INTRODUCTION

1. The present concept of national forest programmes (nfps) originated from, among other international initiatives and frameworks, the Tropical Forest Action Programme (TFAP), launched in 1985 and revamped in 1991, but has been broadened to encompass a variety of actions (forest-specific as well as forest-related), including capacity building for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests under a common concept of national forest programmes, and to be developed by all countries according to their specific conditions and priorities. Up to 1994 about 60 percent of the national planning/programming processes was launched within the framework of the TFAP under the generic terminology of National Forest Action Programmes (NFAPs). After a process of consensus-building, the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) at its 4^th session adopted in 1997 this terminology, and came up with a definition of national forest programmes which was accepted by all stakeholders.

2. Support to African countries in the development of nfps has continued both through FAO Regular and Field Programmes, and through direct support from bilateral Agencies. Despite the many political tensions and social turmoil, progress has been noted in some countries where policy and institutional changes have taken place, along with the revision of forestry legislation.

TRENDS IN NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES IN AFRICA

3. A review of national forest programmes (nfps) in Africa carried out by FAO in 1998 supplemented by a further survey in 1999, highlighted the following trends.

• Many nfp exercises stalled either at the early planning phase, or immediately after the planning stage had been completed. In either case, conceptual flows, lack of international support or weak political commitment hampered smooth development of the process;
• Although participation of NGOs and inter-sectoral dialogue was increasingly secured, the involvement of the private sector (mainly in central and southern Africa was low;
• In a few countries (Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, C�te d'Ivoire) forest policies were revised in the overall context of Agriculture and Land Use policies, but even in these countries, inter-sectoral dialogue and coordination were constrained by weak articulation of sectoral policies and uncoordinated institutions;
• Updating of the nfps was carried out (Tanzania, Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea,). A few nfps, which could not be implemented due to lack of financial support, were also updated (Ethiopia, Togo), but their implementation still has not started;
• Out of the 43 countries, which make up Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 34 have attempted national forest programmes or its predecessor since 1985. Countries such as Tanzania, Ghana and Guinea were among the first countries to start these activities, and they have already completed revision of their programmes.
• There has been general recognition of the failure of the "project"approach to forest sector development and a move to "programme"approach, notably in Mozambique, where PROAGRI (National Agrarian Programme) has been adopted as the public investment or planning instrument for the whole agriculture sector (including forestry and wildlife).

4. Generally African countries accorded serious attention to forestry sector planning exercises in the framework of the TFAP, and they had high expectations regarding donor support. They have been largely discouraged by the actual low response of the international community (AFWC: Sambonani, South Africa, 1995 and Dakar, Senegal, 1998).

5. Against this background, African countries recommended during the 11^th session of the Commission "that COFO study suitable ways and means of providing methodological, technical and financial support for African countries in their efforts to internalize the proposals and decisions for action in the context of the revision and updating of their national forest programmes". These will prove useful to bring countries together in order to exchange experience and build Sub-Regional programmes in support to national efforts. In this regard, target institutions include the African Timber Organization (ATO), the Permanent Interstates Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and many others.

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR NATIONAL PROGRAMMES

6. Given the existing weak capacities to formulate and implement nfps, it is urgent that African policy-makers, scientists and resource managers share their knowledge and experience, in formulating and implementing national forests programmes for the future. The urgent challenge for African countries is to enhance and sustain country capacities to formulate and implement nfps through participatory and cost-effective processes while incorporating their socio-economic situations and are in consonance with the new forestry challenges.

7. In line with the IFF emphasis, there is a need to consider appropriate participatory mechanisms to involve all interested parties in developing nfps, decentralization where applicable and empowerment of regional, (provincial) and local government; recognition of the local communities' needs; secure land tenure arrangements and establishment of effective co-ordination mechanisms. IFF further acknowledges the usefulness of testing and demonstrating the concept of nfps on an operational scale and stresses that the plans should increase the efficiency of implementation at country level, with a view to attracting increased domestic and external resources.

8. In light of the above, FAO and the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) have established a partnership mechanism within the framework of the AAS capacity-building programme for nfps in Africa. This initiative which also received funding from the European Union (EU) and the Department of Forestry and International Development (DFID), will be guided by a broad-based Forestry Advisory Body consisting of Directors of Forestry from selected countries, and Representatives of relevant specialized agencies of the United Nations. It focuses on capacity building for nfp which has the following components:

• Development of guidelines and training materials for training of key players in the formulation and implementation of nfps;
• Training of key actors from selected countries in a series of workshops;
• Support for in-country post-training in nfp implementation;
• Sensitization and advocacy for forest policy implementation.

CONCLUSION

9. In Africa, predominant factors external to forestry that inhibit the development of nfps include: political instability, lack of international support and weak political commitment. In addition, although participation of NGOs and inter-sectoral dialogue have been increasingly secured, involvement of the private sector in nfp planning and implementation is still far from being significant.

10. During the implementation of the regional project "Network Regional Support to nfps in Africa", funded by the French Government, successful efforts have been made by FAO to strengthen capacities through regional technical workshops on topic areas on which nfps seem to be weak in Africa. This concept should be considered by donors for further support to consolidate the achievements so far.

11. National Forest Funds are a possible tool for mobilizing national funds for the preparation and implementation of nfps. Their creation and functioning should be adapted to the specific context of each country.

12. International cooperation partners may be invited to continue their support to the forestry sectors of African countries, especially at the moment when most countries are involved in a process of democratization and decentralization, to strengthen their capacities, improve participation of all stakeholders and promote implementation of the IPF recommendations.

ANNEX 1: NFP SURVEY IN AFRICA

At the request of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Forests (ITFF), FAO designed a survey and sent a questionnaire on the status of nfps to 190 countries in November 1998. Responses were received from 143 countries (75% return). Forty-six questionnaires were sent to countries in the African Region, of whom 43 responded (93% return).

The survey had two objectives:

• Assess the status and progress of national forest programmes worldwide;
• Draw lessons from the results of the survey so that countries and the international community could improve the development of national forest programmes.

The results quoted in this annex are taken from the analysis for the African Region. The full report will be presented during the IFF-4 (New York, February 2000).

• Most African countries are reviewing their national forest programmes and making the necessary changes to bring them in line with Agenda 21. From the replies to the questionnaire, it is evident that many African countries have poorly developed forest sectors characterized by weak institutions, limited investment, inadequate policy and legal frameworks, and limited human capacity to manage forests. Many countries in the region have adopted a variety of planning frameworks, which at times mutually reinforce action in the forestry sector (Gabon, Malawi, Senegal), but at other times compete for domestic and external resources, duplicating efforts and creating institutional conflicts.
• Of the 46 countries included in Table 1 (Djibouti and Mauritania are classified by FAO under the Near East), 22 have advanced to the implementation stage, 21 are in the initial stages of planning and 3 countries have either no nfp or did not reply to the questionnaire.
• In four countries the nfp has stalled during implementation (Ethiopia, Kenya, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo). In another 17 countries, the process was stalled during the preparation or planning phase. Three of these countries (Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau and Mauritania) did not receive any response from donors after the round table. Of the 22 countries that went beyond the planning stage, 18 started the process under the TFAP between 1986 and 1991. It seems that these countries benefited from the initial interest of donors and international organizations to participate in and support national forestry action planning exercises and fund priority projects. However several countries reported that the funding only lasted for a few years, as in the case of Tanzania and Equatorial Guinea. Nigeria has essentially counted on domestic resources and Sierra Leone's nfp has been constrained by insufficient financial support, and political unstability. There are some good examples of external resource mobilization in support of nfps: Cameroon (where 23 of the 58 projects identified are operational), Sudan (donor support having diminished in recent years) and Senegal (though most of the forestry portfolio is supported by only one bilateral donor).
• For 21 countries in which the nfp got stalled, a lack of institutional, human and financial capacity was frequently mentioned as the underlying cause, along with lack of adequate policies, institutional coordination and deficient mechanisms for people's participation. Most countries also reported that financial resources have been a major constraint, including the economic crisis, currency devaluation, effect of structural adjustment measures, reduction in budget allocation to the forestry administration and lack of support from the international donor community. Africa is the continent with the highest rate of rural population, who heavily depends on forest resources to meet their basic needs. High population growth rates, pressure and encroachment on forest lands and illegal exploitation of the resources are main problems. Shifting cultivation is no longer environmentally sustainable in many forestlands. At the same time, many African countries are caught up in the vicious cycle of drought, desertification and food deficit. Most of the low-income food- deficit countries of Africa are also countries of low forest cover. Rates of decline in agricultural production, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, are the highest in the world and deforestation in some areas has reached alarming levels. Moreover, many countries are suffering from political instability.
• Predominant factors external to forestry that paralyze nfps seem to be: political turmoil, lack of international support and weak political commitment. In addition, although participation of NGOs and inter-sectoral dialogue have been increasingly secured, involvement of the private sector in nfp planning and implementation is still far from being significant. Some good examples of people's participation were reported by Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Senegal and Togo.
• Revision of forest policies in the overall context of Agriculture and Land-use, and updating of the nfps after a period of implementation, was done in relatively few countries e.g. Mozambique. Weak institutions, unable to enhance inter-sectoral dialogue and provide effective co-ordination are considered to be at the origin of these situations.
• So far, nfps in Africa have yet to address many important issues in Agenda 21; they seem to remain narrowly focused short gap attempts at what is essentially a huge and long-term task. And it is therefore encouraging to see sub-regional institutions, such as ECOWAS, CILSS, IGAD and SADC, and ATO, as regional organizations, increasingly providing support and direction to their member countries for building sound foundations for sustainable nfps. Likewise, the African Academy of Sciences, with the support of the EC, provides assistance to some countries in policy aspects of national forest programmes.

Summary Table 1: Status and Progress of nfp Implementation in Africa