Louis Henri VelayLouis Henri Velay is Inspector General of Agriculture in the French Ministry of Agriculture. He has served as head of administration and finance of the Ministry of Agriculture, and previously as head of the French Forest Service.
It is time for those developing countries which built their forest services on European models to reassess what they have and what their real forestry and development needs are. The author analyses the problem and various structural solutions.
For many of the developing countries the task of building a modern administrative structure for forestry is a difficult and challenging one. Forest services in most of these lands were originally organized along the lines of European models, but many of them now feel they must develop according to their own particular needs.
Governments and public opinion have not always realized soon enough that the forest represents a major asset which should be exploited for the greatest good of the nation as a whole and the state has often not made its authority felt in defending its woodland areas against all sorts of pressures. Unaware of the many benefits that a long-term forestry policy can provide, the authorities often fail to take steps to provide the investments or the planning necessary for more extensive utilization of the forest's wealth of resources, for the transformation of these resources into wood products and for the opening of new markets. A skeleton forestry administration, insufficiently diversified and too centralized in the national capital, cannot control the exploitation of forests at close enough range. As a result, the resources of the forest service are wasted.
Today, forestry officials in many developing countries have a good opportunity for reexamining and reevaluating these structures, to see whether and how they can meet the needs and the potential for growth of these nations.
Certainly, developing countries are becoming more and more aware of the value which their natural resources represent for the whole world, and particularly for their trading partners in industrialized countries. Widespread changes affecting petroleum, minerals and other raw materials apply as well to wood, a building material which is in growing demand and a raw material needed by a heavy industry which is increasingly concerned about its sources of supplies.
This awakening of concern over raw materials in the developing countries, together with the industrialized countries' rising interest in tropical forest resources, should induce both sides to improve the basis for cooperation in forestry development. Nations in a position to help should offer more assistance in securing capital, equipment and training, and in this way favour the renewal of the forest services of the developing countries.
Two factors justify a new departure for foresters in the developing countries: the rise in the market value of forest products in recent years, and the potential of forestry and its related "downstream" industries to provide stable employment in rural areas.
Foresters would do well to broaden their horizons beyond forest protection and valorization. A global development responsibility should be extended to include the forests in those areas where they furnish the framework for life, where they are the focus of activity for a local population, or where pastoral economies and farming depend directly on the condition of the forest.
The direction of the current economic situation - including the growing importance of the forest for recreation and tourism and the impact of forestry development on the nation's socioeconomic advancement in general - should serve to persuade governments to strengthen and improve their forestry administrative structures. Moreover, although the situation is still not ideal, there have been improvements in the conditions under which many countries can now recruit, train and employ the kind of personnel they need forest rangers, administrators, engineers, technicians, etc. The moment has come, therefore, for governments to ask: how can we remodel, develop and expand our forest services?
There is, of course, no ideal structural model that will work equally well everywhere, authorities should therefore be guided by various considerations. For instance:
- The degree of population pressure on the forest. The same kind of organization will not suit a country with a small population and abundant forest resources and another with a dense population living in and around forests which may also be limited in area.- The forest's relative importance to the territorial balance, the national output and foreign trade; the priorities allotted respectively to production, employment and environment.
- The availability of short-term means that can be mobilized to put forestry policy into effect, and especially the availability of qualified personnel.
HONDURANS CALCULATE STAND VOLUME forest services were created for work like this
Determining factors
In all instances, realism and respect for efficiency, rather than doctrinaire preferences or prestige considerations, should be the determining factors in making decisions and creating structures. Administrative organization is the tool of national forestry policy, it should evolve according to a set of priorities and the means should be found to enable it to function effectively. Let us examine some of the general aspects of the problem.
Fitting the forest service into the government structure should not simply conform to tradition or a wish to balance out responsibilities between different department heads. Like the relative weight given to the various components within the forest service, the placement of the service should be decided according to how it can best fulfil priorities both in production and the protection of the environment.
Like the choice of personnel to be recruited, investment decisions will not be made in the same way by a ministry of economics and a ministry for the environment or natural resources. The way in which the forest service's actions will be judged, by public opinion in general, and by farmers, hunters, wood industry workers, tourists and naturalists, will depend to a large extent upon how the forest service itself is situated within the overall structure of the state. Current trends - and present economic circumstances - can, to some degree, cause political and financial authorities to lean toward an "economic" approach or an "environmental" one as regards the administrative location of the forest service.
It is obvious that a forest service which is part of a ministry of natural resources will not have its performance measured so much by economic standards and that its nonproduction forestry benefits will be taken into greater consideration. Furthermore, as part of a ministry of natural resources, foresters will be in a better position to catch the minister's ear than if they are merged into a big economic ministry or into a ministry of agriculture which is bound to be preoccupied with short-term crop problems.
In many developing countries, the overlapping of forestry problems with those of agriculture and stock breeding, the need to arbitrate decisions over the utilization of land and water, and the need to find a judicious agro-sylvan-pastoral equilibrium, make it preferable to attach the service to a ministry - and sometimes even to regional and local structures - in charge of rural development. Locating the forest service in a ministry of industrial development, which also sometimes happens, will result in priority being given within the service to the production and marketing of finished wood products.
There is another possibility. In countries where the forest constitutes a major economic resource, there may be justification for the creation of a separate ministry dedicated entirely to forestry and forest industries development.
Whatever solution is chosen, consideration should be given to how that particular structure will condition relations between foresters (and forestry) and the government, the other administrative bodies, the professional groups and the public as a whole.
Centralization vs. decentralization is another important question. For certain state services, such as public health, education, social services, distribution of water, there are distinct advantages in their being located at the regional or local level. Such decentralization, however, is not necessarily favourable to the exercise of good forestry policy. In some countries lacking a strong forestry tradition, the full authority of the national government - in terms of federal law, for example - is necessary to impose the sort of restrictions which are required to protect resources. Planning on the national scale means getting better forest management, because of the forest's role in the general national balance and economy. For instance, the cost of setting up wood-processing plants in a developing country usually exceeds the possibilities of a state or regional authority of that country. Wherever they may be located, the forests constitute a common asset for the entire nation.
Moreover, leaving the legislation and regulation of forestry affairs to a de centralized authority - for example, in separate states - can result in notable and damaging differences within a nation. It can give rise to the kind of contradictions which make it difficult for those in charge of forestry operations to respect forest service regulations. The harmonious coordination of forestry policies and legislation by the central power is, in any event, a minimum requirement.
"Their" forests
In forestry the support of the local people is indispensable. Sound management practices will be all the more welcomed by them because of their concern for safeguarding and getting the most value from "their" forests. This means that it is a good thing to leave the ownership or the revenues of a part, at least, of the forests to local collectives and rural owners of small holdings. Such a formula is not incompatible with a forest service recruited, trained and structured on the national level, providing that the population derives direct advantages in terms of jobs and management benefits.
Forest services may be assigned two groups of activities which are essentially different yet to a certain extent compatible.
The first involves the exercise of authority as an instrument of public power in the service and general interest of the population. In terms of administrative authority, it is the duty of the forest service to define policy and ensure its application to all forests, to terrain reserved for the purpose of forestry, and eventually to other natural or wild areas. As an authority, the role of the forest service is to define, animate and inspect. It can also promote various forms of incentives and impose penalties.
Under the second group of activities comes the management of enterprises. One or more enterprises may have a number of technical, industrial and trade activities, particularly in state forests, but also, at times, in other forests, as well as in those sectors of the national economy having to do with forest products. The activities of these enterprises may include:
- Forest management, from the nursery to supervision of logging and transport.- Economic management, including silviculture, wood processing, promotional marketing of forest products.
- Tourism and hunting, including the supervision and management of the forests and other natural areas for purposes of recreation and tourism, and wildlife management.
From all the foregoing it can be seen that a forest service's organization is a priori complex because of its twofold mission. In the second part of this article we shall examine various organizational models for the creation of the kind of forest service most suitable to a nation's needs.
For a long time in developing countries, no less than in those developed countries which were regarded as blueprints for forestry development, the role of foresters has been essentially that of exercising administrative authority.
Aside from management, forest administrators paid little attention to "enterprise" activities. Apparently foresters believed that their duties ended with assuring the "preservation" of the forest domain and, in more advanced countries, maintaining "sustained yield." Follow-up activities - i.e., felling and transportation of timber wood processing and marketing - did not concern them. Today, however, a new approach is increasingly desirable. Foresters and forest services should devote their attention to the products of their management and actively supervise and promote the ensuing operations. This does not imply, however, that the two functions, the exercise of administrative authority and the handling of commercial operations, should of necessity be entrusted to the same administrative structure.
The duties of the forestry administrative authority can be grouped under the following main headings:
- Forestry policy and forestry development planning.
- Preservation of the forest and of other natural resources.
- Supervision of logging and other forms of forest exploitation.
- Encouragement of forestry development.
- Information and public relations work.
- Education and training. - Research.
Whether actual forest domain management should be the responsibility of the forestry administrative authority is optional, as we shall see.
Evolution
Throughout the development period, forestry administrative structures must conform to the general pattern of forestry policy as far as is consistent with the country's resources in terms of trained manpower, infrastructure and available funds. As development proceeds, tasks will have to be adjusted to changing economic and social conditions and to the emergence of more clearly defined policy objectives.
A nation's forestry can evolve in three successive stages:
- Gradual consolidation of forestry objectives.
- Implementation of those objectives
- Advanced forestry.
The first stage involves a conscientious appraisal of "forestry values" at the political level. There will probably be a sizable difference between the magnitude of the work to be undertaken and the means available, in particular the qualified personnel available. The criterion of feasibility will therefore have to be strictly applied, and the administrative structure will have to be as efficient as possible while not overly ambitious.
The second stage will be attained when pertinent legislation and regulations are defined and completed and the forest service personnel are sufficient to man the central services and staff the forestry territory with foresters or other qualified persons.
The third stage, advanced forestry, should permit full, balanced development of forestry structures throughout the responsible offices, at central and regional levels as well as in the field, within the context of the policy objectives finally established.
In the subsequent stages of development, economic and social priorities will lead to adjustments in the form and size of the specialized teams responsible for the various sectors.
Here are two examples of this gradual adaptation. The first concerns forest utilization control. At the outset, particularly when personnel is in short supply, harvesting permits, or the granting of concessions, would seem to be the only method affording speedy and extensive action. However, the state is thereby deprived of considerable revenue and must confine itself to collecting taxes assessed on the various phases of timber utilization and sales. The concessions system is a haphazard and sometimes unsuitable instrument of forestry policy, and its protracted use may be detrimental to the forest. Giving concessionaires freedom to make their own choice of site, time, programme and extent of felling is obviously incompatible with the gradual application of advanced silviculture. Some regions will be overexploited, others neglected, utilization will be inadequately supervised by insufficient personnel.
It is therefore advisable, as the administration develops and access routes penetrate deeper into the forest, to:
1. Rationalize the system through prior demarcation of stands by the forest service. In so doing extreme caution should be exercised in defining the crop to be removed. There should be close supervision and checks on utilization status, and long-term agreements should be reserved for companies processing the bulk of production inside the country, and providing permanent employment for the population.2. Set up a system linking sales with cuttings as soon as possible. Once qualified personnel are available, utilization could profitably be farmed out or contracted under the responsibility of the forest service or of autonomous agencies under state control.
Research
The second example of adaptation concerns research. Developing countries should exercise caution so long as their overall development (in the areas of economics, industry, universities, research in other fields) does not allow them to set up a sufficiently well-equipped and diversified forestry research unit.
Meanwhile, progress in forestry techniques can be fostered by taking advantage of successful research elsewhere. Some of the benefits achieved in the developed countries could be transferred, providing that they are scrupulously adapted to local ecological, social and economic conditions. Such transfers are particularly advantageous where research is highly technical and costly.
To adapt the results of research from other countries (or from regional institutes, which may be working closer to local conditions), the establishment of new and costly units would be both premature and unnecessary. Better to set up a forestry technical centre, which would mainly be designed to:
- Identify and select the scientific and technical information required.- Keep abreast of research advances achieved internationally, by neighbouring countries, by developed countries and by related disciplines (ecology, soil, agronomy, etc.).
- Derive practical models for action from these research findings for use by the national forest service and particularly by its field teams.
Eventually the country will have its own forestry research programme, which should concentrate its efforts on exploring specific national problems - the technology of indigenous tree species, genetic improvement of forest trees, the techniques of regeneration, ways of dealing with insects and diseases, to name a few. Even then, the technical centre will be an efficient instrument for progress, digesting and passing on research findings to the operational echelons.
When we consider the problem of managing forest stands and, even more pertinently, the utilization, processing and marketing of forest products, the question arises: is a civil service type of administration well enough equipped to carry out these operations successfully?
It has been observed that assigning tasks of this sort to officials conditioned by the standard routine of administration could lead to disappointing results, because of the qualities and shortcomings usually attributed to the civil service. These qualities and shortcomings include impartiality and objectivity, a deep respect for the law and for rules and regulations-but also a disinclination to take the initiative, to discard traditional practices and explore new horizons, to run risks. On the other hand, it could be expected that men coming from public or private enterprises, recruited on the basis of their specialized professional training, would feel more directly involved (for personal reasons also, including promotion) in the technical and financial success of their work, and be more enterprising and dynamic than officials who are sure of their careers.
These arguments are certainly debatable: there is no dearth of administrations that have performed their tasks with good results over a long period of time-in management, for example. But, because of the stiff recruitment qualifications an administration may well encounter difficulties in procuring specialists already much sought after in other sectors: mechanics, engineering, information, management and marketing, etc.
BUILDING A SAWMILL IN MALAYSIA creating industries is another job of forest services
Financing
Financing forestry activities can be a serious problem for forest management. Financing forestry work undertaken by the state or by authorized enterprises calls for original solutions. The budgetary and accounting practices usually applied to administrative procedures are unsuited to forestry. To begin with, as we have already pointed out, it cannot be run on the same lines as an agency which is solely intended to provide a public service. Moreover, forestry plans and programmes must be organized on a long-term basis, with the full financial benefits forthcoming only after a considerable time. It is hardly surprising that governments, hard pressed for immediate credit to subsidize indispensable short-term programmes, tend to sacrifice long-term objectives, among them forestry.
Forest services should make every effort to secure long-term financial commitments commensurate with the investments required by forestry policy. The minimum commitment, not always conceded, should provide for reinvestment of a sufficient percentage of forest income.
Obviously, foresters will often be disappointed by the amount allotted to them in the state budget. They will therefore have to obtain the support of other keepers of the public purse. Forestry financing usually comes from these sources:
- Allotments from the state budget.- The appropriation of specific taxes.
- The appropriation of all or part of the proceeds of the sale of commodities produced from state forests, and revenue collected for concessionary rights.
These three sources can either be combined to furnish a global budget for the forest service, or be allocated to specific activities of the service.
General budget financing is particularly appropriate for works that benefit the entire community but do not yield direct revenues, such as protecting the environment, providing facilities for recreation and tourism, etc.
Taxes
Finance from specific fiscal or semi-fiscal taxes imposed on the sale of wood and other forestry products is highly suitable for meeting the needs of production development: forest equipment, reforestation, etc. Imposing and manipulating such taxes is a delicate matter, and one that can have negative results. Yet, if wisely conceived and handled, this can be a flexible, efficient instrument in the foresters' hands, especially if properly identified within a special fund, entirely reinvested in forestry development, along the lines of the French National Forestry Fund.
Appropriation of all or part of the proceeds of the sale of forest products can accrue to the assets of "supplementary forestry budgets" or to those of public agencies responsible for forest management.
The advantage of appropriating taxes and revenues is that these are more likely to assure the continuity and regularity of forestry work because they bypass fluctuations in the general national budget, and are not so sensitive to political hazards. They are also more effective than the traditional budgetary system in encouraging forest services to pay close heed to the economics of forestry production, and to interest themselves in the "down stream" industries and their outlets.
Some governments have acknowledged that the forestry enterprise must resort to methods that do not differ fundamentally from those of other public - and private - enterprises. They have therefore set up various bodies, limiting their scope to business administration, and sometimes adding functions that come under the jurisdiction of the administrative authority.
The latter is exemplified in the "commission" approach, with the British Forestry Commission as its prototype. Directed by an administrative board, including public and private figures besides its officials, it collects the income of its commodities, receives subsidies or loans from the treasury, acquires land needed to extend the state's forestry holdings and exercises all the duties of the forestry authority, including supervision of private forests.
State corporations, in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and corporaciones, in the Hispanic countries, are public bodies founded for industrial or commercial purposes. Usually they are obliged to turn over their cash surplus to the state budget. They are paid according to the importance of the services they render, and cover all or part of their expenses with the proceeds of their sales, eventually resorting to public funds only when necessary. Their activities, subject to the laws of the market, are supervised by the legislative and executive bodies. This supervision may be exercised particularly over the prices which the corporation charges for its products and services, to keep them in line with the state's overall economic policy. Their accounts are kept as in any commercial company. They can receive and grant commercial credits and hold considerable liquid funds in ordinary banks.
They are statutory bodies set up to execute state policy, and must use the independence granted them, notably in financial matters, for the purposes explicitly defined by their national mandate.
Some forestry activities, particularly silviculture and the processing of wood, could conceivably be entrusted to autonomous public or semipublic bodies. These agencies are required to orient their activities toward specific objectives assigned to them when they are founded, and to account for their performance. They receive some state directives, but differ from state e enterprises in that they are exempt from detailed supervision.
In a different direction, the state can affiliate with private enterprise, either as a shareholder in private companies or by creating mixed public and private companies. Customarily, the state holds the majority of shares, the rest being subscribed to by public or private groups or private persons.
Both kinds of undertaking - forestry authority and commercial enterprise - can be assumed by a single forestry organization, either an administration or a public company juridically separate from the state. Alternatively, they can be assigned to separate organisms: to a forest service and to one or more public or semipublic agencies more concerned with commercial functions.
The separation is not always so clear cut, but the administration can, if necessary, transfer some of its functions to semiautonomous agencies operating under the supervision of the relevant government ministry and in close contact with the forest service. Or else the service can affiliate with producers and manufacturers through joint or "mixed" companies.
No single answer
The question will arise: should a country opt for a simple structure of the "single forest service" type or for more diversified structures?
There is, of course, no universal answer. The formula entrusting all works "of authority" to a forestry administration along with the management of the state forestry domain is always a valid one, offering the expedience of simplicity and unity. Cropping, processing, marketing and promotion of forestry commodities are then taken over by private enterprise. If this system is chosen, the state service should maintain a sharp watch on its collaborators in order to safeguard the nation's long-term forestry interests, and sometimes its ecological welfare as well.
Even when tier major share of utilization left to the private sector, the administration might usefully set up its own silvicultural sector under state control. Since this sector must compete with private companies, the dual operation would give the forestry officials a better understanding of constraints and actual production costs, and hence more accurate control over the felling done by professionals. In addition, a state-supervised system can recruit and train a permanent labour force, and thus help improve employment conditions in the rural sector.
In any case, an exhaustive study of forestry policy, which will enable the responsible authorities to familiarize themselves with its manifold aspects, will soon reveal which type of organization meets all requirements, from the initial to the final stages of development. The choice of diversified structures will be dictated by the advantages afforded by specialized services and personnel, an approach that will help to identify those areas which the administration is ill-equipped to deal with on its own. For example, utilization and marketing may best be handled by a public company whose methods and management are much closer to private enterprise than to an administrative service.
Such an organization can be recommended when private enterprise is inadequate, too difficult to supervise, or too much given to questionable practices, which can imperil the future of the forests. In this case, the state could either set up public enterprises in competition with the private sector or grant a monopoly of forest resources development to a large company, thus creating opportunities to rehabilitate or rectify the "economic" activities connected with the forest. In a parallel move, it can gradually create specialized enterprises to undertake wood processing, and also handle the sale of their output, semifinished or finished.
Exploitation of the forest's potential for tourism and recreation, including hunting, could substantially benefit the economy of some countries, and therefore warrant the establishment of specialized public agencies for this purpose. Thus, no additional burden would be placed on the administration in charge of management, which should concentrate its efforts on other important goals, such as conservation and the business of producing wood.
Thus we end up with the concept of a forestry administration in authority, possibly also responsible for management, while one or more public enterprises assume the industrial, commercial and, where appropriate, "tourist" functions.
If a complex organization is chosen, however, various pitfalls will present themselves. First of all, dispersion of policy responsibilities can impair effective coordination of activities, and weaken the overall authority a centrally planned forestry administration will want to exercise.
Personnel
Again - and this is the greatest risk - a complex organization will not work effectively if the number of qualified personnel the country has managed to mobilize is not sufficient to man the structures soon enough. Consequently, years may pass while vacancies are filled only in the central administration and in the big cities. Forestry action cannot be efficient unless regional and local staffs and qualified forestry workers, whether for state or private activities, are doing their job in the field.
The distribution of personnel in the field too often conforms more to past requirements, no longer valid today, than to a rational analysis of current forestry needs. For example, the outmoded patterns of personnel distribution may persist in spite of profound changes in means of communication, transport and urban development. In many cases extensive redeployment of field personnel will be urgently needed, whatever the structure adopted may be.
The foregoing reflections will possibly help decision - makers in the developing countries - and perhaps in other countries as well-to diagnose their national forestry situations by seeking the answers to the following questions:
Do their domestic administrative structures fulfil the needs of the national community?
Do those structures make the most of the nation's forestry development potential?
IN A THAILAND TEAK PLANTATION growing capital
