B. Cabarle
Bruce Cabarle, a forester, is an Associate for Latin America with the World Resources Institute. Based in Washington, D.C., he focuses on forestry and land-use issues.
"Success [of the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP)] will...depend on the support and involvement of small farmers and village communities, local and national NGOs..."
(FAO, 1987)
Governments rightfully have the lead role in natural resource planning. Historically, however, planning exercises have been a top-down exercise, completely dominated by governments and external donors, with little solicitation or tolerance of public input. During the 1980s, NGOs emerged as a significant interest group and legitimate player in conservation and development activities. The TFAP was one of the first international initiatives to endorse the participation of NGOs and officially recognize their strategic contribution toward achieving conservation and sustainable development of forest resources. Since its founding, the TFAP has been the subject of intense and sometimes contentious debate. Few, if any, of the issues raised by the TFAP have evoked more emotion and rhetoric from both the accusers and accused alike than that concerning NGO involvement.
When the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) was launched in 1985 (it was renamed the Tropical Forests Action Programme in 1991), many saw it as a unique mechanism for stimulating a broad-based dialogue on policy and priorities to be used in confronting the root causes of deforestation and promoting sustainable forest management and utilization. NGOs representing the experiences, perspectives and concerns of local communities as well as the general populous were to play a critical role in ensuring a bottom-up approach to this planning process (see FAO, 1985; WRI, 1985). Indeed, both the original TFAP and the final statement of the Bellagio Strategy Meeting on Tropical Forests (2 July 1987) stressed the importance of grassroots participation to the success of the TFAP process as well as the pivotal position of NGOs for the linking of local communities and national governments.
However, developing country grassroots organizations gave little input to the development of the TFAP concept (Cort, 1991; Winterbottom, 1990) and immediately had problems with their role, as had been foreseen by the TFAP framers. Envisioned as having responsibilities only in the areas of popular participation and project implementation, their potential contributions in generating broader public debate, in policy analysis and in monitoring were not acknowledged and, therefore, were implicitly left as the sole domain of governments (Hazlewood, 1987; Shiva, 1987; The Ecologist, 1987). Even after repeated NGO consultations and statements on their prospective role, subsequent TFAP documents were slow both to acknowledge these other areas where NGOs were making or could make substantial contributions and to formalize guidelines containing specific principles of how the organizations could be included in the TFAP process.
It was not until 1989 that TFAP guidelines on NGO participation were published (FAO, 1989). These guidelines specified that local and national NGOs have a critical role to play in ensuring grassroots participation and must be deliberately and effectively involved in TFAP country-level exercises. The special expertise of international NGOs should be used in their relevant fields which, by way of active dialogue with the NGO community, should be determined in the early development stages of a national TFAP project. The guidelines went on to indicate that, as part of the preparatory work for a national TFAP project, an effort should be made to: examine NGO and private sector accomplishments and involvement in the five TFAP areas forestry and land use, fuelwood and energy, conservation of forest ecosystems, forest-based industrial development, institutions); analyse, via a consultative process, the constraints and opportunities for heir more effective involvement; and provide an opportunity for NGOs...to identity measures that could be taken to increase and improve their contribution to the programme. [Ed. note The five-pronged approach has since been eliminated on the grounds that it is too restrictive].
The guidelines also identity the need to: seek representatives of popular or indigenous organizations as well as the government agencies responsible for their well-being and involve them in the TFAP process; and document natural resource management practices and traditional ecological knowledge of rural people, or to study these practices where they are unfamiliar (FAO, 1989).
These basic principles provided an important starting point for promoting the effective participation of NGOs in national-level TFAP projects, but they were still very limited They did not explicitly recognize other potentially important functions of NGO participation, such as providing independent perspectives, information and comments on documents and representing the interests of the rural poor.
Finally, in 1991 TFAP coordinators officially acknowledged the diverse functions and potential contributions of NGOs. The 1991 Operational Principles recognize NGO concern with biodiversity and environmental values and endorse popular participation in all stages of the TFAP process (FAO, 1991). NGOs are also afforded more prominence in the national TFAP infrastructures. One unfortunate omission in the 1991 Principles, however (and a concept that was included in earlier TFAP documentation), is a directive for documentation of traditional land-use practices and ecological knowledge of forest-dependent peoples. Moreover, the role of NGOs as policy analysts and "watchdogs" remained overlooked.
|
Participation and the TFAP planning process "Participation...naturally comes from the right to choose and the right to object - it is not organized from the centre, it is not decreed." Mazide N'Diaye (cit. Talbott, 1990) Participation can be viewed as a binding contract between stakeholders who negotiate a relationship, benefit from each other's involvement and agree upon a mechanism to accomplish, monitor and, if necessary, change the terms of their relationship. Rights and responsibilities of the relationship are best defined at the outset through consensus, and formalized in writing and/or actions. The information used to make decisions should be "open" and subject to joint analysis. Performance is ensured by the identification of each partner's needs, commitment to a common set of goals and means, and a set procedure for reconciling possible points of disagreement that could hinder compliance to the contract. Participants do not necessarily agree on all matters, but just those considered by all concerned to fulfill common needs (Reck and Long, 1989; Talbott, 1990). In the context of the TFAP, as under other circumstances, participation may occur at different levels and in varying forms. Contrary to current rhetoric, participation of all interest groups is not necessary, or desirable, in all aspects of the planning process. For example, NGO participation may not be critical in topical studies of a highly specialized nature to fill information gaps. However, it is vital for defining key issues, verifying information, generating viable solutions that will lead to action, setting priorities and determining responsibilities. Not all interest groups have the same capacity to promote their interests and meet their needs. A "participatory" TFAP project seeks to open, expand and protect the "space" necessary for all organizations to articulate their needs and contribute to the decision-making process. This requires "checks and balances" to be put in place so as to ensure representation and accountability. |
From 1988 to 1990, the World Resources Institute (WRI) attempted to monitor and document NGO participation through its periodic Status report on NGO participation in country-level TFAP activities (WRI, 1988, 1989a, 1990). Through this effort, a data base covering 25 countries was assembled, largely based on information gathered from a comprehensive survey of national and local NGOs and complemented by information from several international NGOs, concerned donors and the TFAP Coordinating Unit (see Cort, 1991).
Winterbottom (1990) and Cort (1991) reported that governments rarely involved NGOs in preparation of national forestry action plans and allowed them little influence over the final outcome. NGO participation was negligible or nil in at least seven of the countries surveyed. Meetings were convened for NGO input in only seven countries and, in six of these cases, the meeting was organized only after strong pressure from NGOs. Surveys to assess NGO capabilities and potential contributions to TFAP were conducted in seven countries; three of these were initiated by the NW community. Few NGOs were recruited early in the review of TFAP issues papers or in the development of terms of reference. NGOs were invited to participate in TFAP round tables and workshops or to comment on TFAP reports in approximately half of the countries surveyed. NGOs submitted proposals as part of national TFAP investment profiles in five or six countries, but it is unclear whether they were included in the final versions presented by governments to donors. Direct participation of local and indigenous peoples' organizations had not been systematically pursued - except to varying degrees in a few cases, including Costa Rica, Ecuador and Guatemala.
Little or no financial or technical support was provided to NGOs (either by donors or national governments) to permit their participation in national TFAP exercises or the development of project proposals. Where support was mustered, it was largely channelled to national and local NGOs through international NGOs by sympathetic donors. International NGOs, including Conservation International, Greenpeace, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Rainforest Information Centre, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the WRI, played significant roles in six national forestry action plans and contributed to a lesser degree in five other exercises. These groups have provided technical expertise to sector review missions and/or modest financial support to national NGOs in Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Laos, Mali, Papua New Guinea, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zaire. In the countries where NGOs were supported, increased attention was dedicated to forest conservation, intersectoral linkages, land use and policy reform.
Yet, counting the presence of NGO representatives at TFAP meetings and workshops or the number of NGO-prepared proposals does not provide real insights into the extent of NGO involvement in the TFAP process. Better indicators might be: evidence of NGOs gaining recognition by government planners as legitimate participants in the TFAP process; evidence that their participation has had an impact on policies; or evidence that the TFAP is a useful mechanism for mobilizing the unique contributions NGOs can offer.
Legitimate participants?
Some NGOs have gained ground in voicing their concerns in government fore. In those countries that have endorsed NGO participation, the TFAP has helped to legitimize their views. Several NGOs, even those dissatisfied with final results, report that the TFAP is the first comprehensive planning process to have considered their input. For example, Indonesia's leading environmental group, Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI), reported that the TFAP was the only government policy forum that officially included NGOs. The Academy of Mayan Languages in Guatemala emphasizes that the TFAP has provided the first instance in which the Mayan society has been involved in any government planning process. In Bolivia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic,
Ecuador and Guatemala, invitations to join TFAP national steering committees have opened dialogues between the government and NGOs. The signing of memoranda of understanding between the government and NGOs in Ecuador and Guatemala, and the establishment of an NGO support division within the TFAP steering committee in Papua New Guinea, have served to legitimize the activities and tap the contributions of NGOs (Cabarle, 1991a, 1991b; Rietbergen, personal communication, 1992).
With varying rates of acceptance, NGOs have enjoyed government tolerance in using public fore and mass media to convey their views on the TFAP. Particularly in Latin America, participating governments have shown respect for the independent sector by agreeing to NGO participation in TFAP committees, working groups and round tables and by soliciting comments on official documents and project proposals. In Guatemala and in the Regional TFAP for Central America, planners successfully solicited NGO input by working through established networks and negotiating the inclusion of the TFAP on their meeting agendas. In Ecuador and
Thailand, unsatisfied with their terms of participation, NGOs successfully lobbied the government through media and public fore in an attempt to include conservation concerns in plans dominated by forest industries.
Gaining a seat on a national steering committee for the TFAP, however, does not necessarily mean an equal voice and vote. WALHI felt that several of their recommendations were ignored and did not appear in the official record of round table meetings (Barber, 1991; Hafield, personal communication). Several NGOs in Ecuador resigned from the national steering committee in protest over the reluctance of government officials to address what they considered key issues, including unsustainable logging, settlement programmes and petroleum extraction.
In most countries, the role of NGOs has been limited and dictated by government TFAP planners. In Malaysia and Indonesia, only "reliable" NGOs have been invited to sporadic meetings and have then often been denied access to TFAP documents. In Ghana and Bolivia, NGOs that were not consulted in the TFAP process, together with others which were originally involved but which subsequently withdrew their participation, have found themselves identified as project implementors in TFAP documents presented to donors. Thus, despite some incremental gains, NGOs are still rarely viewed as legitimate stakeholders in the national-level TFAP process.
Impacts on policy?
The TFAP has served to increase NGOs' access to information and thereby increase their influence in the decision-making process. In Peru and Costa Rica, NGO members were contracted in their personal capacity to serve on TFAP teams and thus they helped to shape official documents. In the Dominican Republic, NGOs heavily influenced the selection of priority projects and they figure strongly in the TFAP investment profile as project implementors. The public campaign launched by NGOs in Ecuador is believed to have reduced the dominance of forest industries found in earlier drafts of the national forestry action plan. Similarly, LIDEMA in Bolivia and Fundación Natura in Colombia have reported success in bringing greater attention to forest ecosystem conservation through their participation in the TFAP.
NGO surveys and workshops have also brought new information to planners and thereby influenced TFAP programmes. For example, in the United Republic of Tanzania, a rural survey conducted as part of the TFAP led to an innovative outreach programme, jointly run by a district office of the Ministry of Forestry and Beekeeping and a district hospital, linking tree planting, nutrition and primary health care. In Guatemala, an NGO workshop revealed surprising information on NGO activities, including their geographical coverage, and prompted revisions to several projects contemplated in the TFAP. Peasants in Costa Rica were provided a forum with government officials and successfully lobbied for access to reforestation incentives that were previously available only to large landowners. In these cases, the TFAP has been a catalytic mechanism for mobilizing human and financial resources of the independent sector, has raised the consciousness of the general public and has influenced policy-makers (Cabarle, 1991 b; Rietbergen, personal communication, 1992).
Gathering local Indonesian farmers opinions regarding land-use priorities
In most countries, however, the TFAP process has not been appreciably influenced by NGOs. In the majority of cases, national steering committees have not included NGOs and, even when they are invited, Cort (1991) reports that NGOs find little incentive to participate in a planning process they perceive to be dominated by government and donors. Many feel that their opinions are not welcomed and fall upon deaf ears; the time and energy invested do not justify the returns. NGOs also fear that they will be coopted and that their participation will be misconstrued as an endorsement of government policies. They are generally sceptical of government willingness to question current development patterns or to confront the tough political issues associated with deforestation, such as land distribution and tenure. Overall, the record of NGO and local community participation in the TFAP is dismal when compared with its original expectations and the needs of the millions of rural poor.
While the TFAP was billed as a departure from "business as usual", many NGOs have become disillusioned with the process, as it appears that the desired change has not been forthcoming. To others, the lack of NGO participation in the TFAP is not surprising; rather, it reflects larger obstacles that are inherent in the overall development process, and not exclusively related to the TFAP: top-down infrastructures that tend to view local groups as threats to government authority; inexperience in fomenting people's participation and public feedback; the fact that NGOs often have political orientations that are incompatible with official government positions; competition between development sectors for limited public funds; lack of a commitment to intersectoral cooperation; powerful private interests; and corruption; etc.
If the "revamped" TFAP is to improve the situation, it will have to lend far more attention to surmounting the constraints encountered by its predecessor. This will require greater flexibility, decentralization, more resources, more time, more patience and a tolerance of divergent views at all levels. The examples presented in this article indicate that, although difficult, change is possible and indeed desirable for all parties involved. NGOs also present constraints and will have to improve their own position. Given their brief history (less than 30 percent of NGOs in developing countries have been operating for more than 15 years), they are often weak institutions on an individual basis and unorganized as a community. Staff turnover is high and institutional memory short. Most could be better managed and could be more professional and accountable to their constituencies. Only NGOs with democratic structures will be capable of appropriately representing the marginalized groups whom they seek to serve and TFAP planners aspire to reach.
The various TFAP reviews and ongoing revisory fore have offered multiple recommendation and proposed structures for improving the planning process to make the TFAP work better. Many of these include elements on NGO participation (see WRI, 1989b; Cort, 1991; Colchester and Lohmann, 1990; FAO, 1990; Winterbottom, 1990; Meyers, 1991) This article concludes with a brief summary of some of the more salient and outstanding issues as well as suggestions as to how they might be addressed. These points are directed primarily at national-level TFAP steering units. However, the central Coordinating Unit will also have responsibility for bringing these issues to the attention of national governments.
· A set of criteria should be developed for determining who should participate in order to ensure that all interests are represented in the TFAP process.
TFAP planners must recognize that NGOs are not a unified front and do not speak with one voice (nor should they). As with government and industry, a representative cross-section of the NGO sector should be represented in national TFAP planning exercises. To achieve this, a set of criteria should be developed to ensure that key groups are not overlooked. Obvious candidates are those that can: provide accurate information required for the decision-making process; represent the needs of local peoples affected by forest land-use decisions; generate analyses of current forest land-use issues and trends; disseminate information; have legal or customary authority over forest resources. Such criteria can serve as the first step toward identifying common needs and negotiating the terms of participation of the various partners in the process. This should be a primary function of the national steering committee.
· Participation requires a full disclosure of TFAP-related information which national steering committees must disseminate widely in the appropriate format and language, thus making it available for comment by all interested parties.
The most legitimate information base is one that is shared and jointly analysed. Easy and continual access to information is also essential for monitoring and ensuring accountability. Disclosing information will facilitate the identification of gaps and verification of data used in the decision-making process.
Once disseminated, sufficient time should be allowed for review and comment. TFAP information systems should systematically report on the participation of all stakeholders, including NGOs and local communities, and the issues they raise. Appropriate funds should he earmarked for the translation of official documents into local languages.
· A participatory strategy should he developed and the appropriate consultative mechanisms activated at the outset of a national TFAP activity
Traditional models employed in forest sector planning are inadequate for the full involvement of NGOs and local communities. Wherever possible, the existing networks and channels of the target group should be activated to allow NGOs to carry out the consultation process both with and on behalf of their constituencies. The participatory strategy and constructive mechanisms need to be designed and monitored by competent resource workers (with experience in facilitating participation) in consultation with representatives of the NGO community. The process should be interactive, iterative and based on the mutual identification and understanding of needs, problems, solutions and strategies. A certain percentage of the planning budget should be allocated to these activities and the resources necessary should be precisely determined in consultation with the participating NGOs.
· NGOs should give
a better demonstration of their comparative advantages for being included in the TFAP process.
NGOs will enhance their chances of participation in the TFAP process by demonstrating their representation of local peoples' needs through prior consultation with their constituencies; further analysis and systematic documentation of local needs and concerns or other critical information; and facilitation of popular debate and involvement in development and implementation of strategies. The reality of the situation is that participation is not a birthright; NGOs will have to prove themselves legitimate and credible before they will be taken into account.
While NGOs need to be responsible and credible in order to participate constructively and fully in the TFAP process, government planners also need to recognize them as such, including their diverse nature and potential contributions. TFAP planners and supporting donors who permit or, better still, encourage the participation of NGOs - as collaborators or critics - will eventually benefit. NGOs can significantly augment the ability of central governments to reach local people and can also improve the legitimacy, integrity and plurality of the TFAP planning process. Without the fuller participation of NGOs and local communities, the Tropical Forests Action Programme is unlikely to attain its goal: improved stewardship of tropical forests and the welfare of the people dependent upon them.
Barber, C. 1991. Trip report on participation in the Indonesian TFAP workshop, 19-26 February 1991. Washington. D.C., WRI. (Unpublished mimeo)
Cabarle, B. 1991a. Gaining ground: people s participation in the Tropical Forestry Action Plan for Ecuador. WRI forestry and land-use programme report. Washington, D.C., WRI.
Cabarle, B. 1991b. Increasing NGO participation in the Tropical Forestry Action Plan for Guatemala. WRI forestry and land-use programme report. Washington, D.C.. WRI.
Cernea, M. 1988. Non-governmental organizations and local development. Washington, D.C., World Bank.
Colchester, M. & Lohmann, L. 1990. The Tropical Forestry Action Plan: what progress? 2nd edition. Penang. Malaysia, World Rainforest Movement.
Cort, C. 1991. Voices from the margin: non-governmental organization participation in the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. WRI working paper. Washington. D.C., WRI.
FAO. 1985. Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Committee for forest development in the tropics. Rome, FAO.
FAO. 1987. Tropical Forestry Action Plan, in cooperation with World Resources Institute, the World Bank and United Nations Development Programme. Rome, FAO.
FAO. 1989. Guidelines for implementation of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan at the country level. Rome, Forestry Department, FAO.
FAO. 1990. Tropical Forestry Action Plan: an independent review. Rome, Forestry Department, FAO.
FAO. 1991. TFAP: Operational Principles. Prepared by FAO in collaboration with the TFAP Advisors Group and other organizations (5th version). Rome, FAO.
Friends of the Earth. 1990. Tropical Forestry Action Plan, position paper. Washington, D.C., Friends of the Earth.
Halpin, E. 1990. Indigenous peoples and the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Document de travail du WRI. Washington, D.C., WRI.
Hazlewood, P.T. 1987. Expanding the role of non-governmental organizations in national forestry programs. Washington, D.C., WRI and Environment Liaison Center International.
Lynch, O.J. 1990. Whither the people? Demographic tenurial and agricultural aspects of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Document de travail. Washington, D.C., WRI.
Meyers, R.L. 1991. Options for institutional arrangements for a revamped TFAP Cofounders' organizing committee report on the Geneva meeting on revamping the TFAP. Washington. D.C.. World Bank.
Morrison, E. 1989. The diversity of NGOs and their potential interaction with TFAP. Information paper prepared for the ninth TFAP forestry advisors group meeting. London, IIED.
Reck, R. & Long, B.G. 1989. The win-win negotiator. New York. Pocket Books.
Rodriguéz, J. & Cabarle, B. 1990. Revisando cuentas: evaluación del Plan de Acción Forestal Tropical en Centroamérica. Central American Commission on Environment and Development and WRI discussion paper. Washington, D.C., WRI.
Shiva, V. 1987. Forestry crisis and forestry myths: a critical review of "Tropical forests: a call for action". Penang. Malaysia, World Rainforest Movement.
Talbott, K. 1990. Public participation in African environmental action plans. In Proc. National environmental action plans in Africa. Workshop organized by the Government of Ireland, the Environment Institute, University College. Dublin and the World Bank. Dublin, Environment Institute.
The Ecologist. 1987. Tropical forests: a plan for action. Editorial. The Ecologiste, 17:129-133.
Winterbottom, R 1990. Taking stock: the Tropical Forestry Action Plan after five years. Rapport. Washington. D.C., WRI.
WRI. 1985. Tropical forests: a call for action. Report of an international task force convened by WRI. Washington. D.C. WRI.
WRI. 1988. Status report of NGO participation in country-level TFAP activities, No. 1. Washington, D.C., WRI.
WRI. 1989a. Status report of NGO participation in country-level TFAP activities, No. 2. Washington, D.C., WRI.
WRI. 1989b. NGO consultation on the implementation of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Rapport. Washington, D.C., WRI.
WRI. 1990. Status report of NGO participation in country-level TFAP activities, No. 3. Washington, D.C., WRI.
WWF. 1990. Reforming the Tropical Forestry, Action Plan. Position paper. Gland, Switzerland, World Wide Fund for Nature.
