AGENDA |
|---|
1. Adoption of Agenda
2. Election of rapporteur
3. Follow-up to the recommendations of the fifteenth session of the Committee
4. Mediterranean Forest Action Programme
5. Activities of the research networks
(a) Forest fire management
(b) Selection of multipurpose species
(c) Silviculture of species: Cedrus sp.
(d) Silviculture of species: Pinus pinea
(e) Selection of stands of Mediterranean conifers for the production of seed to be used in reforestation programmes
(f) Silviculture of species: Quercus suber
6. Forest resources assessment 1990, non-tropical developing countries
Mediterranean region
7 Forest administrative structures in Mediterranean countries
8. Other business
- Future programme of work of the Committee
- Other matters
9. Date and place of next session
10. Election of officers
11. Adoption of report
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS |
|---|
Chairman: Fernando José Mota (Portugal)
Rapporteur: Driss Ben Bahtane (Morocco)
Secretary: Michel L. Malagnoux (FAO)
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
|
CYPRUS Savvas Theophanous Vassos Stephanou Pantelas Aristos loannou Marcos Daniel Pierre Delabraze Pierre Ferrandes Jacques Lucien Grelu GREECE Asterios Zacharis Evangelos Papaevangelos ISRAEL Omri Bonneh MALTA Joseph Borg MOROCCO Driss Ben Bahtane Omar M'Hirit PORTUGAL Fernando José MotaDirector, IFADAP R. Miquel Torga, 26, 2° Esq. 5000 Vila Real Tel: + 351.59.71976 Fax: +351.59.72989 Jorge Casquilho Raul Albuquerque Sardinha |
 |
Alexandros Christodoulou EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY Jean-Pierre Derisbourg FRANCE Jean-Jaques Benezit Jean-Paul Ters ITALY Paolo Vicentini Riccardo Morandini Franco Favilli Vittorio Gualdi Ernesto Fusaro JORDAN Azzam Al-Muheisen LEBANON Jamil Dayem AbdayeDirector Department of Forestry in Bikaa Zahle-Shtoura Tel: + 961.8.807592 Francisco J. Lopes
Delegaçao Florestal do Alentelo ROMANIA Filimon Carcea SPAIN Angel Barbero Gabriel Catalan Bachiler SUDAN Hassan Osman Abdel Nou TUNISIA Mongi Ben M'Hamed |
OBSERVERS FROM FAO MEMBER NATIONS NOT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
ALBANIA
(Mme) Zhaneta Prifti
Chef des relations extérieures, du personnel, et de la qualification
Direction générale des forêts
Rr. Ismail Qemali, N°4
Tiranë
Tel: + 355.42.28432
Fax: + 355.42.23814
GERMANY
Hilmar E. Knopf
Professor
FH Hildesheim/Holzminden
Fachbereich Forstwirtschaft
Büsgenweg 4
D-37077 Göttingen
Tel: +49.551.393882/53
Fax: +49.551.371667
REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS AND SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
Economic Commission for Africa
Ali Haribou
Project Analyst
UN Economic Commission for Africa
Joint ECA/FAO Agriculture Division
(Food and Agriculture Development Policy & Planning Section)
P.O. Box 3001
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia
Tel: +251.1.510613
Fax: +251.1.510613
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Mohamed SkouriSpecialiste du Programme
Division des Sciences Ecologiques
Unesco
1, Rue Miollis
75015 Paris
France
Tel: + 33.1.45684054
Fax: + 33.1.40659897
OBSERVERS FROM INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies
Placido Plaza
Administrateur principal
CIHEAM
11, rue Newton
75116 Paris
France
Tel: + 33.1.47207003
Fax: + 33.1.47201047
Alexandros Dimitrakopoulos
Research Coordinator
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania
P.O. Box 85
73100 Chania
Greece
Tel: +30.821.81153
Fax: + 30.821.81154
OBSERVERS FROM INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
International Union of Forestry Research Organizations
Savvas Theophanous
Chief Conservator of Forests
Department of Forests
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment
Nicosia
Cyprus
Tel: +357.2.302263
Fax: + 357.2.451419
Riccardo Morandini
Director
Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura
Viale Santa Margherita, 80
521100 Arezzo
Italia
Tel: + 39.575.353021
Fax: + 39.575.353490
HOST COUNTRY SECRETARIAT
M. Daniel C. Nicolaou
M. Neocleous C. Logginos
A. K. Christodoulou S. Spyrou
Chr. Tifas S. Tsiakouris
Chr. Papakyriacou A. Panayi
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Amor Ben Romdhane
FAO Representative in Lebanon and Cyprus
P.O. Box 40010
Baabda (Beirut)
J. P. Lanly
Director, Forest Resources Division
Rome
M. Malagnoux
Secretary, Silva Mediterranea
Forest Resources Division
Rome
Eileen Nolan
Meetings Officer
Forestry Department
Rome
C. Racaut
Associate Professional Officer
Forest Resources Division
Rome
L. Lapenna Travertino
Secretary
Forest Resources Division
Rome
Interpreters: | A. Ben Ameur |
D. Reyna | |
C. Bekalti | |
M. E. Sandoz | |
P. Farrell | |
F. Bron-Hadzinicolaou | |
R. Dewey-Valentino | |
H. T. Kilany | |
M. Diur | |
LIST OF DOCUMENTS |
|---|
Agenda item Symbol Title
1 FO:SCM/94/1 Provisional agenda
3 FO:SCM/94/2 Follow-up to the recommendations addressed to
FAO by the fifteenth session of the Committee
4 FO:SCM/94/3 Mediterranean Forest Action Programme
5 FO:SCM/94/4 Activities of the research networks
5(a) FO:SCM/94/5 Report on activities of the research network on
forest fire management
5(b) FO:SCM/94/6 Report of activities of the research network
"Selection of multipurpose species for arid and
semi-arid zones"
5(c) FO:SCM/94/7 Report of activities of the research network
"Silviculture of species: Cedrus sp."
5(d) FO:SCM/94/8 Report of the activities of the network on
Pinus pinea
5(e) FO:SCM/94/9 Report of the network on selection of stands of
Mediterranean conifers for the production of
seeds to be used in reforestation programmes
5(f) FO:SCM/94/10 Report of the research network "Silviculture of
species: Quercus suber"
6 FO:MISC/94/3 Forest resources assessment 1990, non-tropical
developing countries - Mediterranean region
7 FO:SCM/94/11 Forest administrative structures in Mediterranean
countries
Information documents
FO:SCM/94/lnf. 1 Information note
FO: SCM/94/lnf. 2 Provisional timetable
FO:SCM/94/lnf. 3 List of documents
FO:SCM/94/lnf. 4 Statement of competence and voting rights by
the European Economic Community and its
member states
FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES IN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES |
|---|
Secretariat Note
1. At its previous session the Committee had expressed a wish for a debate on forest administrative structures in Mediterranean countries. They wished to gain a better understanding of the current situation and trends, and to assess both the efficiency of these structures and any inherent constraints.
2. In 1984 FAO carried out a survey "Public forest administrations in French-speaking African countries". This was followed by a seminar in Tunis in 1985 which reviewed the situation. The review was considered in this note, which also uses data from the various country reports to the tenth World Forestry Congress, to the sessions of the relevant Regional Forestry Commissions, and to Silva Mediterranea. The note also refers to FAO Forestry papers N° 86 (1988) and 92 (1989), Forestry policies in Europe, and N° 111, Forestry policies in the Near East region: analysis and synthesis (1992). Lastly, the note takes into account the conclusions and recommendations of the tenth World Forestry Congress and decisions of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992).
3. This paper lays no claim to universally applicable proposals, as a country's forest administration depends on many things: country size, the size of its forest, the political institutions, the territorial organization and, of course, the national forest policy. More realistically, the paper proposes to set out the major differences and similarities for a certain number of forest administrative structures, particularly those concerning organization and responsibilities. The observations and suggestions on possible improvements also include the institutional component of the Mediterranean Forest Action Programme (MED-FAP). The paper will be supplemented after the session by an analysis of the answers to the questionnaire addressed to each country.
1. FROM FORESTRY POLICIES TO FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
4. There has been a vast ongoing discussion at national and world levels on forestry problems in recent years. The stimulus has been the serious degradation or shrinking of wooded areas nearly everywhere, particularly in the tropics and in the Mediterranean, and the debate reflects widespread and growing public concern.
5. There is a concomitant need to gear administrative structures to these changes. The importance and urgency of these organizational problems cannot, however, conceal the current and universal malaise of forest administrations in terms of financial, staff and operational resources, aggravated by their isolation from the political power structure and poor public image. Any structural reform which fails to lift these constraints, which are due to the (apparently) poor economic performance of Mediterranean forests, is doomed to fail. Restoring forestry policy to its rightful place in overall national policy is the right way to lift these constraints. The direct economic effects of the forest on industry, commerce and tourism, and indirect economic effects on other sectors, particularly agriculture, grazing and the protection of infrastructure, must be clearly brought out. Lastly, the public at large and policy-makers need to be briefed on the non-economic -i.e. the social, cultural, recreational and scenic - functions of the forest.
1 .1 Forest Policy trends
6. Forest policy is implemented by a complex set of instruments and factors, including the private and public sectors and legislation. The definition of a good policy must precede the search
for the best administrative tool for policy implementation. Conversely, forest administration and administrative organization also help to inspire and frame forest policy.
7. Both the Mediterranean countries and their forest policies are highly diverse, but they do have common denominators. While it is impossible to recommend a universal plan for good administrative organization (there is no such thing), one can use a MED-FAP-based analysis to identify certain past errors, and to formulate a few principles based on national experiences which countries can use as a guide for reviewing their forest administrative structures.
1.2 Current factors in forestry policies
8. These are:
(i) the growth of urbanization and the consequent rise of a body of urban opinion which increasingly favors the social function of wooded areas, i.e. the scenic and recreational function (often to the detriment of the traditional economic function), to which policy-makers are increasingly receptive;
(ii) the new world demand for forests to help conserve biodiversity and mitigate the "greenhouse effect";
(iii) the shrinking and degradation of wooded areas in the Mediterranean region caused by forest fires, aggravated by rural depopulation and the subsequent regrowth of vegetation in the northern Mediterranean countries, and by a poverty-generating excessive population pressure in the southern and eastern parts of the Basin. Clearing for agricultural land, overgrazing and overexploitation for fuelwood are further factors;
(iv) the accelerating degradation of nature: water erosion in watersheds, wind erosion on inland and maritime sand dunes, soil degradation, desertification; and the increasingly important protection and heritage roles of the forest;
(v) the increasingly important role of trees in rural areas given the limited potential for afforestation (scarce availability of land, degraded soils);
(vi) the growth and diversity of new and difficult (and frequently non-forestry) tasks for forest administrations: management of protected wild lands such as parks and reserves, soil, wildlife and plant conservation, etc...;
(vii) the universalization of the forest debate and the development of international cooperation between North African and Near Eastern countries, and between them and the northern countries; the growth of bilateral and multilateral cooperation; and the increasingly active role of the private sector and of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
(viii) the impact of major political decisions external to the forest sector and yet profoundly affecting it, such as administrative decentralization.
All these changes and transformations have been very swift and clearly many national forest administrations have not reorganized and are not in a position to take up these new challenges.
1.3 Institutional response to these changes
9. There are a number of possible responses to these changes:
(i) break the isolation of forest administrations:
- at the central level, by establishing cooperation and consultation linkages with other ministerial departments and agencies working in the forest sector;
- lower down in the hierarchy, by reorganizing rural sectoral services or linking forest services more closely with those responsible for the environment, rural development, agricultural and pastoral activities, etc;
(ii) adopt a more dynamic administrative stance with respect to development in addition to the basic duty to monitor and enforce observance of forestry regulations) including advisory services, technical supervision, information, extension, rural leadership, introduction of participatory structures, etc...;
(iii) redefine central authority administration so as to bring administrative decisions closer to beneficiaries, users and target populations, by means of:
- decentralization, i.e. the transfer of State responsibilities to institutions closer to the problems in the field;
- devolution, i.e. the transfer of centrally concentrated administrative authority to lower levels of the hierarchy for quicker decision-making and increased field responsibility;
(iv) enlist the participation of municipal authorities, local populations, etc...;
(v) in countries where State ownership is predominant, encourage privatization or community forestry, both to lighten the managerial role of the administration and to increase participation;
(vi) design and implement forest operations in the overall context of integrated rural development, remembering that the solutions to forest problems must be found outside the immediate forest sector;
(vii) develop agro-forestry and silvo-pastoralism;
(viii) respond to the imperious need to establish the capabilities to effectively ensure "sustainable forest management" that can consolidate and maintain the many uses of the forest and ensure the protection, production and continuity of this renewable resource.
1.4 Strenthening the forest administration
10. Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 adopted by UNCED is very clear on this point (11.2): "To improve and harmonize administrative structures and mechanisms...". The need to strengthen forest-related institutions is continually stressed.
11. Strengthening usually means a bigger budget, greater operational capacity, and more staff, training and motivation (this last via greater responsibility given to staff and better career prospects). Internal organization efforts can also help to boost the productivity of available staff.
12. These improvements can be made without changing the structures. Additionally, administrative efficiency can be enhanced through initial and ongoing training at all levels, not only technical training but also training in planning, economics and communications. A search for solutions to concrete problems, a forest inventory and the availability of reliable statistics are crucial to efficiency.
2. ORGANIZING THE FOREST SECTOR IN THE LIGHT OF ONGOING TRANSFORMATIONS
2.1 Intersectoral cooperation
13. Forest administrations everywhere have long remained isolated and fiercely independent, limiting interventions to their own sector and jealously defending their own territory against any encroachment by other administrations. One outcome of this solitary stance was a forest policy which stood alone when it could usefully have helped to enrich, or to benefit from, other policies. Forest policy specifics notwithstanding, forests are one component of land use planning, an essential component of the environment, and an economic sector which creates jobs and employment. Forest management is increasingly the concern of the entire society.
14. Forest policy must therefore be linked and balanced: with agricultural policy for land allocation and clearing; with livestock policy for forest grazing, with tourism for recreation, and with infrastructural and urban policy for green areas. Forest policy needs to take its rightful place in general planning and in pluri-annual socio-economic development plans.
15. It is important at the same time to institutionalize dialogue with the other economic and social sectors and with those working in the forest sector: those who plant trees, own forests, use them, as well as wood industry managers, conservation NGOs, scientists, teachers and other qualified people. Countries such as Morocco and France have advisory bodies such as committees, commissions and conferences which are chaired by the Minister responsible for forestry questions, or regional structures led by the local administrative authority.
16. Budgetary arbitration rarely favors the forest sector, whose characteristically long-term nature totally obviates the urgency factor in investment decisions. There are two further reasons as well:
- national accounts never reckon the non-commercial value of the forest services for the public at large;
- policy-makers, preoccupied with the short term, fail to understand the medium- and long-term threat hanging over wooded areas, and the significance of the social and ecological functions of the forest for present and future generations.
17. Because of the generally low rate of return of forest investment, of the handicap of its long-term nature of forestry and its generally low economic priority, only a strong and well-respected administration can provide the necessary inter-ministerial cooperation for forestry questions, carry its weight at the political level and win in difficult-to-arbitrate situations. The forest administration's central headquarters must include some mechanism whereby discussion, dialogue and consultation can promote understanding of the needs of the forest. The administration must build closer support and cooperation with the forest industries sector, the wood trade and markets. At the same time it must speak authoritatively to the public and to pressure groups, particularly on issues related to sustainable forest management, reconciling at one and the same time the economic, environmental and social roles of the forest.
2.2 Integrated rural development
18. At its former session the Committee stressed "the importance of an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to rural development". The Rio Conference made the same recommendation, one which is particularly justified in the case of Mediterranean forests. The problems of the management of erosion-plagued watersheds, of the desertification of arid zones, and the abandonment of fragile rural areas are not typical forestry problems, but rather wider-reaching questions of overall rural development. The forestry policies of the past were too sectorial in design and implementation. The forest must be an integral part of rural development, embodying sound policies and methods that are environmentally sustainable at the regional as well as the national levels.
19. The only feasible integrated rural development approach has to involve several Ministries and coordinate intervention by leaders from all economic and social sectors. The various administrations involved, particularly the forest administration, must become more outward-looking, adapting their structures accordingly. The integrated approach is two-pronged:
- participation by rural people, the prime beneficiaries. People's participation implies information, awareness-building, extension, a concerted study of land capability, priority-setting, etc... This is not limited to forestry aspects;
- the implementation of economic development activities (agriculture, livestock husbandry, forestry) as well as social projects. Global development must be orchestrated by a leader who can coordinate all of these various sectors.
20. Foresters are not always trained to take on the multi-disciplinary tasks of rural leadership, coordination and orchestration of integrated development, but they must contribute their skills and resources to the effort. Mediterranean countries have various approaches to integrated rural development, as the following paragraphs show.
(a) Creating a multidisciplinary administrative structure
21. Tunisia set up Development Offices to implement rural development. In 1988 these were taken over by Regional Commissariats for Agricultural Development. Each of them represents all directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture in a region ("Governorat"), including the forestry districts which also come under the Directorate of Forests.
22. Morocco also integrated its forestry local echelons under Provincial Directorates for Agriculture (DPA) which group all of the decentralized units of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform (MARA).
23. France set up a Directorate of Rural Lands and Forests (DERF), regional directorates (DRAF) and departmental directorates for agriculture and forests (DDAF) where agronomists, foresters, rural engineers and land use planning experts all work together.
(b) Rural activities entrusted to forest administrations
24. Some countries have included desertification control and watershed management in the terms of reference of their forest administrations. Some (Libya, Afghanistan) include pasture management. Others have included other rural development responsibilities such as soil conservation (Morocco, Jordan), land development (Egypt) and natural resources conservation and development (Cyprus).
25. Under the Ministry of Forests of Turkey, the General Directorate of Forests and Rural Development implements rural development plans in the agroforestry zones (forest villages), helping to create rural cooperatives to carry out this work.
26. In Iran, the Directorate of Forests and Husbandry and its provincial natural resource directorates have recently been put under the Ministry of the Jihad and infrastructure ("Jihad e Sazandegi"). This large Ministry, recently formed to promote integrated rural development, also includes a watershed management directorate separate from the forest administration.
(c) Participation of the forest administration in rural development programmes, but without rural responsibilities
27. No optimum operational structure clearly emerges from the above examples. Should foresters really be the ones to steer integrated rural development? Most are not trained to do so and this extremely challenging job does detract from the already very demanding forestry mandate.
28. Iraq's country report to the eleventh session of the Near East Forestry Commission in 1990 expressed the hope that tasks not specific to forestry could be entrusted to another Directorate so that the Forestry Directorate could concentrate on enhancing the forest resources for which it is responsible. This seems sensible, considering that forest administrations were wrong in the past in accepting to perform an excessive number of non-forestry tasks for which they lacked the resources.
29. As for integrated rural development, everywhere advocated and seldom practiced, there has never been a clear definition of the skills and structures needed to implement it. Foresters undoubtedly play a major role in desertification control and watershed management. But perhaps the best approach would be to distinguish between:
- the steering of the activities by a local development committee backed by an administration competent in land allocation and land use planning, able to make the necessary general studies, and at the same time to raise local awareness and ensure extension activities; and
- the participation of all sectors concerned, and particularly the forest administration which would be a solidly entrenched part of this group process, contributing skills and resources.
2.3 People's participation
30. People's participation is an approach much stressed in UNCED's Agenda 21: "to promote the involvement of the local population..." (12.14), "to create the capacity of village communities to take charge of their development and the management of their land resources..." (12-27)... " to establish mechanisms for the involvement of land users..." (12.57), etc. The same can be said of the recommendations of the tenth World Forestry Congress.
31. The old forest policy whereby vast tracts were reforested and then closed to user populations not only proved inadequate, but also contributed to the creation of animosity towards the forest services. The participatory approach, instead, assumes a partnership between public authorities and local populations, with a real pooling of responsibilities. The administration needs local support and locals need State assistance. "God helps those who help themselves" as the old saying goes.
32. Profound institutional changes are implicit in the participatory strategy:
- training in ecology as part of the primary and secondary school curricula (cooperation between foresters and teachers);
- establishment of an effective extension service;
- introduction of training in communications skills in the basic and in-service training of foresters of the field echelons and revision of their terms of reference.
33. Participation in terms of the forest sector alone is inconceivable; there must be an integrated approach covering the full spectrum of rural activities and aspirations within a given area. In structural terms, participation implies the organization of groups:
- pastoral groups: a 1988 Tunisian law set up "silvo-pastoral interest groups";
- village associations: in Turkey a Directorate for Forests and Rural Relations has administrative authority over forest village populations, establishes rural development plans and helps to establish rural cooperatives for forestry activities;
- less formally, a local rural development committee can be formed to bring together local authorities, local protagonists and local expertise. The committee would be responsible for land allocation, land operations and development programmes.
34. Participation cannot be disinterested: populations must reap a diverse range of economic and financial benefits:
- State assistance to enhance village life, local production, etc...: this is the real meaning of integrated development and the real interest of foresters to participate;
- income generated by State-owned forests on communal lands (innovative measure implemented by the Government of Morocco).
2.4 Forest appropriation
35. Forest appropriation, either collective (e.g. village forests) or private, is another way to have people share in the benefits of forest management; private or collective ownership of the forest is the best guarantee of interest for the landlords who identify themselves with their forests.
36. In the Mediterranean countries of western Europe, forests are mostly privately owned: the figure is 2/3 in France, Italy and Spain, and 3/4 in Portugal. Most wooded areas in North Africa and in the Near and Middle East are basically State-owned, in contrast.
37. Private appropriation creates a solid bond between the forest and the owner: it is in the owner's interest to enhance and conserve his property. There are disadvantages as well: appropriation favors the economic function, there is less guarantee of permanence, and there may be forest clearing and mismanagement. Above all, private appropriation may well mean fragmentation and division of the land through sale or inheritance.
38. State management of State forests necessarily implies scant involvement by rural people in forest conservation and development. Conflict between the administration managing these forests and the people living in or around them is an inevitable risk.
39. In State forests, moreover, the overlapping of State ownership and user rights singularly complicates management. In a comparable situation, French forest policy in the nineteenth century resorted to a cantonment procedure whereby a user was granted full ownership of a section of the forest, relinquishing user rights over the rest in exchange. Many communal or district forests owe their origin to this procedure.
40. In private forests, on the other hand, fragmentation was solved by the establishment of collective management, and nationalization was not even a consideration. Concerning the State-appropriated forest, excessive and monolithic concentration was avoided by an approach that substituted appropriation and profit-sharing, and here systematic privatization was not a consideration either.
41. Concerning structures and administrative efficiency, the two forms of appropriation privatization and community ownership - create new actors, strongly motivated with respect to forest management. Thus, the possibilities for action by the administration are facilitated, since the administration is often too busy with the management of public forests. The forest administration can then provide leadership, while enjoying the support of both local populations and new communal or private forest owners.
42. Private appropriation requires legal provisions to limit abuses and to guarantee the respect for forest functions of interest to all. Private forest ownership, on the other hand, should enjoy financial incentives and appropriately geared tax schemes.
43. Private initiative can also be tapped to create new forests through afforestation. In Libya, whereas all natural forests are State-owned, 10 per cent of the reforestation has been done by private owners.
44. Two types of private ownership are of special interest:
- the so-called "farm" forest or tree planting - particularly the agroforestry mode, which benefits from the expertise, equipment, available time and proximity of the rural owners. This is an asset for rural land-use planning as well;
- productive afforestation combined with a wood processing unit to foster economic development and create jobs locally.
45. Collective (or more generally community) appropriation is prominent among the final recommendations of the tenth World Forestry Congress: "the allocation of forest lands or lands designated for forest development to local authorities makes it possible to involve more effectively local populations with the administration of the forest heritage".
46. The expertise and proximity of village communities can be a guarantee of sustainable use. Collective appropriation is, in fact, the only acceptable way to manage and conserve wooded areas whose dominant function is to serve the general public.
2.5 Sustainable forest management
47. State forest management is the responsibility of the State, either the forest administration (the more usual case) or a separate (usually a para-statal) agency. In communally-owned forests, the communal owner and the public authorities share management decisions. The State is usually responsible for management and the community usually receives the income and finances the work. Private forests are managed by their owners, but there are legal constraints geared to the general interest which limit the owners' rights to some extent.
48. All of these ownership systems are covered by strict protective legislation. As a guarantee of sustainable management, in particular, the legislation stipulates the establishment of management plans under centralized management guidelines approved at the higher echelons and controlled by the State administration.
49. Additionally, the permanent status of areas designated as forest must be guaranteed: controlled clearing, observance of the principle of inalienability, strict control of concessions, etc. It is extremely important for any concession which constitutes a departure from the law to remain the competence of the highest authorities.
2.6 Communications
50. The three spheres of communication concern the internal administrative structure; the external sector (professionals in the forestry, agricultural and pastoral sectors, particularly through the use of a well-performing extension service); and the public at large.
51. The public's reaction to the forest is intuitive or sentimental, and is not based on a true knowledge. In this sense, the forest suffers from a considerable communications gap in all countries. Foresters at all levels are unable to get their message across. At the tenth World Forestry Congress a representative from a major NGO publicly declared "This congress is about foresters, not about the forest".
52. This communication gap is a serious one as the forestry sector will only enlist the support of policy-makers to the extent that it is able to get its message across. It is essential for the forest administration to have an effective documentation and information service, attached to the office of the Director, to gather, store and disseminate information and to prepare carefully targeted and convincing messages, projects, interviews and commentary, and so forth. It should also become
automatic for foresters at all levels to present their problems, difficulties and successes, thus familiarizing their audience with the forest.
3. ORGANIZING FOREST ADMINISTRATION
3.1 Opening remarks
53. The basic objective of yesterday's forestry policies was to create (through afforestation), enhance (through silviculture and management) and conserve the forest heritage. Regulations were designed more as prohibitions than as incentives. The police role of the forester was performed within highly stratified, military-type administrations divorced from their social context.
54. As a result the forest administration was in constant confrontation with two opponents: the local population, which was affected by prohibitive forestry regulations and the public at large which was uninformed as to why forests were declining and disappearing and what could be done about them. The administration, in response to this lack of understanding, was forced to come up with an organized and dynamic approach in which forest development would be integrated with rural development and all concerned would be consulted.
55. Though the forest is part of the rural sector, this should not hide the highly specific nature of forest management and of the forest administration. Rural development and forest policy have two different rationales. The first responds to immediate needs and quick profits. The second is a long-term operation which can easily be sidelined because the real value of forests cannot be quantified and because forests cannot be counted as current assets.
56. Repressive action alone is no longer sufficient to cope with the pressure exerted by a burgeoning population and the vital needs of the people who are currently overexploiting wooded areas. However, that same much-criticized repressive legislation did help safeguard forests and is still necessary today. This should not be forgotten, and is the reason why structural reforms (often imposed from outside) should be measured and prudent. Indeed the will to decompartmentalize has now gone too far, and the new responsibilities and structural changes have entailed:
- excessive structural fragmentation: afforestation to the Ministry of Agriculture, wood processing to the Ministry of Industry, the conservation of biodiversity and nature to the Ministry of the Environment, forest fire protection to the Ministry of Interior, and so forth. The fragmentation is such as to prevent an overall view of the sector;
- weakened terms of reference which lead to duplication of efforts and conflict, despite the universally affirmed need for forest management to embrace the ecological, economic and social functions;
- resources are stretched too thin.
57. This analysis forces two conclusions: forestry policies must be an integral part of development Plans and of land use planning, and foresters must make arrangements to cooperate with other sectors so that their concerns will become part of the larger framework. At the same time, within this dual framework, the forest administration must remain solid and consistent.
3.2 The transfer of powers
58. The key words today are decentralization, devolution and regionalization. Reform is implicit in these new strategies and the point is not to revise the mandate of the forest administration but rather to establish new relationships which will enable it to enhance its own action and also to delegate activities to other structures and other actors.
59. The decentralization recommended by UNCED ("establish administrative structures for more decentralized decision-making and implementation") means that an administration will delegate action, perhaps by:
- supporting and developing the private sector: in Spain, Portugal and France, afforestation has been essentially private sector action with State assistance through subsidies, technical support and tax exemption;
- the transfer of government responsibilities to the private sector: in France the regional centres for forest owners amount to a delegation of State powers. These organizations of private owners are now responsible for leadership and enforcement, the management of public monies and even regulatory powers (licensing cutting, approving management plans);
- the transfer of central administrative responsibilities to the provincial level: in Tunisia the Regional Commissariats for Agricultural Development (CRDA), set up in 1989, are public agencies under the Governors which act as the sole representatives of all directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture. The forest districts, which are field services of the Directorate of Forests, come under these Commissariats;
- support for the constitution of cooperatives and protection associations: their establishment, with administrative support and supervision, gives responsibility to local actors and helps them to organize for self-management;
- lastly, there is considerable education of the public and participation of local communities in non-economic environmental protection and rehabilitation activities, actions which should become increasingly important in the future in the Mediterranean area.
60. Countries like Spain and Italy have pushed regionalization to the point where regional political authorities are governments with elected, law-making assemblies. Forest policy in this context is a regional affair and each has its own forest administration. Other countries, France in particular, have also regionalized, setting up regional executives and elected assemblies, but have not decentralized their forest policy which remains the prerogative of the central government.
61. Other countries, such as Morocco, which have still not regionalized political power, are beginning to see the devolution of governmental authority to regional districts. The need appears for devolution to a regional level intermediary between a strong central Directorate and the too-distant field echelons.
62. In heavily regionalized countries, the federal or central authority is turned over to the regional administrations who make law, formulate policy and manage the human and financial resources. There are still jobs which ought not to be done at this level, however, and which should be maintained or recentralized to an adequately staffed national administration:
- cooperation and international liaison (although the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the political level they are very difficult for provincial or local structures to handle at the technical level);
- coordinating research and training;
- forest inventories and statistics;
- national parks and biological reserves of national interest;
- pest and forest fire control.
63. Devolution is the organized delegation of decision-making to the lower echelons of an administrative hierarchy. The process, still insufficiently implemented by forest administrations paralyzed by excessive centralism, was recommended by the Tunis seminar (review of forest administration organigrammes to consolidate the principle of devolution).
64. This delegation of powers can in fact breathe new life into an overstaffed and top-heavy administration. It cuts through excess red tape, simplifying and shortening channels by bringing the decision-maker closer to the problem or to the person whom the decision involves; it avoids costly duplication of effort; but most of all, it frees the top levels to focus more on other tasks and hands over more responsibility to the lower echelons.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES
65. Forest administrations have different kinds of responsibilities, whether limited to reforestation, management and forest exploitation or also embracing environmental protection, erosion and desertification control, hunting and fishing, etc...:
- first there are the sovereign power of guidance, control and public authority which ought not to be decentralized;
- then there are the everyday management and technical functions which should be delegated to independent para-statal structures or to the private sector.
4.1 Para-statal structures
66. A para-statal agency is operationally flexible, particularly in financial terms (not coming under the annual ministerial budget) and in terms of staff recruitment (not subject to civil service staff regulations). It has the legal personality and financial autonomy for self-financing. Lastly, it is answerable to a governing council representing a number of interests. A para-statal structure can take many different forms, juridically speaking: state company, joint venture, public enterprise, etc.
67. The para-statal structure acts as the executing agency and "project manager" for forestry operations programmed by the "owner, which may be the State for State forests through State-approved management plans, or Municipal Councils for communal forests, etc.
68. In Portugal, a law passed in April 1993 to reorganize the Ministry of Agriculture profoundly reformed the forest administration, setting up a legally and financially autonomous body: the Forest Institute. The Institute assumed the former forest administration's responsibilities for publicly- and privately-owned forests. Led by a governing council and advised by a consultative committee representing all interested parties, the Institute has regional (forest delegations) and local (forest zones) units.
4.2 State Forest Administration
69. As for the area of responsibility of the State Forest Administration, situations lie somewhere between these two main types:
- an omnipresent administration exercising traditional authority over forestry, fishing and hunting activities, but also gradually overwhelmed with responsibilities for nature conservation, environmental management, rural development and management, desertification control, watershed management, etc;
- and an administration which has shed all but specifically forestry responsibilities: nature conservation (parks, reserves, flora and fauna) come under the Ministry of the Environment; forest fire control (which in France is the responsibility of a State-financed Civil Security Department) is also delegated; and forest industries come under the Ministry of Energy and Industry (Spain).
70. Both extremes have advantages and drawbacks. The advantages of the second are a greater range of skills and resources, allowing forest personnel to be assigned directly to protection and utilization, thus avoiding vague terms of reference for which foresters have not been trained. This disadvantage, however, is that responsibilities are diluted and people may easily have quite different perceptions of their job, leading to conflict and inconsistencies. Nonetheless, this may be the better
approach, providing that two as-yet-unmet conditions are fulfilled: the dispersion of responsibilities is well under control, and the Minister responsible for forests must have real authority to coordinate all forest policy action.
4.3 A co-existing State administration and para-statal agency
71. Forest development in Algeria is the responsibility of the National Forest Agency, which was set up in 1990. The Agency is backed by six regional offices for programme implementation. There is also a National Agency for the Protection of Nature. In France, a National Forestry Office was set up in 1965 to manage public forests (state and communal). The Office is also empowered to carry out missions delegated by the Administration and to provide services in response to national or international demands. In Bulgaria, the entire forest sector comes under the Forest and Wood Industries Association which co-exists with a Directorate of Forests which is responsible for Bulgaria's forest policy.
72. Unless the rules are observed, conflicts may arise between coexisting State Administrations and independent para-statal Agencies. The rules are that the administration has authority and supervision, whereas the agency implements the programme of action and guidelines, forest by forest, within approved management plans.
73. In practice, it is up to the Ministry responsible for forestry matters to strike the right balance and to arbitrate where needed. Para-statal responsibilities could even be delegated to forest field operations.
74. The administration, free of the day-to-day business of administration and management, nonetheless has a major role to play, and substantial authority over:
- the definition and periodic review of forest policy, leadership, coordination and control over all aspects of policy implementation;
- the tackling of forest issues in pluri-annual economic and social development plans;
- interministerial and intersectoral coordination;
- budget control;
- new legislation and regulations;
- forest research and education guidelines and reviews;
- communications with national media;
- international cooperation.
4.4 Ministerial responsibility for forests
75. Which Ministry should be responsible for forestry administration? In Turkey, the Ministry of Forests has four general directorates which share a wide range of forest, rural and environmental management responsibilities. Organizationally, this is the most powerful forest administration in the region.
76. The forest services of Albania, Greece, Jordan, Portugal and Tunisia come under the Ministry of Agriculture. In other countries the name of the ministry lists other functions but, oddly enough, the word "forest" is never mentioned; the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform (Morocco, Afghanistan, Syria); Fishing or Fisheries (France, Malta); Natural Resources (Cyprus); Land Development (Egypt, Libya); Food (Hungary).
77. The name of the directorate responsible for forests often includes a further responsibility: livestock (Libya, Afghanistan), soil conservation (Morocco, Jordan), pastures (Albania).
78. There is some logic in this dependence on agriculture. Agriculture and forestry are complementary, e.g. silvo-pastoralism and agroforestry, and yet they may entail fierce opposition, e.g. conflict over land use, which a Minister of Agriculture is in a better position to arbitrate. Many people have pointed out the inherent drawbacks, however, and would favor placing the administration under a Ministry of the Environment or Natural Resources, thus stressing and promoting the ecological and protective functions. Alternatively, a Ministry responsible for the entire forest wood sector would affirm that all of these functions are compatible.
79. Whichever Ministry takes the lead, the main point is to avoid dispersing forest responsibilities among too many Ministries and agencies. The Ministry responsible for the forest sector must have real and institutionalized powers to coordinate administrative activities, however they are organized.
80. Other organizational options may be cited: in Israel a private structure, the autonomous Land Development Authority, is in charge; in Iran it is the Ministry of "Jihad e Sazandegi" which has one directorate for forestry and livestock matters and another for watershed management.
4.5 Local and field services
81. A survey evaluating the organization of forest field administrative services would be of great interest, particularly for local forest monitoring and work supervision. A wide variety of situations range from the classic field hierarchy of warden, district chief, sector chief prevalent in most countries, to municipal responsibility for forests in Libya and Egypt.
82. An analysis of these varied situations would reveal certain organizational principles: the need to reinforce the local echelons; a streamlined executive level; reducing hierarchical fragmentation to benefit broader geographic coverage and a team-led effort; devolution of authority and resources to the lower echelons which would assume as much responsibility as possible.
5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
83. The discussion on the forest issue and the means of assuring forest protection have taken on an increasingly international tone in recent years. This growing, though sometimes rather haphazard, movement cries out for streamlining of the debates and, above all, the will to steer discussion towards concrete action.
84. Additionally, the technical and financial support mobilized in the context of international cooperation between developed and developing countries can only be effective if the recipient country strengthens its capacity to enter into dialogue and participate in project design, implementation and monitoring. Success hinges upon the reinforcement of national institutions.
85. Nor is cooperation limited to assistance and financial support between developed and developing countries. Groups of countries with identical problems need to cooperate: air pollution in northern Europe and forest fires in the south; desertification in North Africa and in the Near East.
86. A model for the organization of international cooperation may be seen in the highly pragmatic approach of the Ministerial Conference which brought 31 European countries together in Strasbourg in 1990. No new techno-structure was created, but the Conference dealt with a limited number of specific subjects, with no need for unanimous approval. It was possible to move from discussion by qualified experts to the involvement of political figures and approval by the ministers concerned. Regularly scheduled conferences (Helsinki, 1993) ensure high-level follow-up and the possibility for new action.
5.1 Reinforcing the various types of cooperation
87. Continual stress has been laid on the need to reinforce cooperation, particularly at the Rio Conference, with regard to:
- UN and other intergovernmental agencies (FAO, UNEP, ILO, Unesco, World Bank) and their specialized bodies (such as Silva Mediterranea and its networks);
- specialized regional agencies such as ICAMAS;
- competent international non-governmental organizations such as IUFRO;
- and other regional cooperation structures where neighboring countries share the same problems - e.g. the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU).
5.2 Establishing and strengthening cooperation administration
88. No form of cooperation makes sense unless it benefits all forestry institutions, sectors and people within the country, and unless continuity and follow-up are guaranteed. In structural terms, much remains to be done in terms of building sound, effective, lasting cooperation.
89. Excessive regionalization can have the adverse effect of depriving some countries of operational structures for international cooperation and liaison. There are also still far too many occasional or purely personal links between experts which are not part of a coherent and larger strategy of cooperation. In contrast, international framework programmes such as MED-FAP have been implementing sound cooperation programmes for some years now.
90. As the foregoing implies, an international unit, directly attached to the Director-General of the Forest Administration, should be available at the most central level within each country. This small unit would have one or two very experienced officers, speaking several languages, organized as follows: the international organizations and other countries would speak through them; all cooperative action within the country would go through them once the political stances had been defined and the priorities and programme established; they would ensure a three-way link internally with all forest institutions in the country (training, research and administration), with professional associations and with the competent authorities for what concerns international policy (foreign affairs).
6. FUTURE ACTION - DISCUSSION
91. As emphasized in the introduction, this paper was written to support the work of the Committee's sixteenth session and is supplemented by the answers to the questionnaire in the country reports. The Committee is invited to take up the topics covered item by item so as to define regional or subregional cooperation in forest management and administration.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Algeria |
Malta |
Bulgaria |
Morocco |
Cyprus |
Portugal |
Egypt |
Romania |
France |
Saudi Arabia |
Greece |
Spain |
Islamic Republic of Iran |
the Sudan |
Iraq |
the Syrian Arab Republic |
Israel |
Tunisia |
Italy |
Turkey |
Jordan |
Yemen |
Lebanon |
Yugoslavia |
*Member Organization |
