Bengt Stymne
Bengt Stymne is a professor at the Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden. This article is an extract from a paper presented at the FAO/SIDA Consultation on Forest Administration for Development, held in Rome from 2 to February 1983.
DEMONSTRATING HOW TO PLANT Thea oleosa forestry extension In Hunan Province (F. BOTTS)
In forestry extension activities, there is a need for a central policy-formulating and coordinating unit. This unit may very in size and function, according to, for example, the extent to which forestry extension is concentrated in a single agency or spread out among many. However, there should be at least one high level officer responsible for forestry extension.
If no special ministry for forestry extension can be established, a choice needs to be made about whether the forestry extension office should be placed under agriculture or forestry. One argument in favour of agriculture is that there is often already a network of agricultural extension workers in existence.
Moreover, it is often difficult to draw a line between agricultural crops and forest crops, especially in tropical areas.
An argument against linking forestry extension too closely to agriculture Is that agricultural problems, activities and budgets are so huge that they tend to overshadow forestry considerations. Linking forestry extension with forest administration can make specialized knowledge needed for silvicultural and forest management activities readily available. On the other hand, one traditional goal of forest administration has been the protection of forests, and this may have already created attitudes and practices that make cooperation with farmers difficult.
There may, however, be alternative institutions to coordinate forestry extension. Examples are a ministry (or department) for integrated rural development and a ministry for conservation of natural resources. The advantage of such types of affiliation Is that forestry extension Is likely to be an easily accepted part of an overall effort Involving the public in development and conservation. A problem is that areas other than forestry may tend to get the most attention.
Another decision confronting a forestry extension programme concerns the level of its chief officer. One option Is to have the extension officer report directly to a minister, on a par with the chiefs of forestry and agriculture. Another is to place the officer under, for example, the chief of forest administration with a status equal to those of the chiefs of research, forest industries and the main territorial divisions. A third is to place the officer at the head of a functional unit, reporting, for instance, to the chief of silvicultural activities.
EXPLAINING THE CHAIN-SAW IN ECUADOR training is a key element in extension (UN PHOTO)
The general rule should be that the higher the officer responsible for forestry extension can be placed, the better will be his or her access to top policy makers and the more evident will be the importance that the government attaches to extension. Still, a lower-level placement may be a good choice If better coordination can be obtained by attaching forestry extension to existing resources units. The chief of extension activities may, for example, be placed directly under the chief of the territorial organization, toward extension and away from protection. Since shortages of funds and of trained-personnel are very common problems, such a strategy, which involves changing the goals and operations of a higher level body, Is an attractive alternative to creating an entirely new organization dependent upon new and often scarce resources
The next question to be answered is on the number and kind of officers and resources that should be allocated to the central office responsible for forestry extension. The answer depends on the task to be carried out by that office, the importance attached to forestry extension and the rate of expansion deemed possible. If the responsibility of the office Is mainly to coordinate other agencies and provide ideological leadership, then there is a need for only a few people with a good capacity for communicating with others. Some power should be vested In the office over funds that can be allocated to different agencies for forestry extension activities.
One special function at the central coordinating office should be mentioned. A forestry extension policy may lead to formidable legal complications. New laws concerning ownerships, land-use rights and the share of the proceeds of land may have to be passed, in order to get the rural population to become interested in acting as forest managers. Legislation may be needed for defining what is expected from managers of different types of land, as well as for protecting the rights of the land managers. Therefore it seems advisable to include legal work as one of the primary functions of a central coordinating office for forestry extension.
In broad terms, the tasks of the field-level organization are to induce land managers to take on responsibility for forest conservation practices and to give them service and support. The following are a few of the possible responsibilities of a field-level organization:
· gathering information about land-use patterns and problems In the area and estimating the need for and production of fuelwood and other types of forest produce;· preparing plans and strategies for improving land-use and consumption patterns;
· managing and coordinating projects and seeing to it that funds received from the central level and other sources are used in appropriate ways;
· convincing local leaders, farmers and other land managers of the need for the advantages of improved forestry practices;
· establishing who Is responsible for the management of land that has been mismanaged or neglected;
· giving advice and training to land managers;
· establishing and operating nurseries;
· organizing planting efforts and creating demonstration plots;
· helping forest managers set up management plans;
· approving management plans and seeing to It that they are followed;
· giving advice and assistance on the marketing of forest products.
It Is not necessary that all these responsibilities be carried out by the same field organization or that one particular type of field organization specialize in one or more of the tasks. There are actually several means of establishing an organizational structure at the field level: working through existing agencies or groups; adding personnel to existing agencies; getting involved in joint projects with different sponsoring agencies; launching special forestry extension projects; or setting up a more self-contained field-level organization for forestry extension. The main consideration in choosing an organizational structure should be that an adequate field organization Is set up that can have an Impact In the area under consideration and that makes a minimum use of scarce resources such as trained personnel and imported material. The duplication of resources should be avoided.
Two main types of approach taken by the field organization toward the population in a certain area can be distinguished. One is to Implement a preconceived programme - for example, introducing the taungya system, planting trees on public land, establishing forest villages, restoring watersheds, or planting deforested areas. The other is to strengthen the specific capacity of an area for development. Programmes for integrated rural development can be seen as attempts at this kind of approach.
If the programme implementation approach is undertaken, a field-level organization that Is uniform from area to area could be set up. The form such an organization takes would, of course, depend on the tasks to be accomplished. It should have enough qualified people, technical and financial resources, and administrative powers to do its work If, on the other hand, the capacity-strengthening approach is taken, the field organization cannot be uniform but must be adaptable, in order to respond to local needs and development opportunities.
Independently of the approach chosen, it is advisable to establish a link between the field and the unit responsible for forestry extension at the central level. If a programme is supposed to be implemented at the local level, the link can consist of instructions and budget provisions coming from above while information on progress and budget requests come from below. If there is a more diffuse set of organizations at the local level, all supporting local development, there should be some way for the central unit to inform itself about what goes on so that it can direct its own efforts to supporting the most promising develop meets and improving others. The best way of getting information is probably to have an employee working under the central unit involved in field activities. Field tours and inspections are other possibilities.
When a field-level organization for forestry is established, it is not usually a completely new creation. Rather, it is fitted in as a new component of an already existing network Any extension activity contemplated must therefore be preceded by a careful analysis of what the development network looks like and where an addition would be of value. One outcome of such an analysis might be that money for forestry extension work is given to a voluntary organization working in the area rather than being spent on creating a new agency. Another might be that the best use of resources for improving forestry in a certain area is to give training courses in range management to livestock extension workers.
Especially at the field level, the choice of organizational structure is a matter relating more to outside forces than to meeting requirements within the organization itself.
Establishing PULP & PAPER MILLS - A guide for developing countries
|
Useful articles on the specific features and different stages of establishing a new pulp and paper industry In a developing country plus a summary report of discussions on the topic by the FAO Advisory Committee on Pulp and Paper. |
An FAO publication
FAO FORESTRY PAPER 45 (1983) (Available only In English)
