasized three aspects: Conservation of forest resources; satisfaction of the rural population’s needs for wood and charcoal; Social and economic equilibrium. In order to meet these objectives, it was recommended that the rural population and Community Based Organizations be actively involved in forest management.

Expected fundamental changes from the nfp process.

All the five countries under review made explicit efforts, in the design and formulation of their respective nfp processes, to bring about fundamental changes. To illustrate, Sudan’s nfp acted within the framework of a comprehensive national strategy for socioeconomic development (1992 – 2002), and called for allocation of 25% of the total land area for natural resources including: forestry, pasture, range and wildlife conservation areas.

In demonstrating its commitment to bring about basic and central changes in the sector through the process of formulation of its nfp, Namibia drafted a new forest policy in 1998 which was adopted in 2000. The aims of the revised policy of 2000 are: To reconcile rural development with the conservation of biological diversity by, empowering farmers and local communities to manage forest resources on a sustainable basis; To increase the yields of benefits of the national woodlands through research and development, application of silvicultural practices, protection and promotion of the requisite economic support projects; Create favourable conditions to attract investment in small and medium industry based on wood and non-wood forest raw materials; To implement innovative land use strategies, including multiple use conservation areas, protected areas, agro-forestry and a variety of other approaches designed to yield global benefits.

The Nigerian experience in this regard, follows same pattern as Sudan and Namibia examined above. Nigeria in an attempt to bring about fundamental changes to the sector, recently (December 2002), concluded a participatory process to draw up a natural forest policy and a National Forest Act, prior to the nfp formulation process. Nigeria did not have a forest legislation of a national scope, each of the 37 states have their respective independent forest legislation. In terms of fundamental changes, Senegal’s forestry sector is one of the bright stars in the sky of social forestry in Africa. Senegal has experimented with decentralization as well as with key planning initiatives and could serve as a repository of important lessons for other dry-zone countries.

The organization and relative length of time in existence of the forestry sector appear to be another important factor impacting on the speed with which changes are effected in the nfp formulations. The examples of Nigeria and Sudan with long histories of forestry institutions ( Nigeria forestry sector dates 1887 and that of Sudan 1901) give credence to this hypothesis. Namibia enjoys a much more recent history, with a formal, functional distinct forestry sector established only in 1990. In Senegal, the department of forestry was created in 1935 as a unit under Agriculture service (Niang 2003). The forestry department of both Gabon and Senegal at inception, were administratively under the overall control of the General Inspectorate of French forest service for central and west Africa respectively, until these countries achieved independence in the 1960s.

Though there are evidences that there is more resistance in changing the entrenched attitudes to forestry in Nigeria and Sudan with their century old set ways of doing business than in Namibia, this trait may not all be traced back to the single factor of age, another contributing factor could be that both Nigeria and Sudan are operating a federated system of governance which gives enormous powers to the constituent states or provinces to administer forest ecosystem and wooded lands within their territory. Getting a consensus in this type of government system is not always the easiest exercise to embark on. It added more layers to forestry governance and further slows down the process of change, aimed at, by the nfp formulation. Namibia on the other hand, had moved swiftly to effect changes in its short history of having a full fledged forestry sector. This relative rapid pace of change, may also be attributed in part to its national pride and motivation as a newly declared independent state nation. The growing economic well-being and the low population may have also helped Namibia speed up and integrate changes during its nfp formulation. Gabon, in comparison, which also has a small populati on density, and is economically well off, is not experiencing positive changes in its forest sector at a pace similar to that of Namibia. Reasons for a slower pace of positive change effected during nfp formulation may be related to Gabon’s quasi total dependence on petroleum for over four decades. In addition, the format of administration in Gabon and Senegal is a historical product of the French centralized governance structure. Foot prints of this cultural influence is still discernable.

Adherence to the basic principles of nfp formulation

The present review has revealed that the five case study countries aimed at making fundamental changes in the forestry sector through the design and formulation of their respective nfp. Nevertheless, a few deficiencies were identified in the formulation process across these countries of which the key ones are discussed hereunder.

The participatory base of the nfp formulation process in Nigeria was judged too narrow and needed broadening. Again the analysis during the development of policy were somewhat shallow. Moreover the draft Forestry Act did not reflect all the elements of the policy, which it is supposed to enforce. At the time of formulation of the nfp in Nigeria, the National Forestry Development Committee which is the highest advisory body to the government on forestry matters was almost non-functional during the period of nfp formulation (1988 – 2000). The organization of system of governance in Nigeria during this period did not help the process because Nigeria became a pariah state in the 1990s with the advent of a very unpopular military regime. Democracy, the bedrock of nfp formulation and implementation was lacking. Attempts have been made to address these problems. In 1999, Nigeria reverted to democratic governance and it revised her nfp in 2002. The principal challenge still facing its nfp is to develop effective and efficient strategy and mechanism to mobilize domestic financial resources to continue forest sector development.

Deficiencies in Nigeria’s nfp formulation case could be said to be typical of the other four countries to varying degrees. Initially planned for three years, it took Gabon six years to draft its nfp, a significant part of the delay was the inability to commence the process because of inadequate country leadership and responsibility. FAO had to field an international consultant to kick start the process. Again due to low level of international community commitment the donor round table scheduled for December 2000 has never materialized. In the case of Sudan which is well aware of the basic principles and was proactive in integrating a good number of them while formulating its nfp, but is still plagued with coping with the implications of its federal system of government ( 117 provinces grouped under 26 states) where the states consider forests as revenue generating sector engendering conflict between the central government (FNC specifically) and the states. Inadequacies in the forest policy statement of 1986, in terms of socio-economic, environmental, constitutional and administrative factors are currently being addressed and accommodated in the revised version to be rolled out at a later date.

Another area in which weakness has been observed in nfp formulation is the development of the planning and implementation capacity of national institutions and other actors in order to ensure the country’s self-reliance in carrying out its nfp. Namibia and Gabon share this weakness in which human resources development, in terms of qualified national forestry personnel is lacking (Namibia at independence in 1990 had no national trained as a professional forester). Where the capacity to plan and implement programmes and projects is poorly developed, it would hardly be surprising that informed partnership and participation of a large segment of the citizenry in both countries would be rudimentary. At the other end of the spectrum is Senegal which seems to have made very great efforts to decentralize the formulation of its nfp, instituted capacity building at all levels of social organization, designed forestry management within the context of sustainable land management and economic development and continue to integrate poverty reduction in its forestry programmes. Yet Senegal has observed that decentralization process is laborious, requiring enormous amount of resources and time with mixed results, at least in the short run. Senegal like Nigeria before, it is in the process of evaluating its forest programmes and revising its nfp.

Situation at the end of the nfp formulation process

It may not be very appropriate to categorically pronounce on what has been the situation at the end of the nfp formulation process in the five case countries because, some outcome may be delayed in its manifestation and some manifested outcome maybe a transitory state to a higher more positive status or vice versa. While Gabon has proceeded to the level of making preparations for organizing a national workshop for validation of the nfp in December 1999 (which did not take place), Namibia, Senegal, Nigeria and Sudan have made more concrete advances. Some of these tangible outcome of the nfp formulation are evident. In Namibia, for example, the country has undertaken a Forestry Planning exercise and is now endowed with a national Forest Policy, a Forestry Strategic Plan under implementation. The Plan, also called the Namibia Forest Programme ( NFP), forms an integral part of the National Development Plan and NFP proposed activities are related to the programme of the Public sector Investment. Tangible outcome of the nfp formulation in Senegal expresses itself in the knowledge of causes and effects of forest resources and in the mastery of planning and implementation of resource management policy and de-concentration and divulging of responsibilities to the citizenry.

To the extent the countries succeeded in defining their institutional framework and employ participation of as many interest groups, to that degree would they have achieved tangible results in the area of raising the awareness of the parties concerned in forest conservation and sustainable utilization as well as reinforcing the capacity of key actors in the sector. In Nigeria as well as Sudan and Gabon, the formulation of the nfp was based on an in-depth sector analysis on forestry and related sectors undertaken by indigenous and international consultants who worked on different aspects of the sector. This effort to provide updated knowledge of the natural resources at the national level is significant, moreover as the linkages between poverty reduction, food security and the forestry sector were explicitly addressed in a way that was likely to increase the contribution of the forestry sector to poverty reduction.

Duration of the nfp formulation process and its impact on nfp quality

Analysis on the length of time the process of formulating an nfp took (table 8 below), and the impact this may have had on the quality of the nfp, show that a protracted process (Gabon and Nigeria) results in a qualitatively weaker nfp, while a relatively shorter process ( Namibia, Sudan and Senegal) results in a qualitatively better nfp. One explanation for this apparent negative impact of an over-stretched time frame in nfp formulation on the nfp quality, is that motivation and commitment tend to be lost in a protracted process and moreover it may even be over taken by other politically more expedient events.

Table 8. Duration of nfp formulation and the impact on nfp quality in the five case study countries

Country	Duration of nfp formulation	Impact on nfp quality
Gabon	1993 – 1999 ( 6 years )	Nfp process weakened. Pocess ended with a validation workshop. Has been stalled since then.
Namibia	1992 National Forest policy 1995 – 1996 National Forestry strategic Plan 1995 – 1998 Revision of 1992 Forest Policy 2001 Approval of the Development Forestry Policy	Satisfactory. The Forestry Strategic Plan produced in 1996 is the most powerful instrument in the implementation of the 1992 and 2001 Development Forestry Policy. Operable and Operative.
Nigeria	1988 – 1996 (8 years) 1999 – 2002 (3 years ) nfp revision process	Nfp process weakened
Senegal	1979 – 1982 Master Plan for Forestry Develop. 1987 – 1991 Forestry Action Plan for Senegal	Satisfactory. Decentralization and intersectorial linkages experimented
Sudan	1984 – 1986 Forest Sector Review	Satisfactory. Operative since 1989 and was integrated into Sudan’s Comprehensive National Strategy.

The key difference between the countries (Gabon, Nigeria) that had a protracted nfp process and the group of countries (Namibia, Senegal, Sudan) that had a relatively shorter formulation process are that the first group did not get much external technical and financial assistance for the process although the process had been initiated at the behest of donors. In evidence, Nigeria (1996) and Gabon (1999) scheduled round table conferences at the end of their nfp formulation process, which did not hold, due to international community’s mitigated interest in providing them development assistance. Gabon and Nigeria are oil rich countries considered as wealthy nations not in need of financial aid. Moreover, Nigeria was a pariah state at that period because of an unpopular military regime.

Another element to compound the Gabon-Nigeria scenario is that the two countries commenced their nfp formulation at the behest of the donor community, albeit the latter could not continue provision of needed funds and technical support because of reasons presented above. To this extent nfp formulation in Gabon and Nigeria was externally driven and experienced hiccups once external funds dried up. The second group of countries (Namibia, Senegal and Sudan) commenced their nfp formulation process to address strongly felt domestic problems such as droughts, soil degradation etc and the nfp process was thus internally driven.

THE PROCESS OF NFP FORMULATION