0215-C1
M. Kaoussou Diombera[1]
In Guinea Bissau, as many African countries, the management of natural resources, particularly forestry resources, has always been the responsibility of the Government. Most existing systems of land use were exclusively oriented towards the production of agricultural goods for immediate consumption. For some years now, the role that other actors can play in the management of natural resources, particularly local people and associations, has been recognized. The appearance during the last ten years of associations or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has supported local people in the sustainable management of forestry resources. Peasant associations and local NGOs are now conscious of their participation in this management and raise their voice against the classic approach of nature conservation based on keeping biological diversity as it is, disconnected from its human environment. Some projects, such as the Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral Project and the DGFC/FAO institutional project, in permanent agreement with the forestry administration and encouraged by the experience and results from other countries of the sub-region such as the Gambia, bring their support through co-management action.
Political and government authorities have understood that the responsibility of resource management and conservation has more and more to be delegated to local communities. In 1991, for example, the concept of “community forestry” was introduced in a forestry law that modified the colonial law of 29 June 1963.
The paper looks at how, using the rights and obligations recognized by the national legislation as a basis, it is necessary to promulgate an appropriate legal commitment that takes into account the role of local community institutions by letting them redefine and control the use of resources.
It is necessary to establish a new type of contractual relation, with a different technical and legal approach that is specific to each location, between the Government on one hand, and local communities on the other. This is necessary to maintain transparency in the transfer of management responsibilities for conservation and production in forestry areas.
The Forestry Department in November 1992 has developed a long term forest policy to promote the management and rational use of forestry resources in Guinea-Bissau. The government, after reactualization of this policy, approved it in January 1997. To adjust the law with the goal, orientation and requirements set in forest policy, a new forest legislation is needed to be developed particularly through the areas of:
- Community engagement in natural resources and forest management through transfer of ownership rights to the rural population;
- Capacity building within the forestry department in order to decentralise the forest management.
This communication is in line with the new process of reorienting the strategy and politics of forest management. In fact, it becomes more and more clear for the forest department (then for the government) that without support of villagers the remaining forest resources cannot be managed properly. It is in this context that this paper is undertaken and its implementation was in the framework of the DGFC/FAO institutional support project, which aims to improve the operational capacities of the State Forest Department versus collaborative way. It’s means a greater empowerment for local communities in decision making with responsability and rights for the management and receive the benefits from forest resources.
Facing the environmental degradation, especially the forest ecosystem, the government defined in 1992 the National Forest Reserve Framework. This forestry policy is mainly based on making the local population responsible for the forest reserves in their territory. The main focus of this policy is the conservation of the existing resources. The strategy to implement this policy is guided by realism, which justify the focus on getting more attention from the local popualtion, local organisations, NGO’s, international community etc... The strategy to implement this policy is based on 7 mains axes. But in the framwork of this task paper we mention the following points:
- controlling land ownership, defining legal bounderies of the forestry areas, their ownership rights and their limits,
- elaboration of a framework for the development of community forestry participative decentralised and for the profit of local communities,
- improved management of forests considering their preservation, exploitation and regeneration.
To implement this policy there is a need for an institutional and legal framework allowing the management of natural resources by the rural population. One of the results of the internal reorganisation in the forest department is the creation of Community Forestry Division. At this moment this division is not yet operational as it is still new and lacks implementation in the field. But the fact that is has been created can be seen as a motivation to come to a more coherent management build on a solid basis.
Seeing the inefficiency of the currently used rules, is it not urgently necessary to elaborate measures that give a certain right to villagers about the management of their resources?
The article n° 22 in the actual forest code does give this opportunity. It gives possibilities to work with Community Forestry leaving still the need for adequate regulation for implementation. Analysing the possibilities given by this article to effectuate contracts with the communities concerning the management of their forests, a conclusion was reached. Indeed, the by-law locally called “Despacho Normativo” n° 01/GM/97 was signed by the Minister to test the use of community forest contracts. This “despacho” gives the Forestry Department the authority to make contracts with villages till the end of 1998 when the impact will be evaluate. This tactical approach is also in line with the new land tenure law adopted in March 1998 by the parliament which emphasis in village lands mananagement.
Then, we may say therefore that there exists a certain number of elements (structural, juridical and political) which can favour the development of a new forest policy better adapted to the importance of the problems and the forest resources are posing today. The general awareness of the existing problems, a good comprehension of the environmental problems in general way by the population, a real willingness to take the full responsibility in managing natural resources, a proper sensitisation of the forest agents and other actors involved, the retracting of the government in daily management and the actual political context, can all contribute to the development of a Co-Management System.
However, establishing Common interests, it is still necessary to determine responsabilities for a shared production regime. For instance, the choice of juridicial system of co-management can be built through answering the following questions:
Which agreements should be established between communities and professional loggers, firewood collecters, charcoal makers/sellers, hunters etc... and foresters? What should be the content of the agreement? Does a specific taxation system have to be made for community forestry products? What new organizational structures have to be set up for community forestry needs? How will the responsabilities and rights on wood and overtrees products and game be share? Do the forest department delegate all the forest policing? Whom to delegate and how? What will be the control mechanisms at village level? Eventually, what external supports will be needed?
b) Constraints
During the last decades, the deforestation process has taken a greatest dimension caused not only by big land owners locally called “Ponteiros”who establish large anacardium plantations to ensure their ownership but also by foreigh and national sawmills and recently by charcoal making activities for commercial purpose. This overexploitation is also the consequence of rules and regulations essentially repressives and prohibitives (inadapted to local practices and needs) which may lead to negative ecological impact in the futur.
To these internal causes, one might add the weakness of the state forest department working capacity or even its limits and its management failure. The main threaths identified can be summarized as a lack of training of the forest staff in co-management approach, difficult site access for reforestation programs, absence of a village territory management plan having as a direct consequence the free roaming of cattle, etc... Also management of resources is not only in the hands of the forest department, others departments are involved. This dispersion of competence makes is not easy to come to a coherent policy because of different interests of stakeholders.
Because it has not been able to adapt itself to drastic society changes and to the economic crisis, the state has not been able to fullfil/satisfy the needs of the population regarding forest resources. That why the futur of national forest sector is questionable.
The main focus of my task paper is on institutional and legislative framework/setting to enable the development of participatory forestry management for sustainable use of trees and forest resources.
A new relationship (by contracts) between the state forest department and village communities including rules and the transfer of responsabilities in managing renewable forest resources. This type of contract should be adapted to divergent situations and therefore should be changeable technically and juridically according to the area. The promulgation of by-laws in line with the forest law, will be a priority and at the same time a condition for the formalization of the community forestry experiment on a national scale/level.
We should also consider that the contracts between villagers and the forest department are being made within the context of decentralization. That is why in Guinea-Bissau with the article n° 22 of forest code as a tool for forest management, it is possible to stipulate ways combining the government’s objectives with the villagers one, resulting in a management plan for the community pre-cooked. This also means a greater responsibility for the actors on different levels. The communities themselves should redefine the rules for using the forest as well as the formulation of a plan on how to improve the forest and to make it sustainable. A support by these activities could be useful, necessary and opportune. The improvement of their living conditions and their future lies in forest areas which they use for agriculture, fruits, firewood etc.... That’s why we may not think on short term bases. Sustainable development can’t be seen apart from land management and community forestry management.
About National law and Community-based Forest Management
- The types of legal and institutional changes are needed to promote substantive and sustainable community-based forest management,
- The challenge is to surmont legislative and juridicial obstacles to CBFM and to replace them with incentives that create appropriate legal, regulatory and economic relationships between local communities, formal governmental institutions and in some instances, commercial enterprises,
- To establish mutually and enduring relationships, for CBFM, local communities need to understand what their options, rights and duties in regard to national laws.
|
Effectively promoting sustainable forest management often requires the enactment of new laws and/or the revision and reinterpretation of existing national laws, regulations and policies |
In this framework, we would like to give the following results:
- to guarantee village land use rights,
- to limit or to extinct the conflicts on land rights on a regional level. The regional administration should judge and arrange local conflict,
- Institutional support for the forestry department, including a proper monitoring and evaluation system which wil be able to give all the data necessary to improve forest management,
- New rules and regulations on forest ownership will be set up according to the responsabilities decentralized for community forest management.
At the end, a combination of some adapted solutions/elements can make this strategic and political reorientation work, as the following:
- the forest status redefinition,
- attribution of forest ownership to local population,
- implementation of stimuling economic management of forest resources in order to increase incomes generated activities (village nurseries, beekeeping, mulching, oil palm making, etc...)
- limitation of uncontrolled exploitation or the use of unmanaged forests,
- implementation of rural market associed with villages managed forests.
RESULTS
Among the possible methods, we will use the participative and systematic approach (PRA-SEA) which seem to be more adapted to Guinea-Bissau.
The SEA is chosen because forestry problems in Guinea-Bissau are associed with land tenure, agriculture and environmental problems. As for the participatory enquery it can be justify in the context of community forestry concept, where strategies and actions are defined by local communities themselves. The first SEA/PRA identification and preparation phase will permit to determine the agricultural crops/speculation and their sites in the forest spaces.
The participatory and iterative study will permit the comprehension of the socio-economic and technical determining factors associed to the forest resources utilisation, the existing legislation and politico-institutional dispositions, the endogenous and exogenous constraints, the organisational mode of the population, the rural institution and structure. In the same time it will help to evaluate and analyse the alternatives and priorities proposed by the population themselves in a conservation-development way. Indeed, Community Forestry is defined as the implementation of forest management by villagers or communal groups in area where the forest resources legally belongs to them and where they are only recipients of the resource benefits.
Techniques to be used:
- a survey will be carry out in 2 or 3 representatives villagers and group of people through interviews by questionaries/village meetings.
The study will concern all the country with following criteria and indicators for the choice of villages:
Our objective in the future is that most of the country’s natural forest shall be owned and managed by the local population. For that, as the Gambian participatory forest management model, three (3) phases are distinguished in community forestry establishment and management process.
As tools, we’ll use:
- The article n° 22 in the actual forest code,
- The by-law locally called “Despacho Normativo”n°n01/GM/97 promulgated by the Minister to test the use of community forest contracts.
In a participatory process the population will identify and demarcate the future CF, form a responsible CF committee and develop sustainable management plan. An application for the Preliminary Community Forestry Agreement (PCFMA) is signed by the villagers and approved by the regional forest officer and the national forest director. The PCFMA covers a period of 3 years and grants the communities extended forest user rights.
During this 3 year period, the community shall demonstrate their ability to protect and manage the forest, according to the management plan established by them. The preliminary phase constitues a probation period for communities during which they will also gain more knowledge in forest management.
After a period not exceeding 3 years, an evaluation is conducted. If the evaluation shows a positive performance, the village start into the third phase with the Community Forestry Management Agreement (CFMA). The communities will be further trained until they achieve an adequate level of self-management. This document entitles them to own the forest resources in their demarcated community forest for an indefinite period, on the basis of sustainable management plans.
Logical Framework based on problems and objectives trees.
|
IMPLEMENTATION BRIEF |
||
|
90 days intent (what result and why) - Procedures and methodologies elaborated, structured and consolidated at forest department level, - Consensus about inquiry questionary and criteria of priority areas of intervention reached by the end of 3 months, 25 forest agents are trained and awared to co-management principles |
||
|
Implementation steps (how) |
Who |
When |
|
- Creation of inter-institutional working group, |
DGFC/K.D. |
1 month |
|
- definition of the working methodology |
Working group |
1 week |
|
- Hold discussion/definition of criteria for villages selection |
working group |
1 week |
|
- Contract trainers identification |
working group |
2 weeks |
|
- Selection of 25 forest agents to be traine |
working group |
2 weeks |
|
- Organisation of seminar/workshop for 25 persons |
trainers |
2 weeks |
|
Coordinator |
K. Diombéra |
Local conditions favourable |
Proposals Bullseye
| [1] Adviser and Head of Planning
and Studies Division, General Directorate of Forests and Hunting, Bissau,
Guinea Bissau. Email: [email protected] |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}