nature & faune enhancing natural resources management for food security in africa volume 27, issue...

7/27/2019 Nature & Faune Enhancing natural resources management for food security in Africa Volume 27, Issue 2

1/84


2/84


3/84

Nature & Faune,Volume 27, Issue 2

FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Enhancing natural resources management for food secur ity in Afr ica

Volume 27, Issue 2

Promoting good governancein natural resource management in Africa

Editor: Foday BojangDeputy Editor: Ada Ndeso-Atanga

FAO Regional Office for Africa

[email protected]://www.fao.org/africa/publications0/nature-and-faune-magazine/en/

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSAccra, Ghana

2013

Nature & Faune


4/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

BOARD OF REVIEWERS

Christel Palmberg-LercheForest geneticist

Rome, Italy

Douglas WilliamsonWildlife specialistEngland, United Kingdom

Fred KafeeroNatural Resources specialistRome, Italy

Jeffrey SayerEcologist/expert in political and economic context of natural resources conservation

Cairns, N. Queensland, Australia

August TemuAgroforestry adviser and leader in management of partnershipsNairobi, Kenya

Mafa ChipetaFood Security adviserLimbe, Malawi

Kay Muir-Leresche

Policy economist/specialist in agricultural and natural resource economicsRooiels Cape, South Africa

El Hadji M. Sne,Forest Resources Management & Dry Zone Forestry specialistDakar, Senegal

Jean Prosper KoyoRenewable Natural Resources adviserPointe Noire, Republic of Congo

Sbastien Le Bel

Wildlife specialist and scientistMontpellier, France

Advisers: Atse Yapi, Christopher Nugent, Fernando Salinas, Ren Czudek


5/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its

authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies orproducts of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have beenendorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect theviews or policies of FAO.

ISSN: 2026-5611

FAO 2013

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Exceptwhere otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research andteaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriateacknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAOs endorsement of usersviews, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should bemade via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can bepurchased [email protected].
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Contents

Message to Readers 1Maria Helena Semedo

EditorialPaul Munro-Faure and Paul Mathieu 2

Special Feature 4

Tackling forest illegality through the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action PlanSimpson Robert, Sophie Lemaitre and Giulia Muir 4

Opinion Piece 9

Governance challenges for natural resource management in AfricaJeffrey Sayer 9

Articles 12Forest governance reforms: the way forward for the sustainable management of Africas forestsAdewale Adeleke 12

International forest policy and governance framework: implications for forests and food securityPeter C. Gondo 15

Forest policies can be at the centre of change: Looking at the landscape approach on a national levelIna Neuberger 18

Ambivalence of the 1994 Cameroon forestry law in ensuring good governanceChi Augustine Muam 22The rich get richer and the poor get committees? Institutional arrangements and requirementsfor local forest management in AfricaJon Anderson, Shreya Mehta and Jonathan Schwarz 26

Promising initiatives in promoting good natural resources governance: The experience offorest governance in Burkina FasoEdouard G. Bonkoungou 31

The Mano River Union sub-region:The lungs and water tower of West AfricaAlpha Ahmadou Baldeh 35

Implementation of fishing gear restrictions in Mtwara district of TanzaniaRobert Katikiro 40

Methods for assessing pastoral resources for their preservation in the steppes of Eastern AlgeriaGhamri Abdelaziz Nadir 43


7/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Country Focus: Zambia 49The forest governance challenge in REDD+: Core governance issues that must be addressed

for REDD+ success in Zambia

Davison Gumbo and Orleans Mfune 49

FAO Activities and Results 54

Governance in the establishment of national forest monitoring, measurement, reporting andverification systems in Central AfricaClto Ndikumagenge 54

Land and natural resource management in Angola: An innovative approach based on dialogueand negotiation

Francisco Carranza 59

Developing comprehensive guidelines to institutionalize and implement community-based forestmanagement in sub-saharan AfricaFoday Bojang 63

Ensuring sustainability of wildlife resources in central Africa through community involvementArnoud Steeman and Dieudonn Bruno Waneyombo-Brachka 66

Links 70

News 71

Announcement 73

Theme and Deadline for Next Issue 74

Guidelines for Authors, Subscription and Correspondence 75


8/84

Nature & Faune,Vol. 26, Issue 1 1

FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Message to Readers

Maria Helena Semedo1

he present issue ofNature & Faune looks at thetheme Promoting good governance in naturalresource management in Africa. It is made up of

some 17 articles, a good number of which dwell onstructures and processes (Edouard Bonkoungou,Francisco Carranza, Robert Simpson et al, PeterGondo, Robert Katikiro, Ina Neuberger, Foday Bojang,Arnoud Steeman and Dieudonn Bruno Waneyombo-Brachka). They describe and analyse how projects andprograms were designed and how committees etc.were composed; how transparent the governance is,whether adequately decentralized or participatory etc.Evidences thus abound that authenticate that Africahas committees and structures in abundance eventhough it is not apparent whether the governancemechanisms have successfully triggered development.Do the governance systems in operation in Africaencourage action or simple auto-admiration of howwell the processes comply with standard criteria ofsound governance? Have these systems led to wise

management of trees and forests, water and soil,livestock and fisheries in Africa?

Elaborating structures and processes is not free, andshould be conducted up to the point where marginalcost is equal to marginal benefit. Is the elaboratenessof governance procedures and structurescommensurate with observed developmental returns toeffort? Case studies in this edition show governancestructures and processes that are perhaps too costlyfor the benefits they will yield. The seventeen essaysdiscuss these issues to varying degrees and from

different perspectives.

The articles also present some individual specificitiesworth noting: Ghamri Abdelaziz Nadir proposes amathematicalformula based on field measurements inEastern Algeria, demonstrative of important linkbetween the governance of pasturelands and

1 Maria Helena Semedo, Assistant Director-General andRegional Representative for Africa, Regional Office forAfrica, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,P. O. Box GP 1628 Accra. Ghana.

Email: [email protected]: (233) 302 675000 ext. 2101 ;(233) 302 610 930; Fax: 233 302 668 427

improvement in livestock management. When it comesto water towers of West Africa, Fouta Djallon hasalways been on the spotlight, supported by a string ofdonor-aided projects! This time an article by Alpha

Baldeh, brings the Mano River to the limelight,underlying clearly the key threats to the vegetationcover of the massive ecosystem. He concludes thatthe identified problems relate to the so-called tragedyof the commons; and that finding adequate solutionsto these threats is more of an issue of politicalcommitment and capacity to enforce laws in naturalresources utilization, than a money issue.

Paul Munro-Faure and Paul Mathieu, in the editorial,lay emphasis on sound and secure land tenure as anecessary condition for good governance in

agricultural development and natural resourcesmanagement. An opinion piece by Jeff Sayer makes apersuasive case for finding long-term solutions togovernance problems, stressing the importance ofsocietal commitment to improving social and materialwellbeing through sound choices for development.Several authors, including, Jon Anderson et al, ChiAugustine Muam, and Adewale Adeleke discuss thenuts and bolts of the income-generating opportunitiesfrom natural resources; and deplore the fact that theincome is mostly spent on administration. Theyrecommend that community benefits should not berestricted to products of limited value, but should alsocapture some of the major economic opportunities.

The legitimate top ambition of many African countriesis the overall sustainable management of theirrenewable natural resources, including forestresources. Clto Ndikumagenge, Davison Gumbo andOrleans Mfune contributed articles on ReducingEmissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradationin Developing Countries (REDD), highlighting the factthat REDD+ goes beyond reducing deforestation andforest degradation, and includes the role ofconservation, sustainable management of forests and

enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Read theirarticles to find out the degree to which the models ofgovernance they propose are appropriate for success.

In sum, governance styles change rapidly; the meansby which governance itself is practised must keep upwith the pace of change. It is an adventure; join ourreadership and explore the rich discourse !

T


9/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Editorial

Promoting responsible governance in

natural resource management in Africa

Paul Munro-Faure and Paul Mathieu1

n many rural regions of Africa, growing pressuresfor natural resources arising from increasingpopulation and global demands, and often

combined with management practices aiming tomaximize short term benefits at the expense of longterm sustainability, frequently result inoverexploitation and degradation of the naturalresource base; affecting land fertility, pastures,water and forests.

To counter this trend and the associated risks,several conditions need to be fulfilled: (i)investments in sustainable production andmanagement of resources; sustainable ruraldevelopment, (ii) secure tenure rights to natural

resources, and (iii) good governance with effectiveand equitable institutions to enforce the rights of allstakeholders and ensure coordination and regulationof individual and social behaviours.

(i) Sustainable rural development, or conservationwith development, can only be achieved throughincreased investments to achieve both higherproductivity of natural resources and conservation ofthe resource base. In other words, investments forsustainable intensification and management ofnatural resources are absolutely necessary to

counter the trends and risks of degradation of theresource base and negative impacts on livelihoodsand food security. As expressed in the VoluntaryGuidelines on the Responsible Governance ofTenure... (para. 12.2) ... smallholder producers andtheir organizations in developing countries provide a

1 Respectively Principal Officer and Senior Officer,Climate, Energy and Tenure Division,Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy

Tel. +390657056883 / 390657055887Email:[email protected]@fao.org

major share of agricultural investments thatcontribute significantly to food security, nutrition,

poverty eradication and environmental resilience2.Investments are thus critical. Almost all actionsaiming at the sustainable management of naturalresources imply some kind of investment; allocatingresources and incurring costs in the present with thehope of future (but at times uncertain) benefits.These investments are of an economic nature (work,capital, technologies) but they have also a socialdimension: a group or local community can invest itssocial capital in related activities, meaning energy,skills, trust and collective actions to better managenatural resources that are owned by customarycommunities or social groups. Such collectiveactions imply a high level of coordination andcompliance with management rules and constraints,as, for example, in irrigation programmes, or in themanagement of forest and pasture resources ownedin common by a group.

(ii) Secure tenure rights to natural resources.Societies define and regulate how people,communities and other stakeholders gain access toland and natural renewable resources through

tenure systems. These tenure systems determinewho can use which natural resources, for how long,and under what conditions. They may be based onwritten policies and laws, as well as on unwrittencustoms and practices.Peasants, pastoralists or forest users, at the familyor community level, will decide to meet the costs ofeconomic and social investment in natural resourcesonly if the expected results are worth the pain andcosts of investment. To meet expectations, suchstakeholders must have secure tenure rights toresources which guarantee that they will reap the

benefits of their investments. Secure tenure ofnatural resources (land, forests, pastures, fishingponds or rivers) is thus a necessary and important,but not sufficient, condition to stimulate sustainableresource management and investments insustainable intensification of production. It is also anecessary, but not sufficient, condition for goodgovernance in the management of naturalresources.

(iii) Good governance. Effective and equitable, orsocially respected, institutions are needed to ensure

2See Reference for complete details.

I
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

that legitimate tenure rights of stakeholders arerespected and enforced, and that appropriatemechanisms are provided for the administration,coordination and transfer of rights. Such institutions

are a basic and critical component of responsiblegovernance of tenure. The governance of tenure is acrucial element in determining if, and how, people,communities and other stakeholders acquire rightsto use and control land and other natural resources.Many problems related to tenure arise because ofweak governance, and success in addressing suchproblems is affected by the quality of governance.Weak governance adversely affects social stability,sustainable use of resources, investment andeconomic growth. People can be condemned to alife of hunger and poverty if they lose tenure rights totheir homes, land, fisheries and forests, which canbe caused by corrupt practices or the failure ofnational or local agencies to protect legitimatetenure rights. People may even lose their lives ifweak tenure governance leads to violent conflict.Responsible governance of tenure, conversely,promotes sustainable social and economicdevelopment that can help eradicate poverty andfood insecurity, and frequently encouragesresponsible investment.

FAO and its partners supported the preparation ofVoluntary Guidelines on the ResponsibleGovernance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context of National Food Securitythrough a global participatory process since 2009.The final text was prepared and agreed throughinter-governmental negotiations, with theparticipation of civil society organizations and theprivate sector, and endorsed in May 2012 by theCommittee on World Food Security (CFS). Theyrepresent the first comprehensive globalintergovernmental instrument on tenure and its

administration. They provide guidance for improvingthe national and local institutions that regulatetenure rights; for means of enhancing equitabletenure rights and the administration of tenuresystems.

They also advise on improvement of capacities oforganizations concerned with governance of tenure.The Guidelines provide a framework that States canuse when developing their own strategies, policies,

legislation, programmes and activities. They allowgovernments, civil society, the private sector andcitizens to judge whether proposed actions andreforms constitute good practices with respect tointernationally accepted standards and principles.Since their endorsement by the Committee on WorldFood Security and by the FAO Council in 2012, theGuidelines have received unprecedented globalrecognition. The United Nations General Assemblyencourages countries to give due consideration toimplementing the Guidelines and requests relevantentities of the United Nations system to ensure theirspeedy dissemination and promotion. In Africa,important partnership and synergies are beingdeveloped between the Voluntary Guidelines forResponsible Governance of Tenure and the LandPolicy Initiative supported by the African UnionCommission, the African Development Bank, andthe UN Economic Commission of Africa.

FAO, together with a wide range of partners workingin this area, is supporting member countries in theirimplementation of the Guidelines, assisting member

countries and other players to adopt responsiblepractices that are appropriate to prevailing prioritiesand contexts. Improved governance of tenure will,among other things, substantially strengthen one ofthe basic conditions that can lead to effective andsustainable management of natural resources.

Reference:Voluntary Guidelines on the ResponsibleGovernance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries andForests in the Context of National Food Security.Document endorsed by the Committee on WorldFood Security (CFS). Rome, May 2012, 40 pages


11/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Special Feature

Tackling forest illegality through the Forest

Law Enforcement, Governance and TradeAction Plan

Robert Simpson1, Sophie Lemaitre2and Giulia Muir3

SummaryRecognizing its role as one of the major consumersof timber products around the world andacknowledging that weak governance remains a

major impediment to achieving developmentoutcomes in the forest sector, in 2003, the EuropeanUnion (EU) took steps to promote better forestgovernance and prevent illegal timber from enteringits market by adopting an Action Plan on Forest LawEnforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT),which was recently complemented by the entry intoforce of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). One ofthe main tools of the FLEGT Action Plan is thenegotiation and conclusion of legally-binding yetVoluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) betweenthe EU and individual timber-producing countries.

VPAs are distinct and adaptable frameworks,negotiated by local actors to address the uniquecircumstances and governance characteristicsbetween a particular producer country and the EU.VPAs build on and complement existing nationallegislation, but also target the revision of legalframeworks, particularly when they are antiquated orunrealistic. Above all, VPAs represent anunprecedented, bottom-up and inclusive process,bringing together a wide range of local stakeholdersto discuss and decide on pressing issues in forestgovernance; this approach could potentially betransposed to other land-use systems orcommodities.

1 EU FAO FLEGT Programme Manager, ForestryDepartment, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited NationsViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153, Rome, ItalyE-mail:[email protected];Website: www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegt2EU FAO FLEGT Programme Legal Expert;

E-mail:[email protected] EU FAO FLEGT Programme Communication Specialist;E-mail:[email protected]

Contextustainable Forest Management (SFM) hasbeen a subject of intense international debate

since the 1980s. It was not until the UnitedNations Conference on Environment andDevelopment, known colloquially as the Rio EarthSummit (1992) that a global consensus on forestsand their sustainable use was reached (ForestPrinciples and Chapter 11 ofAgenda 21). At theConference, nations agreed on, inter alia, the rightto use forests for social and economic developmentand the need for planning and implementation ofnational forest policies to involve a wide variety ofpeople, including women, forest dwellers,indigenous peoples, industries, workers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Theagreement, however, was not legally-binding andunlikely to have a profound effect on global forestresources.

Not surprisingly, deforestation continued largelyunabated in the developing world, which saw some200 million hectares of forest vanish between 1980and 1995 (FAO, 2000). In light of this forest loss,which derived in part from demand for timberproducts in industrialized countries, an Action

Programme on Forests was agreed upon andlaunched at the 1998 G8 summit addressing SFMand illegal logging in particular. The forestry sectorhas come a long way since, most notably throughthe implementation of the World Banks Forest LawEnforcement and Governance (FLEG) initiatives,under which a range of global actions to combatforest illegality4 have taken place. Linking all globalFLEG efforts is the recognition that measures tocombat forest loss must address long-standingstructural causes that perpetuate illegal forestactivity including unrealistic legal frameworks, weak

governance and institutions and high povertyconcentrations in forest areas, in addition toemerging challenges such as climatic change andbiodiversity loss. Underpinning this recognition is therealization that local, adaptable and inclusivegovernance measures are likely to have moresustained effects on efforts to keep forests standing.

4 Forest illegality is understood as the harvest, transport,

processing, purchase or sale of forest products inviolation of national or international laws, or the act ofillegal deforestation and logging.

S
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegthttp://www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegtmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegtmailto:[email protected]


12/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance andTrade (FLEGT) Action Plan: 10 years andcountingRecognizing its role as one of the major consumers

of timber products around the world andacknowledging that weak governance remains amajor impediment to achieving developmentoutcomes in the forest sector, in 2003, the EuropeanUnion (EU) took steps to scale up regional FLEGinitiatives by adopting an Action Plan1 on Forest LawEnforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) topromote better forest governance and prevent illegaltimber from entering its market. One of the maintools of the FLEGT Action Plan is the negotiationand conclusion of legally-binding yet VoluntaryPartnership Agreements (VPAs) between the EUand individual timber-producing countries2. Thesuccess of each VPA hinges on, among otherthings, the effective implementation of a legalityassurance system (LAS)3, the function of which is toprovide a reliable means to distinguish betweenlegally and illegally produced forest products. TheLAS is composed of five key elements: a definitionof legal timber based on the legislation of the timber-producing country; a traceability system; a system toverify compliance with the legality definition and thetraceability system; a licensing scheme; and an

independent audit. Complementing these efforts isthe EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) which came intoeffect on 3 March 2013 and prohibits first placementof illegal timber produced both within and outsideof Europe on the EU market. The EUTR, which islegally binding on all 27 EU member states, marks ageneral trend in major timber purchasing countriesto adopt national timber procurement policies andcorresponding import regulations; the United Statesof America, Australia and Japan have also takensteps to this end.

1 Communication from the Commission to the Counciland the European Parliament, Forest Law Enforcement,Governance and Trade (FLEGT), Proposal for an EUAction Plan (COM (2003) 251 final). To complementactivities under the FLEGT Action Plan, the EU adoptedthe EU Timber Regulation1 (EUTR), which is legallybinding on all 27 EU member states and prohibits placingillegal timber on the EU market from 3 March 2013.2 6 VPAs were signed (Cameroon, Central AfricanRepublic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia and Republic ofCongo); 8 VPAs are currently being negotiated (DRCongo, Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Ivory Coast,

Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam) and a dozen arerequesting information on the process.

Lessons Learned from the VPA process andchallenges aheadGovernance experience has shown that one-size-fits-all paradigms are terribly ineffective. Contrary to

being top-down governance models (Sayer &Collins, 2012) each VPA is distinct because it isnegotiated by local actors to address the uniquecircumstances and governance characteristicsbetween a particular producer country and the EU,making them exceptionally adaptable frameworks.VPAs build on and complement existing nationallegislation, but also target the revision of legalframeworks, particularly when they are antiquatedand unrealistic.

Above all, VPAs represent an unprecedented,bottom-up and inclusive process, bringing together awide range of local stakeholders in developingcountries including government institutions, theprivate sector and civil society to discuss pressingissues in forest governance and agree on aninclusive way forward. The extent of involvement ofexternal actors (e.g. FAO, European Forest Institute)is limited to walking local actors through the VPAprocess and supporting them in developing theirdistinct positions. In this regard, VPAs are historicaland unprecedented trade agreements for Europe as

well, given the extent of involvement of non-stateactors that have been encouraged to contribute tothe process (Ozinga, 2012). This multi-stakeholderapproach, moreover, has led most countries to usethe VPA process to address issues beyond thetimber trade with the EU (FAO, forthcoming). It hasbeen said that VPAs are about more than just tradeand legality: by providing a key to unlock wideractors in civil society, VPAs offer a template forbetter governance far beyond the forests (Pearce,2012). The efficacy of FLEGT approaches acrossother land-use systems such as agriculture and

other natural resources should not beunderestimated (Hobley & Buchy, 2012).

The conclusion of VPAs has generated otherpositive changes in countries that have engaged inthe process, including the development of a cultureof transparency and accountability through theimplementation of a LAS in respective countries.The engagement of different actors in definingcriteria for legality has been instrumental inidentifying challenges and testing new inventory andmapping methodologies to facilitate VPA

compliance. Nevertheless, there are still some blindspots such as poorunderstanding of the process by


13/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

some stakeholders, which will have to be addressed(Beeko & Kwarteng, 2012).

Finally, important issues such as small scale logging

and domestic market issues, which involve evidentchallenges as far as short-term impacts on peopleslivelihoods, have also come to light through the VPAprocess. Indeed, it is widely acknowledged thatimproved resource governance can result in positivesocio-economic outcomes and poverty alleviation forresource-dependent communities (Moore, Zhangand Triraganon, 2011; Anderson et al., 2006); this isalso a founding principle of FLEGT. However, thelink between poverty reduction through forests isundoubtedly complex, indirect and socially andgeographically different (Hobley & Buchy, 2012). Inmuch the same way, VPA effects on povertyalleviation are not linear. Nevertheless, recentresearch has shown that VPAs can have an impacton access to livelihood assets (e.g. tenure), humanagency (e.g. influence decision-making) and the

rules of the game (e.g. laws, policies to supportpeoples livelihoods) (Hobley & Buchy, 2012). Oneof the greatest challenges ahead for the VPAprocess will be to better address its poverty

alleviation potential.

VPAs incarnate local, adaptable and inclusivegovernance frameworks; they involve deep,structural, local and often different changesdepending on context. For this very reason changehas been admittedly slow. At the same time, changehas been innovative, profound and because of thislikely to be long-lasting from a social, environmentaland economic point of view: for the first time in 25years, we have the right processes for change inforestry, a notoriously intransigent sector (Hobley &Buchy, 2012).

The EU FAO FLEGT Programme

The EU FAO FLEGT Programme a part of the global FLEGT Network supported by the EU assistsboth countries engaged in the negotiations or the implementation of a VPA with the EU, known as VPAcountries, and timber-producing countries and/or those who are major players in the timber products

trade that are eligible but not currently engaged in negotiations of a VPA, or non-VPA countries. TheProgramme is demand-driven and designed to address the locally-defined needs of stakeholders byproviding assistance through periodic calls for proposals open to government agencies, civil societyand private sector organizations. Government institutions in all countries can also make directassistance requests at any time. By only supporting actions that are requested through project ideas,the programme supports local stakeholders to establish ownership of the process and contribute tofinal outcomes.

The Programme builds on four years of work in which over 100 pilot initiatives in 32 countries wereimplemented, each testing new methodologies and approaches for improving forest governance andtackling forest illegality. In Cte dIvoire, for example, the Ministre des Eaux et Forts, with assistancefrom the Programme, organized a series of meetings with various actors to raise awareness on FLEGT

and VPA processes, identify the major issues in forest governance in the country, build a nationalconsensus on a VPA and essentially provide a forum to solicit views from stakeholders both for andagainst the process. These efforts culminated in the organization of a national workshop whichultimately led to the Cte dIvoires decision to formally announce its intention to enter into VPAnegotiations with the EU. In Ghana, implementing partner Friends of the EarthGhana providedinformation and training to community members, community-based organizations and localinstitutions on forest management, monitoring and on how they can participate in the VPAimplementation process. Land-tenure improved through a series of land and social-responsibilityagreements, increasing community revenue and social benefits; a multistakeholder platform wasestablished to garner broad participation in tackling illegal logging; and knowledge about FLEGT andVPA processes was strengthened through a series of broadcasts, governance forums and awarenessmodules.

For more information about funding opportunities and on how to apply, please see: www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegt/78026/en/
http://www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegt/78026/en/http://www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegt/78026/en/


14/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

NGO Friends-of-the-Earth, Ghana carries out training in forest monitoring for local forest communities through EU andFAO support (Photo Credit: Eric Lartey, Friends-of-the-Earth, Ghana)

References

Anderson, J., Benjamin, C. Campbell, B. andTiveau, D. 2006.Forests, Poverty and Equity inAfrica: New perspectives on policy and practice.International Forestry Review, 8:1.(available at:

www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ACampbell0606.pdf).

Beeko, C & Kwarteng, R. 2012. Implementation ofthe Ghana-EU VPA: Some issues and early lessons.In FAO. 2012. Compendium on experiences fromthe Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs)Process in West and Central African countries. Westand Central Africa VPA Workshop, 23-25 October,2012, Accra, Ghana.FAO. Forthcoming. From theory to practice:Implementing the FLEGT Action Plan and

Negotiating Voluntary Partnership Agreements inWestern and Central Africa since 2007. Rome.

FAO.2000. Forest resources assessment - globalsynthesis. Rome.

Hobley, M. & Buchy, M. 2012. Poverty and Social

Safeguards in VPAs. Presentation at Illegal LoggingStakeholder Update, Chatham House, 9 February2012, UK. (available atwww.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdf)

Ozinga, S. 2012. Voluntary PartnershipAgreements, tools to empower civil society to takepart in forest governance improvements. In FAO.2012. Compendium on experiences from theVoluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) Process

in West and Central African countries. West and
http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ACampbell0606.pdfhttp://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ACampbell0606.pdfhttp://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ACampbell0606.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/090212Hobley.pdfhttp://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ACampbell0606.pdfhttp://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/ACampbell0606.pdf


15/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Central Africa VPA Workshop, 23-25 October, 2012,Accra, Ghana.Pearce, F. 2012. Forest Stands: How new EU tradelaws help countries protect both forests and

peoples. Belgium, FERN.Sayer, J. & Collins, M. 2012. Forest Governance ina Changing World: Reconciling Local and GlobalValues. The Round Table: The CommonwealthJournal of International Affairs, 101:2, 137-146.

Moore, P. Zhang, X. and Triraganon, R. 2011.Natural Resource Governance Trainers Manual.IUCN, RECOFTC, SNV, Bangkok, Thailand.(available at:

www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)

Photo courtesy: SAFIRE
http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/Governance%20Training%20Manual%20v%205%20(web)_159.pdf)


16/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Opinion Piece

Governance challenges

for natural resource management in Africa

Jeffrey Sayer1

any of Africas natural resource problemsare blamed on governance failures. Theover-exploitation of forests, wildlife,fisheries and agricultural lands are

attributed to the inability of government agencies toprotect the public goods values of these resources (Sayer and Collins, 2012). The tragedy of thecommons is still a major driver of natu ral resourcedegradation in rural Africa. Traditional communityresource management practices are overwhelmedby the pressures of population growth and increaseddemand. Government resource managementagencies have tended to marginalise rather thanreinforce traditional practices. Recent initiatives tobuild capacity and reform laws and institutions tofavour community based solutions have a mixed

record. Governments have been reluctant torelinquish real control and communities havestruggled to organise themselves to confront thechallenges.

The basic governance arrangements for naturalresources in Africa have been in place for decades.During my own professional career the population ofAfrica has multiplied by four but in many of thecountries that I know the basic infrastructure forgovernance has remained little changed. Inresponse to perceived natural resource degradation,

legal frameworks have been adapted but thefundamental structures have remained. The criticalquestion is whether laws are inadequate or whetherinstitutions to implement them are not performing. Inmany countries natural resource managementagencies are under-resourced and poorly motivated.Even when sectoral agencies have capacity thejudiciary is often reluctant to apply sanctions when

1 Jeffrey Sayer, Professor of Development Practice,School of Earth and Environment Sciences,

James Cook University, P.O. Box 6811, Cairns,Queensland 4870, AustraliaEmail: [email protected]

natural resource management laws are violated.The long-term solutions to governance problemspresumably lie in improved democratic processesand strengthened civil society so that societies are

better able to shape the resource managementarrangements that they require.

Ultimately a strengthened civil society willpresumably not tolerate the appropriation of forest,wildlife, land and other resources by elites. But Iwould like to suggest that there are some shorterterm measures that could contribute to improvednatural resource governance in Africa. Governmentausterity measures, structural adjustment measuresand an unwillingness of donors to support basicgovernmental functions have taken a toll on naturalresource management agencies. They cannotfunction without reasonable budgets to provideincentives for their staff and to provide them with thematerials that they need to do their jobs properly.Resources are available to support the centralstructures in capital cities but it is common to go tothe field where the real needs are and find localforest or wildlife officers seriously under-resourced.There appears to be a growing imbalance betweenthe resources available for debating naturalresource issues at international conferences and the

resources available to fund operations in the field.Field staff are not only under-resourced they arealso under-valued. Performing well in the field maynot be the key to professional advancement performing well in the conference room may countfor more.

Part of this problem stems from the demands placedupon senior officials. They have to deal withinnumerable foreign delegations, endless calls torepresent their countries in international meetingsand complex negotiations with donors who are trying

to help. Time and vehicles are not available to getout and see the real problems in the field. There areincentives for staff to focus on the national andinternational agenda and neglect practical problemson-the-ground.

Governance is often seen as a problem ofregulation. Forest Law Enforcement Governanceand Trade processes focus heavily on issues oflegality. Trade sanctions are sometimes invoked asa reaction to fairly minor infringements of laws. Butthere is often a reluctance to question the basic

legitimacy of those laws. The Greek philosopherAnarchis observed that laws are like spiders webs

M


17/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

strong enough to capture the weak but too weak toconstrain the activities of the powerful. This is oftenthe case in Africa. I have often been saddened tosee local people struggling to survive in difficult

conditions who are punished for quite minorinfringements of laws. At the same time majorabuses by elites go unsanctioned. People refer towhite collar poaching orchestrated by influentialurban business and political figures.

Lack of clarity on land and resource access rightsalso remains a huge problem in many Africancountries. As the population grows and competitionfor land intensifies the challenges of undertakingcadastral surveys and providing fair and equitableland title is growing. Local people are unlikely toinvest their labour in sustainable resourcemanagement practices if they are unsure of theirrights to the products of their labour. Theseproblems are exacerbated by pressures from foreigninvestors and resource hungry corporations landgrabs are a real threat to natural resources and thecommunities who depend upon them. Decisions onlarge scale land allocation are made at a politicallevel and local peoples interests may not be takeninto account. Recent measures in many countries toensure that Free Prior and Informed Consent is

obtained from local people are encouraging.

The growth in pressure on land also raises tensionsbetween different sectors. Land is rarely used for asingle purpose. Forests have to supply timber, storecarbon to mitigate climate change, provide a habitatfor wildlife and resist the pressures for conversionfor everything from industrial estate crops, mineralextraction to smallholder farms. Natural resourceagencies often lack the resources or mandate toregulate all of these processes (Brown, 2003). Insome countries decentralised or regional natural

resource management agencies have beenestablished to mediate such conflicts and thistendency seems to show promise. The Conventionon Biological Diversity and other internationalprocesses are promoting landscape approaches tomanagement of trade-offs between conflictingresource demands at sub-national levels and thisapproach has potential but agencies that have thecapacity to manage such programmes have yet toemerge ( Sayer, 2009).

To confront these new and complex challenges staff

members of resource management agencies need abroader range of skills and competencies than their

predecessors ( Sayer and Campbell, .2005). Buttraining has often been highly sectoral and providesnarrow technical skills. In recognition of this manyhigher education institutions now offer much broader

programmes dealing with environment or naturalresource management. The basic premise of thesecourses is that there is an unmet demand in tropicaldeveloping countries for senior managers with multi-disciplinary skills. Perhaps the governancechallenges that Africa faces require a new type ofprofessional capable of finding solutions to complex,even wicked problems ( Balint , Stewart, Desai,and Walters, 2011). A wicked problem is one wheredifferent stakeholders cannot even reach agreementon what the problem is and so have little chance offinding a widely acceptable solution. Naturalresource managers of the future will have to benegotiators and facilitators able to broker dealsbetween different interest groups. This impliesmoving the decision making processes and theirgovernance towards the local level.

Everybody agrees that serious natural resourcegovernance problems persist in many parts of thedeveloping world. This is motivating a mobilisation ofaction in many countries. I recognise thatgovernments have to be the main actors in

reforming dysfunctional governance arrangementsand the activities of international donors insupporting improved governance are welcome.Ultimately good governance has to come from thetop, it will not happen if governments dont put intoplace the appropriate structures and laws and theinstitutions to enforce them. But this top down actionmay only succeed if it is reinforced by the sort ofmobilisation of civil society that is now occurring inmany countries. Throughout Africa communities andNGOs are emerging and many of them haveimproved governance amongst their goals. On my

recent travels in Africa I have been greatlyencouraged by this mobilisation of civil society. Ihave observed many courageous initiatives byindividuals and associations who are struggling toconfront the underlying causes of abusive naturalresource management and these people need oursupport and recognition. Successful governancearrangements will have to achieve a balancebetween top-down initiatives and this local activism.


18/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Bibliography

Balint, P.J., Stewart, R.E., Desai, A., & Walters,

L.C. 2011. Wicked environmental problems:managing uncertainty and conflict. Washington, DC,Island Press.

Brown, K. 2003. Integrating conservation anddevelopment: a case of institutional misfit. Frontiersin Ecology and the Environment1(9):479-487.

Sayer, J. A. 2009. Reconciling conservation anddevelopment: are landscapes the answer?Biotropica 41(6):649-652.

Sayer , J. & Campbell, B. 2005. The science ofsustainable development: local livelihoods and theglobal environment . Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK.

Sayer, J. A. & Collins, M. 2012. Forest Governancein a Changing World: Reconciling Local and GlobalValues. The Round Table 101(2):137-146.


19/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Articles

Forest governance reforms:

the way forward for the sustainablemanagement of Africas forests

Adewale Adeleke1

SummaryThere is no gainsaying the fact that poorgovernance is one of the major impediment toachieving development outcomes in any sector, notthe least in the African forest sector. The lack ofadequate governance regimes at the national levelwill always lead to losses of government income andrevenue, contributing to unemployment, and thereduction of local and national environmentalservices. Forest governance arena is a multiplestakeholder environment, and therefore actors workat multiple levels and it involves multiple sectors withdifferent interests and claims. Observations on pastand ongoing forest governance reforms in Africahave been made with reference to their intendedachievements and impacts. These observations

manifest in the various governance gaps andchallenges identified, which include among othersweak institutional capacity of forestry sectorinstitutions (governmental and non-governmental),high level of illegalities and resource security, lowlevel of benefit flows to communities and resourceowners, limited rights of access to decision-makingprocess for communities and the lack of an effectiveparticipatory planning, monitoring and evaluationsystem for the forestry sector. There is a generaltrend of increasing stakeholder involvement in thevarious on-going forestry reform programmes but

what remains to be seen is the translation of theseengagements into effective partnerships that bringtangible benefits to all stakeholders.

1Adewale ADELEKE (PhD). REDD Forest GovernanceThematic Coordinator, IUCN Project OfficeIUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature),c/o Forest Services Division, Box 527 Accra. Ghana

Tel. +233 24 224 9678 or +233 24 435 8076 Email:[email protected] Website:www.iucn.org

Introductionorests have an incredible potential tocontribute to national economic growth,securing livelihoods of forest-dependent

people, reducing overall poverty, and providing amyriad of ecosystem services. The exploitation ofvaluable natural resources from the forestcontributes a large percentage of African countriesgross domestic products (GDP). In addition, theforestry sector is by far the most important supplierof energy in Africa; as it supplies more than 75% ofall its energy consumption. It also provides directemployment to about 2% of Africans and indirectemployment and supplementary income to over10% of African population.However, we continue to see evidence ofintensification of vulnerability and exclusion amongforest dependent peoples, and therefore growingand deepening rural poverty. In order to reachforests true potential, it is necessary for local andmarginalized communities to be directly engaged inthe policy-making process so as to contribute to amore integrated and successful management offorests in Africa.The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as oldas human civilization. Simply put "governance"means: the process of decision-making and the

process by which decisions are implemented (or notimplemented). Governance can be used in severalcontexts such as corporate governance,international governance, national governance andlocal governance.

Since governance is the process of decision-makingand the process by which decisions areimplemented, it is, however, unfortunate that a quickanalysis of forest governance processes in Africahave shown the non inclusion of the majorstakeholder groups (especially the forest

communities) in decision making processes. Thishas contributed in no small measure to the declinein the available natural resources in terms ofquantity and quality.The aim of this article is to get a deeperunderstanding and analysis of identified forestgovernance reforms in Africa, identify the challengesand give informed recommendations.

Forest Governance Reforms in AfricaA number of laudable steps have been taken insome African countries in the process of reforming

the forest governance regimes notably inCameroon and Gambia (for community forestry) in

F
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.iucn.org/http://www.iucn.org/http://www.iucn.org/http://www.iucn.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


20/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Liberia, etc(with Voluntary Partnership Agreements whichcalled for increased stakeholder engagements).Indeed a general trend of increasing stakeholder

involvement in the various forestry reform programsinitiated by government agencies is clear. Tomention a few, some of the strengths of the forestsector lie in i) A favorable policy framework thathas the potential for securing effective forestgovernance; ii) Specialized policy implementing andresearch agencies; iii) Extensive expertise in forestmanagement, utilization and development; iv) Acritical mass of trained and experienced forestersand park managers; v) The ability to attractinternational development partners; vi) The ability todiversify its portfolios to include revenue generationfrom environmental services and tourism; vii) Theability to build synergies with other institutions inmanagement, development and sustainableutilization of forest resources.

Challenges to Forest Governance Reform EffortsNotwithstanding the strengths, the Africangovernments face important challenges inestablishing effective forest governance. Some ofthe challenges include:a) Forest sector stakeholders lack resources,

secured funding and technical and institutionalcapacities to properly address forestgovernance. As an example, national forestryinstitutions like the Forestry Commission inGhana and the Federal Department of Forestryin Nigeria have no secure predictable fundingand the few and far between capacity buildingefforts they can harness are focused heavilyon government agencies and not enough onNGOs and communities. These weaken theircapacity to improve on community levelinstitutional arrangements and strategize on a

long-term scale. Professionals, NGOs andCBOs in the field, on the other hand, lacktechnical capacities, such as properlyunderstanding and managing ecosystemthreats.

b) The forestry and wildlife management laws andregulations are out of date and do not matchtodays on-the-ground realities. In addition,many forest stakeholders lack meaningfulknowledge of current regulations. ForestReserves and protected areas have not beeneffectively integrated with fringe communities

and in addition, are significantly threatened byillegal resource extraction and bushfires. More

importantly the major issues of land use andtenure rights arrangements are not resolvedand these give rise to inequity amongststakeholders. Forest stakeholders lack

meaningful knowledge of regulations and thelegislative process.

c) There are very low levels of private sectorinvestment in the forest sector in Africa, apartfrom South Africa where there have been anoted investment. The potential for investmentopportunities is not properly promoted in Westand Central Africa. There is no real policy toattract investments, as well as a lack of clarityand orientation on benefit sharingmechanisms,

d) Communities tend to have no access to thedecision-making process, which often results ininequitable benefit distribution.

RecommendationsBelow are some key actions that can be carried outto remedy some of the challenges enumeratedabove. These could lead to an improvement of theforest governance process in Africa. These include:1) Strengthening community level institutional

capacities through building the capacity of non-governmental actors. Examples of capacities

that need strengthening include understandingof policy-making processes; improvement innegotiation and communication skills(outreach, dissemination and networking);provision of technical ecosystem managementknow-how; and identifying competent activitycenters for implementation of any governancereform agenda including well built structures formonitoring, evaluation and reporting.

2) Revisiting Africas outdated laws andregulations - it will be useful to encouragegreater stakeholder participation in legislative

and policy-making processes and increasetheir understanding of these processes; garnerpolitical will and support (through lobbying) torevise national policies and legislation;engaging with traditional authorities at the localand regional levels to address the conflicts inland tenure arrangements; mainstreamingsuccessful experiences and programmes thathave proven to be successful in integratingforest reserves and protected areas withneighboring communities.

3) Securing transparency, equity andaccountability in forest governance reformprocesses - African countries will need to


21/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

institutionalize multi-stakeholder platforms(MSP) by integrating them into the policy-making process, with public and private sectorsas stakeholders and not conveners; emphasize

bottom-up communication and participationapproaches targeting disenfranchisedcommunities, conducting extensiveconsultations to engender ownership.

4) Promoting private sector investment -convening an investment forum tounderstand the needs of the private sector; Putin place viable incentives packages to promoteprivate investment.

5) Communicating and raising awareness -educating stakeholders on existing governancereforms and legislations; increasingcommunities understanding of policy anddecision-making processes; disseminatinginformation about investment opportunities,existing initiatives, and successful casestudies; and investing resources (time andfunds) into outreach efforts.

6) Coordinating and building partnerships -developing true, local level partnershipsolutions through an MSP; buildingcomplementary and strategic partnerships tostrategize capacity development that capitalize

on each actors strengths; using networks toshare skills and knowledge, such as linkingfinancial investment expertise to policy makersto appropriately address financing obstacles;

7) Integrating forest resources managementplanning - integrating communities andresource owners in the design, planning,development, implementation, monitoring andevaluation of the intervention programs; anddiscussing benefit sharing mechanisms in amulti-stakeholder platforms.

ConclusionThe importance of governance reforms in the forestsector of Africa cannot be over-emphasized. Atbecomes important considering the fact that different

stakeholders have different understanding of theforest governance gaps/challenges because ofdifferent expectations, power relations, rights andinterests, etc. This is so because of the role theforest plays in the life of an average African, andespecially understandable considering it is a naturalresource management setting. For instance, policymakers and regulators on one hand are alwaysconcerned about governance gaps such ascontrolling illegalities in the sector and avenues forresource creation. Resource owners andcommunities on the other hand are particular aboutbenefits that they could derive from the resource toimprove upon their socio-economic well beingwhereas the industry sought for ways to sustain theirbusiness. All of these concerns points to theimportance of institutionalizing partnershiparrangements in forest governance as a whole.

BibliographyIUCN/GFP (2010): Mapping of Key ForestGovernance Reform in Ghana and the Role ofGrowing Forests Partnerships

Gyimah R. and Adame, S. (2010): Mapping ofForest Governance Reform Initiatives by the NonGovernmental Organisations.


22/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

International forest policy and governanceframework: implications for

forests and food security

Peter C. Gondo1

Introductionorests and trees contribute to the livelihoodsof more than 1.6 billion people worldwide.They play an important role in food systemsthrough both direct and indirect provisioning.

Forests provide a wide range of foods such ashoney, mushrooms, edible insects, fruits, leaves,

roots and tubers as well as bush meat. Forests alsosupport other food production systems such as cropproduction, livestock rearing and fish farming (e.g. inmangrove areas). Unfortunately the full contributionof forests, especially the environmental services andsocio-cultural services are not fully recognized, withemphasis being placed on the economic functionsthat are reflected in the gross domestic product(GDP). However, in many developing countriesespecially in Africa, non-wood forest products,dominated by forest foods, are the main sources oflivelihood for the rural poor. It is thereforeimperative that forest policies and forestmanagement plans must take into account themultiple functions of forests and aim to enhance thecontribution of forests to food security, economicdevelopment and environmental stability.

Key International Forest PoliciesThe development of international forest policies andagreements, both legally and non-legally bindinghas developed rapidly since the United NationsConference on Environment and Development

(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This is inresponse to concern over high rates of deforestationand forest degradation, recognition of the multiplefunctions and contributions of forests especiallyglobal environmental services and strengthenedcommitment to international action to facilitatesustainable forest management worldwide.

1 Peter C. Gondo. Southern Alliance For IndigenousResources (SAFIRE); P.O. Box Be 398 Belvedere,

Harare, Zimbabwe. Email: [email protected] /[email protected]

The main global consensuses on forests arereflected in the following global agreements: Forest Principles; Multilateral environmental agreements

o Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)o United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC)o United Nations Convention on Combatting

Desertification (UNCCD);o Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat(Ramsar Convention)

o Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES)

International Tropical Timber Agreement(ITTA),

Inter-governmental Panel on forests (IPF)and Inter-governmental Forum on Forests(IFF) proposals for action

Non-legally Binding Instrument on All typesof forests(NLBI) or Forest Instrument (FI);

Other programmes and initiatives that articulateglobal forest goals and objectives include: The Millenium Development Goals (MDGs); G8 Action Programme on Forests; Criteria and Indicator processes; FAO Committee on Forestry (COFO) FAO Committee on Food security

Global forest Policies and food securityTaken together, the international forest policies andgoals provide a comprehensive policy framework forpromoting the role of forests in food security . Mostrecognise the multiple functions of forests butemphasize a few thematic aspects, especiallyenvironmental services of forests such asconservation of biological diversity, climate changemitigation and adaptation and protection of landfrom land degradation. Most do not have explicitstrategies on forest foods or for enhancing forestscontribution to food security and nutrition. Howeverthe non-legally binding Instrument on all types offorests (NLBI) or the Forest Instrument (FI) whichprovides the most holistic policy framework forsustainable forest management has a number ofpolicy measures that are aimed at enhancing the fullrange of values of forests.

F
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


23/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Non-legally binding Instrument on all types offorests or the Forest Instrument (NLBI/FI)The purpose of the Forest Instrument, amongothers, is to enhance the contribution of forests to

the achievement of internationally agreeddevelopment goals including MDGs, especiallypoverty eradication and environmental sustainability.The FIs second global objective on forestsrecognises the role of forests in food security, wheninterpreted broadly, as it focuses on enhancingforest-based economic, social and environmentalbenefits. Furthermore the instrument has a numberof national policy measures that are relevant toforests and food security and these are: Develop/implement policies that encourage

SFM to provide a wide range of goods andservices, contribute to poverty reduction andthe development of rural communities

Promote efficient production and processing offorest products

Encourage recognition of range of values fromforests and ways to reflect such values in themarketplace

Support the protection and use of traditionalforest-related knowledge and practicesincluding fair and equitable sharing of benefits

Regional Policies and legal frameworksThere are a number of regional forest policies andtreaties that also provide policy guidance on the roleof forests in economic development including foodsecurity. Examples of some of the key regionalpolicy frameworks are:

Amazon Cooperation Treaty; Central American Forests Convention SADC Forestry protocol European Forestry convention

These regional policies all incorporate thecontribution of forests to food and nutrition, albeit

indirectly.

Institutional frameworkThe international institutional framework forimplementing international agreements andcommitments on forests is as complex as the policyand legal framework on forests. Currently there aremore than 40 international and regionalorganizations, institutions and processesresponsible for varying aspects of sustainable forestmanagement. These include the secretariats of theConventions, United Nations organisations such asthe United Nations Forum on Forests, the Food andAgriculture Organisation, United Nations

development Programme, United NationsProgramme for Environment and other internationalorganisations among them World Bank, IUCN, WWFetc. These institutions play a critical supportive role

given that the management and development offorests is the primary responsibility of countries.

What makes the situation complex is that there is nosingle multilateral body, organization or instrumentthat has the capacity to address, in a balanced,holistic and mutually reinforcing way all aspects ofsustainable forest management. The existence ofmany institutions is advantageous in that it offers, atinternational level, the opportunity to harness theircapacity to support the role of forests in foodsecurity. It offers diversity of ideas, technical,scientific and other capabilities to supportsustainable forest management. What is critical is tobreak down barriers between these institutions andfoster collaboration, cooperation, and coordinationamong them and avoid competition.

To foster effective cooperation and enhance thebenefits from the collaborative and synergistic workof the many institutions at international level, theUNFF established the Collaborative Partnership onForests (CPF) to support the work of UNFF and to

enhance cooperation and coordination on forestissues. The CPF partnership consists of 14international forest-related organizations, institutionsand environmental conventions secretariats. It is aunique mix of technical, development, research,financing and scientific organizations, as well assecretariats of the key international forest-relatedconventions and instruments. CPF memberssupport the work of UNFF, carry out collaborativeand joint activities, individually support countries'efforts to implement sustainable forest management,and work to enhance cooperation and collaboration

among themselves. In recent years, several otherpartnerships have emerged and enriched theinternational and regional institutional framework onforests. Examples include The Model ForestNetwork, Asia Forest Partnership, and the GlobalPartnership on Forest Landscape Restoration. Thus,when looked at in totality, the existing internationalinstitutional framework, therefore has the capabilityto support the role of forests in food security.

ChallengesThere are a number of problems and challenges that

still limit the support to and contribution of forests tofood security. These include:


24/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Role of trees and forests in food and nutritionsecurity not explicitly articulated

Knowledge gaps on foods from forests andtrees

Perception that forest foods are for the poor Insufficient data to help decisions on trade-

offs Inadequate integration of forests into food

security and national developmentprogrammes

Weak inter-institutional collaboration andcoordination

Competition amongst narrow focused interestson forests (e.g. focus on climate change orbiodiversity conservation only)

OpportunitiesThere are a number of opportunities at internationalpolicy level for strengthening and enhancing thecontribution of forests to food security. Firstly theForest Instrument provides an adequate and holisticinternational policy framework within which the roleof forests in food security is recognised. Ascountries review and strengthen their national forestdevelopment frameworks using the ForestInstrument as an over-arching policy framework theywill be able to incorporate the role of forests in food

security more explicitly. Secondly, as theinternational community is developing the post 2015sustainable development agenda, there is theopportunity of incorporating forests into food securityprogrammes and making forests central to the wholesustainable development agenda. Thirdly, the CPF

provides a strong institutional base from which todesign and facilitate implementation of sustainableforest management programmes that support foodand nutrition security programmes. Similar scientific

and technical capacity exists at regional and sub-regional organisations to support national initiatives.Furthermore strengthening of the role of forests infood security can build on traditional knowledge andsupport to community-based forest managementthat allows communities to manage forests to meettheir own needs.

RecommendationsThere in is need to: Address institutional competition, overlaps and

conflict Strengthen institutional collaboration and

partnerships between forest related institutionsat international and regional levels

Promote and strengthen cross-sectorallinkages through integrated landscapeapproaches

Address knowledge gaps on foods from anddemonstrate contribution of forests to foodsecurity and nutrition

Maintain a balance in forestry programmesamongst the multiple functions of forests

Provide adequate financing for sustainableforest management from all sources includingfor research in forest foods.


25/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

Forest policies can be at the centreof change: Looking at the

landscape approach on a national level

Ina Neuberger1

SummaryThe landscape approach integrates forestry,

agriculture, fisheries and conservation and is beingrecognised as a new paradigm for development andthe environment. This article argues that nationalforest policies in Africa can be a key driver inaddressing the challenge of governing landscapes.The example of Rwanda shows that a forest policycan be successful when it addresses cross-sectorchallenges. Successful implementation of forestpolicies through institution building, on national aswell as local level, can be a driver for institutionbuilding in general. Participative measures in forestpolicy can, if they are implemented successfully,

provide sustainable livelihoods and environments.The capacity built by these participative measurescan be used by the actors for other sectors.

Introductionhe landscape approach is the currentbuzzword within the international forestcommunity. It is hummed throughout the

corridors of the 10th session of the United NationsForum on Forests; it is promoted in position papersand statements of several of the main stakeholderorganisations and is supported as a Sustainable

Development Goal. Peter Holmgren, CIFORsDirector General, brings it to the point in hiscompelling blog: We need a new paradigm fordevelopment and environment that counteractscurrent silos between agriculture, forestry, fisheriesand conservation (Holmgren 2013).

1 Ina Neuberger . World Future Council,Mexikoring 29, 22297 Hamburg Germany.Mobile telephone: +49 (0)172 424 72 62.Email: [email protected]

Website: www.worldfuturecouncil.orgTwitter: @good_policies

In the pre-conference documents for the GlobalLandscapes Forum which will be held on the sidelines of the UNFCCC COP in Warsaw, CIFOR

presents a definition of the term landscape:Landscapes are geographical constructs thatinclude not only the biophysical features but alsocultural and institutional attributes of an area. Theycan be managed with varying degrees of intensityand undergo transitions over time (CIFOR 2013).

Sayer states that landscape approaches help toprovide tools and concepts for managing land toachieve social, economic, and environmentalobjectives (Sayer et al., 2013). Sayers papersummarizes ten principles which synthesize thecurrent consensus on landscape approaches. Theseinclude: continual learning and adaptivemanagement, a common concern entry point,multiple scales, multifunctionality, multiplestakeholders, negotiated and transparent changelogic, clarification of rights and responsibilities,participatory and user-friendly monitoring, resilience,and strengthened stakeholder capacity. For apolicymaker, the question to explore is how theseprinciples can be translated into governance. Whatdo they imply, for example, for national forest

policies? This article argues that national forestpolicies can be a key driver in addressing thechallenge of governing landscapes in East andCentral Africa.

Two national forest policies in sub-Saharan Africahave received special recognition lately. RwandasNational Forest Policy, initiated in 2004 and updatedin 2010, was awarded with the gold Future PolicyAward by the World Future Council in 2011. TheGambia won the silver Future Policy Award medal(World Future Council 2011).

The Future Policy Award celebrates policies withparticularly positive effects on the living conditions ofcurrent and future generations. The aim of theaward is to raise global awareness for theseexemplary policies. It based on the SevenPrinciples for Sustainable Development Law whichwere developed by the International LawAssociation namely: (1) sustainable use of naturalresources; (2) equity and poverty eradication; (3)precautionary approach to human health, naturalresources and ecosystems; (4) public participation,

access to information and justice; (5) goodgovernance and human security; (6) integration and

T
mailto:[email protected]://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/mailto:[email protected]


26/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

interrelationship; and (7) common but differentiatedresponsibilities.

Rwandas National Forest Policy

According to the Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2010 (FAO 2012), Rwanda is one ofthe very few countries in sub-Saharan Africa whichhas successfully increased its forested area. TheEast African country has not only succeeded instopping deforestation, it has actually managed toreverse the process, and since 1990 the proportionof forested area has increased by 37 per cent. TheFuture Policy Award evaluation process showed thata key reason for Rwanda being successful inincreasing its forested area is that RwandasNational Forest Policy connects a range of diversemeasures, including some not directly associatedwith forests. Guiding principles include sustainableforest management, stakeholder involvement indecision making, development of agroforestry,nurturing of fragile ecological zones, reducingnegative ecological impacts of man-made forests,protecting endangered plant species, and educationon forestry issues (Neuberger 2012). Taking thisapproach further, in 2011 the Rwandan governmentannounced an initiative with a vision of a nationwideborder to border landscape restoration.

The point made here is that the policy is successfulbecause it addresses cross-sector challenges. Itwould be interesting to further explore how preciselythe Rwandan landscape approach realizes the 10principles defined by Sayer (Sayer et al., 2013).

Sayer identifies institutional and governanceconcerns as the most severe obstacles toimplementation. Experts and practitioners oftenstate that many African forest policies facechallenges of implementation, such as

administrative obstacles, weak law enforcement,lack of monetary incentives and lack of equitabledistribution of benefits and costs. Again, a focus ona solution can deliver some insights. The evaluationof the World Future Council on the occasion of the2011 Future Policy Award (World Future Council2011) showed that key success factors of theimplementation of the Rwandan forest policy includea strong political will, structured governance andstrong institutions with sufficient budgets.

Reforestation is an environmental priority of

Rwanda, as well as forest related topics such aspreservation of biological diversity and climate

change mitigation and adaptation (REMA 2011).Furthermore, the government has set a clear,measurable target in terms of increased forestcover. Its objective is to increase national forests to

30% of the national land area by the year 2020. Theaim for agroforestry systems is 85% of agriculturallands. The area of new forests to be created isspecified in hectares annually (Republic of Rwanda2010).

Crucially, this explicit political target was followed bythe organization of strong institutions with sufficientbudgets, on national as well as local level. In severalAfrican countries, the absence of strong institutionalstructures at the local level has led to domination bysmall elite groups (Njuki et al., 2004). In Rwanda,the National Forestry Authority was established in2008 to promote transparent, prompt and effectiveimplementation of the forestry policy provisions.Moreover, many stakeholders are involved in theimplementation at different levels. Rwanda is dividedinto five provinces containing 30 districts and 416sectors. The district levels are divided into sectorswhich are divided again into cells. Forest officers areworking at district levels and cells have to preparetree nurseries for their areas. The community itself isalso involved (Neuberger 2012).

The forestry sector is benefiting from a stronginstitutional environment in general and a forestpolicy that provides for local benefits andresponsibilities and can be a key driver indeveloping decentralized institutions. Lessons fromRwanda show that sufficient budgets, educatedstaff, and anti-corruption measures are instrumentalto achieving this end.

The Gambian model of National Forest PolicyThe evaluation of the 1995 forest policy of the

Gambia which won the silver Future Policy Awardgives a further indication on how a forest policy canbe utilized to govern landscapes. The Gambianmodel is most effective in implementingparticipation. The policy used a phased introduction,allowing forest users and the government time toadapt and build a sense of ownership of forestresources amongst local communities. Ifcommunities can demonstrate their ability toeffectively manage the forest and protect it from firesand illegal exploitation for a period up to three years,final and permanent ownership is legally transferred

to them. In 2010, over 350 villages country-wideparticipated in community forestry; they owned over


27/84


FAO

Regional

Office for

Africa

FAO

REGIONAL

OFFICE

FOR

AFRICA

29,000 hectares of land and managed 12% of thecountrys forests. Despite being one of the worldspoorest countries with a rapidly growing population,the Gambia has managed to achieve a net forest

cover increase of 8.5% over the last two decades(World Future Council 2011).

Forest policies in several African countries, forexample in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda,provide for participative measures, organized ascommunity forest management, participatory or jointforest management.. However, participation is not asuccess story everywhere. Including participativemeasures in a policy is one thing but actuallyimplementing them is another. Ghazoul identifiescontinual learning and adaptive management as thefirst principle for improved environmentalmanagement to solve wicked problems. Ghazoulsarticle further emphasizes that the integration ofagricultural and environmental priorities will requirea people- centered approach at landscape scales(Ghazoul 2013). One of the success factors of theparticipative measures in the Gambian policy is thephased approach which allows for learning andcapacity building. Experience has shown thatcapacity built by continual learning and adaptingenhances participation. Because of the importance

of forests and trees for sustainable livelihoods,ecosystems and development in Africa, capacitybuilt by a phased participation approach as in theGambian forest policy can make people-centeredapproaches possible on further levels. As FAOnotes in its Guidelines for Institutionalizing andImplementing Community-Based ForestManagement in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO 2012),the participatory and collective decision makingnature of community-based forest managementprovides a platform for linking with and taking intoaccount interests from other sectors, such as

agriculture, water, energy tourism. In other words:well designed and implemented participativemeasures of forest policies can be a trigger fordeveloping sustainable landscapes.

ConclusionA closer look at forest policies that actually work onthe ground can deliver insights into the question ofhow to translate a landscape approach effectivelyinto governance. Apart from a cross-sectoralapproach in design, implementation on the ground iscrucial. Key success factors for effective

implementation include a strong political will,structured governance, strong central and

decentralized institutions with sufficient budgets andeducated staff and implementation of participativemeasures. If governments succeed in bridging thegap between policy and implementation, national

forest policies can be a key driver in addressing thechallenge of governing landscapes.

ReferencesCIFOR 2013. The Global Landscapes Forum. Webpost,available atwww.cifor.org/glf.html

FAO (2012). Guidelines for Institutionalizing andImplementing Community-Based ForestManagement in Sub-Saharan Africa.FAO RegionalOffice for Africa, Accra, Ghana.

FAO (2012), Global Forest Resources Assessment2010), FAO, Rome

Holmgren, P. (2013) "Could the SustainableDevelopment Goals Include Landscapes?" Web logpost. CIFOR Forests News Blog, available athttp://blog.cifor.org/14788/could-the-sustainable-development-goals-include-landscapes/#.UdLog5yze3o

Ghazoul, Jaboury (2013). Solving 'wicked problems':

ten principles for improved environmentalmanagement, available athttp://news.mongabay.com/2013/0623-ghazoul-wicked-problems.html

Neuberger, I. (2012): Forests for People, WorldFuture Council, available at:www.worldfuturecouncil.org/forests_for_people.html

Njuki, J., Kowero, G., Nair, C. (2004). What shapesforestry in Africa? A report prepared for the projectLessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management

in Africa

Republic of Rwanda. Ministry of Forestry and Mines(

nature & faune enhancing natural resources management for food security in africa volume 27, issue...

Documents