THE FIRST United Nations Special Fund forestry projects were approved in 1960 and the contribution amounted to U.S.$2.5 million. There was a considerable increase in forestry projects in 1966 when more than $14 million were earmarked, and in 1968 another 12 projects were approved. By the beginning of 1969 the number of forestry projects had risen to 74, worth about $60 million of Special Fund money and with an aggregate value of some $140 million. Of these, 16 had been completed and 58 were operational or still to be started. Another 3 projects had had to be cancelled subsequent to approval. A further 20 projects are operational which, although predominantly agricultural in character, contain forestry elements.
Some features of these projects are worthy of note. The field programme in relation to wildlife management and national parks is expanding fast. In education and training, emphasis is shifting from professional training to intermediate training. This is not to say that the developing world is now saturated with forestry schools at the professional level; it means that in many countries the dearth of trained staff at the intermediate level is now seen as a major bottleneck. A number of the preinvestment surveys have led to specific investment; in several other cases investment projects are now seriously being discussed. In such cases follow-up up advice is frequently sought from FAO on the institutional side: legislation, licences and concessions, organization of forest services, forest production and so on.
These are some of the current trends. Meanwhile, the merging of the Special Fund and Technical Assistance programmes into a single United Nations Development Programme, with continuous help from technical assistance, has imparted some flexibility and enabled in some cases a quicker response to a country's expressed needs.
Currently, there are more forestry projects phasing out than new projects starting. Is this because most of the urgent jobs have been done, and what remains to be done has lower priority: Certainly not. Is it because the development possibilities of the forestry sector are nearing exhaustion? Certainly not. Is it because countries have little time to identify and formulate new worthwhile projects? This may be a contributory factor; nevertheless, it is not the entire reason.
From the standpoint of developing countries, the objective situation is that the opportunities for a vigorous expansion of the forestry and forest industries sector have probably never been better. Internal markets are growing, and with them opportunities for import replacement, either on a national or subregional basis. Export demand is growing, and there are prospects of satisfying more of this demand in processed form. Resources available for the development of this sector are growing. For example, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development intends over the next five years to double the resources at the disposal of agriculture, including forestry and fisheries. The loans approved within the last half year to Zambia and Gabon for afforestation and forest roads represent a breakthrough. The regional development banks are taking a serious interest in the forestry sector, and several exploratory missions are now at work in Latin America. The World Food Programme represents a development resource of which as yet relatively few forest administrations have taken advantage. But already $60 million worth of food aid has gone into forestry development. Several of the major donor countries are stepping up their bilateral assistance efforts and are anxious to put resources into forestry.
The fact remains that not all available opportunities are as yet being taken up. One possible reason is that forest administrations have not yet succeeded in convincing development planners of the contribution which their sector can make. Plans and projects tend thus to have low priority and to be hampered by limited resources and allocations.
What is the remedy? Plainly, the language of development has to be learned more thoroughly; then the lessons of development must be hammered home on every conceivable occasion, in all influential quarters. As regards the language of development, it may justifiably be said that over recent years FAO has produced a considerable body of suitable material. There may be reluctance to shoulder new responsibilities difficult to discharge with inadequate staff and shoestring budgets. But, in fact, only the acceptance of new responsibilities will call forth the supplementary funds needed to train new staff and embark on new projects.
