The Tropical Forestry Action Plan: Is It Working
59
• & • •vs. •$ t-.'-. •' •• * .•; •• ? .•-•• '5^ f"-? 1 •».-: !•" -. .. "•".?."- X TAKING STOCK: THE TROPICAL FORESTRY ACTION PLAN AFTER FIVE YEARS Robert Winterbottom W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E
Transcript of The Tropical Forestry Action Plan: Is It Working
• & ••vs. •$
t-.'-.
•' •• * .•; •• ? .•-•• ' 5 ^ f" -? 1 • » . - : !•" - . . . "•".?."-
X
TAKING STOCK:
THE TROPICAL FORESTRY ACTION PLANAFTER FIVE YEARS
Robert Winterbottom
W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E
TAKING STOCK:The Ttopical Forestry Action PlanAfter Five Years
Robert Winterbottom
n
LT
W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E
June 1990
Kathleen CourrierPublications Director
Brooks ClappMarketing Manager
Hyacinth BillingsProduction Manager
Each World Resources Institute Report represents a timely, scientific treatment of a subject of public concern. WRI takesresponsibility for choosing the study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedom of inquiry. It also solicits andresponds to the guidance of advisory panels and expert reviewers. Unless otherwise stated, however, all the interpretation andfindings set forth in WRI publications are those of the authors.
Copyright © 1990 World Resources Institute. All rights reserved.ISBN 0-915825-58-9Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 90-071056
CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
FOREWORD v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. TFAP—A PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE DEFORESTATION CRISIS 3
III. ORGANIZATION OF THE TFAP PLANNING PROCESS 7
IV. RESULTS OF TFAP IMPLEMENTATION 9
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE SUCCESS OF THE TFAP 21
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
NOTES 33
REFERENCES 35
APPENDICES
1. History of the Development of the TFAP 412. Underlying Causes of Tropical Deforestation 453. TFAP's Basic Principles 494. Confronting the Cycle of Destruction: The TFAP for Ecuador 515. Proposal for a New Management Structure for the TFAP 57
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people deserve to be recognized for theirspecial role in the production of this report. CherylCort, Libby Halpin and Owen Lynch researched andprepared supporting working papers on issues relatedto NGO participation, indigenous peoples, and swid-den agriculture, respectively. Bruce Cabarle wrotethe appendix on the TFAP in Ecuador, and ChipBarber provided background information on theTFAP for Indonesia. Beth Floyd compiled the resultsof the WRI workshop on TFAP implementationissues. Cheryl, Owen, Bruce, Beth, Libby, Chip,Peter Hazlewood and Anukriti Sud all helped in ourreview and analysis of the contents of national TFAPreports, particularly with regard to the attentiongiven to policy reform and institutional issues.Dennis McCaffrey also provided many ideas and sug-gestions for the paper as it was being developed, andwas a helpful critic as it was finalized.
Tom Fox and Mohamed El-Ashry provided over-all guidance for the research and drafting of the re-port. Their constant encouragement and many help-ful criticisms have greatly strengthened this report.Many other staff members of the World Resources
Institute offered valuable comments on the drafts ofthe report, particularly Gus Speth, Kenton Miller,Walt Reid, Kirk Talbott, and Mark Trexler. The finalmanuscript was greatly improved by the editorial as-sistance of Kathleen Courrier and Diana Page. Andthe report could not have been produced withoutthe able assistance of Faye Kepner and other WRIstaff that contributed to the production process.
We are also grateful to the many reviewers whotook time to comment thoughtfully on the draft re-port. This includes the members of WRI's AdvisoryPanel on Tropical Forests, and a wide range ofspecialists with intimate knowledge of the TFAP andthe problems related to tropical deforestation. Al-though they are too numerous to name individually,we are particularly grateful for the comments andsuggestions received from Jim Barnes, Bob Blake,Antonio Carrillo, Mark Collins, Jim Douglas, ChrisElliott, Louise Fortmann, Robert Goodland, HiraJhamtani, Hollis Murray, Matt Perl, Carlos Pimentel,Ralph Roberts, Jeff Sayer and Monty Yudelman.
R.W.
i i i
FOREWORD
In 1985, our reading of the state of the world'stropical forests and the pace of deforestation forcedus to conclude that an ambitious global campaign in-volving more funds and people than any other en-vironmental action plan ever launched was urgentlyneeded. Our shared sense of the best way to get suchan initiative off the ground was to scour and analyzeall the data then available on tropical forests, to callon international agencies and forestry and agricul-ture experts from around the world to put these ana-lyses into perspective, to search for successfulprojects that might be worth emulating, and to de-velop a budget for getting what we then called Trop-ical Forests: A Call for Action implemented at thenational level in ways that suited each participatingcountry's development needs and natural resourcemanagement challenges.
Five years later, the needs to control deforesta-tion and to reclaim lost forestlands are greater thanever, and the need to take a close, hard look at theplan that has since evolved into The Tropical Forest-ry Action Plan (TFAP) is pressing. Because of WRI'srole in launching the TFAP, we feel a particularresponsibility to assess its successes and failures, itsstrengths and weaknesses, and to recommend howthe process might be improved and better utilized inthe future. Taking Stock is such an assessment.
As Robert Winterbottom's analysis indicates, theoriginal plan was flawed in some respects. The rightsand needs of forest dwelling peoples were notstressed in the original plan, for example, and it wasassumed that increasing funding for the forestry sec-tor would solve problems whose roots reach deepinto economic and social policies made and ob-served outside the forestry sector.
Some parts of the original plan have also beenmisread or simply gone unread. Careful study of ACall for Action must assuage any skeptic's doubtsthat it is simply about trees. Over and again, the im-portance of sustainable agriculture to sustainable for-estry is stressed, and increased attention to land use,forest management for industries, fuelwood andenergy supplies, conservation of ecosystems, publicparticipation, and institution building form the basisof the action plan.
More important, however, is the principal find-ing of WRI's analysis: the actual implementation ofthe TFAP has not lived up to original plans and ex-
pectations. As Winterbottom observes, the plansprang from a widely shared belief that more effec-tive programs in forest conservation and sustainablemanagement, policy reform both within and outsidethe forestry sector, and improved land-use planningand inter-sectoral coordination could help makeheadway against uncontrolled deforestation and thewaste of tropical forest resources; but, many of theinstitutions controlling the TFAP—FAO, donors, andnational governments—seem to have become preoc-cupied with accelerating investment in the forestrysector at the expense of the quality control anddirection needed to make the planning process andthe plan itself succeed.
Taking Stock details a number of urgentlyneeded steps for revitalizing the TFAP process sothat the potential inherent in the effort can be real-ized. Looking to the future, the report stresses fourgoals in particular. First, the TFAP planning processmust meet the needs and safeguard the livelihoods ofpeople who live in or depend on the forest. Second,the plan should help ensure that the remaining areasof tropical forests are used in ways that contribute tonational development, encourage multiple uses offorest lands, and protect biological diversity. Third,the TFAP should mobilize the resources needed toregenerate degraded tropical forest lands and pro-mote sustainable land use around tropical forestareas. Stabilizing land degradation and promotingsustainable development patterns that relieve pres-sure on remaining natural forests are especially highpriorities. Fourth, the TFAP should help stimulateneeded policy reforms both in tropical countries andin development assistance institutions.
Taking Stock is a systematic attempt to call at-tention to flaws in the TFAP and lapses in its im-plementation and to weigh both against the plan'sintended goals, its true potential, and the progressmade so far in spite of set-backs and failings. Signifi-cantly, its conclusions were reached through a par-ticipatory process that was itself influenced by fiveyears of experience with the TFAP. If the recommen-dations are taken with that same spirit, the odds aregood that this tremendously important initiative canbe put right in the 1990s—the decade in which thefate of tropical forests and their inhabitants could besealed.
The research and preparation of the report was
made possible by the generous support of the Rock- also contributed to the development of this assess-efeller Foundation, the Moriah Fund, the W Alton ment, through their support for two workshopsJones Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott related to TFAP implementation, and for WRI proj-Foundation. The Atkinson Foundation, the General ect activities in Ecuador, Zaire, Cameroon andService Foundation, the Canadian International Burkina Faso.Development Agency (CIDA), the NetherlandsDevelopment Cooperation, the German Institute for James Gustave SpethTechnical Cooperation (GTZ), the U.S. Agency for PresidentInternational Development, the U.N. Food and World Resources InstituteAgriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Bank
VI
I. INTRODUCTION
This assessment of the Tropical Forestry ActionPlan (TFAP) reflects WRI's growing concern that thePlan will not, as it is currently being implemented,be able to meet many of its intended objectives. Fiveyears after the TFAP was first proposed, importantquestions need answers. Is the Plan making reason-able progress toward its original goals?1 Is the Planhelping to conserve tropical forests and promotewiser use of forest lands and a better life for peoplewho depend directly on tropical forests?2 Will fur-ther support for TFAP's implementation promotesustainable development, policy reforms, and theother actions needed to address deforestation's rootcauses? Will increased development assistance forforestry fully capture the long-term developmentbenefits of tropical forests?
Taking Stock seeks to answer these questions. Itreflects many months of research and analysis atWRI on the Plan's accomplishments and the short-comings encountered in implementing the TFAP.The analysis draws upon the discussions of thetwice-yearly meetings of the TFAP Forestry AdvisorsGroup and a number of status reports and interim as-sessments prepared by WRI, FAO, and various aidagencies.3 It also builds upon the conclusions andrecommendations of several workshops organizedby WRI and others to review the Plan's progress, andon critiques by such organizations as the WorldRainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth, andWorld Wildlife Fund (U.S.).4 The analysis alsoreflects the information and insights that WRI hasgained in working directly on country-level TFAPswith governments, aid agencies, other internationaland national nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), and with local communities involved inplanning and managing forest lands in Africa, Asia,and Latin America.5
Even with the benefit of workshops, otherreports, and experience to draw on, for many rea-sons it is hard to pass judgment on TFAP's record.First, at least three levels of action are involved: pro-motion of international consultation and coordina-tion of the donor agencies; mobilization of supportfor a country-level development planning process;and stimulation of investment and other actions atthe national level to implement TFAPs. Second, theTFAP planning process has been under way for lessthan five years. Third, governments and donors have
tended to count all development assistance for for-estry in the last few years as funding of the TFAP,even if it doesn't fit into the TFAP framework.Fourth, the Plan is a moving target insofar as its con-ceptual framework, guidelines, and implementationprocedures have evolved considerably since 1985.And, finally, different elements and actions pro-posed in the Plan have been emphasized in differentcountries, so there is no clear-cut template to use tomeasure progress.
Different elements andactions proposed in thePlan have been empha-sized in different coun-tries, so there is no clear-cut template to use tomeasure progress.
9V
The difficulty of working with and around theseobstacles will not be lost on the primary audiencesfor this report—the national governments, FAO, theaid agencies, and the Forestry Advisors Group thatare together managing or influencing the Plan's im-plementation and the NGOs and international or-ganizations that are monitoring the TFAP processand the TFAP's impact and effectiveness.
Despite these difficulties and the incomplete na-ture of this assessment, the inescapable conclusionof this paper is that the TFAP effort is in need of a re-commitment to the plan's basic principles and goals,a new institutional framework, more systematicmonitoring, and a more open and accountable man-agement structure. Moreover, Taking Stock, to-gether with various other critiques and assessmentsof the TFAP, underlines the urgent need to make theTFAP planning process more participatory and tofocus it on the identification of strategies for the sus-tainable development and conservation of forestlands. Significant progress in implementing thesereforms should be a precondition for further fundingof development assistance projects identified in theTFAP planning process.
II. TFAP—A PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THEDEFORESTATION CRISIS
The TFAP grew out of a desire to respond moreeffectively to the accelerating loss of tropical forests.The most recent data, however, indicate that thisgoal is still far from being achieved. Some 16 to 20million hectares of tropical forest are being lostevery year,6 compared to an estimated 11 millionhectares a year in 1980.7 In short, the crisis of tropi-cal deforestation is deepening.8 Considering howcomplex the causes of deforestation are, it is not sur-prising that progress in controlling net forest losseshas faltered over the past few years, but the serious-ness of current trends in deforestation is an impor-tant point of departure for any analysis of the TFAP.
BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENTOF THE TFAP
For more than a decade, beginning in the early1970s, the international community of foresters andenvironmentalists had become increasingly con-cerned about the rapid destruction of tropical forestsand increasingly frustrated at their inability to con-trol tropical deforestation. In a succession of inter-national meetings, statements on the magnitude ofdeforestation and its likely consequences grew morestrident as the analysis of the causes became moreemotive and complex.
In 1983, the Committee on Forest Developmentin the Tropics (CFDT)9 charged FAO with preparingan "Action Programme" to identify the priorityproblems and corresponding proposals for action.This initiative was principally driven by the commit-tee's concern that development assistance for forest-ry was stagnating even though the need for suchassistance was increasing. Despite the urgency of de-veloping such an action program, by the end of1984, it was unclear to many observers if or whensuch a program would be completed by FAO.
Beginning in May 1984, another effort began inparallel. The World Resources Institute convened ameeting of some 75 leaders of science, government,industry, and citizen's groups from 20 countries todiscuss "The Global Possible: Resources, Develop-ment and the New Century." The conference pro-duced an "agenda for action" on such pressingtopics as population stabilization, poverty allevia-tion, the conservation of biological diversity, agri-cultural development, and the control of tropical
deforestation. In the case of tropical forestry, a num-ber of goals and suggested priority actions wereoutlined.
As a follow-up to the Global Possible Confer-ence, WRI organized an International Task Force tofurther develop a program for "arresting and ulti-mately reversing the destruction of tropicalforests."10 This Task Force began work in December1984 and released their draft report in June 1985-The Task Force report, "Tropical Forests: A Call forAction" was finalized and published in October1985.
This "Call for Action" was developed with thesupport of private foundations and a number of de-velopment assistance agencies, including the WorldBank, the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency, the U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment (USAID), the Netherlands Development Coop-eration, and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme. FAO was invited to take part in the TaskForce, but declined.
Coincidentally, spurred on by the work of theWRI Task Force, the FAO convened an informal ex-pert meeting in March 1985 to review proposedaction programs in five main areas related to the de-velopment and rational utilization of tropical forests.These proposals were endorsed in June, 1985 by theCFDT. In October 1985, FAO formally released theTropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP), with a viewtowards "the harmonizing and strengthening of themuch-needed cooperation in tropical forestry."
These two "roots" of the TFAP came togetherin July 1987, when FAO, the World Bank, UNDP,WRI, and the Rockefeller Foundation convened ahigh-level meeting on tropical forests at the BellagioConference Center in Italy. This meeting wasprimarily aimed at building political awareness ofthe need for more effective action and acceleratedinvestment to control tropical deforestation. At Bel-lagio, a new, summary version of the TFAP was pre-sented. This version drew on both FAO's 1985 Planand WRI's "Call for Action," modified to a degreeby the early criticisms of both reports. The revisedTFAP booklet noted the need to "avoid the costlymistakes of massive development projects" and to"plan and coordinate projects to avoid wasting ordestroying forest resources or jeopardizing forestconservation areas." It also pointed to the threat
posed by deforestation to indigenous people. Thesechanges aside, the basic objectives and approach ofthe "new" TFAP remained much the same: to over-come the perceived lack of political, financial, andinstitutional support for combatting deforestationthrough a "common framework for action."11
The "Statement" of the Bellagio meeting notedthe economic and environmental costs of deforesta-tion, as well as its causes. According to the report,more attention was needed in the TFAP's implemen-tation to quantifying the costs of inaction, incor-porating recommendations for action into nationaldevelopment plans, promoting community partici-pation, encouraging the private sector, initiatingpolicy reform within both national governments andaid agencies, protecting forest ecosystems, integrat-ing forestry into broader land-use concerns,strengthening research, monitoring tropical defor-estation, and coordinating international action. (SeeAppendix on the History of the Development of theTFAP.)
FAO and various aid agen-cies viewed the TFAP pri-marily as a mechanism toharmonize developmentassistance in forestry,while WRI and others sawthe TFAP as a vehicle tolaunch a broadly-basedprogram to address the rootcauses of deforestation.
99
As indicated in the foregoing, very brief historyof the development of the TFAP, a range of agenciesand organizations were involved in the conceptionof the plan. Grassroots development organizationsand communities living in the tropical forests, how-ever, were not well represented in the early stages ofthe development of the global TFAP framework.Furthermore, although the principal "founders" ofthe TFAP joined together at the 1987 Bellagio meet-ing to encourage the adoption of the TFAP as a plan-ning framework, different expectations of the TFAPpersisted. FAO and various aid agencies viewed theTFAP primarily as a mechanism to harmonize de-velopment assistance in forestry, while WRI andothers saw the TFAP as a vehicle to launch abroadly-based program to address the root causes ofdeforestation.
TFAP's PRINCIPAL THEMES ANDANTICIPATED BENEFITS
Careful scrutiny of the TFAP makes it clear thatthe plan has indeed provided a broad framework foraddressing the challenges and needs related to theconservation and development of tropical forests.Over the past five years, the TFAP planning frame-work has maintained a focus on five inter-relatedareas:
1. Forestry in Land Use. Activities aimed at the in-terface of forestry and agriculture and at morerational land use through community forestry,integrated watershed management and desertifi-cation control, and land assessments and forestresource inventories. To include planting ofmulti-purpose trees on farms, to help combatdeclining soil fertility and shortages of poles,fuelwood and other forest products.
2. Forest-based Industrial Development. Activitiesaimed at promoting appropriate forest-basedindustries—among them, small-scale "cottage"enterprises and other forest-based income-generating activities in rural areas, as well as in-dustrial plantations and the expansion of forestproducts exports.
3. Fuelwood and Energy. Activities aimed atrestoring a balance between fuelwood supplyand demand, by increasing production andreducing demand of wood fuels; also, includedprograms to develop wood-based energysystems.
4. Conservation of Tropical Forest Ecosystems.Activities aimed at conserving, managing, andusing forests' genetic resources, including pro-tected areas management and the managementof forests for sustainable production.
5. Institution Building. Activities aimed at remov-ing the institutional constraints to conservingtropical forests and using them wisely, includingsupport for training, research, extension; great-er institutional support to NGOs and the busi-ness community; the strengthening of publicforestry agencies; and the revision of laws andpolicies to better integrate forestry into nationalplanning.12
A look back at the original plan also shows thatthe anticipated benefits of the TFAP were as broad asthe plan's scope of action. Implementation of the
TFAP was expected to "contribute decisively to im-proving life in developing countries."13 Benefitswere to include:
• more jobs, income, and a stimulus to rural de-velopment, as well as increased flows toproducts and services from sustainably managedforests;
• improved food security, agricultural productiv-ity, and land use;
• more dependable sources of fuelwood;
• increased exports of forest products, with morevalue added locally;
• increased local community involvement in localforest management; and
• increased protection of wilderness, wildlife, andthe genetic diversity of forests.14
LIMITATIONS OF THE TFAP GLOBALFRAMEWORK
As broad-based as these goals and expectedbenefits were, they were to be achieved mainly,though not exclusively, by increasing developmentassistance to the forestry sector. The idea was thatboosting investment, technical assistance, and sup-port for forestry would brighten the prospects forinformation collection, program development, coor-dination among sectors, increased political support,and forestry's enhanced contribution to nationaldevelopment.
While the five theme areas of the TFAP may notaddress all of the major causes of tropical deforesta-tion, progress in each of these areas is crucial to suc-cess in controlling deforestation and in promotingthe sustainable development of tropical forests. {SeeAppendix on Underlying Causes of Deforestation.)Also, unlike the FAO's version of the TFAP, the WRITask Force report underlined the importance ofstimulating changes in the agricultural sector as wellas in the forestry sector. The "Call for Action" re-port recommended that at least 30 percent of theproposed 5-year investment of $8 billion be agricul-ture-related so as to provide farmers and landlesspeople with alternatives to the destruction of forestsand woodlands.15 Nonetheless, the TFAP has limiteditself largely to assistance in the forestry sector.
A related question of degree is how far fromconventional approaches to development assistancethe new initiatives would go. Although the TaskForce report confirmed the need to work with exist-
ing aid agencies and national governments, the "Callfor Action" did signal the need for significant depar-tures from a "business as usual" approach to de-velopment assistance. Increased investment was tobe linked to policy reform, and priorities shifted soas to give more attention to forest conservation,agroforestry, and other neglected areas. The TaskForce also cited the need for the full participation oflocal communities, NGOs, and other groups that hadnot been sufficiently involved in development plan-ning and project implementation in the past.
It was a mistake to viewthe TFAP as primarily atechnical planning exer-cise within the forestrysector when, in fact, a newpolitical planning processwas needed to analyzetrade-offs and to balanceconflicting demands onforest lands.
Neither the FAO's TFAP nor the WRI Task Forcereport were sufficiently clear, however, about theneed for new institutional mechanisms to implementsuch a broadly based and participatory developmentstrategy. In retrospect, it was a mistake to view theTFAP as primarily a technical planning exercisewithin the forestry sector when, in fact, a new polit-ical planning process was needed to analyze trade-offs and to balance conflicting demands on forestlands.
For example, both plans apparently assumedthat there would be few conflicts between local andnational interests in an accelerated program of de-velopment assistance in forestry, and that the contri-bution of the forestry sector to the national econo-my and to a country's export earnings could beexpanded while simultaneously protecting the liveli-hoods and meeting the needs of forest-dependentlocal communities. Increased production of woodproducts and intensified forest management was alsoassumed to be compatible with safeguarding a coun-try's biological resources and maintaining the en-vironmental services of tropical forests. A tendencyto overlook or minimize the significance of suchtrade-offs has made it difficult to achieve the fullrange of the TFAP's anticipated benefits.
III. ORGANIZATION OF THE TFAP PLANNING PROCESS
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FORTHE TFAP
The key to any assessment of the TFAP is an un-derstanding of both what is intended to happen andwhat actually happens in-country as part of the na-tional level TFAP planning process. (See Figure 1.)The process is initiated or sanctioned by a formal re-quest to the FAO or a prospective donor agencyfrom the interested national government. Once theofficial request has been received, the TFAP Coor-dinating Unit of FAO16 takes the lead in advising aidagencies that may want to provide core funding for
the sector review or otherwise support its prepara-tion and implementation.
Next, an "issues paper" is prepared to highlightthe major obstacles to developing the forestry sec-tor. Typically, the issues paper is based on informa-tion available in FAO and aid agency files, and ondata provided by the host-country government. Theissues paper is reviewed by the government and thenused as a basis for preparing terms of reference forthe sector review mission and its individual teammembers. The issues papers and terms of referencefor sector reviews are generally treated as internal,working documents by the aid agencies and the na-
Figure 1. FAO's Process for Preparing a National Forestry Action Plan
Preparatory Phase
• Request to FAO from national government
• Identification of lead donor agency
• Preliminary mission of international team leader tocountry to work with national team leader
• International and national team leaders prepare IssuesPaper on basis of existing information
• Government reviews draft Issues Paper; Issues Paper cir-culated as widely as possible
• Issues Paper finalized and circulated to all partiesinvolved
• Identification of sectors of intervention; terms of refer-ence for consultants identified, securing participation ofNGOs & local people in process; program and schedulefor mission
• National counterpart consultants and other participatingdonor agencies confirmed
• Seminar or workshop (type I roundtable) organized tobring together all interested national partners
Execution Phase
• Donor-sponsored consultants carry out field missions •
Principal conclusions presented for discussion with(Note: type II roundtable may come before finalizationof draft report, with provisions for incorporating the
National roundtable (type II) to obtain political involve-ment and support from all parties
governmentPreparation of draft mission report and submitted togovernment
• Draft report circulated within government and par-ticipating agencies; revisions made based on commentsreceived
• Report finalized and adopted by government
seminar's comments into final report)International roundtable (type III) government and par-ticipating donors discuss effective implementation of theNational Forestry Action Plan
Follow Up PhaseFollow up project identification and preparation mis- • Project appraisal, funding and implementationsions by FAO or by participating donor agencies; assist „ . ,. . . . T,.^,.-„.»,
' J r v t> & • periodic review with FAO/TFAP secretariat to reviewprogress of implementation
government in preparing more detailed projectproposals
(Source: Annex 2 "Basic Checklist and Schedule of Activities for the Preparation and Execution of TFAP Sector Review Mis-sion" from Guidelines for Implementation of the TFAP at Country Level, FAO 1989)
tional government. Only rarely are they formallyadopted or circulated beyond the circle of specialistsparticipating in the review mission.
A "type I" roundtable meeting is sometimes or-ganized by the government before the sector reviewmission is recruited and fielded. At such a meeting,representatives of government agencies and otherorganizations that may have helped prepare the na-tional TFAP discuss the steps needed. Once the sec-tor review mission has been completed and a nation-al TFAP drafted, a "type II" roundtable meeting isgenerally held at which technical staff and agencyrepresentatives go over the draft sector reviews andnational action plans.17
The reports are then finalized, distributed to do-nor agencies, and formally presented to a "type III"roundtable meeting convened to coordinate fundingfor the National Action Plan. In theory, after thisthird meeting, investment commitments are thenconfirmed in discussions between the donor agen-cies and the national governments, and other actionsare taken to implement the TFAP. In all, preparingand executing a TFAP mission takes about 18 monthsfrom the time of the initial request to completion.18
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ANDORGANIZATIONS
The principal institutions most directly respon-sible for the implementation of the TFAP have beenthe two inter-governmental bodies which overseeFAO's Forestry Department, namely the Committeeon Forest Development in the Tropics (CFDT) andthe Committee on Forestry (COFO).1* The FAO For-estry Department itself (including the FAO/TFAPCoordinating Unit), other UN agencies (UNDP,UNEP, UNESCO, UNSO, WFP, ILO), and representa-tives of multilateral and bilateral aid agencies havebeen directly involved as "participating agencies" inthe planning and implementation of the TFAP. Gov-ernments of donor countries have been representedmost often by the chief forestry advisor of their de-velopment assistance agencies. Developing countrygovernments have been involved primarily throughthe national Forestry Departments (which, in mostcases, involves the Ministry of Agriculture), as wellas through other government agencies (such as theMinistry of Planning and/or Finance) that negotiatedevelopment assistance.
The FAO has been charged by its statutory bod-ies (CFDT and COFO) with the overall coordinationof the implementation of the TFAP. In most country-level TFAP planning exercises,20 a designated donoragency takes the lead in funding and organizing aforestry sector review mission and related follow-up
activities, in concert with the FAO and the hostcountry government agencies. According to the FAOguidelines for implementing the TFAP, "the HostGovernment would arrange for the involvement ofnational NGOs and the private sector."21
THE TFAP FORESTRY ADVISORSGROUP
Over the past five years, an unofficial "ForestryAdvisors Group" has met every six months to pro-mote information sharing and collaboration amongthe various aid agencies, national governmentagencies, and other organizations involved in im-plementing the TFAP. The nine regular meetings ofthe Advisors Group held since November 1985 haveprovided a forum for planning and organizing thenational sector review missions, going over theresults of such missions, and coordinating follow-up.The Advisors Group meetings have also provided asignificant opportunity for dialogue between TFAP'sfunding agencies and a number of NGOs with an in-terest in the TFAP.22
The Advisors Group meetings have emerged asthe single most important forum for shaping thescope and procedures of national TFAP planning ex-ercises. The "general terms of reference" for TFAPmissions were outlined at the first Advisors meetingin November 1985 and progressively expanded onthe basis of discussions in the Advisors Group meet-ings to include more explicit guidance to missionteam leaders.23 As the need for more systematicmonitoring of the TFAP has been recognized, theAdvisors Group has played an important role instimulating the FAO Coordinating Unit to developindicators for assessing the results of the TFAP andto organize a review of these results.
Despite its crucial role, the Advisors Group hascome up against serious impediments. It has no in-stitutional stature or authority to insure compliancewith the TFAP guidelines or to otherwise influenceTFAP planning at the national level.24 Also, as thenumber of countries participating in the TFAP hasincreased, and as the range of issues related to TFAPimplementation has multiplied, the Advisors Group'smeeting agenda has become so crowded that there isseldom enough time to fully debate or resolve key is-sues. Most agenda items relate to the implementationand coordination of TFAP country-level exercisesand to various funding issues or other bottlenecks ofdirect concern to the aid agencies. Only occasionallyhas the Advisors Group had enough time to wrestlewith the full implications of some of the conceptualor structural problems with the TFAP's frameworkand approach.
IV. RESULTS OF TFAP IMPLEMENTATION
PARTICIPATION OF NATIONALGOVERNMENTS
The intent of the TFAP from the beginning hasbeen that the plan would be implemented at thenational level through the preparation of nationalTFAPs. In 1986, FAO reported that more than 25countries were involved in one stage or another ofthe planning process. Since then, the number ofcountries participating has steadily grown. (See Fig-ure 2.)
Figure 2.Number of Countries Participating in TFAP
1986-198980
70-
60-
50-
40
30H
20^
10-
1986 1987
| | Requests
| | Ongoing FSR
| | Complete FSR
Roundtable III
TOTALS
1988 1989
1986 1987 1988 1989
15 22 8 11
5 19 38 42
6 5 13 12
0 0 1 9
26 46 60 74
As of March 1990, seventy countries that to-gether possess roughly 60 percent of the world's re-maining tropical forests have completed or started toprepare national action plans for the forestry sec-tor.25 Not all countries, however, are following
FAO's guidelines for preparing national TFAPs. Manyof the Asian countries are developing a "ForestryMaster Plan" (FMP), based on guidelines developedby the Asian Development Bank. The planning pro-cess for FMPs places comparatively more emphasison quantitative analysis of the projected supply anddemand of forest products and generally incor-porates a longer-term, more detailed analysis ofdevelopment prospects in the forestry sector.
Straying from the guidelines for national TFAPpreparation is not the only way that countries have
itAs of March 1990, seventycountries that togetherpossess roughly 60 percentof the world's remainingtropical forests have com-pleted or started to pre-pare national action plansfor the forestry sector.
99
modified or "adapted" the proposed TFAP planningprocess. As indicated in Table 1, many countrieshave jumped from an issues paper (prepared in mostcases by FAO or a lead donor agency) directly to asector review and type II roundtable meeting. Onlyeight countries organized an in-country type Iroundtable meeting to discuss the organization ofthe sector review missions, the major problems to beaddressed, and other issues early in the TFAP plan-ning process.
In a number of countries, the TFAP planningprocess has clearly lost momentum. Of the 27 coun-tries that had initiated TFAPs as of 1986-87, onlyeight have formally adopted their plans and subse-quently presented them to potential donors. In theDominican Republic, Panama, Guyana, Fiji, Malay-sia, and Sierra Leone, the TFAP forestry sector re-view and draft national plan were prepared, buthave languished for months without being formallyadopted by the national government and presentedto a donors roundtable meeting; consequently, fund-
ing for these national plans has not yet been mobi-lized and the proposed actions haven't been imple-mented. In Cuba, Mauritania, Mali, and Nicaragua,the planning process has been stalled in recent yearsor has made only slight progress. In Kenya and pos-sibly in Ethiopia, it appears that the TFAP planningprocess will be repeated so as to improve on theTFAP prepared several years ago.
kk
Only rarely have NGOsplayed an important rolein preparing the nationalTFAPs and influencing theoutcome of the planningprocess.
91
AID AGENCY SUPPORT OF THE TFAP
Among most donor agencies, response to theTFAP (at least in terms of financial commitments)has been relatively strong. Since 1985, more than 40aid agencies, which together account for virtually allof the official development assistance provided tothe forestry sector, have collaborated to support theorganization of more than 50 country-level forestrysector reviews (See Table 2). Typically, these sectorreviews involve teams of a dozen or more technicalexperts and several person-years of consultants andother technical assistance and logistical support val-ued at over $700,000 per country.
FAO and UNDP have most often been the leadagencies for the national sector review missions, butseveral sector reviews or related TFAP missions havealso been led by the World Bank, CIDA, the Nether-lands, and France, and the AsDB has coordinated thepreparation of a series of FMPs. FINNIDA, ODA,SIDA, GTZ, and USAID have also provided leader-ship for TFAP missions. Participation in the TFAP bythe IDB and the AfDB, as well as such bilaterals asJICA, NORAD, and Switzerland, however, has beenrelatively modest. In a number of countries, onlyone or two aid agencies have been recruited to assistin the planning exercise. Seven TFAPs have beenprepared by national teams of experts, with very lit-tle assistance from FAO or other aid agencies.
NGO AND COMMUNITYPARTICIPATION
NGOs—presumably a good vehicle to achievepopular participation in the TFAP planning process—
have been consulted in a number of national plan-ning exercises. However, only rarely have theyplayed an important role in preparing the nationalTFAPs and influencing the outcome of the planningprocess.26 Of the 25 countries for which WRI hasreasonably good information from NGOs, only sevenheld meetings for NGOs to voice their views, and sixof these roundtables were organized at the initiativeof the NGOs. (See Tables 1 and 3.) Few NGOs wereinvolved early in the review of issues papers andterms of references for national TFAPs. In ten totwelve countries, NGOs were invited to participatein TFAP roundtable meetings and seminars or askedto comment on TFAP reports. NGOs (both local andinternational NGOs) played a substantial role in thepreparation of TFAP reports in only seven or eightcountries.
A comprehensive survey of NGOs and theircapabilities was prepared in seven countries, includ-ing three surveys conducted at the initiative of theNGO community. In at least seven countries sur-veyed by WRI, there was minimal or no involvementof local, national, or international NGOs. In five tosix countries, NGOs submitted project proposals aspart of the action plans; but, in general, they lackedthe technical support needed to participate fully. Inthe few countries where NGOs have received someassistance to make it easier for them to participate inthe formulation of national TFAPs, the support hasmost often been provided by international NGOs, of-ten using resources provided by a donor agency par-ticipating in the TFAP exercise.
Such international NGOs as IUCN, WWF, IIED,TNC, CI, and WRI have provided technical supportdirectly to sector review missions or otherwiseplayed a significant role in TFAP planning exercisesin Cameroon, Mali, Tanzania, Zaire, Bolivia, CostaRica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, andLaos. Their involvement has helped to increase theattention given to conservation, policy reform, landuse, and inter-sectoral linkages. More direct partici-pation of local NGOs and the people they representis essential, however, to better articulate the rightsand interests of forest dwellers and other groupsomitted from the planning process.
PROPOSED INVESTMENT AND FUNDINGOF NATIONAL TFAPs
Although data on the agencies participating inTFAP exercises is readily available from the FAO, in-formation on proposed and actual investments in theTFAP is much harder to obtain. A review of elevennational TFAPs for which detailed information isavailable indicate that investment levels of about
10
Table 1. Status of Selected National Forestry Action Plans as of May 19901
CountryArgentinaBelizeBoliviaBurkina FasoCameroonColombiaCongoCosta RicaCote d'lvoireDominican Rep.EcuadorFijiGhanaGuineaGuyanaHondurasIndonesiaJamaicaKenyaLaosMalaysiaMaliMauritaniaNepalNicaraguaPanamaPapua New GuineaPeruPhilippinesSierra LeoneSomaliaSudanTanzaniaZaire
RequesttoFAO
4/8711/8710/86
1/876/863/874/878/87
5/8610/87
*6/867/87
9/876/886/8619876/8619879/86
10/876/86
5/86
2/8710/87
IssuesPaper
1/889/879/89 -9/86
*4/89
*7/86
11/86#
10/86
11/87
1/86
6/8711/889/86
3/892/89
12/88
NationalRoundtable
(type I)
*9/89
10/87
*6/87
**
o
1/87
NGOWorkshop
oo
oo
9&H/89 +o
4/89 +1988/89 +
oooooo
o
o9/88 +
o1987
oo
8/89 +4/88 +
SectorReview
Completed11/886/884/88
5/87
9/869/872/90
12/884/868/86
11/88
9/8910/869/89
6/885/895/87
**
19852/89
10/89
DraftPlan9/891989
10/88
5/871/88
3/902/871/88
10/88
5/881/894/875/90
*5/88
4/88
6/889/8919877/897/89
4/863/892/90
NationalRoundtable
(type II)
1/89
1/88
11/89
4/882/90
10/88
3/89
5/9011/89
7/88
6/88
8/89
4 & 8/89
FinalPlan
5/89
6/884/89
12/88
1/87
3/903/87
12/88
3/88
3/90
9/895/90
Internat'lRoundtable
(type III)11/88
7/89
5/896/89
5/90
oo
1/88
5/90
5/88
4/902/89
5/90
12/89
LeadAgencyNational
ODAUNDP/FAOGTZ/CILSSUNDP/FAONetherlandsUNDP/FAONetherlandsFAO/WBCPUNDP/FAO
NationalUNDP/FAOFAO/WBCP
FranceCIDA
NationalNational
UNDP/FAOWorld BankUNDP/FAO
NationalFrance
UNDP/FAOAsDBSIDA
UNDP/FAOWorld Bank
CIDAAsDB
UNDP/FAOUNDP/FAOWorld Bank
FINNIDACIDA
KEY:* completed—but date uncertaino this activity was not carried out+ this activity was an NGO initiative
1. Compiled from FAO/TFAP Coordinating Unit, "TFAP Update" Nos. 1-16 and TFAP Forestry Advisors GroupMeetings Summary Reports, 1985-1989.
Table 2. Participation of Development Assistance Agencies in National TFAPS1
Country
Argentina
Belize
Bhutan
Bolivia
BurkinaFaso
Burundi
Cameroon
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Coted'lvoire
Cuba
DominicanRepublic
Ecuador
EquatorialGuinea
Lead Agency
National
ODA
AsDB/DANIDA
UNDP/FAO
FRG/CILSS (?)
UNDP/FAO
Netherlands
UNDP/FAO
Netherlands
FAO/WBCP
National
UNDP/FAO
FAO
FAO/WB
Participating andInterested Aid Agencies
CIDA, FAO, IDB, JAPAN,UNDP
CIDA, FAO, USAID
FAO, ODA, Switzerland,UNDP, WFP, WB
Belgium, FRG, IDB, ODA,Spain, Switzerland,Netherlands, UNDP
CIDA, EEC, FAO, France,FRG, Switzerland, Nether-lands, UNDP
FAO, WB
AfDB, CIDA, EEC, France,FRG, Japan, ODA, WB,WFP
CIDA, FAO, France, FRG,IDB, Spain, UNDP, WB
AfDB, EEC, FAO, France,FRG, WB
FAO, IDB, Italy, Japan,ODA, Switzerland, UNDP,USAID
CIDA, France, UNDP,UNEP, WB
FAO, UNDP, USSR
CIDA, FRG, IDB, Israel,USAID
Italy, FRG, Netherlands,ODA, Switzerland, UNDP
EEC, France
Country Lead AgencyParticipating andInterested Aid Agencies
Haiti UNDP/FAO
Ethiopia WB/UNDP/FAO AfDB, CIDA, FINNIDA,France, Italy, SIDA, Swit-zerland, WFP
Fiji
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
UNDP/FAO
France
FAO/WBCP
USAID
France
CIDA
AsDB, Australia, EEC,FRG, IDB, Japan, NewZealand, ODA•>
CIDA, ODA
FRG, Netherlands, UNDP
CIDA, FAO, FRG, EEC,ODA, UNDP, USAID
FAO, FRG/KfW, IDB,ODA, UNDP
Honduras National
Indonesia National
Jamaica UNDP/FAO
Laos UNDP/FAO
Lesotho UNDP/FAO
Madagascar UNDP/FAO
Malaysia National
Mali France
Mauritania UNDP/FAO
Mexico FAO
Nepal AsDB/FINNIDA
Nicaragua SIDA/NETHER-LANDS/FAO
Pakistan AsDB
Panama UNDP/FAOPapua New WBGuinea
Peru CIDA
CIDA, FAO, France,UNDP, USAID, WB
CIDA, EEC, FAO, FINNIDA,FRG, Italy, Japan, ODA,Spain, Switerland, Nether-lands, UNDP, USAID
AsDB, CIDA, FAO,FINNIDA, France, FRG,Japan, ODA, Netherlands,UNDP, USAID, WB
CIDA, ODA, UNEP
AsDB, Australia, EEC,France, SIDA, WB
AfDB, EEC, IFAD, ODA,SIDA, USAID
AfDB, France, FRG, Swit-zerland, USAID, USSR, WB
AsDB, CIDA, FAO, France,Japan, UNDP, WB
AfDB, CIDA, EEC, FAO,FRG, Switzerland, Nether-lands, UNDP, UNEP,USAID, WB, WFP
AfDB, France, DANIDA,EEC, Italy, Netherlands,UNEP, UNSO, USAID, WB
FINNIDA, FRG, IDB, ODA,Spain, UNDP, USAID, WB
IDRC, CIDA, FAO, EEC,JAPAN, NORAD, ODA,Switzerland, Netherlands,UNDP, USAID, WB
CIDA, NORAD, UNDP,FINNIDA
CIDA, FAO, FRG, ILO,NORAD, Netherlands,ODA, Switzerland, UNDP,USAID, WB
IDB, Japan, ODA
AsDB, Australia, FAO,FRG, Japan, New Zealand,UNDP
FAO, France, FRG, IDB,Japan, Spain, Switzerland,Netherlands, UNDP,UNEP, USAID, WFP
1. From FAO, "Donor Participation List," November 25, 1989. Note: only includes countries which are preparing a nation-al TFAP; only lists official multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies (see explanation of abbreviations/acronyms at the end of the list).
12
Table 2. Continued
Country Lead AgencyParticipating andInterested Aid Agencies Country Lead Agency
Participating andInterested Aid Agencies
Philippines AsDB/FINNIDA CIDA, FRG, Italy, Japan,
Senegal
SierraLeone
Somalia
Sudan
Surinatne
Tanzania
KEY:Acronym
AfDBAsDBCDCCIDADANIDAEEC
FAOFINNIDAFRGIDBIDRCIFAD
Netherlands, UNDP,USAID
UNDP/FAO CIDA, EEC, France, FRG,Japan, Netherlands, USAID
UNDP/FAO FRG, ODA
UNDP/FAO AfDB, EEC, FINNIDA,FRG, Italy, ODA, UNSO,WB
WB FINNIDA
FAO Netherlands
FINNIDA AfDB, DANIDA, EEC,FAO, FRG, Japan, Nether-lands, NORAD, ODA,SIDA, Switzerland, UNDP,WB
Agency
African Development BankAsian Development BankCommonwealth Development CorporationCanadian International Development AgencyDanish International Development AgencyEuropean Development Fund/European
Economic CommunityU.N. Food and Agriculture OrganizationFinnish International Development AgencyFederal Republic of GermanyInterAmerican Development BankInternational Development Research CentreInternational Fund for Agricultural
Development
Thailand
Togo
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Zaire
Zimbabwe
CARICOM
Acronym
NORAD
ODASIDAUNDPUNEPUNSO
USAIDUSDAUSSRWBWFP
UNDP/FINNIDA AfDB, DANIDA, EEC,FAO, FRG, Japan, Nether-lands, NORAD, ODA,SIDA, Switzerland, UNDP,
WB
UNDP/FAO EEC, France, FRG, WB
FAO IDB, Netherlands, UNDP
UNDP/FAO SIDA, Switzerland, USSR,WB
CIDA AfDB, FAO, France, FRG,EEC, UNDP, WB
: WB AfDB, CIDA, FRG, ODA,USAID, WB
FAO/ODA CARICOM DB, CIDA, EEC,USAID, USDA
Agency
Government of Norway, Ministry ofDevelopment Cooperation
U.K. Overseas Development AgencySwedish International Development AgencyUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeUnited Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office
(New York)U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentU.S. Department of AgricultureSoviet UnionWorld BankWorld Food Program (U.N.)
U.S.$28 million per country per year are being pro-posed. (See Table 4.) If all seventy countries nowpreparing and implementing national TFAPs requirethe same amount on average, nearly U.S.$2 billionwill be needed—roughly double the current levels ofdevelopment assistance in the forestry sector.
Forestry in land use and forest industries to-gether account for more than half the proposed in-vestment in 12 national TFAPs that have recentlybeen completed, while forest conservation and fuel-wood programs only amount to 20 percent of thetotal investment. However, these global averages ob-scure comparatively larger shares earmarked for for-est conservation or land use in a number ofcountries.
Overall, funding commitments in the forestrysector have at least doubled over the past five years,from some $500 million annually to more than 81billion a year in official development assistance inthe TFAP's five general areas. (See Table 5.) Over thepast year or two, the World Bank has committed it-self to tripling investment in forestry, and the UKOverseas Development Administration pledged 100million pounds over three years to the TFAP. TheFederal Republic of Germany (via the KfW Bank andGTZ) has also sharply increased the amount of lend-ing and assistance earmarked for forestry, and fund-ing by USAID of forestry projects increased from $50million in 1988 to $72 million in 1989-
How does this support break down among the
13
Table 3- Summary of NGO/Local Community Participation in TFAP Activities in Selected Countries
Extent of NGO/community participation
1. TFAP exercise includes survey ofNGOs
2. NGOs consulted in preliminarystage
3. NGOs submitted reports forTFAP
4. NGOs reviewed TFAP draftreports
5. NGO comments incorporated intofinal drafts
6. NGOs attended TFAP seminars/workshops
7. NGOs presented papers atseminars
8. Local NGO members of natT TFAPmission or steering committee
9. Technical support provided to localNGOs for participation in TFAP
10. NGOs submitted project profilesfor funding consideration
11. Plans identify NGOs in projectimplementation
12. Projects to give technical assistanceto NGOs
13. NGOs involved represent conserva-tion issues
14. NGOs involved represent rural de-velopment issues
15. International NGOs involved in pre-paratory/mission/follow-up stage
BF
1S
0
M
S
0
0
M
G
1M
CAM
1S
0
1)
M
M
0
0
0
M
M
S
s
G
CI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AFRICAGHA MAL SEN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
M
M
G
1S
0
s
G
G
1M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
SL
0
0
1M
0
M
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
TAN
12VG
S
M
S
G
S
M
VG
VG
G
S
VG
G
ZAI
12G
S
S
s
s
M
M
S
G
G
FIJ
0
0
M
M
0
0
S
IND
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
G
s
M
ASIAMYA NEP
0
0
M
0
s
M
0
M
M
S
G
M
M
S
M
PNG
12M
S
M
0
0
s
s
G
G
G
S
G
PHI
0
M
0
M
M
S
0
0
BEL
0
0
M
0
0
s
M
0
BOL
S
G
M
G
G
G
S
S
G
M
COL
0
M
M
G
S
G
S
S
s
s
s
s
LATIN AMERICACOS DR ECUHON
12G
G
0
M
M
G
0
G
G
0
VG
0
G
G
G
S
s
s
s
s
G
M
G
0
1G
M
G
S
S
s
0
G
1
s
G
G
G
G
0
0
0
M
0
0
s
M
M
0
NIC
G
G
S
s
PAN
G
S
S
s
s
s
G
M
PER
0
s
G
M
G
M
S
S
0
G
M
M
ASIA
KEY: 0 = none/no, M = minimal/very limited, S = modest/some, G = good/yes, VG = very good, shaded blank = insufficient information.1 = NGO initiated, 2 = goverment/donor supported.
COUNTRIES COVERED ABOVE:AFRICA
Burkina Faso SenegalCameroon Sierra LeoneCote d'lvoire TanzaniaGhana ZaireMali
FijiIndonesiaMalaysia
NepalPapua New GuineaPhilippines
LATIN AMERICABelize EcuadorBolivia HondurasColombia NicaraguaCosta Rica PanamaDominican Republic Peru
Table 4. Assignment of National Priorities by TFAP Theme1
ProposedAnnualInvestments:
AFRICA
CameroonGhana3
Tanzania
Forestryin Land
UseUS$m/annum
6.31
14.7
%
23%.4
41
LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN
BoliviaColombiaDominican
Republic3
HondurasJamaicaPanamaPeru
ASIA
Nepal3
Papua NewGuinea
Total ProposedInvestment4
Percent of total(average for 12countries)
5.920
117
53
14.5
27
0.9
118
36%
26.544
.550482229
.8
4
Fuelwoodand
EnergyUS$m/annum
0.8827%
0.96
1.91
283.20.40.355.3
49
0
14
4%
%
3%
3
8.53
943
10
0
ForestIndustries
US$m/annum
7.42.49.4
74
2.511.87.5
16
17.8
3.8
80.6
24%
%
27%4424
319
463
175532
31
17
Conservationof Ecosystems
US$m/annum
2.306.7
2.98.9
.24
.881.92.35
5.7
16
53
16%
%
9%0
18
1319
42.5
18179
10
72
InstitutionsUS$m/annum
10.31.65.4
4.611.5
1.412.2
1.30.529.8
5.7
1.5
65-8
20%
%
38%2914
2125
2235134
19
10
6.6
TotalAnnual
Investment2
US$m/annum
275.5
37
22.345.5
5.634.310.613.750.6
57
22.2
331.3
100%
NOTES:
(1) The figures refer only to proposed (not confirmed) investment, as outlined in the currently available documentation for na-tional TFAPs. Also, note that investment in one program area may have direct and indirect impacts on investment in severalother areas and that the absorptive capacity and funding requirements often differ in each program area; that the absorptivecapacity and funding requirements often differ in each, a small investment in one area may address the major needs, while an-other program area may absorb large amounts for infrastructure.
(2) Figures represent estimated annual level of needed investment; derived from review of total investment proposed over differ-ent planning periods (generally five years).
(3) In this case, investment for "Fuelwood and Energy" programs was not separated, but included in the Forestry and Land Useprogram. For overall analysis, joint proposed investments are calculated into Forestry and Land Use figures.
(4) Total for proposed annual investment in TFAP programs, in 12 countries.
various action programs of the TFAP? Because assis-tance programmed within the TFAP frameworkcrosses over sectoral lines, it is difficult and evenmisleading to attempt to distinguish amounts allo-cated to various sub-sectors. However, FAO's analy-sis of official development assistance in 1988 for theTFAP indicated that investment in forest industriesaccounted for the largest share (32 percent) of thetotal, followed by "forestry and land use" (23 per-cent) and "insti tutions" (20 percent) (See Table 5).Forest ecosystems conservation received less than 9
percent of the total, and to date fuelwood programshave received only half of the amount indicated inthe estimated investment requirements for the globalTFAP.27 Predictably, development banks preferredto fund industrial forestry projects, while the bilater-al aid agencies have provided the most support forland-use and institution-building projects. TheNetherlands also has pledged to substantially in-crease its assistance for forestry and for land-use andwood-energy programs.
Sketchy data indicate that national TFAPs are
15
Table 5. Distribution of Official Development Assistance by TFAP Fields of Action in 1988
Fields of Donor Countries Development Banks UN Agencies TotalAction USSmillion % US$million % US$million % US$million %
Forestry inLand Use
Forest-basedIndustries
Fuelwood andEnergy
Conservation
Institutions
150 27.4% 13-9
92.6 17 146.4
97.9 17.9 12.9
50.3 9.2 20
155.5 28.5 19.4
6.5% 50
68.9 63.8
26.6% 213-9 22.6%
33-9 302.8 32
6.1
9.4
9.1
47.2
13.2
13.8
25-1
7
7.4
158
83.5
188.7
16.7
8.8
19.9
Subtotals 631.7* 100% 212.6 100% 188 100% 1,032.3* 100%
*Includes undetermined US$85.4 million, 13.5% of total, from Federal Republic of Germany
(Source: FAO, 1989, "Review of International Cooperation in Tropical Forestry")
receiving differing levels of funding. At the high endis Nepal, which has received 65 percent of what itasked for. At the other extreme are Peru, Colombia,Panama, and Argentina, which received only a smallproportion (less than 10 percent) of the total fundingoutlined in their TFAP investment plan. Low levelsof actual funding of proposed TFAPs usually doesnot reflect a lack of donor coordination so much aspolitical factors affecting the flow of developmentassistance, or donor dissatisfaction with weakly de-veloped TFAP strategies and poorly documented na-tional plans. For such countries as Peru and Came-roon, donors also had reservations about thenational TFAP proposals for expanding industrialforestry activities.
ATTENTION TO POLICY ANDINSTITUTIONAL REFORMS
Although the FAO, national governments, andothers have emphasized the extent of funding pro-posed and mobilized through the TFAP planningprocess, institutional and policy reforms within andoutside of the forestry sector have also been a part ofthe proposed actions in national TFAPs.28 (See Table6.)
Given the composition of the sector review mis-
sions and the predominant role of the FAO ForestryDepartment and national forestry agencies in theTFAP country-level exercises, it is not surprising thatmost of the proposed reforms are related to the reor-ganization of the forestry administration. However,the revision of national forest policy, reforms in for-estry concession management systems and relatedfiscal policies,29 and improved incentives for tree-planting have also been proposed in some nationalTFAPs. The TFAP for Sierra Leone emphasizes in-stitutional reorganization and restructuring, aimed atimproving extension activities, consolidating train-ing programs, and increasing the effectiveness of theWildlife Conservation Unit. The TFAPs for Jamaica,Cameroon, and a number of other countries notedthe need to clarify conflicting mandates and to im-prove information exchange among the variousagencies involved in forest land management. TheTFAP for Papua New Guinea recommends creating anew institution to formulate and apply policy,reconcile conflicts, and administer forest resources.
A number of national TFAPs also recommendimproved institutional mechanisms for inter-sectoralcoordination and land-use planning and changes inland tenure laws. Nepal's Forestry Master Plan islinked to the country's National Conservation Strate-gy. The TFAP exercise in Colombia was reportedly"an unprecedented exercise in multisectoral plan-
16
Table 6. Proposed TFAP Institutional and Policy Reforms from Selected Countries
Within Forestry Sector Outside Forestry Sector
AFRICA
Cameroon
Ghana
Tanzania
ASIA
Papua NewGuinea
Nepal
Development of Forestry Master Plan to be incorporatedinto National Development Plan. Institutional reforms callfor creating a Ministry of Forestry, a National Wood Of-fice, Socio-economic study and Planning Unit within theForestry Administration, a national forestry school, forest-ry extension training centers, community forestry depart-ment, and strengthening of national forestry institute.Other reforms call for revision of forest industry licensingprocedures; improved incentives for planting multipur-pose tree farms; and support to local management of com-munity forest lands.
Institutional reforms include: charging the Ministry ofLands and Natural Resources to formulate a national forestpolicy; incorporation of the Forestry Commission intoMLNR. Revision of timber concessionary system to includereorganization of forest lands into concessionary units(minimum size = 10,000 ha); increasing forest revenuesfrom increased (4X) concessionary fees, and taxing of fuel-wood and charcoal; granting of tree user rights to farmersand communities; improvement of bush burning regula-tions at local level.
Reforms to the Forest Ordinance to incorporate peoplesneeds, integration of various land use activities, establish-ment of alternative institutions (e.g. village forest reserves,silvopastoral areas), and establishment of minimum stan-dards for forest management. Other recommendations in-clude: restructuring of forest administration; establish-ment of a Forest Industry Board; increased royalty fees forplantation and non-plantation wood harvesting; and stric-ter enforcement of revenue collection.
Recommendations include: need to emphasizemultiple use management of protected areaswithin context of regional development plans.
Recommendation for initiating a long termeffort to control population growth, and con-sultation with Wildlife Department in all de-velopment projects with major land useimpacts.
Recommendations include: drafting of a com-prehensive Land Tenure Act; amending theLand Ordinance to facilitate popular participa-tion and address tenure problems; energy sec-tor reforms; establishment of a Wildlife Plan-ning Unit to formulate policies andmanagement plans.
Virtually a complete overhaul of forestry policy and insti-tutions is proposed, including: development of a new For-estry Act; creation of national and regional forestry boardsas well as a new Forest Service; preparation of policystatement concerning sustained yield management; reviewof forest revenue and forest industry policies; declarationof a World Heritage Site.
Devolution of government control of forest lands, target-ing local women's groups, with increased incentives forprivate leasehold and farm forestry; reorientation of For-est Department toward advisory and extension role; liftingand relaxing of restrictions on trade, marketing, and im-ports of forest products; raising the limit on private land-holdings in forest production.
Proposes creation of a Landowner Centerdirected by a board comprising government,NGO, educational institutions and landownerrepresentation. The Center is to promote land-owner awareness, skills development, and par-ticipation in land use planning. Developmentof a national conservation strategy.
Establishment of an inter-ministry authority tocoordinate decision-making among sectorsthat utilize natural resources. Comprehensiveanalysis and reforms of land use legislation;creation of environmental legislation withinthe National Conservation Strategy. Proposesstrategy for pasture and livestock managementto integrate the National Agriculture Plan withthe Forestry Master Plan.
17
Table 6. Continued
Within Forestry Sector Outside Forestry Sector
LATIN AMERICA
Bolivia Establishment of planning bodies within regional forestrydepartments under national coordinating unit (CDF); ex-pansion and consolidation of natural areas, especially incolonization zones; creation of subsidies for rural poor tocarry out agroforestry, community forestry and non-timber (goma & castafia) extractive activities.
Colombia Reform timber concessions, permit issuance, and sawmillregulations; issue credit incentives to attract private sectorinvestment in plantation forestry; and installation of com-mercial grading and quality control for sawnwoodproduction.
Dominican Complete restructuring of government institutions andRepublic policies of the forestry sector; consolidation of public
agencies (both inside and outside the forestry sector) intoa national coordinating body. Radical reforms of nationalforestry department (DGF) responsibilities and operatingprocedures in line with "new forest policy."
Honduras Institutional reform, debt-restructuring, and budget re-allocations within national forestry agencies, with decen-tralized control; privatization of public forestry corpora-tions; classification of public forest lands into areas offorest patrimony lands (with inalienable rights), integratedmanagement units and timber concessions; devolution offorest concessionary system; establishment of contractswith local communities to develop forest resources; estab-lishment of fiscal incentives for industrial forestplantations.
Panama Regulations are proposed for laws governing the use offorest, soil conservation and water resources including:management plan requirements; extended concessionaryagreements defined by rotation length; reforestation subsi-dies; issuing public bonds for industrial expansion intoselected areas of natural forest.
Peru Decentralization of forestry department into regionalunits, supported by a central office (DGFF) with increasedpolitical status, in charge of national coordination. Pro-posed reforms of timber concessions regarding access andlength of contracts defined by rotation length to doublenational timber harvest. Expansion of national system ofConservation Units, promoting nature tourism as principaleconomic activity.
Support for land use planning in areas desig-nated for colonization schemes (by producinga national map of forest cover and land use, tobe monitored by a Geographic InformationSystem).
Proposes development of a Renewable NaturalResources Code; recommends a planning andaction program for promoting wood-basedenergy. Also, a number of measures are sug-gested for enhancing environmental educa-tion, both formal and non-formal.
Reform national income accounting to reflecteconomic growth and social welfare benefitsderived from environmental services and non-timber forest resources. Development of a na-tional watershed management plan.
Creation of "Permanent Commission for theProtection of Natural Resources and the En-vironment" among key government agencies.
Energy sector recommendations for dendro-energy (wood gasification) plants to generateelectricity in rural areas. Creation of environ-mental education program for public schoolsystem. New laws and corresponding institu-tional reforms include: a national system ofprotected areas (parks and reserves); wildliferegulations; and creation of a technical com-mission on natural resources.
National environmental education program(both formal and non-formal), focusing on ru-ral areas. In the Amazon region, the Plan callsfor: establishment of "agroforestry settle-ments" for shifting cultivators to relieve pres-sures on Amazonian forests; and petroleumsubstitution with wood energy from industrialwaste.
18
ning, successfully opening a dialogue between anumber of sectors which had not previously beenconsidered in forest resource planning."3° TheJamaica TFAP highlights the need to implement a na-tional land use strategy and to resolve land-tenureproblems. The Jamaican Plan also recommends thatenvironmental impact statements be required beforeany major changes in land use can be made. TheTanzanian TFAP was developed in part "as an instru-ment for improving inter-agency coordination andpolicy integration as well as serving to organizedonor-funded activities."31 In the Dominican Repub-lic, the TFAP planning process helped to catalyze thedevelopment of a "tree tenure" certificate to conferownership and harvesting rights to tree planters.
In the preliminary workshops and discussionswith NGOs involved in Ecuador's TFAP exercise, thelegal framework and policies that invite deforesta-tion, the influence of agricultural and energy-devel-opment policies on forests, and the need for moreattention to the needs of indigenous peoples wereraised as important issues. But these concerns arenot reflected in the official TFAP reports prepared todate. (See appendix on Ecuador TFAP.)
At least a few national TFAPs call high produc-tion goals into question. The TFAP for Papua NewGuinea recommends reducing industrial wood-production targets in view of the difficulty that theforestry administration has had managing currentlevels of logging and timber extraction. The TFAPplanning process in Zaire also raised questions aboutgovernment policy on the rapid expansion of indus-trial wood production and recommended a lowerand more realistic production target. In SierraLeone's TFAP, a relatively low level of logging by
the Forestry Industries Sierra Leone Ltd. was recom-mended until the data from a proposed forest inven-tory are available to help determine the level of asustainable annual cut; a revised and more realisticscale of timber royalties is also to be introducedthere.
kk
Clearly, a number of pre-liminary attempts havebeen made to addresspolicy and institutionalissues in national TFAPs.But a great deal of scoperemains for further analy-sis and more ambitiousproposals.
99
Clearly, a number of preliminary attempts havebeen made to address policy and institutional issuesin national TFAPs. But a great deal of scope remainsfor further analysis and more ambitious proposalsaimed at policy reforms and other actions essentialto controlling deforestation and promoting the sus-tainable development of forest land.32 More could bedone to insure that needed policy reforms are seri-ously reviewed as a part of all national TFAPs. Andthe actual enactment of such reforms needs to be en-couraged and progress in these areas closely moni-tored during the implementation of national TFAPs.
19
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE SUCCESS OF THE TFAP
These various measures and indicators of theresults of national TFAPs are revealing, but alonethey tell only part of the story. Also needed is a com-parison of the basic goals and principles of the planto its results. Ideally, such an evaluation should takeaccount of the success of both the planning processand the plan's anticipated benefits and long-termimpacts.
BASIC GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OFTHE TFAP
A number of criteria for the evaluation of theTFAP can be derived from the accumulated literatureon the plan. For example, at the May 1989 meetingof the Forestry Advisors Group, the FAO Coordinat-ing Unit for the plan presented a note on the "BasicPrinciples of the TFAP" (see Appendix 3). This notewas prepared in order to more widely publicize thegoals of the TFAP, to provide more explicit guidancefor its missions, and to suggest appropriate indica-tors for measuring the plan's results.33 FAO's notereaffirms that the plan's basic goals are to improvepeople's welfare and to conserve tropical forests.Specifically, FAO identifies the basic TFAP objectivesas "rural development (food security, alleviation ofpoverty, equity and self-reliance), and sustainabilityof development (ecological harmony, renewabilityof resources, conservation of genetic resources)." Inaddition, it has outlined ten "basic principles" that"characterize the TFAP strategy in reaching its ulti-mate objective of conservation and development oftropical forest resources."34
Unfortunately, FAO's Coordinating Unit hasn'tyet collected, analyzed, and released all the informa-tion needed to conduct such a systematic and com-prehensive review, but useful generalizations can bemade. These generalizations are grouped accordingto the suggested criteria for evaluating the TFAPplanning process, as it is still too early to judge thelong term results of the TFAP. (See Box.)
IMPROVED INFORMATION ANDANALYSIS?
Many national TFAPs do represent a step for-ward for forestry planning insofar as they direct in-creased attention to both production and conserva-
tion, and to both rural community forestry andforest industries. But the integration of the nationalTFAP into national development plans in most coun-tries is incomplete.
kk
Most national plans, basedmainly on forestry sectorreviews, simply justify in-creased investment in theforestry sector—a focustoo narrow to adequatelyassess the root causes ofdeforestation, much less toaffect them significantly.
Most national plans, based mainly on forestrysector reviews, simply justify increased investmentin the forestry sector—a focus too narrow to ade-quately assess the root causes of deforestation, muchless to affect them significantly. Many plans recycleofficial data and viewpoints on demographics,deforestation and reforestation rates, and the sus-tainability of traditional agricultural practices ratherthan correcting or questioning them.
Such critical topics as land tenure, concentra-tion of land holdings, the value of traditional uses ofthe forest and the extent of community manage-ment, and the relationship between agriculturalpractices and deforestation have not been adequate-ly reviewed in many national TFAPs. Such key con-siderations as the demographics of forest-dwellingpeople and the impact of proposed actions on in-digenous peoples have been totally neglected in vir-tually every TFAP. Moreover, the national TFAPshave not generated much new data on the availabili-ty of fuelwood or many proposals for increasing sup-ply or decreasing demand of fuelwood on a scalecommensurate with the problem.
Many national TFAPs propose substantial invest-ments in industrial wood production. In most coun-tries, more attention is accorded to forest invento-ries than to on-the-ground management, and the
21
Criteria for a SuccessfulTFAP Planning Process
Evaluation Criteria—Longer TermResults of the TFAP
Improved Information and Analysis
1. Has the TFAP produced more accurate and compre-hensive information about the extent and conditionof forest resources, the economic and environmen-tal costs of their destruction or misuse, and the link-ages between forestry and other sectors?
2. Has the TFAP provided a good analysis of existinginstitutional capabilities, including the analytical,management program implementation and trainingcapacities related to the TFAP goals?
3. Has the TFAP analysis adequately reviewed existingpolicies and programs, across a broad range of sec-tors, that influence forest land use andmanagement?
4. Has the TFAP adequately identified destructive orcounterproductive and inefficient policies, pro-grams, and investments by government, aid agen-cies or the private sector, which need to be stoppedor eliminated to protect and conserve forests?
Enhanced Participation and Political Commitment
5. Has the TFAP planning process provided for the fullparticipation of a broad range of interest groups, in-cluding major government agencies, the private sec-tor, academic and research institutions, and repre-sentatives of NGOs and local communities? And hasit given these groups easy access to alldocumentation?
6. Has the TFAP planning process led to a consensusby all interested parties on the long term strategyand immediate priority actions (including policy re-form, institutional changes, and a reallocation of in-vestment and new investment) needed to achievethe plan's goals?
7. Has the TFAP process stimulated increased politicalcommitment to address deforestation issues and awillingness to undertake the policy reforms, institu-tional changes, and mobilization of human andfinancial resources at the national level?
Greater Cooperation and Accelerated Action
8. Has the TFAP planning process helped increase in-ternational cooperation and coordinated action toaddress the problems and challenges of sustainabledevelopment and conservation of forest lands?
9. Has the TFAP planning process favored the de-velopment of more integrated, balanced investmentwith sufficient attention to conservation and en-vironmental considerations, as well as economicdevelopment and increased production?
10. Has the TFAP planning process put into place ameans to independently monitor the implementa-tion and ultimate impact of the TFAP?
Improvement in People's Welfare
1. Are the basic needs of people for forest productsand environmental services of forest lands beingmet on a sustainable basis?
2. Have scarcities of fuelwood and other importantwoody and non-woody forest products beeneliminated?
3. Are the livelihoods of forest-dwelling people moresecure?
4. Has employment and income generation in the for-estry sector increased?
5. Has the contribution of the forestry sector to thenational economy increased, and is it being sus-tained at the local level?
Resource Conservation and Management
6. Is the area of remaining tropical forest stabilized; isdeforestation under control and have reforestationrates increased?
7. Has the area of forest under sustained-yield manage-ment increased to a sufficient or significant degree?
8. Have the critical areas for the conservation of bio-logical diversity been identified and are they suffi-ciently protected and managed?
Institutions and Policies
9. Have public and private institutions responsible forthe protection, management, assessment andmonitoring of forest resources, including local com-munity organizations, been strengthened enough tomeet their responsibilities and mandate?
10. Has the control over forest land and the manage-ment capacity of forest-dependent people beenincreased?
11. Have the proposed policy reforms been adopted,and are incentives to support sustainable and effi-cient use and management of forest resources inplace?
12. Has the development planning process becomeopen and responsive to a concern for people's wel-fare and the sustainable use of natural resources?
22
sustainability of proposed forest-harvesting and-management schemes has never been analyzed suffi-ciently. Similarly, the need for forest conservation isoften reduced to a call to protect and manage parksand reserves better. Rarely has this vital componentof sustainable forestry been fully integrated into na-tional development strategies and the full range ofpriority actions in national TFAPs. As a conse-quence, the likely contribution of the TFAP to con-trolling deforestation and to promoting the sustain-able use of forest lands will be modest at best.
ENHANCED PARTICIPATION ANDPOLITICAL COMMITMENT?
In almost all cases, national TFAP preparationhas been managed by forestry departments with onlymodest contributions from the government agenciesresponsible for rural and agricultural development,livestock, industrial development, transportationand other sectors. As a result, support for multi-sectoral strategies to address deforestation and pro-mote sustainable forest land use is often limited.More seriously, many national TFAPs fail to take fullaccount of how aid agency funding in other sectorsaffects tropical forest resources.
Although TFAP "forestry sector reviews" wereintended to be only one step in the national planningprocess, they have received the most support and at-tention by the implementing agencies. In most na-tional TFAPs, this narrow sectoral focus on forestryhas obscured critical cross-sectoral issues with greatbearing on the forest's future. (See Appendix on Ec-uador TFAP.) The integration and compatibility ofvarious sub-sector programs has sometimes beenneglected as well, giving rise to programs that are atcross purposes.
Of particular concern has been the heavy reli-ance on outside experts representing the various in-terested aid agencies. Counting on a succession ofshort-term consultancies has worked against the de-velopment of politically realistic strategies and fo-cused attention on the preparation of a series ofpoorly-integrated, discrete project proposals inmany different sub-sectors. Reliance on traditionalWorld Bank-style "sector review missions" has alsomeant that too much emphasis has been put on aidagencies meeting their own internal requirementsfor information, at the expense of developing a senseof ownership or commitment on the part of localstaff and host-country agencies. (This is one reasonwhy draft reports have tended to languish formonths, awaiting approval by national governmentagencies.) In the process, the preparation of many
national plans has excluded whole groups of people,as well as whole economic sectors.
In particular, local communities' needs androles in forest management have been neglected, andforest dwellers and other indigenous peoples havetypically had no say in the TFAP.35 Many nationalplans seek to integrate forest dwellers by "absorb-ing' ' them into the commercial forestry sector, andhave been designed by forestry agencies with littleknowledge and understanding of the unique socialand cultural needs of these peoples. Such schemes tointegrate forest dwellers, however well-intentioned,may degrade rather than improve the quality of lifeof the targeted populations.
Insufficient support (andfunding) from nationalgovernments and aid agen-cies for NGO participationin TFAP preparation con-tributes to the neglect ofdisenfranchised groups.
If
Insufficient support (and funding) from nationalgovernments and aid agencies for NGO participationin TFAP preparation contributes to this neglect ofdisenfranchised groups. Restricting the TFAP plan-ning process to the confines of development assis-tance planning also reinforces the conventionaldominance of government agencies as the mainnegotiators of development assistance and giveswell-connected commercial interests a comparativeadvantage over forest dependent local communities.
In view of forest dwellers' needs and other equi-ty issues, neglecting NGOs is a serious error. As oftennoted in the development literature, these groupscan provide perspective on what the "real" prob-lems are, they can represent the rights and interestsof people who might otherwise be excluded by thebureaucracy from development planning, and theycan mobilize support and carry out the actions iden-tified in a national TFAP. Many NGOs manage sig-nificant programs in rural and community develop-ment, while others have played an important part intraining, education, and environmental conserva-tion. Although NGO participation should not be pur-sued as an end in itself, in many instances NGOs canhelp make the TFAP work better as a planningprocess.36
23
GREATER COOPERATION ANDACCELERATED ACTION?
The assumption behind the TFAP is that increas-ing investment in forestry will increase action. Un-fortunately, however, the TFAP planning process isso heavily focused on investment in forestry that itmay actually have diverted attention from opportu-nities to control deforestation more directly and im-mediately. The plan's severest critics fear that in-creasing investment in the TFAP will lead to anincrease in commercial wood production and in-crease funding for government-controlled logging ofthe remaining natural forest. In the absence of sys-tematic review and careful analysis by the TFAP'sCoordinating Unit, as well as close supervision andevaluation by the aid agencies, it is unclear to whatextent the TFAP will prompt such activities.
if
The inherent limitationsand difficulties of the de-velopment assistance pro-cess provide compellingreasons not to confine theTFAP process to a simpleextension of developmentassistance.
99
It does seem clear, however, that little has actu-ally been done to rapidly expand the area of refor-ested land, or to plant trees and manage forests on ascale commensurate with the growing demand forforest products in developing countries. In part, thisfailure reflects the TFAP's emphasis on new invest-ment in the forestry sector, which takes many yearsto translate into action on the ground. Meanwhile,key opportunities for slowing net deforestation bylaunching policy and institutional reforms, reallocat-ing resources, and mobilizing the private sector andNGOs are being neglected. In particular, the TFAPhas yet to significantly influence the flows of aid inthe agricultural sector, which still amount to manytimes the total volume of aid flows to the forestrysector.
INCONSISTENCIES ANDCONTRADICTIONS IN THE TFAP
The very uneven, or mixed results of the TFAPplanning process can be traced in part to a number
of inconsistencies or contradictions related to theTFAP. The TFAP was proposed as an internationalframework for concerted action. As such, it reliesheavily on international cooperation orchestrated bynational governments and aid agencies. Yet, theplan's fundamental aim is to increase local communi-ties' self-reliance and their ability to use forestresources more sustainably. The inherent limitationsand difficulties of the development assistance pro-cess provide compelling reasons not to confine theTFAP process to a simple extension of developmentassistance.
Also implicit in the TFAP is the assumption thatthe contribution of forest resources to national andlocal economies can be increased over the long termby developing forest-product industries based on thecommercial logging and sustained-yield managementof what remains of natural tropical forests. How-ever, under current technical and institutional condi-tions, large-scale commercial logging of naturalforests has too often proved itself to be un-sustain-able.37 The TFAP should not, therefore, encouragelogging of remaining natural forests until a manage-ment system is in place and demonstrated to be bothfeasible and responsive to the needs and concerns oflocal communities.
Still another contradiction undermines the TFAPframework. The plan acknowledges that deforesta-tion is largely driven by forces outside of the forest-ry sector and by policy decisions, development plan-ning priorities, and programs beyond foresters'control. Yet, in the implementation of the TFAP,FAO's Forestry Department and the aid agencies for-estry advisors have focused on forestry sectorreviews carried out by teams composed mainly offorestry specialists charged with producing invest-ment proposals for government forestrydepartments.
The TFAP was to be a bold departure from the' 'business as usual'' approach to development assis-tance and from past, largely ineffective programs tostem deforestation and support the rational use offorest resources. The TFAP planning frameworkproposed a more comprehensive range of actionsand guidelines for a new, more participatory andstrategic approach to development planning. Yet, itscreators obviously underestimated the inertia ofgovernments and aid agencies and the need for awell-staffed, well-funded, supportive, and indepen-dent management structure to oversee the plan's im-plementation internationally and nationally. As aconsequence, the TFAP label has been indiscrimi-nately applied to virtually all assistance in forestry,whether or not the plan's basic principles and guide-lines are being followed.
24
On a related point, the global TFAP frameworkwas conceived without a sufficient sense of politicalrealism. Its creators optimistically and mistakenly as-sumed that the "development slate" upon whichTFAP strategies and plans were to be laid was some-how blank. In fact, tremendous effort is needed toovercome the influences of ingrained institutionalstructures and biases, patterns of development assis-tance, and current policy on both the process andthe substance of national development plans. (SeeAppendix on TFAP in Ecuador.) For the TFAP, thedanger is that of legitimizing or increasing supportfor fundamentally flawed approaches to forestresources management and for unsustainable eco-nomic development.
Another contradiction: within the TFAP frame-work, broad participation in the planning process isconsidered essential to developing a national con-sensus on strategies and priority actions for achiev-ing TFAP's goals and for mobilizing the institutional,political, financial, and grassroots support withoutwhich the TFAP will fail. Yet, to date the planningprocess has essentially been an extension of develop-ment assistance planning and negotiation, in whichthe only legitimate players are aid agencies and na-tional governments. Despite a regular flow of rheto-ric in favor of NGO and local participation in theTFAP, donors generally have been reluctant to usetheir considerable leverage to encourage nationalgovernments to empower local communities and towork closely with NGOs.
A CHANGING AGENDA
Another problem with the TFAP is that, likemost plans, this plan has in some respects been over-taken by events. Five years ago, the importance ofprotecting tropical forests as one means of forestall-ing global climate change could not have been fore-seen. Even the importance of such protection to thefuture of the world's biological diversity was not asfully appreciated then as it is now. The same goes fordebt forgiveness. Still, some of these concerns mighthave been better integrated, or coordinated with theTFAP planning process to a greater degree, had theTFAP not been so closely controlled and managed bythe rather conventional forestry establishment.
A QUESTION OF MANAGEMENT
Both the name adopted to refer to the process(the "Tropical Forestry Action Plan") and the "sales-manship" of the TFAP by the FAO and others havetended to confuse the basic objectives of the TFAP.To many representatives of national governments,the TFAP was perceived to be essentially a commit-ment and a mechanism to increase funding in theforestry sector, with the assumption that this wouldhave a beneficial impact (ultimately) on controllingtropical deforestation. There was little to suggest inmuch of the early guidance given to countries in-terested in preparing national TFAPs that issues ofagricultural development, land tenure, agrarian re-form, reduction in population growth, and changesin energy sector development priorities, etc., shouldbe included in national TFAPs. The "boundaries"and focus of TFAP exercises, still not clearly deter-mined, are primarily a function of the predispositionof the lead agencies and cooperating nationalinstitutions.
kk
The TFAP should not en-courage logging of remain-ing natural forests until amanagement system is inplace and demonstrated tobe both feasible andresponsive to the needsand concerns of localcommunities.
99The TFAP was intended to focus on strategies
and priority actions. However, in many cases, na-tional TFAPs quickly ballooned into a large collec-tion of project proposals, without sufficient refer-ence to a coherent strategy and to priorities. Andwhat priorities are indicated are usually more areflection of the particular interests of the nationalinstitutions managing the process, and less a func-tion of their cost effectiveness or their likely impacton deforestation's root causes.
25
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The most important conclusion of this assess-ment is that, despite some successes, the TFAP ascurrently implemented is not achieving many of theplan's original objectives. Moreover, it seems un-likely that the present TFAP planning process willever be able to achieve some of them. Although theplan arose from a widely shared concern that moreeffective programs in forest conservation and sus-tainable management, increased attention to policyreform both within and outside the forestry sector,and improved land-use planning and coordinationwith agricultural and other development programscould help turn the tide against uncontrolleddeforestation and wasteful depletion of tropical for-est resources, many of the institutions controllingthe TFAP—FAO, donors, and national govern-ments—seem to have lost sight of these concerns asthe plan has been carried out. At a minimum, theseagencies have let their interest in accelerating invest-ment in the forestry sector overshadow these con-cerns, and they have failed to provide the qualitycontrol and direction needed to make the planningprocess and the plan itself work well.
Today, a number of the organizations that ini-tially supported the launching of the TFAP, includ-ing WRI, are deeply concerned about the internalcontradictions and institutional problems that haveprevented the plan from achieving its goals. Theseorganizations share the belief that a failure to signifi-cantly reform and fully utilize the TFAP frameworkand planning process will soon make it impossible tomuster further financial and political support for theplan—despite the continued strong interest inresponding to the deepening crisis of tropical defor-estation. The following recommendations speak tothe urgent need for a recommitment to the TFAPgoals and fundamental reform of the TFAP planningprocess and implementation structure.
/ . Convene an International Forum on theTFAP.
Given the importance of evaluating the relativesuccess of the TFAP and redirecting its future course,an international forum of representatives from inter-national, national, and NGO institutions should beconvened to give impetus to the required changes.On the agenda should be the clarification of thegoals and objectives of the TFAP, guidelines for or-
ganizing the TFAP planning process, the establish-ment of a new management structure for the TFAP,criteria and procedures for the assessing and moni-toring of the plan's success, and coordination ofcomplementary actions.
Organized outside of the current TFAP struc-ture, this forum could help achieve consensus onnew approaches to combatting deforestation and im-plementation of the plan. It could also help to focusTFAP efforts. In the short and medium term, giventhe limited capacity of international aid agencies andother supporting institutions of the TFAP, priorityattention for additional assistance within the TFAPframework should be focused on those countrieswhere significant forest resources are most threat-ened, and where national governments demonstratethe greatest commitment to policy reform, participa-tory development planning, and adherence to theplan's goals and guidelines.
2. Clarify TFAP's Goals and Objectives.Over the past five years, the TFAP has evolved
to represent many things to many different organiza-tions and people. Various incompatible expectationsabout the principal goals or anticipated end resultsof the TFAP have been raised, so it is now necessaryto distinguish what the TFAP can and can't do at thenational and international levels. In particular, it iscritically important to underscore that the TFAPshould not be used only as a means to increase in-vestment in traditional forestry sector activities;rather, it should blaze a path toward the sustainabledevelopment of forest lands and help avoid theneedless destruction of tropical forests.
Four goals implicit in the original TFAP andrelated to deforestation's root causes should bestressed in particular. First, the TFAP planning pro-cess must meet the needs and safeguard the liveli-hoods of people who live in or depend on the forest.Second, the plan should help ensure that the remain-ing areas of tropical forests are used sustainably—contributing to national development while encour-aging multiple uses of forest lands and effective pro-tection of biological diversity. This implies muchmore emphasis on the management of tropicalforests for non-woody products (such as extractivereserves for natural rubber, oils, fruits and nuts) andnon-consumptive uses (such as environmental ser-
27
vices which may not be compatible with intensivetimber management and hardwood extraction).
Third, the TFAP should mobilize resources toregenerate degraded tropical forest lands (using in-digenous species to the greatest extent possible) andpromote sustainable land use around tropical forestareas. Particular attention should be paid to avoidingland degradation and promoting sustainable devel-opment patterns that relieve pressure on remainingnatural forests. Fourth, the TFAP should help stimu-late needed policy reforms both in tropical countriesand in development assistance institutions.
3. Make the TFAP Process More Open andAccountable.
The importance of "opening up" the TFAP pro-cess can't be overstated. For starters, documentationfor the full sequence of TFAP-related activities mustbe accessible to all interested parties at each stage ofthe TFAP process, and appropriate fora should beprovided for consultation, information transfer anddialogue. In particular, the private sector, NGOs,and representatives of local communities need to beassociated in the earliest phase of TFAP planning,and involved in the preparation of "issues papers"and the planning of field studies and support mis-sions. Special efforts are needed to address the con-cerns and to articulate the needs of groups that arefrequently marginalized in development planning:women, landless, rural poor, indigenous forestdwellers, tribals, and other disenfranchised groups.38
Quite simply, the TFAP can't succeed if it is heldhostage to the rules of confidentiality often evokedas part of the development assistance process.
To respond to the increasingly forceful criti-cisms of the TFAP by forest dwellers and the NGOswho come to their defense, the TFAP process mustbe made dramatically more participatory, heavily in-volving both NGOs and those whose livelihoods de-pend directly on the resources of the forests. A sur-vey of interested and relevant NGOs and forestpeoples organizations should be completed at theoutset of the national TFAP planning process to helpfacilitate full participation in and influence on thenational TFAP planning process. Broad participationshould be sought as a means to an end and not sim-ply as a token effort with little impact on the actualoutcome of the process.
Another way to open up the political process sothat needed reforms and priorities come to light, isto shift away from sectoral technical planning andproject identification and toward the developmentof equitable development strategies that adequatelyreflect the need to balance local interests with na-tional ones, and ecosystem conservation with inten-
sified management to expand resource production.Such trade-offs cannot be fully assessed nor can suchpolitical compromises be negotiated without the fullparticipation of all interested communities, begin-ning with the people most dependent on the forest.Priority should be given to the political planningprocess, in advance of the development of specificplans for institutional and policy reforms, and asso-ciated investment.
Explicit criteria and standards for TFAP-relatedprograms, activities, and proposals for investmentand technical assistance should be followed so thatthese actions are consistent with the basic goals ofthe TFAP. The same goes for guidelines for participa-tory planning, impact assessment and evaluation ac-tivities. Although individual countries will alwaysneed to adapt "templates" for the TFAP planningprocess to their particular situation, a number of es-sential principles and guidelines must be respected ifthe TFAP is to succeed. Endorsement of TFAP pro-grams and continued international cooperation insupport of national and local TFAP activities shouldbe conditional on the respect of these criteria, stan-dards, and guidelines.
4. Give More Attention to Policy Reforms.In many countries, government policies are
responsible for the indiscriminate destruction of for-est resources. Tax incentives and credit subsidiesguarantee large profits to private investors who con-vert forest to pastures and farms. Governments al-low private concessionaires to log forests on termsthat induce uneconomic and environmentally waste-ful practices. Massive public expenditures on high-ways, dams, plantations, and agricultural settle-ments, often supported by multilateral developmentlending, are used to convert or destroy large areas offorest for projects of questionable economic value.In addition, industrial-country trade barriers to theentry of forest products have helped prompt inap-propriate investments and patterns of exploitation indeveloping countries' forest industries.
Creating a better policy framework should be-come a cornerstone in sustainable resource manage-ment. Unless policies that induce forest destructionare changed, TFAP investments in reforestation,watershed management, wildlife conservation, andrelated initiatives will be overwhelmed. As interna-tional capital flows become increasingly linked tobroad macro-economic and sector policy agree-ments, the international development agencies mustidentify and analyze the effects on forest resourcesof tax, tariff, credit, and pricing policies and supportthe policy reform needed to root them out.
28
5. Insist Upon Improved Quality Control inTFAP Planning Exercises.
In the earliest stages of the TFAP planning pro-cess, more attention should be given to the collec-tion and analysis of several kinds of information. Es-pecially important are accurate demographic studiesof forest dwelling and forest dependent people,socio-economic surveys related to the incentives andrationale for resource-use patterns and traditionalmanagement strategies, and analysis of tenure, cus-tomary rights, land use conflicts and legislation re-lated to forest ownership and control over forestresources. Problems related to institutional weak-nesses in the management of forest lands and theresulting de facto "open access" situations in someforest areas should also be analyzed, together withthe prospects for a devolution of managementauthority, access control, and forest land ownership(via divestiture of public lands to local peoples).39
To help direct TFAP support, FAO and othercooperating institutions should also rapidly compileand disseminate updated information on the condi-tion of tropical forests, highlighting areas wheredegradation and conversion have accelerated orwhere either poses an immediate, significant threat.
Also needed is increased support for fieldstudies and analysis of the causes of forest degrada-tion and destruction. A broad range of international,national and local institutions and organizationswith capacities in these areas should be supported topromote independent analysis of the full spectrumof direct and indirect causes of deforestation, partic-ularly from the perspective of those persons mostdirectly affected by deforestation and over-exploita-tion of forest resources. Without such comprehen-sive and independent analysis, progress in policy re-form and the control of deforestation will be slow atbest.
More specifically, the TFAP planning processshould provide for a more discriminating analysis ofthe types of forest land use, the effect of shifting cul-tivation, and the impacts of forest-dwelling peopleson forest resources. Unsustainable resource use pat-terns, including those driven by forces or pressuresoriginating outside of the forest, should be identifiedand analyzed. The scope for improved managementand utilization of non-woody forest goods and ser-vices of significance to forest-dwelling people and toextractive economies, and the need to maintainregionally or globally important environmental func-tions of forests should also be given more attention.Finally, the issue of "sustainability" in commerciallogging and forest management operations needs tobe more carefully scrutinized.
6. Develop a New Management Structure forthe TFAP.
As long as the TFAP is housed within the FAOForestry Department and supported primarily byforestry professionals representing bilateral and mul-tilateral aid agencies, the plan is unlikely to be muchmore than a mechanism for coordinating develop-ment assistance in the forestry sector. Such a coor-dinating mechanism is very useful, though, and theForestry Advisors Group and Coordinating Unit ofFAO should be maintained and supported to servethis function better.
Despite recent strengthening, the current staffand resources of the TFAP Coordinating Unit in FAOare inadequate to coordinate such an undertaking inseventy countries. The FAO unit now needs addi-tional resources to insure that information on TFAPplanning and implementation is widely circulated,together with the guidelines for preparing nationalTFAPs.
Even with these important changes, FAO'sCoordinating Unit can't be expected to adequatelyaddress all of the TFAP's wide-ranging goals and ob-jectives, at the international, national, and local lev-els. Indeed, an independent management structure isneeded to oversee and guide the implementationmore impartially than forestry professionals and aidagency representatives can.
A broadly representative international steeringcommittee is urgently needed to provide overallguidance to the TFAP's implementation. This com-mittee would coordinate the support of FAO and do-nor agencies and ensure greater quality control inthe action plans, more careful scrutiny of proposedinvestment programs, more effective responses todeforestation's root causes, and better monitoring ofresults. (See Appendix 5.) This committee would bebacked up by a multi-disciplinary staff, independentof the current FAO structure and drawing upon ex-pertise from governments, aid agencies, NGOs, andthe private sector. The committee's secretariatwould have primary responsibility for insuring com-pliance with the guidelines and procedures for pre-paring TFAPs and would take the lead in coordinat-ing the TFAP with a wide range of complementaryactions and programs (such as ITTO, national En-vironmental Action Plans, biodiversity conservationand global warming strategies, etc.).
At the national level, many steps can be taken toensure that the implementing agencies are betterequipped to lead the TFAP process. Most important,a national steering committee composed of represen-tatives of government, NGOs, local communities,and the private sector is needed to guide and support
29
the preparation and implementation of the nationalTFAP.
TFAP steering committees and secretariats at theinternational and national (and sub-national) levelsshould be assured of adequate, sustained supportand get the qualified staff needed to carry out theirfunctions and mandate effectively. Supporting or-ganizations of the TFAP should be encouraged tohelp fund the staff that these bodies need during theinitial phases of their activities.
7. Increase Support for Training and Institu-tional Development.
As the results of many other "action plans" am-ply demonstrate, the impact of new guidelines,increased resource flows, and even political commit-ment will not register unless well trained and capa-ble staff are available and given the institutional sup-port and backing needed to make changes andimplement programs. Indeed, a more systematic as-sessment of labor and institutional resources and re-quirements (in both the private and public sectors)must be built into the TFAP process so that the plancan be implemented in a timely and effectivemanner.
Unfortunately, many national TFAP exerciseshave failed to recognize, much less fully utilize, thefull range of in-country public institutions and pri-vate organizations. In most cases, only the need tostrengthen forestry agencies has been consideredwhile other, more cost-effective and potentially sig-nificant opportunities in the private and indepen-dent sectors have been overlooked. This mustchange.
Within the donor agencies, a parallel change isdesperately needed. These agencies have collectivelydoubled their funding over the past several yearswithout increasing their own staffs enough to givenational TFAP participants adequate technical sup-port during national sector reviews and nationalTFAP preparation. Particularly important is addingstaff in a full range of disciplines, including forestryand natural resource management, resource econom-ics, land use planning, conservation biology, anthro-pology and sociology, law and public policy, anddemography.
8. Insure Re-commitment of the Aid Agenciesto TFAP Goals.
International development assistance agenciesshould re-assess their staffing, program developmentprocedures, and funding priorities with TFAP's goalsin mind. They must make sure that adequate staff areon board to respond to the requirements and oppor-tunities of the TFAP, suspend counterproductive
programs, and in a timely manner increase supportfor the broad range of actions needed to addressdeforestation and achieve the TFAP's goals. In par-ticular, procedures for program design, evaluation,and monitoring need to be improved, and the proce-dures for the transfer of resources to both govern-ments and NGOs should be simplified.
9. Coordinate the TFAP with Other Com-plementary Initiatives.
Carried out properly and expeditiously, theTFAP could be an ongoing source of new informa-tion about tropical forests and the people who man-age and use them. Supported by policy reforms, itcould help foster respect for the rights of indigenouspeoples and other forest dwellers, encourage theparticipation of NGOs and the private sector, andeven make some headway against such pressingproblems as global climate change and the loss ofbiological diversity.
Still, the temptation to heap all manner of so-cial, political, and economic goals on the TFAP hasto be resisted or the plan will collapse under its ownweight. What's important now is viewing the plan inthe larger context of increased support for sustain-able development, population stabilization, debt re-lief, agrarian reform, trade and macroeconomic poli-cy reforms, biological diversity conservation, andglobal warming control strategies. The TFAP cannotbe the primary vehicle for all of these changes, but itcan contribute to and reinforce many of them to theextent that it is well coordinated with these other,complementary initiatives.
In particular, the TFAP process needs to estab-lish closer ties to other initiatives developed in re-sponse to the threat of global warming and climatechange, the debt crisis, and to the need to conservebiological diversity. Linkages with related, country-level natural resource and environmental assess-ments and strategic planning exercises, including Na-tional Conservation Strategies and national Environ-mental Action Plans, also need to be improved.
10. Build Support for an International Con-vention on Global Deforestation Issues.Since the TFAP will never be a sufficient re-
sponse to the urgent need to arrest deforestation andpromote the sustainable use of forest resources, in-ternational cooperation in a number of areas needsto be strengthened by formal agreements. An inter-national convention and protocols should be nego-tiated on a range of TFAP-related and parallel actionsthat are needed to address global deforestation is-sues, in order to achieve net afforestation within adecade.
30
Such a convention should consider issuing adeclaration recognizing the importance of forests inpreserving biological diversity, protecting againstglobal climate change, and providing opportunitiesfor sustainable economic and social development forthe peoples of forest-rich nations. This conventioncould also address such issues as the needs and rightsof forest dwellers, the role of population growth,the importance of land reform, and other underlyingfactors bearing on the ultimate effectiveness and suc-cess of the TFAP and related initiatives.
Taking Stock underlines the urgent need to re-form the TFAP. Redirection and a re-dedication tothe plan's basic principles and goals are needed, in-cluding a deeper commitment to broad participation
in the TFAP planning process and to the expandedrole of local communities living in the tropicalforests in the management and conservation of theseforests. A new institutional framework and more sys-tematic monitoring of the implementation of theTFAP are also needed, in order to insure that theTFAP leads the way in the sustainable developmentof tropical forest lands. Without these changes and aseries of bold, new initiatives to deal with the threatsto the world's forests, increased funding for TFAP-related development assistance is unlikely to signifi-cantly contribute to national development goals orto any improvement in the welfare of people depen-dent on tropical forests.
Robert Winterbottom is a Senior Associate of the World Resources Institute and Director of the Forestry andLand Use Program of WRI's Center for International Development and Environment. Before joining WRI in1988, he worked for more than ten years in developing countries in community forestry, agroforestry, deser-tification control planning, forestry training and extension, natural resource assessments, and forest policyreviews. In 1984-85, Mr. Winterbottom was a full-time consultant to the secretariat for the International TaskForce convened by WRI to prepare the report "Tropical Forests: A Call for Action. " He currently managesWRI's contribution to a number of ongoing, national TFAP exercises.
31
NOTES
1. The specific objectives and criteria for evaluatingthe success of the TFAP are discussed in greaterdetail on p. 28 of the report.
2. Curbing deforestation and supporting actionswhich benefit people and communities directlydependent on forests were basic concerns of anumber of organizations involved with TFAPsince its inception; see R. Winterbottom, 1988.
3. WRI staff also met with the TFAP review team or-ganized by FAO, and briefed the team on WRI'swork with the TFAP; this report, however, hasbeen prepared independently by WRI and in ad-vance of the release of the report by the TFAP re-view team.
4. Shiva, 1987; Friends of the Earth, 1989; Col-chester and Lohmann, 1990; Elliott, 1990; RichandHorta, 1990.
5. See list of references at the end of the report; notehowever, that a) access to much of the basic docu-mentation concerning national TFAPs is generallyrestricted to national governments and interestedaid agencies, and b) the information base on theTFAP, including national TFAP reports and analy-sis of the TFAP, is growing on a daily basis.
6. Repetto, 1990; Myers, 1989; Lankester, 1990.7. SeeJ.P. Lanly, Tropical Forest Resources. FAO,
1982. Preliminary new data on forest resourcesand deforestation rates for a number of countriesare scheduled to be released by FAO in June,1990.
8. Assessments of deforestation and other changes inland use in tropical developing countries are stillvery imprecise; remote sensing offers the possibil-ity of more closely monitoring changes in vegeta-tive cover and large scale shifts in land use, but in-formation on changes in the productivity of landand on the sustainability of various land uses isstill very inadequate. These parameters are moredifficult to comprehensively assess and to moni-tor, yet more important in many respects than thenet changes in area of forest, pasture, croplandand other land types.
9. This committee is made up of the member govern-ment representatives of FAO with an interest inand responsibility for tropical forestry matters.
10. WRI, 1985. Tropical Forests: A Call for Action.11. WRI, 1985, pp. 6-7.
12. See FAO, 1987. Tropical Forestry Action Plan.pp.8-28.
13. FAO, 1987. p. 31.14. FAO, 1987. pp. 31-32.15. See WRI, 1985- Tropical Forests: A Call for Ac-
tion, p. 2.16. This unit was organized within the FAO Forestry
Dept. in 1986, soon after the TFAP waslaunched. It was initially staffed by only one ortwo full-time persons, but over the past year hasbeen progressively strengthened to a level of 5-6persons. The unit currently seeks to fill a total of7 staff positions, including regional coordinatorsfor Asia, Africa and Latin America, and severalother specialists.
17. Participants in type II roundtable meetings aregenerally representatives of government agen-cies involved in or interested in the formulationof the TFAP, and technical staff from aid agen-cies, often including members of the TFAP for-estry sector review team. NGO representatives(national and international) are sometimesinvited to attend. At the type III "donors"roundtable meeting, more senior governmentand aid agency representatives are generallypresent, and agencies or organizations (includingsome NGOs, primarily international) are invitedto attend if they have expressed an interest inthe meeting to the government and to FAO.
18. FAO, 1989. See Annex 2.19. The TFAP Coordinating Unit of FAO regularly
reports to the national delegations of these statu-tory bodies for forestry regarding the status andprogress of the TFAP; these bodies, in turn,adopt resolutions regarding FAO's continuedrole in the TFAP, and recommend actions re-lated to the implementation of the TFAP.
20. Several TFAP planning exercises have been or-ganized and executed with only minimal in-volvement and technical support by donoragencies; in these cases the "lead" agency isdesignated by the term "national." (See Table2.)
21. See FAO, 1989. Guidelines for Implementationof the Tropical Forestry Action Plan at CountryLevel.
22. NGOs which have regularly participated in theTFAP Forestry Advisors Group meetings include:
33
WRI, the International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the In-ternational Institute for Environment and De-velopment (IIED), the International Union ofForestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), theEnvironment Liaison Centre-International(ELC/I), and the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF). At the most recent meeting of the TFAPAdvisors, in December, 1989, in Washington,D.C., representatives of the Indigenous PeoplesFederations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) ad-dressed the Advisors and argued for direct par-ticipation in national TFAP exercises. For a num-ber of years, the 4-day biannual meeting of theTFAP Forestry Advisors Group has also includeda half-day "public session" designed to promotean exchange of information between the TFAPAdvisors and representatives of interested or-ganizations (especially NGOs) based in the hostcountry for the meeting.
23. See FAO, 1989. Guidelines for Implementationof the Tropical Forestry Action Plan at CountryLevel.
24. Many of the regular members of the Advisor'sGroup, however, do wield significant influenceover aid flows within their respective agencies.Most are also involved with the deliberations ofCFDT and COFO, where TFAP and other forest-ry matters are discussed formally. Several Advi-sors are also involved with the ITTO, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, andrelated initiatives for natural resource manage-ment and environmental planning.
25. The area of closed broadleaved forest for some60 countries which have completed or which arepreparing national TFAPs amounts to some 710million ha. (7.1 million km2).
26. See Cort, 1990. WRI working paper on NGOparticipation.
27. In the original, estimated costs of the TFAP (i.e.indicative investment requirements of $5-3 bil-lion for 56 countries in the five theme areas of
the TFAP over an initial five year period), some8% was projected for forest conservation, 17%for forestry and land use, 20% for institutions,25% for forest industries, and 30% for fuelwoodand agroforestry. See WRI, 1985. Part III.
28. See also the series of "abstracts" of nationalTFAPs prepared by WRI for selected countries.
29. As a result of its involvement in several nationalTFAP planning exercises in which concessionmanagement and fiscal policies were an issue,the World Bank funded a special study on forestrevenue systems in West Africa, which aimed toprovide further analysis of these systems andrecommended improvements. See Egli and Grut,1989.
30. See report of "Workshop on Country-LevelTFAP Exercises" prepared by WRI, and support-ing national reports presented to the workshop(October, 1989).
31. Ibid.32. See appropriate sections of abstracts of national
TFAPs prepared by WRI, and TFAP critique byColchester and Lohmann, 1990.
33- See memorandum by the Chairperson reportingon "Major Conclusions and Recommendations"of the working group meeting of the TFAP For-estry Advisers, held March 1-2, 1989, in theHague; items #1 and #4.
34. See FAO, 1989, "Note on the Basic Principles ofthe TFAP," (FAO, Rome), p. 2-3.
35. See Halpin, 1990. WRI working paper on in-digenous peoples.
36. See working paper by Cort, 1990.37. Duncan Poore, et al. 1989. No Timber without
Trees. (Earthscan, London).38. See also recommendations of the background
papers on NGO participation (Cort, 1990) andon indigenous peoples (Halpin, 1990), and re-port of the NGO Consultation on the Implemen-tation of the TFAP (WRI, 1989), pp. 3-6.
39. See WRI working paper on shifting agriculture,demography and tenure, by Owen Lynch, 1990.
34
REFERENCES
Andrade, German I. "El Plan De Accion Forestal ParaColombia: Una Vision no gubernamental de su es-todo actual y perspectivas," Fundacion Natura,paper prepared for the WRI Workshop onCountry-Level TFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic, October 24-27, 1989.
Bellagio Meeting on Tropical Forests. "Statement ofThe Bellagio Strategy Meeting on TropicalForests" Bellagio, July, 1987.
Besong, Joseph. "Workshop on Country-LevelTFAP/Forest Policy Reviews: Cameroon Report,"Department of Forestry, Cameroon, paper pre-pared for WRI Workshop on Country-Level TFAPExercises, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic,October 24-27, 1989.
Cabarle, Bruce J. "A Rumble from the Jungle: Plan deAccion Forestal Ecuador and Grassroots Participa-tion: FCUNAE Workshop on Indigenous Peoplesand Amazonian Forest Resources," WorldResources Institute, Washington, D.C., November,1989.
Cabarle, Bruce J., et al. "An Assessment of BiologicalDiversity and Tropical Forests for Ecuador," Re-port for USAID/Ecuador, World Resources Insti-tute, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Cernea, Michael M. Nongovernmental Organiza-tions and Local Development World Bank Discus-sion Papers (Washington, D.C.: 1988).
Chomba, H.J. "NGOs' Participation in Country-LevelTFAP Tanzania Activities" Tanzania EnvironmentSociety, paper prepared for WRI Workshop onCountry-Level TFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic, October 24-27, 1989.
Colchester, Marcus. Pirates, Squatters andPoachers: The Political Ecology of Dispossessionof the Native Peoples of Sarawak. A report fromSurvival International published in associationwith INSAN (London and Selangor: 1989).
Colchester, Marcus and Larry Lohmann. "The Tropi-cal Forestry Action Plan: What Progress?" WorldRainforest Movement, The Ecologist, Friends ofthe Earth (London, March, 1990).
COMUNIDEC, Asociacion de Cooperativas del Can-ton Eloy Alfaro, y World Resources Institute. I En-cuentro Comunitario para la Preservacion de losBosques y Manglares en el Litoral Ecuatoriano,Limones (Esmeraldas), Ecuador 1 5 - l 6 y l 7 d eMayo, 1989.
Cort, Cheryl. "NGO Participation in the TropicalForestry Action Plan," World Resources InstituteWorking Paper, Washington, D.C., forthcoming.
Department of Land Affairs, Environment and Na-ture Conservation and IIED/WRI. Etude Institu-tionnelle du Secteur Forestier: Documents deBase, Kinshasa, 1988.
Dominican Republic. Plan de Accion ForestalRepublica Dominicana (Version Preliminar), San-to Domingo, Dominican Republic, August 27,1987.
Egli, Nicolas and Mikael Grut. "Study of Forest Reve-nue Systems in Africa" (draft) World Bank,Washington, D.C., November, 1989-
Elliott, Chris. "The Tropical Forestry Action Plan,"World Wide Fund for Nature International, Gland,March, 1990.
Environment Liaison Centre International. Ecofo-rum, Vol. 13, No.l, August 1988, and No. 3,Nairobi, November, 1988.
Federacion de Comunas Union de Nativos de laAmazonia Ecuatoriana (FCUNAE) y COMUNIDEC.Nucanchic Sacha: I Encuentro Comunitario Parael Uso y Manejo Racional de los RecursosNaturales Renovables en el Oriente Ecuatoriano.Napo, Ecuador, Noviembre, 1989-
Floyd, Beth. "Report on NGO Participation: TFAP/Dominican Republic," World Resources Institute,Washington, D.C., April, 1989.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. Tropical Forestry Action Plan, in coopera-tion with World Resources Institute, World Bank,and United Nations Development Programme,Rome, June, 1987.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. "Tropical Forestry Action Plan, NationalTropical Forestry Action Plan Missions, SuggestedTerms of Reference," Forestry Department, Rome,1986.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. Plan de Accion Forestal en Los Tropicos:America Latina y El Caribe, Forestry Department,Rome, 1988.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. Tree Growing by Rural People, FAO Forest-ry Paper 64, Rome, 1985.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. Tropical Forestry Action Plan, Committee
35
for Forest Development in the Tropics (Rome:1985).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. Guidelines for Implementation of TheTropical Forestry Action Plan at the Country Lev-el Forestry Department (Rome: 1989).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. "TFAP Update" Forestry Department, Nos.1-16,1986-1990.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. "Tropical Forestry Action Plan: Monitoringof Planning and Implementation" Forestry Depart-ment, Rome, November, 1989.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. "Review of International Cooperation inTropical Forestry," Committee on Forest Devel-opment in the Tropics, prepared for the Ninth Ses-sion of the Committee on Forest Development inthe Tropics, Rome, July, 1989.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions and UNDP. Tropical Forestry Action Plan:Joint Interagency Planning and Review Missionfor the Forestry Sector, Cameroon, Rome, 1988.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions. "Note on the Basic Principles of the TFAP,"Forestry Department, Rome, 1989-
Friends of the Earth/Environmental Policy Institute/Oceanic Society. "The Tropical Forestry ActionPlan: A Critique," Washington, D.C., October 15,1989.
Fundacion PA.NA.MA. "Las Organizaciones NoGubernamentales y El Plan de Accion Forestal dePanama'' paper prepared for NGO Consultationon the Implementation of the TFAP, Washington,D.C.April 10-12, 1989.
Garcia, Yvonne. "Ponencia de la RepublicaDominicana en el Taller sobre las Politicas Fore-stales y el Plan de Accion Forestal Tropical a Niveldel Pais," Comision Nacional Tecnica Forestal,Dominican Republic, paper prepared for WRIWorkshop on Country-Level TFAP Exercises, San-to Domingo, Dominican Republic, October 24-27,1989.
Gonzalez Gutierrez, Clara. "Organizacion, EstadoActual y Perspectivas del Plan de Accion Forestalpara Colombia—PFAC" Departamento Nacionalde Planeacion, Colombia, paper prepared for WRIWorkshop on Country-Level TFAP Exercises, San-to Domingo, Dominican Republic, October 24-27,1989.
Government of Zaire, Department of Land Affairs,Environment and Nature Conservation, and Inter-national Institute for Environment and Develop-ment and World Resources Institute. Zaire ForestPolicy Review: Draft Summary Report, Washing-
ton, D.C., October, 1988.Government of Cameroon, Ministry of Agriculture
with the assistance of IIED/WRI Center for Inter-national Development and Environment. Proceed-ings of the National Seminar on the Managementof Forest Resources in Cameroon, September23-25, 1987, Palais des Congres, Yaounde, March,1988.
Government of Tanzania, Ministry of Lands, NaturalResources and Tourism, Tanzania Forestry ActionPlan 1990/91-2007-08, Dar es Salaam, September,1989.
Halpin, Elizabeth. "Indigenous Peoples and theTropical Forestry Action Plan," World ResourcesInstitute Working Paper, Washington, D.C., June,1990.
Hazlewood, Peter T. Expanding the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in National Forest-ry Programs World Resources Institute and En-vironment Liaison Centre (Washington, D.C.:1987).
His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation. Master Plan for theForestry Sector: Nepal, Kathmandu, December,1988.
International Institute for Environment and De-velopment. "The Diversity of NGOs and TheirPotential Interaction with TFAP" Information pa-per prepared for the Ninth TFAP Forestry AdvisersGroup Meeting by Elaine Morrison, London,November, 1989.
International Institute for Environment and Devel-opment/World Resources Institute. Le TerritoireForestier Camerounais: Les ressources, les inter-venants, lespolitiques d'utilisation. Yaounde,Novembre, 1987.
International Institute for Environment and Devel-opment/World Resources Institute. Les Interven-tions des ONG Dans le Secteur Forestier au Zaire:Bilan et Perspectives d'Avenir, Compte Rendu,Table Ronde, Organisee a Kinshasa 21-22 avril1988, Washington, D.C.June, 1988.
Kanel, Keshav Raj. "The Master Plan for the ForestrySector of Nepal" Planning Officer, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation, Nepal, paper pre-pared for WRI Workshop on Country-Level TFAPExercises, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic,October 24-27, 1989.
Lankester, Charles J. "The Earth's Green Mantle" inReport of the World Forestry Charter GatheringLondon, 15 December 1989 (Bahai InternationalCommunity, New York, 1989).
Lanly, J.P. Tropical Forest Resources FAO ForestryPaper No. 30 (Rome, 1982).
Lara Batista, Minerva. "Informe Presentado por
36
Panama al Taller sobre Politicas Forestales y elPlan de Accion Forestal a Nivel de Pais" NationalInstitute for Renewable Natural Resources,Panama, paper prepared for WRI Workshop onCountry-Level TFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic, October 24-27, 1989.
Lutete, Vangu, November 1989- "Plan D'ActionForestier Tropical du Zaire: Etat D'Execution"Departement des Affaires Foncieres, Environne-ment et Conservation de la Nature, Zaire, paperprepared for WRI Workshop on Country-LevelTFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo, DominicanRepublic, October 24-27, 1989.
Lynch, Owen J. "Whither the People? Demographic,Tenurial and Agricultural Aspects of the TropicalForestry Action Plan" World Resources InstituteWorking Paper, Washington, D.C.June, 1990.
Majid, Nik Muhamad, and Yusuf Hadi. "A Perspec-tive on Malaysian TFAP" Faculty of Forestry,Universiti of Pertanian Malaysia, paper preparedfor WRI Workshop on Country-Level TFAP Exer-cises, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Oc-tober 24-27,1989.
Manyong, Manyong'a. "Processus de PlanificationForestiere au Zaire: Point de Vue" GENAGRO,Kinshasa, Zaire, paper prepared for WRI Work-shop on Country-Level TFAP Exercises, SantoDomingo, Dominican Republic, October 24-27,1989.
Muchiru, Simon. "The Tropical Forestry ActionPlan: NGO's Concern," Environment LiaisonCentre, Nairobi, 1987.
Myers, Norman. Deforestation Rates in TropicalForests and Their Climatic Implications, AFriends of the Earth Report (London: December,1989).
Naughton, Lisa, Wildlife Conservation International."TFAP/Ecuador Trip Report, January 21-23,1989," World Resources Institute, Washington,D.C., 1989.
Naughton, Lisa, Wildlife Conservation International."Status of the Plan de Accion Forestal de Ecua-dor" World Resources Institute, Washington,D.C.July, 1988.
Olsen, Stephen and Luis Arriaga. "A SustainableShrimp Mariculture Industry for Ecuador," Inter-national Coastal Resources Management Project,Technical report series TR-E-6, U.S. Agency for In-ternational Development, Quito, Ecuador, 1989.
Poore, Duncan, et al. "Natural forest managementfor sustainable timber production," A pre-projectreport for ITTO. International Institute for En-vironment and Development, London, 1988.
Rainforest Information Centre. "World Bank Tropi-cal Forestry Action Plan for Papua New Guinea: A
Critique" Lismore, 1990.Rainforest Information Centre. "World Bank Tropi-
cal Forestry Action Plan for Papua New Guinea: ACritique," (draft) Lismore, Australia, 1989/90.
Rajouria, Arup. "Efforts to Develop the Forestry Sec-tor in Nepal" King Mahendra Trust for Nature, pa-per prepared for WRI Workshop on Country-LevelTFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo, DominicanRepublic, October 24-27, 1989.
Reid, Walter V. and Kenton R. Miller. Keeping Op-tions Alive: The Scientific Basis for ConservingBiodiversity, World Resources Institute (Washing-ton, D.C., October, 1989).
Repetto, Robert, ed. The Global Possible, WorldResources Institute (Yale University Press, Bing-hamton, 1985).
Repetto, Robert. "Deforestation in the Tropics" inScientific American, April, 1990.
Repetto, Robert. The Forest for the Trees?: Govern-ment Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources,World Resources Institute (Washington, D.C.:May, 1988).
Repetto, Robert and Malcolm Gillis, eds. Public Poli-cies and the Misuse of Forest Resources, WorldResources Institute (Cambridge University Press,New York: 1988).
Report on "Meeting of Aid Community TechnicalForest Advisers, The Hague," November 20-22,1985.
Republic of Bolivia, Undersecretary of RenewableNatural Resources and Environment, Forestry De-velopment Center. Plan de Accion Para el Desar-rollo Forestal: 1990-1995, La Paz, 1989.
Republic of Colombia, Department of National Plan-ning. Plan de Accion Forestal Para Colombia,Bogota, May, 1989.
Republic of Ecuador, Subsecretariat of RenewableResources. Resultado del Seminario—Taller, Plande Accion Forestal para el Ecuador (Held 6-8April 1988), (with technical assistance fromIIED/WRI),Junio, 1988.
Republic of Ecuador, Subsecretariat of RenewableNatural Resources. Plan de Accion Forestal: Diag-nostico 1990-1995, Quito, February, 1990.
Republic of Honduras. "Politicas, Medidas, Estrate-gies Y Acciones Prioritarias" for the Forestry De-velopment of Honduras, Tegucigalpa January,1988.
Republic of Panama, National Institute of RenewableNatural Resources. Plan de Accion Forestal1989-1993, Panama July, 1988.
Republic of Peru, Ministry of Agriculture, DirectorGeneral of Forestry and Wildlife. Plan Nacionalde Accion Forestal 1988-2000, Lima, 1987.
Republic of the Philippines, Department of Environ-
37
ment and Natural Resources. Master Plan for For-estry Development, (draft) Manila, July, 1989-
Rich, Bruce, and Korinna Horta. "Draft Memoran-dum: Tropical Forestry Action Plan for the Came-roon," Environmental Defense Fund, Washington,D.C., February 20, 1990.
Shiva, Vandana. Forestry Crisis and Forestry Myths:A Critical Review of Tropical Forests: A Call toAction, World Rainforest Movement (Penang,Malaysia, 1987).
Singh, Gurmit K.S. "Where and What is the Malay-sian TFAP?" Environmental Protection Society ofMalaysia, paper prepared for WRI Workshop onCountry-Level TFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic, October 24-27, 1989.
Spears, John and Ayensu, Edward. "Resources, De-velopment and the New Century: Forestry" in R.Repetto, ed., The Global Possible, WorldResources Institute (Yale University Press, Bin-ghamton, 1985).
Speth, Gus. "Saving Tropical Forests: The Role ofthe Tropical Forestry Action Plan" WorldResources Institute, address delivered at "TropicalRainforests: Interdependence & Responsibility"New York Rainforest Alliance, New York City, Oc-tober 16, 1987.
Tierra Viva, COMUNIDEC, y World Resources Insti-tute. En Defensa de la Naturaleza: Dos Casos deParticipacion Comunitaria, Quito, Junio, 1989.
Tropical Forestry Action Plan Forestry AdvisorsGroup. "Summary Reports of Meetings of TFAPForestry Advisors on Harmonizing InternationalForestry Development Cooperation," 1-9,1986-1990.
Tropical Forestry Action Plan Forestry AdvisorsGroup. "TFAP Forestry Advisors on HarmonizingInternational Forestry Development Cooperation:Working Group Meeting, The Hague, March 1 & 2,1989. Major Conclusions and Recommendations,"The Hague, 1989.
United Nations Development Programme. "Prelimi-nary Analysis of Country Tropical Forestry ActionPlans: How Well are Conservation Concerns Ad-dressed?" New York, 1989.
United Nations Development Programme/FAO. In-teragency Forestry Sector Review: Mission Report(Sierra Leone), September, 1990.
Winterbottom, Robert. "Policy Reform IssuesRelated to Forest Management and CommunityForestry Research Priorities in the Asia-Pacific Re-gion," World Resources Institute, paper presentedat the RECOFT Seminar on Research Policy forCommunity Forestry, Bangkok, 8-11 January,1990.
Winterbottom, Robert. "The Tropical Forestry Ac-
tion Plan: Is It Working?" World Resources Insti-tute, paper presented as part of Panel on Culture,Environment and Development, National Associa-tion for the Practice of Anthropology, Washing-ton, D.C., November 18, 1989.
Winterbottom, Robert. "Environmental Implicationsof the Tropical Forestry Action Plan,'' WorldResources Institute, paper presented at the OxfordForestry Institute: Conference on the Future of theTropical Rain Forest, Oxford, June, 1988.
World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment. Our Common Future (Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford: 1987).
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Conserva-tion Atlas of Tropical Rainforests: Asia and thePacific, in press.
World Bank. "Ecuador: Development issues and op-tions for the Amazon region." Internal DiscussionPaper, Latin America and the Caribbean Region,Country Department IV. Report No. IDP-0054.Washington, D.C., 1989-
World Bank. Ghana Forestry Sector Review, WorldBank, Washington, June, 1987.
World Bank. Kenya Forestry Sector Review, Wash-ington, D.C., March, 1987.
World Bank. Papua New Guinea, The Forestry Sec-tor: A Tropical Forestry Action Plan Review,Washington, February 1, 1990.
World Bank. People and Trees, Gregersen, et al.,eds., (Washington, D.C., 1989).
World Bank. Sudan Forestry Sector Review, Wash-ington, D.C., April, 1986.
World Resources Institute. "Report on Workshop onCountry-Level TFAP Exercises: Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic, October 24-26, 1989,"Washington, March, 1990.
World Resources Institute. "Background Paper onthe TFAP Planning Process" prepared for WRIWorkshop on Country-Level TFAP Exercises, San-to Domingo, Dominican Republic, October 24-27,1989-
World Resources Institute. "Draft Abstract of Co-lombia Forestry Action Plan," Washington, D.C.,October, 1989-
World Resources Institute. "Draft Abstract for theGhana Forestry Sector Review, " April, 1989-
World Resources Institute. "Draft Abstract of Na-tional Forestry Action Plan for Panama," Wash-ington, D.C., October, 1989.
World Resources Institute. "Draft Abstract of Tropi-cal Forestry Action Plan: Joint Interagency Plan-ning and Review Mission for the Forestry Sector,Cameroon," Washington, D.C., October, 1989-
World Resources Institute. "Draft Abstract of PapuaNew Guinea, The Forestry Sector: A Tropical For-
38
estry Action Plan Review, " Washington, D.C.,October, 1989-
World Resources Institute. "NGO Consultation onthe Implementation of the Tropical Forestry Ac-tion Plan" Washington, D.C., April 10-12, 1989-
World Resources Institute. "Preliminary Analysis ofNine National TFAP Reports" paper prepared forWRI Workshop on Country-Level TFAP Exercises,Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, October24-27, 1989.
World Resources Institute. "Status Report of NGOParticipation in Country-Level TFAP Activities"Nos. 1-3, December 1988-December 1989.
World Resources Institute. Tropical Forests: A Callfor Action Report of an International Task Forceconvened by WRI, World Bank, and UNDP
(Washington, D.C., October: 1985).World Resources Institute. "The World's Tropical
Forests: A Call for Accelerated Action" Washing-ton, D.C., June, 1985.
World Resources Institute and International Institutefor Environment and Development. "NGO In-volvement in the TFAP: Discussion Outline for aConcept Paper'' prepared for the Fourth Meetingof the Forestry Advisors Group, 6-8 May, 1987,Rome, Italy, Washington, D.C., 1987.
Yonazi, R.P. "Tanzania Forestry Action Plan: Les-sons of Experience," Forestry and Beekeeping Di-vision, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Tan-zania, paper prepared for WRI Workshop onCountry-Level TFAP Exercises, Santo Domingo,Dominican Republic, October 24-27, 1989-
39
APPENDIX 1History of the Development of the TFAP
In many respects, TFAP's roots can be tracedback to an initiative by the Committee for Forest De-velopment in the Tropics (CFDT), and to a confer-ence organized by the World Resources Institute in1984.' The Global Possible Conference, convened tore-examine the relationship between earth'sresources and the human future, included a "Sector-al Paper on Forestry"2 that pointed to the growingcrisis of tropical deforestation and its many adverseeconomic and environmental consequences. Itsauthors argued that deforestation in the tropics isfundamentally due to government decision-makers'lack of awareness of the economic costs of defores-tation and to a corresponding neglect of forestry indevelopment planning and in setting investment pri-orities. The way forward, therefore, is to heightenpolitical awareness of deforestation consequencesand to sharply increase investments in combattingdeforestation.
Spears and Ayensu, the paper's authors, pro-posed that 60 percent of the increased investment betargeted for agricultural programs and the remainderfor forestry. They claimed that, compared to forest-ry programs, agricultural programs could moredirectly address the issue of land reform and redirectagricultural settlement to degraded or non-forestedareas (as opposed to remaining areas of tropical for-est). In forestry, they pointed to a need to increasefuelwood supplies, improve the management of log-ging and industrial forestry operations, and increasethe attention given to forest conservation and thestrengthening of forestry institutions. The papercalled for a combination of increased investment,technical assistance, and policy reform to maintainrevenues from commercial forestry plantations andmore intensively managed forests. This approachwould take the pressure off natural forests and there-by brighten the prospects that some natural forestcould be set aside for conservation purposes; itwould also reduce the pressures to commercially logall natural forests, which displaces indigenous forestdwellers.3
The paper's authors pointed out that the link-ages between forestry and other sectors, such as agri-culture (soil and water conservation, fodder produc-tion), energy (watershed protection and fuelwoodproduction), and health (water supply), needed to beanalyzed better so as to underscore the need for
complementary investments in forestry to protect orenhance investments in other sectors. A review ofinter-sectoral linkages was also deemed fundamentalto improved land-use planning and to more inte-grated, sustainable development. In short, Spearsand Ayensu argued, forestry and agriculture shouldbecome more complementary rather than competefor land.
The paper delivered at the Global Possible Con-ference also stressed the need to better understandthe incentives required to induce local communitiesand the private sector to play a constructive role inforest resources development and management. Re-forms aimed at reducing waste inefficiencies in for-estry operations were called for. Land reform wassingled out as particularly important:
Historical patterns of development that have ledto skewed land distribution underlie many of theproblems forestry faces today. . . Strong politicalcommitment by national governments to pursueland reform policies that would lead to moreequitable land ownership would, in the shortterm, do more to relieve pressure on forest landsthan any other single policy intervention or anyconceivable level of investment in forest resourcedevelopment.4
Given the political or institutional opposition tosuch reforms, the authors argued, political influenceand increased financial resources (which could bemade conditional on government support for policyreforms) would be needed.
The Global Possible paper also recommendedthat a task force of experts in forestry, agriculture,energy, and environmental matters be organized toreview examples of "successful" projects in theseareas and to formulate a program for building politi-cal commitment for the policy changes and in-creased investment necessary for more suchprojects. Many of the key areas for action were out-lined in the Agenda for Action that emerged from theGlobal Possible Conference.5
How the "Call for Action" was Formulated
During the remainder of 1984, WRI organizedan international task force that was convened for thefirst time in December 1984 jointly by WRI, theWorld Bank, and the UNDP.6 Over the next six
41
months, the task force researched the extent andmagnitude of tropical deforestation, debated the ac-tions needed to control the crisis, and reviewed"successes" in numerous priority program areas.7
The group circulated its draft report from June toSeptember 1985 and WRI released it in October1985.8
In its report, the task force argued that the con-tinued destruction of tropical forests could bechecked if sufficient political will could be mobilizedand the resources found to carry out priority ac-tions. More appropriate policies, better designedprojects, and increased investment would beneeded. In particular, 30 percent of the proposed in-vestment ($5-3 billion over 5 years in 56 countries)was earmarked for agriculture to provide farmerswith an alternative to forest encroachment throughincreased support for land reform, sustainable farm-ing practices, and other activities.
The task force's "Call for Action" was aimedprimarily at national government leaders and devel-opment agency personnel. Its purpose was to buildpolitical awareness of what could be done, as well asof the consequences of inaction and, in the process,to increase aid flows and the allocation of develop-ment assistance to forest resources conservation anddevelopment. The report also noted that the in-creased investment should be used to expand NGOs'role in forestry and to encourage greater communityparticipation in forest conservation andmanagement.
The Hague Meeting of Forestry Advisors
In November 1985, the Netherlands Ministry ofForeign Affairs hosted a meeting of forestry advisorsfrom the aid agencies and representatives of devel-oping countries to discuss how to maximize interna-tional forestry development cooperation in supportof the TFAP and avoid duplication of efforts. By thistime, the FAO Tropical Forestry Action Program andthe report of the WRI Task Force had been reviewed,revised, and published. Each document proposed anumber of similar actions based on successful experi-ences in development assistance in five closely re-lated theme areas; both documents emerged asprecursors of the TFAP.
Participants at the Hague meeting recommendedthat FAO's TFAP be accepted as the framework toguide future multilateral and bilateral developmentcooperation activities in tropical forestry and thatthe "global TFAP be translated into National TFAPsand programmes consistent with the orientation andframework of the global Plan and in harmony withnational priorities and development plans. . . "9
The Hague meeting resolutions characterizedthe main cause of deforestation as "the urgent needsof growing populations for agricultural land andfuelwood" and noted the need for "massive planta-tions of forests and conservation measures," as wellas for the "integration of forestry with agriculture."Participants stated that a "doubling of aid flow totropical forestry and intensified care for high-qualityaid-supported projects" were essential to starting theTFAP effectively.
To further the development of national TFAPs,the attendees recommended that' 'joint missions ofgovernment and aid agency experts be organized toreview forestry development strategies and pro-gramme areas, identify priority areas for action andassistance needs, and formulate national TFAPs with-in which specific projects can be identified for fur-ther assistance."10 Separate notes were drafted onproposed objectives of the "forestry sector reviews"and on preliminary guidelines for selecting countriesto be included in the TFAP.11
The sector review objectives emphasized theneed to review strategies for fighting deforestationmore systematically, to insure that forestry is betterrepresented in national development plans, to moreaccurately quantify the costs and benefits anticipatedfrom accelerated assistance in forestry, to provide aframework for improving aid, and to coordinate aidmore effectively. The forestry advisors furtheragreed to several considerations in planning sectorreview missions—among them, the likelihood ofassistance following completion of the sectorreviews, the receptivity of the host government, theextent of deforestation relative to existing levels ofexternal assistance, and the availability of the infor-mation needed to identify projects. A proposal onsupport for NGO participation in the sector reviewwas presented by WRI and IIED but not adopted.
NGO Workshops on the TFAP
Soon after the WRI "Call for Action" wasreleased in October, 1985, WRI conferred with theEnvironment Liaison Centre (ELC) about the organi-zation of regional workshops for NGOs with an in-terest in expanding their role in forestry. Theseworkshops were intended to provide a forum forNGOs to comment on the Call for Action report, andto promote a dialogue on how to improve collabora-tion among NGOs, governments, and developmentassistance agencies in forestry efforts.12
The three regional workshops—convened inNovember 1986 and February 1987 in Nairobi, Pana-ma City, and Bangkok—were attended by represen-tatives of 65 national and 11 international NGOs, 18
42
national governments, and 13 development assis-tance agencies and other international organizations.These workshops explored the strengths and weak-nesses of NGOs with a view to their expanding rolein forestry and formulated a number of recommen-dations for funding and strengthening NGOs.
At the workshops, NGOs' concern about and in-terests in the TFAP were also identified. A number ofNGOs felt that the TFAP should stress more inte-grated approaches, recognize and address the impactof external economic factors, target programs morecarefully to meet the basic needs of the rural poor,and give more attention to forest conservation, sus-tainable forest management, land tenure, and thediversity of the NGO community.
To follow up on these workshops, WRI helpedfour NGO representatives prepare an NGO statementon tropical deforestation and recommendations forimplementing the TFAP. The NGOs insisted on be-coming full and equal partners in the TFAP planningprocess and in the plan's implementation.13
The Bellagio Strategy Meeting on TropicalForests
In keeping with a concern about the need tobuild political awareness of the need for more effec-tive action and accelerated investment to controltropical deforestation, a high-level conference wasorganized July 1-2, 1987, at the Bellagio ConferenceCenter in Italy under the auspices of the FAO, theWorld Bank, the UNDP, WRI, and the RockefellerFoundation.14
At this time, a new summary of the TFAP waspublished. It drew on both the earlier FAO ActionProgramme and the WRI/World Bank/UNDP Call forAction Report, and it incorporated a number ofchanges in response to criticisms of the earlier for-mulations of the "TFAP."15 However, the basic ob-jectives and approach of the TFAP remained muchthe same: to overcome the perceived lack of politi-cal, financial, and institutional support for combat-ting deforestation through a "common frameworkfor action."16 The importance of broad participationin the TFAP by local communities and NGOs wasalso stressed in the 1987 TFAP booklet.
Organization of National TFAP PlanningExercises
Between the Hague meeting in 1985 and the Bel-lagio meeting in 1987, the organization of nationalforestry sector reviews proceeded in a dozen coun-tries. At the same time, FAO elaborated moredetailed "general terms of reference" and proposed
a schedule for preparing national TFAP missions. Ac-cording to the initial terms of reference, the mainpurpose of the national TFAPs is to "optimize thecontribution of the forestry sector to economic andsocial development in harmony with environmentalconsiderations," while the expanded terms make itclear that specialists from NGOs can participate andproposed the analysis of the "fiscal, institutional, en-vironmental and socio-economic policies of govern-ment relevant to tropical forests" and of "the role oflocal, non-governmental organizations in the man-agement and the development of tropical forestresources."17
NOTES
1. The Global Possible: Resources, Developmentand the New Century." Convened by WorldResources Institute May 2-5, 1984, Wye Planta-tion, Virginia, USA. The conference was con-vened to address the question: can the world re-verse current resource and environmentaldeterioration while at the same time promoting abetter quality of life for all and achieving amarked improvement in the living standards ofthe world's disadvantaged?
2. See Spears and Ayensu, 1984.3. Spears and Ay ensu, 1984. pp. 37-38.4. Spears and Ay ensu, 1984. p. 15.5. See Appendix in Repetto, 1984.6. The WRI Task Force included nine individuals
with backgrounds in environmental conserva-tion, land use, agriculture, industrial enterprises,forestry research, and development assistance.
7. Fuelwood and Agroforestry, Land Use on UplandWatersheds, Industrial Forestry, Ecosystem Con-servation, and Strengthening of Institutions forResearch, Training and Extension.
8. See draft report, "The World's Tropical Forests:A Call for Accelerated Action." WRI, June, 1985.90 p.; and WRI, Tropical Forests: A Call for Ac-tion. Volumes 1-3, October, 1985. During thesame period, the FAO drafted a booklet entitled,Tropical Forestry Action Plan, (FAO, Rome,1985. 159 p.) which was circulated in July at theWorld Forestry Congress, and later publishedunder the auspices of the FAO's Committee onForest Development in the Tropics.
9. See recomendations #1 and #3 of the HagueMeeting, Nov. 20-22, 1985.
10. See recommendation #4 of the Hague meeting.11. See proposals tabled at the Hague meeting.12. See Peter Hazlewood, Expanding the Role of
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) inNational Forestry Programs. The Report of
43
Three Regional Workshops in Africa, Asia and 15. See booklet, The Tropical Forestry Action PlanLatin America. WRI and ELC, 1987. prepared by FAO in cooperation with WRI, the
13. See "Statement by NGOs to the Bellagio Strategy World Bank and UNDP, June 1987.Meeting on Tropical Forests," June, 1987. 16. FAO, 1987. pp. 6-7.
14. The 1987 Bellagio meeting brought together 17. See Draft "Tropical Forestry Action Plan, Na-some 25 participants, including ministers of tional Tropical Forestry Action Plan Missions,government, politicians, heads of aid agencies, Suggested General Terms of Reference.'' FAO,representatives of the private sector and NGOs. Rome, 1986.
APPENDIX 2Underlying Causes of Tropical Deforestation
Many factors contribute to deforestation. (SeeTable A.) The complex nature of both direct and in-direct causes has frustrated many simplistic attemptsto curb deforestation. It is important, therefore, inan assessment of the TFAP, to recall the many rele-vant issues which must be addressed if the TFAP orany other program is to successfully controldeforestation.
The principal factors responsible for tropicaldeforestation include the over-exploitation of forestsand woodlands to meet growing domestic demandfor fuelwood and other forest products, and con-tinued encroachment into forest lands by landlessfarmers. High rates of population growth, as well asfailed or inequitable development in the more dense-ly settled, non-forested regions also contribute sig-nificantly to deforestation in many countries, byfueling the need to expand the area of cultivatedland. In that respect, a failure to adopt sustainableagricultural practices and to rehabilitate land whichhas been degraded and depleted of its fertility byclearing, burning, overgrazing, contributes signifi-cantly to deforestation, by maintaining or increasingthe pressure to convert remaining forest lands tocropland.
Commercial logging of remaining natural foreststo maintain or increase timber exports to industrial-ized countries and to generate export earnings is an-other important cause of deforestation, both as aconsequence of increased access to logged-overareas by landless farmers, and a failure to provide forlong-term protection and regeneration of logged-over areas. The stimulus given to unsustainable in-dustrial logging by such macroeconomic factors astariff barriers, commodity prices, debt, and a lack ofalternative means to generate export earnings in theshort term also encourage deforestation in somecountries.1
Destruction of environmentally sustainablecommon property systems of resource managementalso leads to deforestation. For example, too often,national governments that assume ownership andcontrol of forest lands ignore both ancestral claimson the land and the limited capacity of governmentagencies to actually manage or control access tothese lands. In many cases, such "open access" setsthe stage for accelerated resource overuse and degra-dation.2 Governments have also been reluctant to
forego the short-term profits generated by currentpatterns of resource use. Political pressures, corrup-tion, and the unrestrained influence of special in-terests are particularly apparent in the allocation oftimber concessions and the control of logging opera-tions. The reluctance of national governments to ad-dress the full range of social and political issues (par-ticularly as they relate to the control and ownershipof land) must be overcome if poverty and deforesta-tion are to be reduced and equitable and sustainablecommunity development stimulated.
Large-scale development assistance projectsrelated to resettlement, mining, irrigation, energy,and transportation infrastructure also contribute todeforestation. Moreover, such projects often lack afull analysis of costs and benefits, and the trade-offsinherent in converting remaining areas of naturalforest, and do not have sufficient measures to pro-tect adjacent forest lands. Behind this abuse of theland and its people has been an emphasis by nationalgovernments, aid agencies, and private corporationson export-oriented ventures, and a correspondinginattention to the generation of sustainable, rurallivelihoods based on ecologically sound farmingmethods.3
Weak institutional capacity—as reflected byshortages of well-trained people, insufficient infor-mation, environmentally and economically unsoundpolicies, poor coordination among different agen-cies, and inadequate operational budgets—also in-hibit the rational use of forest lands. Also, too manyforestry Departments are weak, oriented strictly to-wards plantation establishment and timber extrac-tion, and lacking the capacity needed to manage nat-ural forests, and to support agroforestry andcommunity forestry activities.
In short, the causes of deforestation are manyand complex, and a formidable challenge to theframers and implementors of the Tropical ForestryAction Plan.
NOTES
1. See Appendix 4, case study on Ecuador TFAP.2. See WRI working paper by Owen Lynch, 1990.3. In many rural areas, government programs and
development assistance projects have not led tosustained increases in income, employment, edu-
45
Table A. Major Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Proposed Responses
Underlying Issues and Causes Direct Causes of Deforestation Proposed Responses
Poor policies and incentives.Debt burden; macro-economic and
trade inequities.Consumer demand in developed
countries.Need for foreign exchange.
Climate change and drought
Shortages and inefficient use offuelwood.
Lack of alternatives to fuelwood.Shortages and lack of alternative
sources of fodder.
Rapid population growth.Increased demand for cropland.Inequitable land ownership patterns.Failure of agrarian reform.Insecure land tenure.Lack of support for sustainable
agriculture.Poorly planned agricultural
resettlement.Increased access along logging roads.
Poorly planned, large scale develop-ment projects (e.g. transportation in-frastructure, energy, mining, com-mercial agriculture, etc.)
Land use conflicts.Export commodity/production focus
of development projects.Short term profit-taking, corruption.
Low level of development assistancein forestry, especially for forestprotection.
Weak institutional capacity.Poor inter-sectoral coordination.Lack of awareness of economic and en-
vironmental costs of deforestationand misuse of forest lands among po-litical decision-makers.
Subsidies, tax breaks, fiscal policiesand legislation which promotedeforestation.
Destructive commercial logging.Lack of forest management, poor
regeneration and low rates ofreforestation.
Overexploitation of forests, wood-lands, and farm trees for fuelwood,poles, other forest products.
Neglect of traditional biomass fuels inenergy sector assistance.
Few incentives and weak extension forprivate tree-planting.
Failure to sustain/encourage trees infarming systems.
Overgrazing, repeated burning.Degradation of currently cropped
land.Shortened fallows and increased con-
sumption of forest land by shiftingcultivators.
Encroachment by landless farmers.
Lack of community participation in de-velopment planning and projectdesign.
Erosion of traditional community con-trols over land use and communal re-source management strategies.
Displacement and disruption of in-digenous forest dwellers.
Ineffective protection and manage-ment of national parks, forestreserves, public forest lands.
Low valuation of biological diversity.Faulty analysis of full costs and
benefits of land conversion.Inattention to sustainability issues in
economic development and naturalresource use.
Inadequate information base andmonitoring of forest land use andforest resources.
Inattention to forestry institutions.Low priority to forestry in develop-
ment plans.Lack of investment in forestry.
Policy and institutional reform.Elimination of inefficient and destruc-
tive subsidies, tax breaks, etc.Incentives and support for improved
forest management and improvedforest utilization.
Increased forestry research.High-yield plantations.
Satisfaction of fuelwood demand by:Incentives for tree-planting by local
communities and private sector;Agroforestry plantings and fuelwood
plantations;Fuelwood conservation and increased
access to fuelwood substitutes.
Agrarian reform and more secure landtenure.
Accelerated investment in sustainableagriculture, especially in areas adja-cent to natural forests.
Greater use of multi-purpose treespecies.
Redirect agricultural settlement todegraded (deforested) areas.
More community participation.More support for forest conservation.Incorporate development concerns
into conservation programs (bufferzone development around protectedareas).
Institution strengthening:Increased capacity for research, train-
ing and extension;Better data and monitoring of forest
resources;Improved land use planning and inter-
sectoral coordination.
Increased awareness among decision-makers and greater political commit-ment to address deforestation issues.
Improved coordination and effective-ness of development assistance.
Accelerated investment in targetedareas.
46
cation and well-being because they have ignoredthe need of local communities to maintain orbuild a solid foundation based on agrarian reform,sound land use and resource-conserving agricul-tural and rural development technologies. Many"development" programs and projects have alsotended to overlook what could be done to sustainthe full range of traditional livelihoods. They alsooften fail to analyze the micro-level incentiveswhich are needed to stimulate adoption ofresource-conserving technologies by small-scale
farmers; as a result these farmers are forced to mi-grate into remaining forest areas and clear addi-tional forest land. Development failures in ruralareas, in turn, have contributed to uncontrolledexpansion of urban areas, growing unemploy-ment, overburdened urban services, environmen-tal degradation and political instability in the cit-ies. This has generated pressures to "resettle" thelandless poor from the cities in the remainingareas of relatively less densely populated (but notunpopulated) forest lands.
47
APPENDIX 3TFAP's Basic Principles
1. Declared political commitment at higher gov-ernment levels.
2. Forestry policies which focus on meeting theneeds of local people.
3. A visible role for forestry in national develop-ment plans with clear objectives.
4. Active involvement of local groups and com-munities in forestry activities, with a focus on wom-en and on commonly shared resources.
5. Identification of problems requiring immedi-ate action.
6. Monitoring and conserving the resource baseand broadening the goods and services produced byforests.
7. Effective inter-agency coordination of policy,planning and implementation of activities such asagriculture, mining, energy, and commerce.
8. Increasing public and private, national andinternational investments to increase the productionof goods and services from forestry.
9. An effective and increased support by the in-ternational community based on a concerted re-sponse to technical and financial assistance needsand priorities expressed by tropical countries in linewith the principles of TFAP.'
1 Source: FAO, "Note on the Basic Principles of theTropical Forestry Action Plan. Annex 4 of the Sum-mary Report on the 8th Meeting of the TFAP Forest-ry Advisors Meeting, Paris, May 9-12, 1989.
Note: The extent to which the TFAP has actually fol-lowed these principles, and the congruence of na-tional strategies with the proposed objectives andstrategic framework outlined by FAO has not, how-ever, been systematically monitored or evaluated todate.
49
APPENDIX 4Confronting the Cycle of Destruction:
The TFAP for Ecuador
The forests that once covered Ecuador's moun-tain ranges are nearly gone, cleared by small farmersdesperate for land; and the bare slopes reveal theravages of soil erosion. Now the Amazonian forestsare facing rapid destruction. Degradation of theproductive coastal mangrove forests and estuarieshas resulted from the drive to construct shrimppools by an exigent mariculture industry. A popula-tion that is expected to double by the year 2020, andan economic crisis that includes a burgeoning for-eign debt and rapid inflation also increase pressureon forest resources. Given these characteristics,common among many Latin American countries, Ec-uador provides an instructive example of the inter-relationship of economic, social, natural resourcesand environmental problems. Ecuador, in the midstof developing a national forestry action plan, alsoprovides a revealing case study of applying the TFAPframework to confront the cycle of forestdestruction.
/ . The Invisible Forest of Ecuador
Ecuador still has forests over approximately halfof the country covering 13 million hectares, themajority in the Amazon region.1 Data from FAO sug-gest that Ecuador is losing its forests at the rate of2.4% per annum (340,000 ha/yr), the highestdeforestation rate in South America.
Most of Ecuador's forests (6.9 million hectares)are "invisible," falling outside of the legally recog-nized forest estate. (See Figure 1.) Thus, these forestsare considered "open" or "unoccupied" and label-led as "unproductive" lands in the public domain,subject to development under the Agrarian Reformand Colonization laws. This predicament demon-strates the compelling need for the TFAP/Ecuador topropose an alternative legal-policy framework thatrecognizes these "invisible" forests as an essentialnational asset.
The legally defined "public" forest estate (6.1million hectares) is given varying degrees of pro-tected status under the Forestry Law.2 Of theseforests, the government forestry department,DINAF, theoretically manages 3 million hectares.The remaining 3 1 million hectares of the public for-est estate are leased through commercial concessionsor managed by local communities under govern-
Figure 1.
EcuadorForests
LegallyRecognizedForest Estate
Not LegallyRecognized
Focus ofTFAP47%
of Forests
ment-approved management plans.3 The currentTFAP/Ecuador confines its strategy to this public for-est estate, foregoing the opportunity to promoteland use planning and management alternatives forthe majority of Ecuador's tropical forests.
2. The Invisible People of Ecuador
Determining how many people live in, or aredependent upon, forest lands is essential to devisingan adequate land use plan, such as the TFAP. Fur-thermore, the way people use the forest resources,as well as the population growth rates, largely deter-mine land area requirements. For example, swiddenagriculturalists may seem to require large areas ofland, yet their extensive practices have traditionallybeen essential to maintaining long term forest cover.On the other hand, permanent conversion of forestlands to agriculture or pasture by colonists may re-quire equally extensive areas, due to the exhaustionof the soil after a few seasons of intensive agricul-ture. This land may never return to productive usewithout forest cover. Official estimates indicate that1.5 million hectares (15%) of the invisible forests ofthe Amazon region have been severely degraded andabandoned by colonists.4
Official census data show that indigenous popu-
51
lations account for approximately 26 percent of theAmazonian regional population. In contrast, in-digenous organizations set the estimate at close to 40percent.5 In any case, indigenous peoples hold legaltitle to only 3 percent of the region's land.6 There isa large overlap between what the Government labelsas "open lands" and what indigenous peoples tradi-tionally claim to be ancestral domain, areas vital tomaintaining their forest-dependent livelihoods. Evenwhen documented land titles are granted to in-digenous peoples, these guarantee access to surfacerights only; Ecuadorean law gives the governmentthe right to exploit subsurface (petroleum and gold)and above surface (timber) resources, regardless ofland ownership or designation.
The TFAP/Ecuador could still contribute signifi-cantly to the recognition of usufruct and guaranteedaccess to forest resources vital to the livelihoods offorest dependent peoples by promoting tenure to theabove and/or below surface resources within pro-tected areas. Such actions could ensure bettermanagement and the integrity of important conser-vation units such as Yasuni National Park, CuyabenoWildlife Refuge, Limoncocha Biological Reserve, theAwa and Huaorani Ethnic Forest Reserves.
3. Forest Policy and the TFAP/Ecuador
Uncontrolled logging in the northwest coastaland inter-Andean region contributes to deforestationby opening up previously inaccessible forests, whichare then converted to other uses by the landless poorand agro-industry. In the Amazon region, timber har-vesting is facilitated by roads and other necessary in-frastructure left by petroleum exploration activities.Approximately two-thirds of the Amazonian forests,falling both in areas of the public forest estate as wellas the invisible forests, are designated as commercialtimber concessions.7 Management of these conces-sions is conceded to private industry. Two attemptsto install long term timber concessions have failedbecause private industry did not implement manage-ment plans and carry out reforestation activities. Theinability of the government to control spontaneoussettlement in forests opened up for commercial log-ging has also exacerbated the problem.
Royalties paid to the government by private in-dustry for timber are based upon flat harvesting-and-transport fees. These fees are based on the amount ofwood actually harvested, regardless of species, size,or area. Log prices paid at the sawmill site are thesame regardless of hauling distances. As such, thissystem does not account for the standing value ofthe forest, only those trees which are hauled out ofthe forest on the back of trucks. These policies en-
courage the harvesting of only the biggest and besttrees in the forest.8
Timber harvesting is technically regulatedthrough the approximately 4,000 harvesting and25,000 transport licenses issued by DINAF everyyear.9 However, production data from the Forest In-dustries Association, AIMA, suggests that theselicenses account for less than 50 percent of the actu-al timber harvest. Fees levied on timber contracts toguarantee reforestation are substantially lower thanactual planting and maintenance costs. They placethe burden of replanting on the government, not theconcessionaire. As a result, of the 340,000 ha/yrdeforested, only 6,000 ha/yr are reforested.10 Lastly,timber harvesting is overseen loosely by an under-staffed division of government forestry inspectorsrelegated to police-style enforcement. These policiesresult in a tremendous waste of usable wood left inthe forest, the loss of potential governmentrevenues, and corruption.
Ecuador's forest policies fail to provide incen-tives for adopting careful logging practices whichcould minimize damage and promote long term sus-tainable management. The emerging TFAP/Ecuadorstrategy appears to constrain itself within theseshort-sighted policies and regulations governing tim-ber harvesting. Any further investment in loggingand wood processing, under the current forest poli-cy framework, is likely to result in accelerateddeforestation.
4. Nonforest Sector Policies and theTFAP/Ecuador
Colonization
Unable to resolve unequal land distribution po-litically in the densely populated regions of thecountry, the government encourages migration tothe Amazon and northwestern coastal lowlands withlump-sum cash incentives and/or subsidized busing.The agrarian reform law encourages further forestdestruction by requiring that at least 80 percent ofnew homesteads be put into "productive agriculturaluse" (meaning cleared of forests) within two years ofsettlement as a prerequisite to obtaining land title.11
Colonists who fail to comply risk having their landsexpropriated by the government and returned to thepublic domain open for "development."
The TFAP/Ecuador identifies shifting cultiva-tors12 in the Amazon region as the primary agents ofdeforestation, without a corresponding analysis ofthe socioeconomic factors driving their activities.The isolated projects proposed for other regions ofthe country provide a basis for a coherent national
52
strategy, that has yet to materialize, which could al-leviate colonization pressures on the Amazon andcoastal forests.
Land Ownership
Despite two attempts at agrarian reform, 66 per-cent of the nation's arable land is owned by 1.2 per-cent of the land owners, while 90 percent of farmersown fewer than 10 ha. each,13 representing 7.3 per-cent of the nation's arable land. Following the tradi-tion of farm subdivision to accommodate a growingfamily, each subsequent generation has less land tofarm. The concentration of holdings of agriculturallands as a hedge against runaway inflation, whichpeaked at 90 percent in 1988, further reduced theamount of arable land available to the rural poor.The TFAP/Ecuador strategy does not promote amore equitable distribution of agricultural lands oranalyze land tenure problems contributing to thedeforestation crisis.
Unequal land distribution, coupled with a popu-lation growing at the fastest rate in South America(2.6-2.9 percent),14 has given rise to a large class oflandless poor who migrate to urban centers or theagricultural frontier. Many relocate to the AmazonRegion, where conflicts abound between colonistsand indigenous peoples over land. For example, inthe Amazon region, approximately 23 percent of theland area is titled to colonists, 15 percent dedicatedto National Parks and Reserves, 10 percent desig-nated for "controlled colonization," 3 percent to in-digenous communities while 49 percent is unclassi-fied or "open" by default.15 Regional forestryprograms under the TFAP/Ecuador could bestrengthened substantially by adding a land titlingcomponent.
Those who do not migrate to the Amazon oftencannot grow enough crops to feed their families; andmen are forced to search for seasonal wage labor inthe urban centers. Thus, over 50 percent of familyfarm work is done by women and children.16 Train-ing programs proposed by the TFAP/Ecuador to im-prove Andean agroforestry and expand reforestationcan be strengthened by including women and/orfamily units in their scope.
Agricultural Policy
Current agricultural policy promotes the pro-duction of export commodities to generate the for-eign exchange desperately needed to service aforeign debt of US$11.7 billion (1989), which repre-sents more than 100 percent of the country's GNP.For example, in a 12-year period, the area dedicated
to export crop production such as soybean, Africanoil palm, sugar cane, and feed corn (for cattle) ex-panded 171 percent,17 largely into areas formerlycovered by forests. This agro-industrial developmentin the Amazon Region was further benefited by a 10year "tax holiday."18 In contrast, during the sameperiod the area dedicated to such basic householdcrops as rice, beans, and potatoes, diminished by al-most 26 percent. Pasture lands increased 100 per-cent from 1972 to 1982, from 2.2 million to 4.4 mil-lion hectares, into areas previously in food cropproduction or under forest cover. However, live-stock production did not follow the same rate ofgrowth, increasing only by a third (33 percent). Thistranslates to a carrying capacity of only 0.7 head/ha.Currently, low-productivity pastures occupy ap-proximately 75 percent of the total arable land inEcuador.
The inappropriate use of the country's primeagricultural lands, for example, cattle grazing ratherthan basic crops, is a major factor contributing to thephenomena of the migrant farmer. The TFAP/Ecua-dor strategy can yet address this cycle of forest de-struction by promoting more appropriate use of thecountry's prime agricultural lands as well as increas-ing productivity on marginal lands.
Petroleum and Mining
Petroleum exploration is the major influence onland use practices over half of the remaining forestsin the Amazon region of Ecuador; approximately 35million hectares of the public forest estate and invisi-ble forests are currently under petroleum produc-tion.19 These extraction activities have opened ac-cess deep into the forests, paving the way foruncontrolled timber harvesting and spontaneouscolonization by waves of migrant poor desperate forland. The government plans to open access to an ad-ditional 2 million hectares for petroleum explorationduring the current five year national developmentplan.20
Petroleum provides roughly 50 percent of Ecu-ador's export revenues, though this value is quicklyslipping due to falling world prices and the rapiddepletion of national oil reserves, which are ex-pected to last for only another 15 years. Exploitationof mineral reserves (particularly gold) is expected toreplace petroleum as Ecuador's main export com-modity and produce 50 percent of foreign exchangeby the year 2000. Most of the gold reserves are locat-ed along the flanks of the Andean mountain ranges,overlapping some of the most biologically richforests in the world. For example, Podocarpus Na-tional Park in the southern province of Loja has 90
53
percent of its land area targeted for development asgold concessions, under control of the military andMinistry of Mines and Energy. Likewise, the EthnicForest Reserve of the Awa Indians, recently desig-nated as one of the world's top ten "biological hot-spots," is likely to meet a similar fate.21
Shrimp Farming
The soils and minerals of the forests are not theonly resources that are under increasing pressure toproduce exports. The shrimp mariculture industry issecond only to petroleum as Ecuador's most impor-tant export commodity, accounting for US$387 mil-lion in foreign exchange for 1988 (equivalent to onethird of the national debt). The rush to establishmore commercial shrimp ponds destroyed 100,000hectares of mangrove forests in the process.22 Thisdestruction has led to numerous, displaced artisanalfishing communities, diminished fish catches, andprovoked disruption of coastline protection pro-vided by the mangrove forests.23 Impacts of man-grove deforestation are not limited to local commu-nities. Fifty percent of the commercial shrimp pondsinstalled during the 1980s have already fallen out ofproduction, rendered useless by increased saliniza-tion (due to disruption of the environmental servicesprovided by the former mangrove forests), and thedeclining availability of wild shrimp prawns used tostock commercial ponds.24
The TFAP/Ecuador strategy does not assess therisks of the continued expansion of commercialshrimp production to the dwindling mangroveforests. Actions to counteract further degradationand mangrove forest loss are urgently needed suchas promoting increased control over mangroveresources and marketing opportunities to artisanalfishermen communities and organizations directlydependent upon these resources for their liveli-hoods. Such actions supported at the local levelcould contribute substantially to slowing the cycle ofmangrove forest destruction by vested commercialinterests.
5. TFAP/Ecuador: Answering the Call for Action?
The emerging TFAP strategy for Ecuador so farappears to fall short in light of the rapid pace ofdeforestation. It has yet to unravel the complexcauses of the forest destruction cycle. Strategies topromote agroforestry programs for colonists on theedge of the agricultural frontier, while an importantpart of the solution, represent only minor tinkeringgiven that 75 percent of the country's arable land re-mains in low productivity pasture lands. The land-
less poor migrating to the Amazon Region, forcedout of the Andean highlands due to inefficient landuse patterns, are left no choice but to clear theforests in search of agricultural lands. To be effec-tive, the TFAP/Ecuador strategy must address theirconcerns, and offer increased alternatives to the ru-ral poor in their homelands. It will also requirerecognizing the "invisible" forests as an essential na-tional asset and a more accurate account of howmany people live in and around these critical areas. _
The TFAP/Ecuador will offer few remedies tothe cycle of forest destruction without curing the illsof deforestation by promoting a more equitable dis-tribution of usufruct and land rights, and a more in-tensive use of prime agricultural lands in the Andeanhighlands and coastal lowlands. In addition, derail-ing the cycle of forest destruction will require a shiftin the government policy of sponsoring migration tothe "invisible" forests, facilitated by government-subsidized infrastructure put in place to further com-mercial extraction of the country's natural resources(petroleum, gold, timber and fisheries). Unless sub-stantial actions are taken to amend these policies, in-creased investment in the forestry sector through theTFAP will be questionable at best and likely support,however unwittingly, the forces driving the cycle offorest destruction in Ecuador.
NOTES
1. As in many tropical countries, data on forestcover in Ecuador are imprecise and contradicto-ry. Estimates used here are taken from: Republicof Ecuador, 1990, and Cabarle, et. al., 1989.
2. The Forest Estate is divided into government andprivately managed forest lands. DINAF managesapproximately 3 million hectares as parks andreserves. Private interests manage 3.1 millionhectares, subdivided into protective forests andareas of forest patrimony. Protective forests, for-ested areas determined by the government as pri-ority areas for conservation due to their unsuit-ability for agricultural activities, account for 1.5million hectares. Forest patrimony, forest landsrequiring government approved managementplans for development within zones designatedfor colonization schemes, total 1.6 million hec-tares (limited to the Napo, Sucumbios, and Es-meraldas provinces).
3- While not covered under land use laws, conces-sions are largely administered by the Ministry ofMines and Energy which possess legal authorityover petroleum and subsurface mineral rights.The various branches of the military also play animportant role in the concessionary process.
54
4. Republic of Ecuador, 1990. This is a conserva-tive estimate considering that over 2 million hec-tares have been titled to colonists in the Sucum-bios and Napo provinces. Untold hectares moreare undergoing spontaneous colonization in theother Amazonian provinces. Virtually all of theseareas are devoid of closed forest.
5. Data from the 1982 census show that indigenouspeoples accounted for 69,728 of the Amazonregion's 263,797 inhabitants. Figures from Na-cionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador, byCONIAE, 1988, indicate that the 1982 census didnot cover the entire region, and estimate thatthere are approximately 100,000 indigenousinhabitants.
6. World Bank, Country Department IV, 1989.7. World Bank, ibid.8. Cabarle, et. al., op. cit.9. Poore, et al. 1989-
10. Cabarle, et al, op. cit.11. See "Leyes de: Reforma agraria y reglamento;
Colonizacion de la region Amazonica," (actu-alizada septiembre de 1989), especially title IV,chapter I, articles 41 and 48.
12. Shifting cultivators, also known as "slash-and-burn" agriculturalists, is a term often indiscrimi-
nately applied to migrant and/or marginalizedpoor, landless farmers as well as indigenousswidden agriculturalists. The TFAP/Ecuador doesnote the distinction between colonists and in-digenous peoples.
13. See "Ley de colonizacion de la Region Ama-zonica," No. 2092, disposicion general, article38.
14. Landazuriyjijon, 1988.15. World Bank, op. cit.16. COMUNIDEC y WRI, 1988, and Landazuri y
Jijon, op. cit.17. Data compiled from various annual and quarter-
ly reports of the Central Bank of Ecuador.18. See "Ley de colonizacion de la Region Ama-
zonica," No. 2092, disposicion general, article38.
19- FCUNAE y COMUNIDEC, 1989-20. The government hopes to finance these activities
through a US $ 100m loan being negotiated withthe World Bank, and through foreign investmentvia a bidding process.
21. Lisa Naughton, 1989, personal communication.22. Olsen, Stephen and Luis Arriaga, 1989-23. COMUNIDEC, ACCEA y WRI, 1989-24. Olsen and Arriaga, op. cit.
55
APPENDIX 5Proposal for a New Management Structure for the TFAP
INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE
Premise: An independent group that is not domi-nated by forestry, development assistance agenciesor commercial interests, and that is less sensitive toissues of "national sovereignty" than intergovern-mental and public agencies is needed to fill the pres-ent void of oversight and control over the TFAP.
Representation: Members should include representa-tives of various interest groups with a stake in the fu-ture of tropical forests, such as indigenous peoples,rural populations in developing countries, nationalgovernments, scientists, and private enterprises. In-terested like-minded groups could also constitutesubcommittees, such as an "NGO Subcommittee" tofacilitate consultation and outreach among thesegroups.
Mandate and Function:
• To establish or confirm the goals, objectives,guidelines and standards to be met in TFAPactivities.
• To meet annually to review progress in preparingand implementing national TFAPs and all other ac-tivities aimed at achieving the goals of the TFAP.
• To periodically evaluate adherence to TFAP stan-dards and guidelines as a condition of further en-dorsement of national planning exercises and im-plementation of the TFAP.
• To monitor the results of the TFAP, in terms of itsstated goals and objectives, and to amend or adjustthe TFAP goals, objectives, guidelines and stan-dards, as appropriate.
• To review and approve the annual work plan andbudget of the TFAP secretariat, and to provideoversight for the work of the secretariat and theuse of TFAP Trust Fund monies.
• To report periodically on the results of TFAP ac-tivities and to clarify what is and is not being doneas part of the TFAP (i.e., to control the use of theTFAP "label").
INTERNATIONAL TFAP SECRETARIAT
Premise: A coordinating unit with a full-time staffand adequate resources to function as a secretariatfor the International Steering Committee and to sup-port TFAP related activities on a day to day basis isneeded; this secretariat must be considerablystronger than the current Coordinating Unit at FAO,and should be independent of the FAO.Representation: Members should include a multi-disciplinary staff of administrators, and natural re-source management and development professionals.An affiliated but independent "clearinghouse"charged with disseminating TFAP documentationupon request is also needed.
Mandate and Function:
• To serve as the secretariat for the InternationalSteering Committee, to prepare appropriatereports, briefings, and to fulfill other tasks asdirected by the Steering Committee.
• To respond to inquiries about the TFAP, and toliaise with national governments, aid agencies,NGOs, and other institutions on the establishmentof national steering committees and the organiza-tion of TFAP activities (issues papers, roundtables,seminars, missions, etc.).
• To provide technical support for national TFAPexercises as needed to insure compliance withTFAP guidelines and standards.
• To encourage and support international coopera-tion within the framework of the TFAP, throughthe work of the International Steering Committeeand the TFAP/Forestry Advisors Group.
• To administer the TFAP Trust Fund in support ofregional, national, and local activities related toTFAP's goals and objectives.
• To support special studies, as needed, on the TFAPimplementation and assessment.
• To monitor and periodically evaluate the accom-plishments and impacts of the various activities
57
undertaken within the framework of the TFAP andto report on these results.
• To disseminate information about the TFAP: basicprinciples, goals and objectives, guidelines andstandards, results of TFAP exercises, periodic as-sessments of lessons learned, TFAP reports, etc.,and to liaise with other organizations and institu-tions involved in activities that affect tropicalforests, including the International Tropical Tim-ber Organization (ITTO), the FAO Committee onForestry, the Inter-governmental Committee onForestry Development in the Tropics (CFDT), etc.
• To promote a better understanding among thegeneral public of the complexities and conse-quences of tropical deforestation and the neces-sary actions and anticipated benefits of the sus-tainable development of tropical forests.
TFAP FORESTRY ADVISORS GROUP
Premise: Since its inception, the TFAP Forestry Ad-visors Group has proved to be a very useful means ofpromoting cooperation and information exchangesamong development assistance agencies involvedwith the TFAP.
Representation: Members should include chief for-estry advisors or others responsible for program-ming assistance in the forestry sector by the majoraid agencies, as well as representatives of imple-menting agencies (government and NGO) involvedwith the TFAP.
Mandate and Function:
• To meet periodically on an informal basis to ex-change information and to coordinate and har-monize efforts in support of the TFAP.
• To identify and make use of opportunities to im-prove the availability and use of human and finan-cial resources for the conservation and sustainabledevelopment of tropical forests.
• To help mobilize appropriate support for the workof the International and National Steering Commit-tees and corresponding TFAP secretariats.
• To liaise with the TFAP secretariat and the Interna-tional and National Steering Committees of theTFAP in the monitoring and evaluation of theTFAP.
• To recommend to the TFAP secretariat and the In-ternational Steering Committee ways and means ofimproving the TFAP.
NATIONAL TFAP STEERING COMMITTEES
Premise: A national TFAP cannot be successfully pre-pared and implemented unless a broadly representa-tive group of persons feels as though it "owns" andcontrols the process. Existing institutional structures(e.g. Forestry Dept.) generally lack the means to pro-vide for the multi-sectoral approach, strategic analy-sis, broad participation and attention to policy re-form and other changes in the political economythat are required in the TFAP process.
Representation: Members should include representa-tives of the communities most directly affected bythe TFAP (forest dwellers) and the full array of insti-tutions and organizations (public and private) thathave a critical role to play in preparing and im-plementing the TFAP and in influencing the use offorest lands.
Mandate and Function:
• To foster agreement upon and generate supportfor full participation in the TFAP planning process.
• To help gather and analyze relevant informationfor the TFAP planning process.
• To guide the development of issues papers, termsof reference, analyses, field studies, reports, andproposals related to the TFAP.
• To support the decentralization of the TFAP plan-ning process through mechanisms that favor con-sultation and decision-making at the communitylevel.
• To develop a consensus on a comprehensive na-tional strategy and integrated action plan forachieving the goals of the TFAP.
• To contribute to increased political support forpolicy reforms and other political and administra-tive decisions needed to implement the TFAPsuccessfully.
• To help prepare and enact legislative reforms, poli-cy revisions, human resources development plans,research proposals, reallocation of available fund-ing, investment plans (for national and external as-
58
sistance), and the other actions needed to imple-ment the national TFAP.
• To monitor progress with the implementation ofthe TFAP, to assess its impact, and to insure com-pliance with TFAP guidelines and standards with aview to promoting any corrective actionnecessary.
• To report on the results of the national TFAP pro-cess to the International Steering Committee andSecretariat, and other interested parties.
NATIONAL TFAP SECRETARIAT
Premise: The effectiveness of the National SteeringCommittee will depend on the participation of in-dividuals who in most cases cannot devote them-selves full-time to the TFAP process. This Committeewill thus need to be supported by a full-timeSecretariat, with appropriate staff and resources.
Representation: Members should include a relativelysmall multi-disciplinary staff of administrators, natu-ral resource management specialists and develop-ment professionals.
Mandate and Function:
• To serve as the secretariat for the National SteeringCommittee and to prepare appropriate reports,briefings and fulfill other tasks as directed by theSteering Committee.
• To respond to inquiries about the TFAP and toliaise with government and aid agencies, NGOsand other institutions on the organization of TFAPrelated activities (issues papers, roundtables, semi-nars, missions, etc.) and the dissemination of TFAPreports.
• To prepare periodic reports for the National Steer-ing Committee and International Secretariat onTFAP activities completed, under way, or planned.
• To support special studies, as needed, on the TFAPimplementation and assessment.
• To help promote a better understanding amongthe general public of the complexities and conse-quences associated with tropical deforestation andof the necessary actions and anticipated benefits ofthe sustainable development of tropical forests.
59
World Resources Institute
1709 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006, U.S.A.
WRI's Board of Directors:Matthew NimetzChairmanJohn E. CantlonVice ChairmanJohn H. AdamsRobert O. AndersonRobert O. BlakeJohn E. BrysonWard B. ChamberlinRichard M. ClarkeEdwin C. CohenLouisa C. DuemlingAlice F. EmersonJohn FirorJose GoldembergMichio HashimotoCynthia R. HelmsCurtis A. HesslerMartin HoldgateJames A. JosephThomas E. LovejoyAlan R. McFarlandRobert S. McNamaraScott McVayPaulo Nogueira-NetoThomas R. OdhiamboRuth PatrickAlfred M. Rankin, Jr.Roger SantJames Gustave SpethM.S. SwaminathanMostafa K. TolbaRussell E. TrainAlvaro UmanaVictor L. UrquidiGeorge M. Woodwell
James Gustave SpethPresidentMohamed T. El-AshryVice President for Research and Policy AffairsJ. Alan BrewsterVice President for Administration and FinanceJessica T. MathewsVice PresidentWallace D. BowmanSecretary- Treasurer
The World Resources Institute (WRI) is a policyresearch center created in late 1982 to helpgovernments, international organizations, and privatebusiness address a fundamental question: How cansocieties meet basic human needs and nurtureeconomic growth without undermining the naturalresources and environmental integrity on which life,economic vitality, and international security depend?
Two dominant concerns influence WRI's choice ofprojects and other activities:
The destructive effects of poor resourcemanagement on economic development and thealleviation of poverty in developing countries; and
The new generation of globally importantenvironmental and resource problems that threatenthe economic and environmental interests of theUnited States and other industrial countries andthat have not been addressed with authority intheir laws.
The Institute's current areas of policy researchinclude tropical forests, biological diversity,sustainable agriculture, energy, climate change,atmospheric pollution, economic incentives forsustainable development, and resource andenvironmental information.
WRI's research is aimed at providing accurateinformation about global resources and population,identifying emerging issues, and developingpolitically and economically workable proposals.
In developing countries, WRI provides fieldservices and technical program support forgovernments and non-governmental organizationstrying to manage natural resources sustainably.
WRI's work is carried out by an interdisciplinarystaff of scientists and experts augmented by anetwork bf formal advisors, collaborators, andcooperating institutions in 50 countries.
WRI is funded by private foundations, UnitedNations and governmental agencies, corporations,and concerned individuals.
