Background and Introduction
The Africa Hearing
Conclusions
The WCFSD Action Plan
Final Remarks

Background and Introduction

 1. On behalf of the Sustainable Development Institute and the IUCN -the World Conservation Union, I attended the Africa Region Public Hearing of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (WCFSD) in Yaounde, Cameroon from May 5-6. In addition to the public hearing, I was invited to attend the drafting meetings of the Commission and participate in the discussions to review the content of the WCFSD final report and follow-up plans of the Commission on May 4, and May 7-9.

 2 As with other regional hearings of the WCFSD, representation at the hearing was heaviest from the host country. While the hearing was intended to focus on forests and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, the discussion focused mainly on tropical moist forest zone of coastal West Africa and the Congo Basin region. Regional representatives came from a wide array of African countries including Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Benin, Togo, Mali, the Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), as well as Burkina Faso, Kenya, Burundi, South Africa, Senegal, and, of course, Cameroon. More than 250 people from African government agencies, local, regional and international NGOs, research and training institutions, universities, international and bilateral financing institutions, consultants, transnational forest enterprises, journalists, politicians and representatives of civil society attended the public sessions of the Africa Hearing.

 3. About half of the WCFSD Commissioners attended the hearing, including: Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Commonwealth Secretary General; Ola Ullsten, Ambassador and former Prime Minister, Sweden; Emil Salim, former Minister of Environment, Indonesia; Angela Cropper, UNDP Senior Adviser Environment and Development SEED/BPPS; Debrah Christine, Executive Director, Resource and Information Project on the Environment (Ghana); Hemmo Muntingh, IFAW Team Leader Tropical Forests and EU parliamentarian; Manuel Rodriguez, (Columbia) former co-chair of the UNCSD's Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF); Kazimierz Rykowsky, Professor and Deputy Director Forest Research Institute, Poland; and George Woodwell, President, the Woods Hole Research Center, USA; also attending from the WCFSD Secretariat were John Spears and Arnoldo Contreras;

 4. Resource persons attending the hearing included: Bai-Mass Taal, UNEP; Luke Umeh Ffan, ADB; Mwangi Wacharia, EDI; Claudia D'Andrea, SDI/IUCN; Chip Rowe, ICRAF; Olivier Dubois, IIED; and Gill Shepherd and David Brown, ODI; Mikael Grut, Consultant, UK; Matt Heering, DO Forestry International; Ron Kemp, UK Tropical Forest Forum; Ralph Roberts, CIDA Senior Advisor; Brian Kerr, Commonwealth Secretariat; Fred Swartzendruber, USAID; and Claude Heimo, World Bank.

 5. The WCFSD is concerned that progress is not being made in stopping forest loss and degradation due to a variety of realities on the ground that are frequently not discussed at international forest meetings. Thus the Commission has attempted to examine problems of forests and sustainable development not being addressed in the major global forest policy fora such as the UNCSD's IPF; Montreal, Helsinki, & Tarapoto Processes; the COP to the Convention on Biodiversity; and ITTO; At each of the regional hearings, the Commission has raised four basic questions:

• How much and what type of forest should be managed and protected?
• How should forests be managed and protected?
• By whom should they be managed and protected? and
• For whose benefits?

 7. As the Commission processes the results of the past eighteen months and prepares for its fifth and final hearing on Russia and the European Region to take place in Russia, September 1997, it is developing detailed recommendations to governments, industry, and the international community for steps that can be taken to address forest loss and degradation.

The Africa Hearing (back to contents)

 8. The Africa Hearing highlighted some of the well-known problems of forest management in African countries related to the questions of security of access to forest land and forest resources and a more fundamental question: the failure of governments to safeguard traditional rights and the usurpation of local people's rights by the private industry and by governments. Some participants offered cases where communities had managed to prevail, such as in Ghana where communities defied the state and were able to maintain control over their traditional lands. Others noted that in many African countries, such as in Cameroon, where the forest industry is highly lucrative, communities cannot gain security over their land. In Mali, Togo, Benin, and Cote d'Ivoire, community forest management has made great strides, but the majority of the forest has already been cut. In Nigeria, as in some other forest-rich countries, communities have few pathways toward land security. As one of the participants pointed out about Cameroon, "In the Eastern part of the country, you find the poorest people and the richest forests. The lorries in the province are passing by these rural poor loaded with logs day after day, hour after hour. Yet, a man who cut a tree so that he can send his children to school was arrested. It's just not fair!"

 9. The Commission has studied the perverse incentives driving forest loss, touching on problems including the failure to adequately value forest resources; management failures and constraints due to the migratory nature of logging operations; inadequate respect for the needs of poor people and women in existing legislation; collusion and corruption; wasteful exploitation; inefficient processing; lack of responsible government planning and management capacity and financial resources; inadequate division of responsibilities for both forest management and protection; lack of incentives for sustainable forest management (SFM) and biodiversity conservation; Some of these issues were raised openly on the floor, as at other hearings. One participant from the forest service of Cameroon told me, "This has never happened before at a meeting held in Africa! I can hardly believe my ears. This is something very new to talk about such matters as corruption in a public forum in Africa."

10. The Commission reiterated during the hearing, that solutions to forest management conflicts are to be found among the private and non-governmental actors. Certainly there is a need for governments to implement policies for the more effective participation in both planning and executing forest management and protection policies by these actors. The role of government remains important, but forest management can be devolved effectively to non-governmental actors. The Commission emphasizes, for instance, the importance of the spontaneous emergence of forest protection committees among communities across India, and the rise of small holder interests in local management in Latin America, Europe and North America.

 11. Participants raised in Africa, as in previous hearings, the need for clear rights in order to engage in effective small scale sustainable production of timber and non-timber products. One woman from Cameroon said, "The population believes the forest belongs to them. The state says the forest belongs to the state. Small scale subsistence collection is still allowed, but they have no control over protecting their source of livelihood, and no voice in the management of resources. If people were brought into the decision making, they could solve this problem."

 12. There was much discussion of the new Cameroon forest law of 1994. One particularly sharp analysis was presented by Francois Ekoko, working with the Center for International Research on Forestry (CIFOR) on links between poverty and deforestation. He showed how despite the law's provisions for community forestry, it fails to secure rights over land, and makes it more difficult than before for communities to maintain even subsistence activities in forests traditionally used by them. In his report he stated, "The World Bank, Government of Cameroon, French politicians, logging companies, and individual politicians influenced the formulation of Cameroon's 1994 Forestry Law. Development objectives, direct material interests, and political concerns motivated their actions. Due to a flawed formulation process, conflicting interests, and weak government administrative capacity, the law has not been fully implemented and may not be. Future policies will depend on each actor's willingness to defend their interests, the balance of power, and the executive branch's ability to mediate among interests."

 13. He told me, "The new forest law appears to be favorable to community forestry, but in effect makes it more difficult for communities to cut anything legally because you need an authorization from the forest department. Communities can gain concessions now if they have enough money, a management plan, and intend to bring high revenues to the province. Most communities do not have the capacity to apply for a concession, particularly the Baka (pygmies) in the Southwest. Meanwhile, a private sector operator can come in on a fast track to gain the concession rights first."

 14. Likewise Madame Kiyoko of Cameroon explained, "The problem is of governance! It should be the responsibility of the state to ensure that some of the forest is set aside and that some of the profits are shared at the local level. According to the new Forestry Law in Cameroon, 40% of revenues should be given to local dwellers, but to whom among those local dwellers? These issues cannot be separated from problems of land tenure systems. The new Forestry Law is supposed to allow community forest concessions, but after two years only one out of six so-called communities who could apply for such a concession is entitled to engage in forestry activities. This is a top-down rhetorical version of participatory forest management'."

 15. In contrast, a participant in Mali, described a situation that seems to be working where admittedly there is not much forest left. Previously the forest authorities would give permits to any company to cut forest anywhere. Now permits are issued only by the people adjacent to the forest in question, with a stamp of approval from the forestry department. This combination of local control and local responsibility with forest authority consultation and monitoring of activities is extremely effective. It is a model that could be emulated. A participant from the former Zaire, exclaimed that the problem in his country that there are strict limits on forest exploitation by local people, despite their subsistence reliance on the forest, and he asked, "What will help in strengthening the community level control?"

 16. One important question came from Brian Kerr of the Commonwealth Secretariat. He asked, "What activities are best handled at the local level, and what is best handled at the state level? Where is the line of division of responsibilities?" Participants answered that the local level knows the local environment and its value, and can measure its productive value. The state level should develop legal frameworks so that communities can exercise their rights and the state's role is in taxation to collect and distribute revenues in a fair and equitable way. Others pointed out that it depends very much on the relationship between civil society and the state, but that there is need for partnership between them."

 17. A forest dweller from the Northwest of Cameroon said, "There is a fundamental misunderstanding of forest dwellers rights. We say we own the land and have property rights. The state says that we have user rights."

 18. Another Cameroonian speaker said, "I don't mean to defend the new forest law, but may be looking at it differently. States are no longer highly centralized and the pace of decentralization is fast. We know the limits of states and problems of Cameroon and many other countries. But this law presents an opportunity to move further toward decentralizing forest management."

 19. The Kenya Forest Working Group of the African Forest Action Network (AFAN) said, "The role of NGOs in this process is critical. NGOs can provide a means of interaction between the public and the state. We have found that focusing on informal education can increase community awareness of the rights and responsibilities of local people. This is an important service providing a facilitation between levels that helps everyone understand their roles."

 20. Another speaker from AFAN's Cameroon Working Group added, "The role of NGOs is also important for informing people about the consequences of development projects about which they have no knowledge. For example the World Bank and Chad/Cameroon Oil Pipeline Project. The pipeline will be built across the most fertile region of Chad and risks displacing local people, disturbing their systems of livelihood, access to land, trees, water, and sources of income. While the advocacy and information role of NGOs not pleasing to everyone, it is an important one. But NGOS should also be involved in the on-the ground training and micro planning together with communities to discuss the alternatives, not just the problems."

 21. A speaker from Benin added, "It is a question of raising awareness to understand the role of the NGO. Increasingly, the public is beginning to understand that NGOs are doing as a good a job, in many cases as the donor agencies and NGOs. As official development assistance decreases, NGOs should play a fundamental role in development through smaller scale, localized projects."

 22. Speakers from many countries protested at this point, "The NGOs role should be questioned! They can exploit the local people for their own ends. We must look at the effectiveness of NGOs on the ground, at the local level. What is an NGO? There are big problems with NGO credibility at both local and national level. People are suspicious. NGOs often create social problems." This vibrant debate went on at some length until the session came to a close.

 23. The second day, the three breakout groups reported on the summaries of their concerns from the previous days discussion. This was followed by questions and answers from the participants who were able to register to speak at a table outside. The breakout group discussion from the previous day on People was summarized: there is need for representation of local people in decision making and management of forests; effective relationships are needed between people, the state, NGOs, and international non-governmental organizations through mediation; and the governments need to establish mechanisms and linkages for these relationships to support an iterative process of policy formulation and adjustment to improve local management capacity.

 24. The Production breakout group concluded that the main need is political will for ensuring investment that is appropriate for bringing forests under sustainable management. Timber is a sensitive issue in Africa and creating a sustainable basis for timber production is crucial. The breakout group on protection came out with a pithy summary:

• Strengthen technical and financial assistance for multiple use management;
• Actively identify costs to national and local communities for biodiversity conservation;
• Develop resource information and management systems of SFM;
• Advantage of Africa Hearing is to bring the recommendations of this conference to the attention of national leaders.

 25. Throughout the day, a lively dialogue between the different interest groups ensued. The purpose of the hearing is not to reach consensus, but rather to listen to the speakers and trace out the patterns of the mismanagement of forest resources and development approaches, A wide spectrum of cases were presented, where things work and where things don't. A variety of potential solutions were offered. A number of eloquent speeches were made. By the end of the day, evidence had mounted supporting the Commission's proposal that the solution lies in the greater involvement of local communities, non-governmental organizations and private sector actors, in the management of forests. But that this could not be done without political commitment and in some cases in relationship with the government for the benefit of the forest, the local people, and all the other stakeholders whose voices have not been heard. It was reiterated in closing that these key stakeholders were not able to take part in these discussions and that is a loss to all present. However, there was a feeling that ground was broken to explore ways to improve the processes by which forest policy is made and the mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing forest management and practices.

 26. An interesting and telling exchange occurred at the end of the day between Nigerian NGOs and a representative of the Nigerian government. An NGO representative pointed out the importance of the international market links that drive forestry. He said, "In Nigeria, for example, logging before independence was directed by foreign companies of the colonial government. But what has happened since then has been the result of bad national governance." He was swiftly attacked by the Nigerian government official for his use of a questionable calculation of how much forest actually remains in Nigeria. Clearly this was a display of the ever-present power struggle faced around the world between those who point out the inconsistencies in the law in order to improve it and those who seek to cover it over.

 27. Co-Chair of the Commission, Ola Ullsten said, "It is interesting that Nigeria took the floor in such force at the end of this hearing. It was the former Nigerian President that signed the guidelines for this Commission. He was an honest and glorious man dedicated to internationalism who handed his power over to civil society. He now in prison because of the situation in your country." He went on to explain what the Commission has attempted to do with these hearings so far. He said, "Of course it is premature to summarize the discussions we've had in Cameroon and everywhere else, but one overarching conclusion stands clear, forest loss has gone too far. Is it the regimes of countries, the logging companies, the poverty, distortions by governments, market values and vagaries, consumption, corruption, population growth? Do all of these cause forest loss? Or are they all resulting from it? Our aim is to find what is in the public interest!"

 28. Ambassador Ullsten listed some of the potential ways to address forest loss:

• Strengthen national governments;
• See that civil society organizes itself;
• Get prices right!

 29. The Commission has begun to develop an action plan to address forest loss and degradation worldwide and to a lesser extent address the needs of sustainable development. SDI has been consistently invited to sit in on the deliberations of the Commission in the formulation of this action plan and of the final report of the Commission. I will summarize briefly in the action plan, at its present stage of development and what the Commission will attempt to address before putting it in final form.

The WCFSD Action Plan (back to contents)

 30. The main elements of the WCFSD Action Plan Program under discussion are drawn from these three themes. The WCFSD has a long list of potential steps that could be taken to address forest loss and degradation. However the Commission still needs to prioritize those actions, and refine them into concrete recommendations. The strength of the Commission's findings will be in that Action Plan. Along with others who have followed the Commission's hearings, I remain supportive of the Commission's efforts to undertake this assessment of the problems of forests and sustainable development. However, there still needs to be a zeroing in on priorities for action and recommendations that can yield tangible results. Lacking such refinement, the Commission's findings will be little more than an accumulation of important studies and brave words with a glossy coat.

 31. The deliberations of the Commission on what elements should take precedence in the Action Plan were not conclusive. Discussions rested on the assumption that the civil society, governments and the international community must build a bottom-up alliance to save the worlds forests and forest dependent peoples. The major themes discussed for the action plan recommendations include:

• Fostering alliances of non-government civil society actors emerging at local levels to manage forests. Examples include the village level alliances of community and "user" groups in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and private woodland owner associations in Europe and North America. These are already influencing national and global level forest stewardship by private sector industry, people and government;
• Mobilizing forces from the civil society, concerned citizens and environmental advocacy groups to strive together with private enterprises and government to achieve strengthening of national-level governance and regulatory mechanisms, as well as third party independent certification schemes;
• Restructuring international institutions in ways that will ensure more equitable participation of nongovernment interests in the policy making dialogue;
• Creating forest market mechanisms that will pay for the global environmental services provided by forests;
• Establishing mechanisms to monitor and eliminate corruption practices in the forest sector; and,
• Pooling efforts among existing organizations involved in forest policy to monitor all of the above in a new coalition called "Forest Watch."

 32. Some participants, particularly from industry, complained that they felt the hearing had not been fair, and that the Commission should meet separately with the private sector stakeholders to understand their point of view. The Commissioners responded that this hearing is designed primarily to give a voice to those who have been left unheard in the past. This same sort of remark surfaced after the presentation of the WCFSD Action Plan at the 15th Commonwealth Forestry Conference held in Harare, Zimbabwe a week later. This has remained consistent with other hearings in the past. As the Secretariat remarked, "If we keep getting the same complaint from all sides, it must mean we have got it about right." While it remains a concern about whether the WCFSD can conduct a "fair" hearing or determine the best solution to forest problems, the Commission has sought to maintain a balanced approach in hearing about the problems of forests and sustainable development. There is much potential for the Commission's report and Action Plan to stimulate dynamic response in many organizations, agencies, at the national and international level.

33. SDI and the IUCN will continue to engage with the WCFSD in formulating and delivering its Action Plan. We are anxious to see that the Action Plan and final report can go beyond the gloss and rhetoric and begin to set change processes in motion at national and international levels. The solutions are found in the many private actors that have a stake in forests. Ultimately, much of the work comes down to how to influence governments to take a serious political commitment to ensure the mechanisms and processes whereby civil society can engage in and determine the fate of the forests. This is the challenge for the 21st century.

The Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), a non-governmental, non-profit organization funded through the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, has been studying the trends in policy among the major donor agencies, including the World Bank, that support the role of communities in managing forests and natural resources. SDI identified a number of the newer projects that have a major community forestry component and emphasize village level development. We selected the newer projects because they also should reflect the participatory policies introduced in recent years by donor agencies and we are interested to see how these policies are being implemented on the ground. SDI's main purpose is to improve the understanding of the pivotal role of local communities in sustaining environmental quality and economic development. Thus the participatory policy of these major donors is of particular interest to us.

I paid a ten day visit to India, in February 1996, to gain a sense of what is happening at the village level in the state of Madhya Pradesh where a statewide World Bank Project has adopted Joint Forest Management to combat increasing crisis of forest resource degradation.

National parks, wildlife reserves and other types of protected areas are a crucial means of conserving biological diversity. Local communities living within or adjacent to these areas have been excluded from the management plans in the past. The ensuing conflict of interest between the local people and the typically underfunded park management has caused people to question this traditional approach to conservation. In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that the management plans for protected area systems must include local people. This shift in approach has come from the discovery that the park management cannot work through policing by the park staff alone. Without attention to the underlying causes for continued exploitation of forest resources by local communities, the protected area systems will ultimately be diminished to a point of no return.

In tropical Southeast Asian protected areas, where the local communities are relying on the forests as a source of livelihood, removing access to the forest by setting park boundaries cannot succeed in eliminating forest exploitation without the creation of alternative income generation. Apart from the fact that the national park staff cannot police the hundreds of thousands of hectares of park, there is a need for regional and spatial planning in these areas where park systems have been set aside. Thus the concept of integrated conservation and development projects applies to the local and regional level, and attempts to find a balance between the needs for the conservation of biodiversity and economic development.

The Kerinci Seblat National Park is one of the largest reserves in Indonesia, spanning four provinces across the southern part of Sumatra. The area was identified in the 1980's as an important area for wildlife and biodiversity. Much of the area had been set aside from Dutch colonial times. In the past fifty years since independence, settlers have been pouring into the richly forested area from all over Sumatra and from Java. In the mid-1980's, the World Wide Fund for Nature together with the Indonesian government, set aside this area to become a national park. In 1988 WWF established an office worked with the provincial, regional and local government to develop park boundaries. In 1992, due to increasing encroachment, the boundaries were redrawn. By this time, the site had been proposed to become a World Bank and Global Environment Facility pilot project for the integrated conservation and development project concept.

In the state of Orissa, in Eastern India, village-based forest protection committees are taking matters of forest management and conservation into their own hands. This community forest protection in Orissa is fundamentally a decentralized grassroots movement initiated by small villages to protect local natural forests from further degradation. In many places in Orissa, communities, on their own accord, are forging unions or federations representing hundreds of villages to protect and regenerate forests, and even push for policy reforms. Orissa may have the most progressive forest policy of any Indian state; yet, inconsistencies in state forest policy and incentives for forest commercialization present obstacles for practical implementation of sound and equitable management. The vitality of these village-based movements demonstrates that implementation of sound forest management practices by forest communities is leading the policy transformation in this region; it is the forest department that needs to catch up with the local communities managing forests and not vice versa.

In a recent visit to the vast state of Orissa, Claudia D'Andrea, Program Associate of the Sustainable Development Institute investigated the rising phenomenon of the formation of unions or federations by visiting with four non-governmental organizations involved at various levels with some of the communities organizing themselves into very large federations. Ms. D'Andrea visited the grassroots organization People's Institute for Participatory Action Research (PIPAR) active in the Dhenkanal district of Orissa with the highest number of forest protection committees in the state; the Bhubaneshwar-based Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (RCDC) active in Western Orissa and the neighboring state of Eastern Madhya Pradesh; Vasundhara Institute, a forestry sector support organization active at both policy level and on the ground near to the state's capital; and OXFAM (India) Trust, which works all over the state but supports some activities of the Movement for Trees and Living Beings, known as BOJBP, one of the oldest and most conservation-oriented of the federation movements.

After the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, a special organizing committee was set up to establish an independent global commission addressing the problems of the deteriorating status of the world's forests. The idea for an independent commission developed out of a proposal from Ambassador Ola Ullsten of Sweden at the Global Forest Meeting held in Bandung, Indonesia in 1992. The goal of the Commission is to examine the use of the world's forests in the context of sustainable development. The WCFSD was launched by the InterAction Council of Former Heads of State in June 1995. A series of five regional Public Hearings are to be held around the world to identify the regional and international institutional, legal, and policy reforms that will lead to more equitable and sustainable forest management. The first of these five hearings was recently held in Jakarta, Indonesia for the Asia region. The next regional meeting will be held in Winnipeg, Canada, September 29 through October 5, 1996, and will address the problems of forests and sustainable development in North America and Mexico, the NAFTA region. Subsequent meetings will be held for the Latin American region, in Georgetown, Guyana in early December; the African region, either in the Congo Basin or the Dry Zone countries of Africa in early 1997; and in Russia for the European region in mid 1997. The following is a report by the Sustainable Development Institute which had the opportunity to attend the first Asia regional hearing and meeting.

The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (WCFSD) is an independent body of experts that was established after the Earth Summit of June 1992 to examine the problems of the deteriorating status of the world's forests. The Commission is holding five regional public hearings around the world to hear the views of different "stakeholder" groups on these issues. The Secretariat and the Commission will produce interim reports, and a final report will be issued in mid-1997.

The North American hearing was the second of the five regional hearings, following the model of the 1980's Brundtland Commission, planned by the WCFSD. The Sustainable Development Institute was invited to attend all meetings and speaking events along with the panel of experts. The Commission aimed to examine three areas: the sustainable use and management of forests; trade and export of forest-related products, and financial mechanisms and instruments needed for sustainable development.

The North America hearing focused on Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The abundance of Canadian stakeholders tended to dominate the hearing and detracted from the concerns over forests and sustainable development in Mexico and the U.S.. However, despite the smaller numbers of Mexicans and U.S. participants, an overwhelming message emerged that greater local and community-based control over forest resources may lead to wiser and more sustainable use and management of forests. Less decisive conclusions were reached on the other two areas of focus.

It was the intent of the Commissioners to have the participants address several questions in each panel that might indicate areas where international agreements might be strengthened, or recommendations might be formulated for the development of wiser use of diminishing global forest resources.

The WCFSD is concerned that progress is not being made in stopping forest loss and degradation due to a variety of realities on the ground that are frequently not discussed at international forest meetings. Thus the Commission has attempted to examine problems of forests and sustainable development not being addressed in the major global forest policy fora such as the UNCSD's IPF; Montreal, Helsinki, & Tarapoto Processes; the COP to the Convention on Biodiversity; and ITTO; At each of the regional hearings, the Commission has raised four basic questions:

• How much and what type of forest should be managed and protected?
• How should forests be managed and protected?
• By whom should they be managed and protected? and
• For whose benefits?

On behalf of the IUCN, I attended the 15th Commonwealth Forestry Conference in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe from 12-17 May 1997. My primary goal was to gain an understanding of the direction of the Commonwealth Forestry Conference. Additionally, it was an opportunity to broaden the membership of the working group on Community Involvement in Forest Management (WG-CIFM) and further the network of practitioners in the development of specific recommendations for community forestry policy. This community forestry policy project is being run through an electronic conference of the working group on CIFM and the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), a Washington-based NGO with a policy research project focusing on community forestry. The recommendations and results of this electronic conference will be directed to a number of international and independent bodies, including the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (WCFSD).

Overview

In the complex world of international forestry, often what transpires in the field is barely reflective of what has been designed on paper. Whether site-specific donor-backed projects, national government attempts to reform institutional and sector policies, or local community-generated protection activities, even the best-intentioned efforts to achieve more sustainable and equitable management of the world's forests fail miserably to realize their goals. For the growing number of people concerned with forest protection, particularly in the tropics, a key factor to sustainable management is the full involvement of forest dwelling peoples and those living near forest areas in the planning and implementation of forest management schemes. Not surprisingly, perspectives abound on what actually constitutes "local participation" in forest management processes, running the gamut from sporadic "consultations" with local communities by donor agency staff to extensive engagement of local community ideas and activities throughout the life of a given project.

As part of SDI's attempt to conduct a "comparative analysis" of forest management policies designed by the chief international lending agencies - World Bank, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) - and forest management practices on the ground that depend on local community participation, I have examined institutional policies, countless project reports and evaluations, and spoken with agency staff and consultants to gain some insight into the links and gaps between policy and practice. While what has emerged is a disjointed, rather unclear picture of how donor policies concerning forest management and local community participation have translated into reality, some notable shifts in policy thinking and trends have appeared.

Generally, there is increasing language in some donor agency portfolios about the need to incorporate local communities and NGOs into forest and protected area management plans. The World Bank and USAID seem to have made the greatest strides in this area, with the ADB having recently formulated an official forest policy (3/95), and the IDB only just beginning to consider lending for environmental projects.

(In March 1997, the Sustainable Development Institute and sent e-mail queries to some 150 people, from twenty-six countries, with a professional interest in promoting the idea of community forest management. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) kindly agreed to provide SDI with the e-mail addresses of its Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management, a multi-stakeholder network facilitated by IUCN. We asked for suggestions and comments about the kinds of national and international level actions and policy shifts that could best strengthen current moves toward greater local control over forests. On the basis of the many useful responses received, we have modified and sharpened the inventory of ideas we initially circulated.)

What follows is a new draft statement on community forestry's importance and needs. Before putting this document in final form, we once again invite your reactions.)

Communities and Forests: Strengthening the Field

Roger D. Stone and Claudia D'Andrea
July, 1998

Overview

In March 1997, the Sustainable Development Institute sent email queries to some 150 people, from twenty-six countries, with a professional interest in promoting the idea of community forest management. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) kindly agreed to provide SDI with the email addresses of the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management, a multistakeholder network facilitated by IUCN. We asked for suggestions and comments about the kinds of national and international level actions and policy shifts that could best strengthen current moves toward greater local control over forests.

On the basis of the many useful responses received, we modified and sharpened the skeleton inventory of ideas we initially circulated.  To the extent possible, the recommendations for actions that follow represent the collective opinion of our respondents.  While they were most generous with their time and thoughts, however, these people were not asked to help form the analysis that backs up the recommendations. For these sections of the paper, the authors are solely responsible.