IDENTIFICATION OF EXAMPLES OF SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN CENTRAL AFRICA

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS AND RESULTS

The initial step in this initiative was that of identifying a variety of good examples of forest management in Central Africa, using an open, transparent and participatory approach. The purpose of this selection was to illustrate the many practices and efforts aiming at sustainable forest management found in forests covering a wide range of geographical and ecological zones, types of ownership, sizes, and management objectives (production, protection, multiple uses, recreation, etc.).

A call for nominations of Central African forests was circulated by FAO and its partners between November 2001 and April 2002, being sent to more than 250 people involved in forest management in the 11 countries involved and elsewhere. This wide range of people – officials, managers, foresters and others – helped in identifying examples of successful forest management in Central Africa. Nomination forms were sent to national forest agencies, regional organizations, universities, environmental bodies, NGOs, logging companies, networks and individuals involved in the sector. Associations, NGOs and national and international foundations working for sustainable forest management in the subregion, as well as projects, programmes and research institutes, were extensively canvassed (see Figure 1). Details of the initiative were also published in forestry magazines and trade journals and distributed through forestry list-servers on the Internet and during seminars on related subjects in the subregion.

Nominations were then completed and sent either directly to FAO or to the partner organizations (prior to 30 March 2002). Nominations were accepted both from people and/or organizations wishing to propose their own forests and from those wishing to nominate others’ forests.

FAO undertook the collation and analysis of the nominations, which are listed in Table 1. Twenty-four nominations from nine countries in the subregion were received. Eleven came from Cameroon, four from the Congo, two each from Burundi and Equatorial Guinea, and one each from the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon and Rwanda. Angola and Sao Tome and Principe submitted no nominations. The most common management goals were rural development (community forests) with seven nominations, timber production plantations/agroforests with six nominations each, and biodiversity conservation (protected areas) with four nominations.

Figure 1: Individuals and organizations contacted (%)

Figure 2 shows the number of nominations per country in terms of management objective. Only Cameroon and Congo submitted nominations for three of the four management categories, although Cameroon had a higher over-all number of nominations. Burundi and Equatorial Guinea submitted nominations for two of the management categories, while the remaining countries submitted nominations for only one. The total area covered by all the nominated forests was more than 3 million ha.

Figure 2: Number of nominations per country and per management objective

Table 1: List of nominated forests

There are two main reasons for the low number of nominations per country in terms of management objective and category of manager:

• little experience in the production and publication of scientific texts on forest management in the subregion;

• difficulties in distributing the call for nominations: official procedures for submitting nominations were often preferred over more flexible and informal procedures; in addition, communication difficulties in the subregion (e-mail, fax and telephone) considerably hampered the return of mail and therefore the number of responses to the call.

Descriptions of each nominated forest are given in the following chapters (see the case studies and the brief descriptions of other nominated forests). These are descriptive summaries based on the information contained in the nominations received, emphasizing the main reasons for their selection by the nominator as examples of successful forest management.

While reading these descriptions, it will be seen that the criteria of a “well-managed forest” can vary widely, ranging from technical and scientific, especially for production forests (zoning, inventories, extraction rate, silviculture, research, etc.), to socio-economic, especially for community forests (economic impact on the local population, participatory management, etc.), institutional and political (decentralization, collaboration and institutional partnership, etc.) and environmental (conservation, regeneration of certain species, etc.). However, they are not mutually exclusive and may appear together for the same nominated forest.

However, two important criteria occur in almost all the nominations received by FAO. First, the forest management approaches described usually, although to varying degrees, take account of the various stakeholders (whether or not they have an official role) in decision-making with regard to management, as well as its implementation (for example, participatory appraisal). Although such arrangements differ from forest to forest depending on those involved (local population, national institutions, administrations, private sector, etc.), most nominations indicate that it is extremely important to take account of the various stakeholders in the different stages of forest management.

The other issue that appears clearly in the various nominations is the existence of secondary objectives linked to the main objective and the taking into account of the wide range of benefits and uses to be gained from management. Although most nominations have a main objective (conservation, production, etc.), they also list other possible benefits to be obtained from forests, for example conservation and improvement in the local standard of living, timber production and natural resource conservation.

SELECTION OF CASE STUDIES

A selection committee composed of FAO experts in various areas of forestry (policy and planning, management, conservation, community forestry, agroforestry) reviewed the nominations and then chose the most suitable. FAO’s selection was then sent to all the organizations participating in the initiative for their comments and amendments. FAO’s internal selection committee set up an analysis process with a list of criteria to assess the nominations, in order to:

• have a reasonable range of nominations in terms of type of forest, management objective and geographical location (country);
• select new or innovative approaches, with a preference for forests that are less well-known but can be considered promising examples;
• assist in technical analysis thanks to examples of forest management actually in operation;
• define the sustainability of these examples of management (preference being given to management structures with a proven record and with only limited external support);
• select examples that can be replicated and in which management is neither too specialized nor too expensive;
• take into account the three components of sustainability (the social, environmental and economic dimensions);
• select management examples that have led to and maintained successful partnerships;
• take into account nominations suggested and/or proposed by a third party.

The criteria used in selecting forests had to be pragmatic in order so far as possible to avoid subjective choice. These criteria were as follows:

• primary management objective;
• nature of the resource;
• type of manager;
• location;
• type of innovation or new approach used;
• management standards;
• effective field-level implementation;
• conformity with national forest policy;
• sustainability;
• assistance obtained (local/external);
• possibility of replication;
• size of the stand;
• social, environmental and economic benefits produced;
• transparency of management;
• quality of partnerships;
• credibility of the person/organization submitting the nomination.

However, the selection process was not free of difficulties (or bias) because of disparities in the quantity and quality of the information provided for each nominated forest. It was also hard to gauge the soundness of the management actually being practised on the sole basis of the documents provided.

Following this consultative process, a final list of 14 case studies was established. First, examples of forest management were identified that represented a whole spectrum of types of forest, management objectives and geographical areas (countries). Then new or innovative approaches were selected, as well as examples that could be replicated elsewhere and in which the management approach was neither too specialized nor too expensive. Thus, each management objective is represented, as are seven of the nine countries that submitted nominations. The number of forests selected was also determined by limitations on the funds allotted for case studies.

It is important to stress that the In Search of Excellence initiative is not a competition and that the examples selected by FAO are simply those that best meet the proposed selection criteria. Furthermore, the choice of these forests should not be seen as some kind of seal of approval or certification of the forest management by FAO or its partners. The aim of both the selection and the preparation of case studies is to draw lessons from examples representing a wide range of management objectives, types of ownership, etc., in order to analyse and distribute these conclusions and lessons, contributing thereby to an increase in knowledge and an improvement in existing forest management practices.

The case studies on the management of the 14 forests were then prepared and published (see the list in Annex 1) according to the terms of reference given the author, enabling readers to make comparisons between the different studies. They seek to analyse the lessons learned and their potential application to other types of forest and forest management in the subregion. Summaries of these documents are given in the following chapter.¹

A subregional workshop was also held to share and disseminate this information on sustainable forest management in Central Africa (Kribi, Cameroon, 10–14 September 2002).² This meeting produced a number of recommendations on the preparation of forest management plans, the establishment and maintenance of partnerships, forest management for multiple uses and values, the role of research and technology, and ways of improving current practices and approaches, sharing experiences and extending best management practices. With a view to better distribution of information on the experiences and initiatives of model and demonstration forests and other activities concerning field-level sustainable forest management, it was recommended that new networks be set up dealing with aspects of sustainable forest management not covered by existing networks, involving all actors and stakeholders so far as possible, and that existing networks be strengthened and expanded.

Figure 3: Location of nominated forests
Based on the map of Central African forest cover according to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000).³

¹ The full case studies are available in a series of working documents on forest management produced by FAO’s Forest Resources Development Service (see Annex 1).
² The proceedings of the Kribi workshop are also available from FAO’s Forest Resources Development Service.
³ FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper 140. Rome.