EN VI RO0NM EN T DE. -PAR T M E N T ________ P A P' R S Paper No. 049 (WT1 ll~ 4 U "'~J II*]1 ZIJI [IAWffA1I H1JW111~I~y: j~~I.~4j PARTICIPATION SERIES' Participation in Forest Ma'nagement and Conise,rvation Ajit Banarjee *Gabriel C'ampbell Maria "Concepcion J. Cruz Shelton H. D'avis Augusta Molnar * ~~~~~~~April 1997- Environmentailly SUstainable Development -The World Bank . ESD . .... Environment Department Papers - Participation Series 001 Participation in Education . Nat J. Colletta Gillian Perkins 002 Participation in Water & Sanitation Gabrielle Watson N. Vijay Jagannathan 003 Participation in Irrigation Ruth Meinzen-Dick Richard Reidinger Andrew Manzardo 004 Participation in Social Funds Mary Schmidt Alexandre Marc 006 Participation in Country Economic Dan R. Aronson and Sector Work Ellen Tynan 007 - Designing Community.Based Deepa Narayan Development 020 Participation in Andrew Norton Poverty Assessments Thomas Stephens 021 Participation and Indigenous Peoples Shelton H. Davis Lars T. Soeftestad 031 Participation Through Tom Carroll Intermediary NGOs - . Mary Schmidt Tony Bebbington 049 Participation in Forest -Ajit Banerjee Management and Conservation Gabriel Campbell- . . . : -. -.Maria Concepcion J. Cruz Shelton-H. Davis Augusta Molnar- Copies are availble from the World Bank's Environment Department, Social Policy & Resetilemont Division. Social Policy and Resettlement Division Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Ajit Banerjee Gabriel Campbell Maria Concepcion J. Cruz Shelton H. Davis Augusta Molnar April 1997 Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and dis- cussion. The use and citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank. Acronyms and Abbreviations FPC Forest Protection Committee GEF Global Environment Facility NGO Nongovernmental Organization NTFP Non-Forest Timber Product OD Operational Directive PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SA Social Assessment Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 The Benefits of Participation The Costs of Participation 2. Lessons from Bank and GEF Experiences 7 3. Creating an Enabling Environmeint 14 Defining a National Forestry and Conseivation Agenda Devolving Resources and Authority Administrative Reforms 4. Facilitating Local Participation in Project Design, Implementation and Evaluation 17 Gathering Appropriate Information Local Knowledge and Technology Creating a Consensus Building Local Capacity Resolving Conflicts Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Annexes 24 1. World Bank-Financed Forestry Projects with Social and Participation Components, by Region 2. Social and Participation Components of Selected Bank- and GEF/Bank-Financed Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation Projects, 1990-95 3. Selected International and Regional Forestry and Conservation Networks References 32 Executive Summary Over the past decade, policymakers concemned Among the key lessons learned from implemen- with forest management for timber and tation of Bank and GEF forestry and conserva- biodiversity and with watersheds protection tion projects are the following: have become increasingly aware of the important public goods that forests provide to multiple, * stakeholder identification and involvemen and often competing, users. Governments also are critical to the success of forestry and realize that adequately managing and policing conservation reforms and community-based vast public forest lands is impossible because of projects; budgetary constraints; lack of institutional * forestry and biodiversity projects require capacity; and lack of incentives to regulate the flexibility in design; large and growing number of local citizens, loggers, and other forest users. * nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can play an important role in forestry and The majority of people who currently occupy biodiversity project management and most government forest lands and protected training; and areas are usually poor, vulnerable, and landb- * participation incentives are created by less. Many of those who have migrated from providing secure tenure and rights to forest other areas want to have a voice in forestry users, sharing benefits and management decisionmaking and management, but lack thle responsibilities, and using socially accept- rights, resources, and incentives to participate in able technologies. managing forestry and biodiversity conservation projects. There are many methods for promoting policy reforms. These include: Although governments are responsible for implementing World Bank- and Global Environ- * regional dialogues to share international ment Facility (GEF)/Bank-financed forestry and forestry and conservation reform experi- biodiversity conservation projects, there are ences; many ways for diverse stakeholders to parlici- * donor meetings to coordinate activities that pate in the various phases of policymaking and project development. The Bank and GEF recognize that the most important stakeholders * Bank-government policy dialogues that share are the intended beneficiaries and groups of relevant Bank policies and experiences with people whose incomes and livelihood are in-country counterparts; affected by forestry and conservation policies . issues or position papers by in-country NGOs and programs. This is reflected in increased that address concerns about stakeholder Bank and GEF funding of reforms and activities participation; and that encourage broad-based stakeholder parlici- pation in project management. Participation Series 1 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation * forestry and conservation policy consultations a streamlining procurement and other govern- and stakeholder workshops for expanding ment procedures; and stakeholder participation. * adopting joint management, private contractual Participatory forestry and conservation ap- agreements, and other new institutional proaches require basic changes in the institu- arrangements, whereby forest users are given tional framework that governs policymaking responsibilities for forestry and conserva- and administration. Based on recent Bank and tion project management. GEF experiences with stakeholder participa- This paper covers Bank-financed forestry tion, this paper examines the importance of paper covers Bank-fmancednforestry decentralized administration and devolution of projects and biodiversity conservation projects authority to forest users (see World Bank, 1996). in forest areas cofinanced by the GEF and the Features that help sustain stakeholder involve- World Bank. Biodiversity conservation projects ment in forestry include: in non-forest sites, such as marine and coastal environments, are not included in this paper. For * improving and stabilizingfinancing that an evaluation of biodiversity conservation supports local participation; projects, see World Bank (1995). * reforming government structure and business practices that facilitate participation by non- government institutions; 2 Environment Department Papers 1. Introduction The past decade has witrnessed a fundamenl:al ways (see Box 1). Gray areas and overlap exist in shift in many areas of forestry and biodiversity these two approaches. For purposes of discus- conservation from centralized planning by sion, the box highlights the differences between government agencies to more participatory the two models. For example, governments view approaches that take into account the varying forest uses by indigenous peoples as obstacles to needs and interests of forest users. One reaso.n centralized or government management of forest for this shift is growing recognition by policy.- resources. As a result, most forest policies are makers and planners of the multiple environ- poorly adapted to foster local participation, mental, economic, and social values of forest generally limiting the rights of local users to low resources. While national policymakers remain value secondary products and temporary interested in generating economic benefits from concessions. forests, they also realize the important role thiat forests play in preserving biodiversity, protecting In contrast, participatory forestry management, critical watersheds, and providing livelihoods. which is generally designed and implemented Thus, policymakers are becoming increasingly with stakeholder groups, attempts to address the aware that forests are important public com- multiple needs of forest users, enables the modities that meet the demands of multiple, and involvement of people who are directly often competing, users. affected by the project, and provides the appro- priate incentives and forestry and conservation Participation in forestry and conservation technologies that encourage more sustainable management refers to the active involvement of forest management over the long term. Access various stakeholders in defining forest sector and use rights to forests and conflicts arising and conservation objectives, determining from uses of forest resources are locally defined beneficiaries, managing forest resources, and managed. resolving conflicts over forest uses, and moni- toring and evaluating the performance of The Benefits of Participation forestry and biodiversity conservation projects. Stakeholders are those who have an interest in Policymakers and planners realize that national or are potentially affected by forest and conser- governments cannot adequately manage and vation policies and projects. These include police large public forestry estates and policymakers and staff members in central atnd protected areas without public involvement provincial forest agencies; local government and support. Thus, the shift to more authorities; NGOs; forest research institutions; participatory approaches in forest and forest industry representatives; religious or civic conservation management makes the mandate of leaders and forest community groups, including government forest and environmental agencies women and indigenous peoples. easier to carry out. In areas with large and growing populations, participation is often the Participatory management differs from govern- only viable way to conserve forest areas or ment or centralized control of forests in many ensure their sustainable use. Participation Series 3 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Box 1 Stylized Characteristics of Forest and Conservation Management Approaches Government Forestry and/or Participatory Forestry and Category Conservation Projects Conservation Projects Objective Timber production or other single-use Usually multiple production and biodiversity objective (e.g., watershed protection, conservation objectives according to stake of short-rotation fuelwood) and govern- all participants; developing local skills for ment policing of biodiversity conserva- forest and conservation management tion sites paramount over other uses Scale Large-scale management units based on Micromanagement units corresponding to natural biophysical or political bound- self-selected or residential units aries Local Use Usually very limited and frequently Extensive, clearly defined rights for local users Rights ambiguous or temporary Protection Policing by forest service guards and Policing by local community, frequently using fencing; often ineffective and expensive social fencing; higher local costs but low government costs; local accountability Typical Plan Long rotation of even age stands for Short rotation of uneven age stands designed economies of scale in management and to supply diverse products for continuous industrial supply; centralized manage- income and subsistence needs; community ment of protected areas and conserva- management tion sites Harvesting Generally large government contracts Generally combine multiple household Contracts with administrative pricing mechanisms marketing arrangements with small-scale and subsidized supply arrangements contracts for higher value products Technical Based on results of scientific research Based on combination of traditional knowl- Basis and single product optimization models edge and use patterns with forest and conservation service guidance Planning Centralized management planning Plan drawn up by community or household Process process carried out by forest and participants with guidance and approval from conservation service staff forest and conservation service Plan Generally limited flexibility in manage- High flexibility in management prescriptions Revisions ment prescriptions without cumber- to adapt to changing conditions and needs some bureaucratic approvals 4 Environment Department Papers Introduction Often, people who live in the forest or surround- NGOs often need assistance in developing ing agricultural areas are poor, vulnerable, and appropriate technologies and improving organi- sometimes landless. They can include both k)cals zational skills, while forest industries may have and migrants. Increasingly, these people seek a the expertise, but perhaps limited interest in voice in forestry and environment policy addressing environmental and social objectives. decisionmaking, as well as the benefits that fLow Using the proper mix of intermediaries in from forestry development and commercializa- forestry projects and screening for representative tion. Participatory forestry and conservation stakeholders often requires additional time and strengthens their capacity to manage forests resources. sustainably and realize a share of the benefits. Some of the most serious limitations exist at the Participatory forestry involves a broader view local leveL where forest users or communities are of forest resources that takes into account the often unorganized and lack the capacity to multiple values of forests, the limited resources manage large forest areas. Many forest commu- and institutional capacity of governments, and nities in developing countries, for example, the social and economic needs of forest users. lack the interest or incentives to provide wise This approach is one in which private sector and stewardship of forest resources. In addition, local participation replaces centralized plan- there may be conflicting interests among local ning, profit maximization is supplemented by social groups that make reaching a consensus more equitable shortage of forest revenues, and difficult. Existing social inequalities may forestry development success is measured by its reinforce the control and reaping of forest capacity to be environmentally and socially benefits by powerful aristocrats or factions. sustainable. Conflicts arising from differences in gender, ethnicity, social status, and political affiliation The Limitations of Participation may also constrain broad stakeholder participa- tion in forest management. Participation is not a panacea for the many problems facing the forest sector, and like all Many important questions in this area must be approaches, has its limits. Participatory ap- addressed, for example: proaches have not worked in some areas because of conflicts over forest resources, * What types of incentives can sustain partici- dispersed population structure, or the history pation? of forest ownership patterns and use. * How are adequate forestry conservation At the national level, there may be powerful incentives provided in countries with interests or prejudices against reforming forest limited resources? and environmental policies and devolving authority to a broader range of forest users. * How is a growing population in a given Policy reform, in forestry as well as in other forest management system accommodated? sectors, is a slow, difficult, and costly process that may not be consistent with the urgent need * How can participatory structures and to slow forest loss and degradation. practices apply to more industrialized forest extraction and processing activities? Govemment agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also * How can women's participation be assured have different capacities and different incen- despite insecure tenure and little traditional tives for promoting broad stakeholder and local participation? and participation. For example, governments and Participation Series 5 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation * To what extent should governments inter- While there is much to learn from Bank experi- vene in resolving conflicts over forest uses as ence, no single set of approaches can apply to opposed to resolving disputes through local all types of forest projects and circumstances. decisionmaking? 6 Environment Department Papers 2. Lessons from Bank and GEF Experiences The World Bank has recognized the importance ment, cost recovery, and project sustainability. of using participatory approaches in forest Forestry and biodiversity conservation projects policy, sector, and project work (see World Bank, that are responsive to the needs and capacities 1991a) and in the GEF's biodiversity conserva- of key stakeholders benefit from their technical tion program (see GEF and World Bank, 1994). knowledge and increased cooperation. Although the Bank continues to support indus- trial or plantation forestry, it has expanded the Over the past decade, a number of promising relative proportion of its lending targeted at approaches have been tried in Bank-financed forestry, biodiversity conservation, and natural forestry and GEF/Bank-funded biodiversity resource management projects that have soci.al conservation projects. Lessons from experimen- and environmental objectives (see World Bank, tation with these approaches are discussed 1994d). For example, the number of Bank- and below. GEF/Bank-financed forestry and biodiversity conservation projects in forest sites classified as Lesson 1: Stakeholder identification and social and environmental increased from thirnty- involvement are critical to the success of five projects during the ten-year interval from community-based forestry and biodiversity 1979 to 1989 to thirty-seven-projects from 1990 to conservation projects. 1994 (see Annex 1). When key stakeholders are identified at a very Correspondingly, total Bank investrnents in early stage of sector or project work, consulta- these projects increased from US$834 million to tions and stakeholder group involvement in US$1.2 billion. An assessment of Bank lending project preparation provided a more systematic and GEF/Bank financing of forestry and way to include and omit stakeholders during biodiversity conservation projects during 1991- later stages of project design and implementa- 94 shows that financing of protective and tion. Ranking stakeholders by their contribu- restorative activities increased from 7 to 27 tions in improving forest and conservation percent of total project funding. The share of management helped focus policy reforms and financing for alternative livelihoods in forestry project activities on critical issues. and biodiversity conservation projects grew from 1 to 14 percent (World Bank, 1994d, pp. 16-18). Having stakeholder groups write policy or position papers or engage in dialogue with Bank evaluation of forestry and biodiversity government about policy changes has been projects demonstrates that increasing stake- positive in initiating forest sector reforms in holder participation can be effective in achieving Ethiopia. The expert consultations and meetings production and environmental protection that are sometimes done at the village level have objectives while addressing social needs. ThE also led to greater decentralization of decision- projects have also shown that stakeholder making and implementation and devolution of involvement in forest and conservation policy management authority to local users in forestry and project decisionmaking improves manage- projects in Nepal, India, and Morocco. Participation Series 7 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation In many projects, broad consultations are needed and conservation benefits, costs, and manage- to ensure that policy reforms address issues ment responsibilities. Because of the diversity in directly affecting vulnerable groups. For ex- forest conditions (such as tenure, plant and tree ample, secure rights to forests granted to legiti- growth regimes, and types of forest economies), a mate forest users encourage widespread plant- flexible approach is crucial to institutional ing. However, these rights are often not matched arrangements for project management. Even by corresponding national policies for control- when a particular institutional arrangement has ling harvests, transport, and rules regarding the been recommended during project preparation, access of farmers to credit. Thus, strengthening there may be a need to adjust periodically to the involvement of shareholders at various levels changes in stakeholder roles or to respond to of project planning and implementation is increased demand for forest products. necessary to enable forest users to participate equitably and share in the benefits of good forest Institutional arrangements also vary in terms of and conservation management. Where enabling the level of economy in which forestry and policies are not in place, appropriate stakeholder conservation benefits are distributed. For identification and involvement are useful in example, village cooperation is often based upon carrying out small-scale pilot forestry and cultural practices in more subsistence oriented conservation projects that test alternative forest production systems. These types of village approaches and build policymaker's confidence. based forest systems are dominant in India, Nepal, and most of Sub-Saharan Africa. Mean- Stakeholder involvement is important in the while, more complex arrangements are required long-term forest reform process, as demonstrated when diverse villages with different demands for by the experience of forest and conservation forest products are involved in a single project. planning in Mexico (see Box 2). Not only are Most such systems are found in industrial forest forest and conservation issues discussed during economies, such as the plantations and extrac- the consultations, but the process itself strength- tive reserves of Brazil and the large forests in ened stakeholder commitments to following Ecuador and Mexico. through on needed reforms. The range of institutional arrangements tried in Lesson 2: Forestry projects require flexibility some Bank- and GEF/Bank-financed forestry in design of institutional arrangements and biodiversity conservation projects reflects the different roles of government and other Appropriate institutional arrangements ensure stakeholders. Key features of these arrangements equitable participation and distribution of forest Box 2 Stalceholder Consultations in Mexico's Resource Conservation and Forestry Review Several consultations were held with a variety of stakeholders, and at different stages of preparation, in the Bank-assisted Resource and Conservation Forestry Review for Mexico. These included workshops with government and Bank teams to define terms of reference and budgetary allocations and agree on consultant needs. Consultants included specialists from NGOs involved in biodiversity conservation and community- based NGOs working on resource management programs. In addition, four states organized separate workshops to discuss attitudes of stakeholders toward government forestry services and regulations. Expert consultations were held to discuss biodiversity conservation priorities and criteria for inclusion of areas in the National Protected Areas System. A workshop was organized to discuss the findings from consultant reports and to agree on recommendations for a forest and biodiversity conservation strategy. 8 Environment Department Papers Lessons From Bank and GEF Experiences are described below, starting from the least (c) JointPublic-Private Partnerships, participatory and generally centralized models. Such as JointForestManagement (a) Government Managemnentwith Joint management involves sharing management Stakeholder Involvement responsibilities between government and local groups of households, private firms, and NGOs Under this arrangement, the government contin- (forest protection committees [FPCs] in India and ues to control decisionmaking and management Nepal, contract reforestation in Central African of the forestry or biodiversity conservation Republic and C6te d'Ivoire). Allocating benefits project. It is the least participatory, even though and defining accountability for forest manage- various stakeholders are involved in consulta- ment and conservation are defined through tions, as committee members or advisors, or agreements or contracts between the cooperating conducting studies. These arrangements are parties. These agreements include procedures for prevalent in high value forests, protected areas, conflict resolution and monitoring of forest uses. reserves, or parks. An example of an effective government and village partnership is the Joint Forest Manage- (b) JointPrivate-P rivateArrangementsA:mong ment approach in India (see Box 3). Firns, NGOs, and Local Users Partnerships among various stakeholder groups Lesson 3: NGOs Can Play an Important work well when private firms are required to Role in Forest Management and Training share forestry benefits with local villagers (Sumba in Indonesia, Boscosa in Costa Rica, Few successful participatory forestry and Dzanga-Sangha in Central African Republic). conservation programs would have developed However, without capacity building among local without the active instigation or pilot experi- partners, management responsibilities are often mentation of small, intermediary organizations, concentrated in the better trained private firms or many of which are international or national NGOs. NGOs supported by donors. NGOs play valuable roles during the expansion phase of Examples of private forest management by firms participatory forestry and conservation projects or households are found in: and the gradual reorientation of forest and environmental services. Some of the most * timber and fuelwood plantations, effective roles for NGOs include: agroforestry, and extractive reserves; * training service staff members and local * harvests of non-timber forest products leaders; (NTFPs) (Sabah timber industries in Malay- * carrying out village-level publicity and sia, Picop in the PhiLippines, Carton Le extension; Colombia, Portico in Costa Rica, and arin in Brazil); and * developing microplanning tools and facili- * natural forest management by privalte tating planning; groups, such as logging concessionaires * assisting communities in developing organi- (Cote d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mexico zational and management skills; ejido forest industries). * conducting multidisciplinary policy and Because of the lack of effective govemment applied research; controls, most private sector forestry projects are dominated by well-funded forest industries * improving forest marketing information and influential logging companies. networks; Participation Series 9 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Box 3 Criteria for Design of Joint Forest Management in India The following are the design criteria in joint forest management projects in India. Viable social unit of organization. Membership consists of small groups, such as villages in close proxim- ity, to ensure maximum communication and social interaction. The small size of groups ensures that members have a common interest around which to organize forestry activities. Membership in the groups is open to all residents regardless of gender or cultural grouping. Organizational norms and procedures clearly defined. The local group defines the norms and procedures for regulating access to forests that are acceptable to the majority of members. The norms are based upon principles of equity and membership responsibility. Accountability mechanisms. Each FPC determines rules for making leaders accountable to members. These include providing clear records of accounts, meetings, and collective decisions; conducting annual elections; empowering members to recall corrupt leaders; and enforcing penalties for violating forest use and access rules established by the community. Conflict resolution mechanisms. Conflicts are resolved through majority participation by FPC members, elders, forestry officials, and other respected outsiders. Power of arbitration is given to a local conflict management committee or trusted individual group. Autonomous status of FPCs. The FPCs are independent from govemment and have equal rights of access to forests. These conditions are written in all agreements between FPCs and state forest agencies. The groups have the ability to disband if local forest group rights are not respected. In many cases, written contracts or agreements make these rights and autonomous status legally binding. Source: Adapted from Sarin (1993). See also Banerjee (1989). * forming women's groups and farm forestry Forestry and environmental curricula are now associations; more sensitive to local needs. Training programs encourage hiring more women and tribal people • providing technical support to small-scale as forestry extension technicians and forest and forest product processing and development of park guards. energy alternatives; and Capacity building takes a variety of forms: • monitoring village-based conservation efforts. formal forestry educational programs, forestry extension and in-service training, nonformal Many capacity building programs have been training, workshops, seminars and public financed by the Bank and the GEF to strengthen education, and forestry outreach programs to management capability of NGOs and village women's groups, forest industry associations groups (see Box 4). These programs address the and other key stakeholders. Effective training needs of these groups in improving organiza- programs relate the subject matter to stakehold- tional and management skills, developing ers' concerns. They are developed through socially acceptable forestry technologies and village meetings, participatory rural appraisals conservation approaches, and improving mecha- (PRAs), group consultations, and other partici- nisms for conflict resolution. patory techniques. For example, workshops conducted by a management consulting firm 10 Environment Department Papers Lessons From Bank and GEF Experiences Box 4 NGO and Local Capacity Building in GEF/Bank-Financed Biodiversity Conservation Projects Country Amount NGO and Local Capacity Building Programs (US$000) Slovak Republic 100.0 The project will provide 15 to 20 small grants to NGOs, including funding for workshops, village meetings, and training Czech Republic 100.0 The European Trust for Cultural and Natural Wealth, through its Prague office, will administer a competitive grants program to local NGOs that covers such areas as conservation training, outreach, and technical studies Congo no amount Direct financial support will be given to local NGOs for local resource given management, small-scale sustenance development, and organizing NGO coalitions and federations Ukraine 45.7 The Danube Delta Project will support NGOs for ecological monitor- ing, conservation education, and socioeconomic studies. This will be administered through the Nature Protection and Regeneration Fund, the Ecological Club of Vilkova, and the World Wildlife Fund- Germany Lao PDR 4,500.0 Grants will enable local NGOs and villages to participate in land use planning, support resource management technicians, and hire community organizers Philippines 17,130.0 The project is a direct grant to The NGOs for Integrated Protected Areas, [nc., a consortium of national environmental NGOs and numerous other community-based NGOs. A US$10.0 million Com- munity Livelihood Fund will support NGO and village socioeco- nomic projects and employment activities with loans or grants. during preparation of the Bank-financed West investing the time and resources required to Bengal II and Andhra Pradesh forestry projects ensure sustainable forest uses. The long gesta- in India identified training priorities in new tion period of forestry and conservation invest- technologies, micro planning, group organiza- ments compared to other agricultural enterprises tion, financial management, use of PRAs and demands a greater security over returns on forestry and conservation project monitoring investments. Many traditionally used forests techniques. have been nationalized, and regulations restrict- ing ownership and disposal of trees on commu- Lesson 4: Appropriate Incentives are Needed nity and private forest lands frequently under- to Sustain Stakeholder Participation mine local or indigenous claims to resources. For example, in Honduras and India some laws (a) Provide Secure Tenure and Rights to prevent farmers from felling, transporting, or Forest Users selling trees without government permission. For community participation to work, beneficia- Some traditional forest use rights are retained, ries should have secure tenure as an incentive for but are usually limited to low value products Participation Series 11 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation granted on a concessional basis. This reduces ers' costs or actual returns expected from differ- incentives for maintaining the resource. ent forestry treatments and resources. However, efforts to provide tenure security face The lack of equitable allocation of costs and formidable constraints. The overlapping claims benefits between stakeholders often discourages to forest resources by government, forest user participation and reduces incentives for sus- groups, and industry make adjudicating tenure tained use of the resource. When costs and rights a complicated process. Legal rights are responsibilities of stakeholders are reasonably frequently unenforced or ambiguous. In addition, proportionate to rights and benefits, forestry the government, as the nominal owner of most projects will have a greater chance of success. forest areas, is frequently reluctant to grant legal The sharing arrangements are likely to motivate rights to local users for fear that they will lose participation if widely understood and agreed control and income from forests. With increasing upon by all stakeholders through an open commercial value for mushrooms, medicinal negotiating process, especially among indig- plants, orchids, and other forest products, enous groups, women, and people from landless questions about tenure are constantly coming households, who are often left out. However, into contention. For example, publicly endorsed given the differences in stakeholder shares under written agreements between government and various conditions, no single formula for sharing forest user communities over the sharing of forest forest benefits can be applied to all tenure and benefits and management responsibilities have managementaffangements. been instrumental in resolving tenure conflicts in Bank-financed community forestry projects in (c) UseSociallyAcceptableTechnologies Nepal and India (see Box 5). Attempts to encourage households, villages, and (b) Share Benefits andManagement industry to invest in reforesting and planting Responsibilities highly degraded or unproductive lands or low User investments in forestry are important in value natural forests have often been stymied by User thestmentabin for are ma nt the lack of workable, cost-effective, and appropri- creating accountability for forest management. aefrs ehoois eas fti,eooi However, cost-sharing formulas used in some ate forest technologies. Because of this, economi- Bank forestry projects have been so arbitrary that cally attractive alternative land uses, including benefits are not commensurate with stakehold- slash-and-bum agriculture or grazing, are adopted. Box 5 Tenure and Access to Forests in Nepal and India Property Rights to Villages in Nepal. The forestry project in Nepal financed by the Bank allowed user communities to take over forest management Forest users received certificates ensuring long-term rights to forest benefits, with approval of village forest management plans the only control wielded by the Nepal state forestry agency. However, before recognition of long-term tenure the project had to recognize the multiple, and often conflicting, rights to forests by local villagers. Use-Rights to Forest Protection Committees in India. In the Bank financed West Bengal II forestry project in India, written agreements between the state and villages established ownership and use rights to forest protection committees. However, to maintain rights over forests, each committee had to provide evidence of sustainable forest use. Source: World Bank. 1989. Nepal Hill Community Forestry; World Bank. 1992. West Bengal Forestry II. 12 Envirornent Department Papers Lessons From Bank and GEF Experiences Most forest technologies, which rely on tradi- enough to allow for intercropping and planta- tional management approaches, create major tions with multitiered and diverse trees and constraints for local users. For example, the use shrubs. Adopting new silvicultural management of closely spaced fuelwood plantations such as systems was important to increasing local user Eucalyptus, Luceanae, Albizza, Prosopis, and other participation in monitoring tree cutting and exotic species provide no returns because the harvesting. Community-defined rules on deter- trees have poor market value. As a result, thte mining tree cutting blocks were more effective levels of community responsibility for these than the standardl approaches, which relied plantations and the survival rates of trees have upon large forest areas, selective thinning, been low. marking trees for felling, and harvesting quotas. Village monitoring systems deterred thefts by In contrast, participation of communities re- rotating community patrols and the use of other mained high when there was an annual flow of social sanctions. Villages restricted the amount income from non-timber forest products (NTFPs) of harvest in terms of species, size, area, and such as agricultural intercrops, fodder or thatch time. By using locally defined plantation man- grass, and commercially valuable seeds or agement rules, the entire community understood leaves. These occurred in plantations large and enforced the rules. Participation Series 13 3. Creating an Enabling Environment Defining a National Forestry and Box 6). Conservation Agenda DonorMeetings Different approaches and techniques have been Multilateral and bilateral donor agencies play used to ensure government commitment to important roles in helping governments initiate broad stakeholder participation in determining activities that promote a broader forestry and forest sector and national conservation objec- conservation agenda. However, most activities tives. Some examples are given below. that non-Bank donors finance tend to be smaller in scale, scientific or technical in nature, Regional Policy Dialogues and generally geared to nongovernmental The Bank is involved in several international institutions. Donor meetings are important in and regional forestry and conservation net- coordinating initiatives to assist governments in works and programs (see Annex 2). This involve- defining a national forestry and conservation ment has ranged from direct financing of work- agenda. shops, special regional studies, and similar activities to representation in meetings. Regional Bank-Government Policy Dialogues policy dialogues are often conducted at the Most Bank-financed forest sector reviews and ministerial level. As such, they have been biodiversity conservation strategiesinclude valuable in convincing governments to devolve analysis of forestry and related land use greater authority to forest users. This is accom- priorities, thus providing important plished by highlighting the experiences of other opportunities to initiate substantive policy countries that promote participatory forestry. discussions with government decisionmakers For example, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan and key stakeholders. During such policy policy dialogues in Ethiopia facilitated reforms dialogues, new approaches to forestry and to promote social and community forestry (see conservation development can be introduced Box 6 The Ethiopia Forestry Action Plan The Bank-supported Tropical Forestry Action Plan initiated a series of policy dialogues and studies with the government of Ethiopia. Throughout the three-year and largely country-driven process, the Ethiopia Forestry Action Plan made use of extensive, multisectoral consultations that included NGOs and representa- tives of forest communities as participants in stakeholder workshops. In addition to these consultations, the government of Ethiopia introduced several reforms to decentralize forestry project management, such as giving greater autonomy to local forestry units and allowing a percentage of locally generated forest benefits (for example, from harvest sales) to be used by forest communities. Source: World Bank (1986, 1994a). 14 Environment Department Papers Creating an Enabling Enviromnent by citing global and regional forestry trends and enable funds to reach beneficiaries and ensure discussing relevant Bank policies that support that financing is available over a longer time participatory approaches.' period. These approaches include the following: Issues or Position Papers * Increasing private sector involvement by Issues or position papers prepared by research opening up lines of credit, underwriting institutions, forest industry, conservation private sector forestry investments, or NGOs, and other experts are useful in building endorsing joint contractual private manage- awareness among polcymakers about key ment of forests, reserves, and parks (Indone- forestry and conservation issues. It is important sia Forestry II, Burma Forestry II, and the to ensure that equity concerns and needs of forestry development projects in Zambia, disadvantaged populations are addressed in Philippines, Bangladesh, Costa Rica). these papers. For example, in the Philippines, * Direct funding to NGOs instead of government Thailand, and Zimbabwe, issue papers on a h forest population, poverty, and tenure provided agencies has sometimes been effective in the basis for social forestry legislation.2 Other delivering funds directly to communities. For tmporantsfo poliy docents leinlun W2OrlBnk example, the Bank/GEF-financed Conserva- (199lb; 1994b, chapters 3, 5, 7; 1994c; 1994e) and tion of Priority Protected Areas Project in the GEE and World Bank (1994). Philippines is set up as a grant to a consor- tium of NGOs for implementing biodiversity Stakeholder Workshops conservation programs. Government agencies may be encouraged to * Trustfunds to support community reforesta- sponsor and facilitate workshops to discuss key tion and protect biodiversity (Bhutan, forestry and conservation policy issues. When Uganda) are useful when returns to invest- governments are actively involved in policy ments in time and resources occur over the discussions with stakeholders, forestry reforms long term or require extended time horizons are easier to introduce. NGOs are sometimes for sustaining activities. By ensuring that asked to organize such workshops. Workshop funds are available, local groups can estab- output may be supplemented with information lish and staff village-based extension from small group meetings and expert interviews services. with other stakeholders. For example, the multisectoral forest and tree farming stakehcilder * Debt-for-nature swap programs generate the workshops in Mexico and Zimbabwe have been initial or start-up capital. The assets are helpful in identifying key reforms in forest tenure invested in government securities, earning policy, marketing regulations of non-wood market rates of interest. Funds may be products, and delineating protected areas for disbursed by government agencies, semi- biodiversity conservation. autonomous public corporations, or private foundations and NGOs that are set up for Devolving Resources and Authority conservation management. The following tools for designing a national * Multiplefunding through other donors allows institutional framework for forestry and conser- financing of activities that are normally vation programs promote devolution of manage- difficult to implement under bureaucratic ment authority to forest users through decentral- conditions. For example, it is easier to ized financing and other administrative reforms. channel funds to NGOs and local villages through other donors who may have less Decentralized Financing. Several alternatives have bureaucratic procedures for funds disburse- been used in Bank- and GEF/ Bank-financecl ment, or who are not required to deal with forestry and biodiversity conservation projects to national and local governments. Participation Series 15 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Administrative Reforms implementation, and evaluation (Zimbabwe, Mexico); Changes in government administrative proce- organization of a national committee and dures include streamlining project reporting and r s monitoring, expanding staff hiring (including rmuaion subcommittees to assist in the more women and local hires as forest and introducing park guards), and more flexible plans (Ethiopia, Thailand, Ghana, India); procurement procedures (see Box 7). In practice, * designation of conservation units in other it is not necessary for local stakeholders to be government agencies, local governments, directly involved in conducting procedural and semiprivate environmental and forest reforms. However, conducting such reforms agencies (Ecuador, Brazil, the Philippines); saves time and resources and grants flexibility to NGOs and other intermediaries, improving * formation of multsectoral management or chances for local involvement. advisory committees to institutionalize stakeholder consultation and participation In some cases, there is a need for forestry and in decisionmaking and management environmental agency restructuring to decentral- (Uganda, Thailand, Indonesia, Tanzania). ize decisionmaking and implementation. Notes Examples of restructuring that have been tried in 1. Some relevant Bank policies indude the operational Bank- and GEF/Bank-financed forestry and policies (OPs) or operational directives (ODs) on biodiversity projects include: forestry (OP 4.36), wildlands (OP 11.02), indigenous peoples (OD 4.20), resettlement (OD 4.30), * creation of new extension units for forestry environmental action plans (OP, BP 4.02), involving and biodiversity conservation bureaus NGOs in Bank-supported activities (OD 14.70), (Algeria Niger) p i an ......institutional management of cultural property (OP 11.03), (Algeria, Niger) provides an mshtubonaldisclosure of operational information (OP. BP 17.50), mechanism for decentralizing operations; and procedures for investment operations under the Gnlobal Environment Facility (OD 9.01). * set-up of subnational forestry and conserva- tion committees to assist in project planning, 2. See Bradley and McNamara (1993) for examples of issues papers in forestry. See also Cleaver and others (1992). Box 7 Reforms in Procurement Procedures to Facilitate Stakeholder Participation in Bank-Financed Forestry and GEF/Bank-Financed Biodiversity Conservation Projects Direct purchases by communities after prequalification by the forestry and environmental project field office allows local users to select and purchase forest inputs without having to go through a competitive bidding process (West Bengal I and II, Nepal Forestry I, Ethiopia Forestry). Non-Bank donor funds enable forest communities to purchase materials directly; most non-Bank donors need not deal with governments to purchase inputs (Haiti Forestry, Niger Forestry II, India Andhra Pradesh). Indirect procurement through intermediaries (NGOs, forestry firms) that have government service techni- cal assistance contracts shifts responsibility for procurement from public agencies to NGOs, which are not bound to follow rigid procurement and accounting regulations (Niger Forestry II, Central African Republic Natural Resources Management, Philippines Smallholder Tree Farming and Forestry). Bulk purchasing by intermediaries (NGOs, forestry firms) for several villages or subprojects provides economies of scale in processing time and acquisition and reduces unit costs of inputs and transportation (Haiti Forestry). 16 Environment Department Papers 4. Facilitating Local Participation in Project Design, Implementation, and Evaluation Local participation is effective when there is is to conduct social assessments (SAs). The secure tenure and access to forest resources ;md Bank's best practice paper (1994e, p. 2) defines when the benefits and responsibilities of forest SA as "the systematic investigation of the social management are shared among forest users. processes and social factors that affect develop- Socially acceptable and manageable forestry and ment impacts and results." Because forestry and conservation technologies and sufficient conservation projects cover a range of environ- capacity to support local forest and conservation mental conditions and social and institutional management are also important factors that circumstances, different forms of SAs maybe affect effectiveness. needed. This depends on the objectives and repercussions of the project and how they relate To ensure that these considerations are incorpo- to livelihoods, cultural practices, the environ- rated into project design and integrated into ment, and society. A classification of these implementation and evaluation activities, tools projects is provided in Box 8. for engaging local stakeholders are needed in a number of areas. These include participatory Results of SAs help determine techniques for: * who are the project's primary stakeholders l gathering appropriate information about (e.g., beneficiaries, affected people); key stakeholders and social issues; * how the project can better address needs of * creating a consensus to facilitate affected groups; decisionmaking and participation of * ways stakeholders can participate in forestry different stakeholder groups; and biodiversity conservation project management; and * building local capacity for management of large resources by diverse user groups; * types of risk management strategies required. (Broad-based stakeholder participation is * resolving conflicts over competing foresi: most critical during the conduct of SAs.) uses and users; and In practice, the Bank and GEF assist govern- * developing participatory monitoring and ments in formulating terms of reference and evaluationactivities. identifying the international or national NGOs will do the SAs. Useful selection criteria include Gathering Appropriate Informationt capacity to work with local groups (who may not speak the national language); experience in Conduct of Social Assessments doing fieldwork using participatory data gathering and analysis techniques; and ability to One way to find out how the project affects the translate findings into outputs relevant to the livelihood and cultural practices of local people project. Participation Series 17 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Box 8 Classification of Social Assessment by Type of Project in Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation Type 1: Forestry and conservation projects with potentially negative social repercussions, such as resettle- ment of populations inside core conservation zones, displacement of indigenous peoples, serious opposition from stakeholders, or other serious social risks. Formal SAs should be carried out. Type 2: Forestry and conservation projects with social objectives such as improving the well-being of indigenous peoples and women; projects where success depends upon beneficiary participation, such as joint forest management or village-based conservation; or other significant social concerns such as environmental awareness to control encroachments into parks. Formal SAs are highly desirable. Type 3: Forestry and conservation projects that indirectly impact local populations and where limited stakeholder involvement is needed (e.g., plantation forestry, commercial extractive reserves). No formal SAs are required, but consideration of possible social impact is desirable. Type 4: Forestry and conservation projects with no significant social impact or risk, such as remote and underpopulated biodiversity sites. No formal SAs are required. Source: Adapted from World Bank (1996). Participatory Rural Appraisal to change and Bank policies that are explicit PRA data gathering techniques emphasize about the need for specialized interventions collection of multidisciplinary information (support for women's roles in forest conserva- across various levels and types of stakeholders tion, recognition of tribal lands). (see Box 9). For example, key informant inter- Gender Analysis views and group meetings are often done among local groups such as forest farners and women The key issues in forestry gender analysis are and intermediaries such as firms. Some of these recognizing the dependence of women on forest techlniques involve groups of people in data products for income and livelihood; building collection (social mapping, transects) and in upon local knowledge of management by women longer-term field observations (community case of trees and land; dealing with existing inequi- studies, time lines). There is wide applicability of ties in sharing and distributing forest resources; PRA techniques outside community forestry and and involving women in identification, design, conservation projects, induding plantation implementation, and monitoring and evalua- forestry and commercial extractive reserve tion of forestry and conservation projects. projects. Gender analysis techniques are used to evalu- Beneficiary Assessment ate the following processes: Beneficiary assessment and other client feedback * impact of rapid forest depletion and zoning techniques (such as systematic client surveys of protected areas on the livelihood of and direct observations) are useful in identifying women; forestry policy reforms that may affect under- represented stakeholder groups (induding * effects of changing family structures on the indigenous peoples, landless households, and productivity of women (for instance, number women). The units of analysis in beneficiary of children and birth spacing; household assessments are populations that are vulnerable formation); 18 Environment Department Papers Facilitating Local Participation Box 9 Patticipatory Rural Appraisal in Forestry Projects in India Participatory rural appraisal techniques were extensively used by NGOs in India during the preparation of Bank-financed forestry projects in West Bengal 11, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Prior to data collec- tion, training workshops were conducted by the NGOs to identify data and the participatory methods for collecting it. The categories of information generally cove,red were: * forest community profiles (population, history, social organization); * national forestry land laws; * spatial information, forest inventories, and classifications (e.g., forest land and other land uses); * stakeholders or forest users; and * perceived forestry project risks. Participatory methods included the following: group meetings and public hearings; social mapping and transects; group interviews; community case studies; ranking, rating, and sorting; farmers' records; open- ended stories; semistructured interviews; and farmer-assisted land use surveys. PRA results helped in the design of forest land use priorities; identification of forest uses and forest user concerns; identification of potential project risiks, threats, and perceived problems; and development of appropriate tree technologies. In particular, the gender-based inventory of fields helped in zoning of areas based upon women's needs for fuelwood and food gathering. Source: Society for the Protection of Wetlands Development (1993). * changes in livelihood and income for women gives users maximum variety and serve as from new forest and conservation technolo- potential sources of new products and diversi- gies; and fied incomes. * impact on women when forestry and Creating a Consensus conservation project organizers fail to recognize their contributions or involve them Many techniques have been used to build in management (see Box 10). consensus and expand decisionmaking of Bank- and GEF/Bank-financed forestry and Local Knowledge and Technology biodiversity conservation projects. These tech- niques involve conducting opinion surveys Stakeholder participation in forestry and among project participants, encouraging biodiversity protection has helped prevent decisionmaking through village or focus group indigenous knowledge from being lost. Since meetings, and developing agreements among productive technologies for the varied forestry stakeholder groups using negotiations and ecological conditions are not always available, contracts. investments in scientific research are enriched through local knowledge (see Box 11). Indig- Consensus building techniques are appropriate enous uses of medicinal plants and other NT'FPs, when there is free expression of opinion, espe- for example, are important in developing forest cially among disadvantaged groups, and when management and conservation technologies that the decisionmaking process enables participants Participation Series 19 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Box 10 Women's Participation in Bank-Financed Forestry Projects Uganda: women established tree nurseries. Together with assistance from trained forestry extension workers, women in the Bank-assisted Uganda Forestry/ Firewood Project established tree nurseries within group-controlled lands. In addition, tree seedlings given to women by the forestry agency were planted around home lots and nearby wood lots. Kenya: women participated in forest-sharing agreements. With the assistance of an international NGO (CARE), the Bank-financed Kenya Forestry Development Project solicited the help of women in devising an agreement between the government and local users for distributing agroforestry or intercrop benefits (since women controlled most village agroforestry lands). During project implementation, the crucial role of women in recording households that received harvest shares made them key players in resolving conflicts over forest benefits. India: women as members of forest protection committees (FPCs). In the West Bengal II Project, the Bank worked with the state forestry agency and other NGOs to permit and encourage women as FPC members. This allowed women to fully participate in decisionmaking and receive a more equitable share of timber harvests. When women were given responsibilities in these committees, the project then gained wider support and spread rapidly to other villages. Sources: FAO and SIDA (1991); Molnar and Schreiber (1988); World Bank (1987, 1990, 1992). to fully consider alternatives (through, for ment responsibilities (tree planting and example, information disdosure and transpar- maintenance, protection of forest ency in forestry and conservation project resources). management). As shown in Box 12, the results of such surveys Opinion Surveys can be useful in defining management proce- Opinion surveys are especially useful in forestry dures, determining which tree species are and biodiversity conservation projects that affect preferred localy, and planting and conserva- large numbers of people in two or more villages. tion techologies. Often the affected populations belong to different Village or Focus Group Meetings ethnic or cultural groupings. This diversity of interests makes decisionmaking more complex. Village meetings, or focus group meetings with a Opinion surveys focus on generating consensus smaller number of people, are useful in helping about a key issue. Topics normally covered in to reach consensus on various aspects of forestry such surveys include: and biodiversity conservation project manage- ment. Intermediary groups (such as NGOs and * representing the forestry and biodiversity religious organizations) help facilitate such conservation project decisionmaking process meetings. Role playing and other techniques (Who will represent forest users? What is the used in group dynamics engage participants in selection process?); dialogue and encourage consensus building. However, because of the remote locations of * determining benefit flows (What forest many Bank- and GEF/Bank-financed forestry products are allowed? How are benefits to be and conservation projects, the meetings often distributed across users?); and conform to local realities. During preparation of the Bank-financed Ghana Forestry Project, for * clarifying forestry and conservation manage- example, people walked several days just to 20 Environment Department Papers Facilitating Local Participation Box 11 Learning from Indilgenous Practices to Increase Local Participation amd Improve Forest Productivity Using underexploited tree and crop species in Africa. Trees in agroforestry systems in Africa provide many other products and services, such as food, fiber, medicines, oils, and gums used by many indigenous groups (e.g., Elaeis guineensis for oil, wine, thatch, and mulch; Moringa oleifera as a source of edible flowers and leaves and fodder; Xylopia aethiopica as a tobacco substitute and fuel in most of Kenya and the Farlo regions in Senegal). The annual harvestable production from leaves and fruits is about 300 kg/ha in most Sahel areas and over 600 kg/ha in the Sudano-Sahel. Annual increments from the non-woody biomass of trees, shrubs, and palms is roughly equivalent to a daily per capita food intake of 450 to 1,800 kgs (Cook and Grut, 1989). Crop-livestock-fallow rotations. In forestry projects financed by the Bank in Zimbabwe and Haiti, documenta- tion of indigenous crop-grazing systems has encouraged rotating crop cultivation, grazing, and tree-shrub fallow. The rotation involves two or more subpopulations in the project site but often one piece of land. Because land is appropriated on the basis of kinship and ethnic affiliation, several families have userights to the land over a certain period of time. This multiple use arrangement encourages participation of other user groups. Sources: Cook and Grut (1989); Nair (1990); World Bank (1985). See also Davis (1993, 1994). attend. During implementation of this project, * management and leadership background local leaders proposed rotating meetings frorm and experiences; and village to village. In the case of the Bank-financed Algeria Forestry Project, less frequent meetings * community standing of potentialforestry were needed to accommodate seasonal move- and biodiversity conservation project leaders ments of the nomadic population. Law and order and managers (such as social status). problems required two Bank-financed forest projects in Nigeria and Bhutan to adopt centbal- Managetnent Training ized management and for the government to Most of Bank- and GEF/Bank-financed forestry enforce forest user rules. and biodiversity conservation projects require training local leaders in project management. Building Local Capacity Such training involves development of monitor- ing and evaluation. NGOs are often contracted Skill Mix Surveys by governments to conduct management train- A basic requirement in local capacity building is ing. Useful goal-oriented programming ap- to assess existing management skills. This may proaches include Objectives-Oriented Project entail surveying local leaders and key subpop?u- Planning or ZOPP and logical framework lations. NGOs assistin conducting these surveys analysis or LogFRAME (see World Bank, 1994c). and covering information on: Cross-Site Visits * number of potential participants in forestry One of the most effective tools for building local and conservation training programs; capacity and new attitudes is the study tour or visit to other forestry and biodiversity conserva- * demographic background of participants to tion projects within similar regions or project ensure involvement of all sectors (indig- conditions. During these visits, stakeholder enous peoples, women, landless house- groups are able to meet with counterparts who holds); have tried new methods of participatory manage- Participation Series 21 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Box 12 Opinion Surveys in the Design of the Philippines SmallholderTree Farming and Forestry Project The Bureau of Forest Development (BFD), in cooperation with a local university research group, conducted an opinion survey during the first year of implementation of the Bank-financed Philippines Smallholder Tree Farming and Forestry Project. A small sample of participating households was interviewed regarding: their preferences for tree species, their recommendations on where and when to plant tree seedlings, and who would represent their village in the project management committee and how the representatives would be selected. Results of the survey helped project technicians select tree species based on commercial preferences (e.g., fuelwood, fruit trees). The survey results also helped decide the composition of the project management committee using village boundaries (rather than land area, which BFD officials initially suggested). People preferred elections by secret ballot to minimize conflicts among competing villages. Source: Bureau of Forest Development (1979). ment under similar conditions, and question power relationships that may cause the them about issues they perceive as important. conflict, especially in terms of accessing forest resources. Resource Mobilization Special skills are often needed in organizing Negotiations on Acceptable Land Uses labor and generating capital and other re- and Boundaries sources for project activities, calling meetings In some cases, resolving conflicts may entail and generating consensus, and resolving forest changing boundaries and land uses. The zoning disputes. NGOs are helpful intermediaries for of forest lands for specific uses, such as water- mobilizing resources through contacts with sheds, rehabilitation, or biodiversity protection multilateral funding agencies and private prior to delineating project boundaries often firms. causes conflict if the project fails to recognize existing land uses. The government's executing Resolving Conflicts agency may jointly define the zones with village representatives, and an agreement is Conflict management is important in areas reached on project boundaries, tenure, and where resource users' livelihood objectives access rights. In exchange for complying with compete with other objectives, such as this agreement, participating households receive biodiversity protection or sustainable forestry. sustenance support and other social services. Effective conflict management involves the following basic principles: The delineation of zones and benefits that accrue to cooperating communities are sometimes * focusing solutions on underlying interests of finalized through a series of negotiations among users, such as their livelihoods; different stakeholders. For example, contracts between government, forest villages, and * addressing procedural as well as substan- fuelwood collectors in the Burkina Faso and tive conflicts over the use of resources; Madagascar forestry projects financed by the Bank specify which subgroups manage portions * involving all affected stakeholders in of watersheds and protected areas. In other resolving conflicts; and cases, sites outside protected forests are re-zoned to accommodate multiple land uses (Czech * understanding the social structure and Republic, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Ecuador). 22 Environment Department Papers Facilitating Local Participation Several methods for reaching consensus and Participatory Monitoring and reducing disputes over boundaries are used Evaluation (M&E) during negotiations. Some examples from Bank- and GEF/Bank-financed forestry and conserva- There are existing guidelines for detecting tion projects are given below. changes in the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of forestry and biodiversity conserva- Group Consultations and Village Meetings tion projects (see, for example, GEF and World Several meetings were held in the Bank financed Bank, 1993). Ways to make M&E more participa- forestry project in Nepal to ascertain which tree tory include building periodic stakeholder species were preferred by men and women, amd feedback into monitoring project changes, who, among villagers, could be hired for tree orgarnizing joint government and stakeholder planting and nursery maintenance. Group group evaluations, and subcontracting M&E to consultations and meetings were used to clarify intermediaries or local groups. responsibilities across villages and gender groups and minimize conflicts over who should Process Documentation be actively involved in project management. It may be necessary to help governments docu- ment the progress of planned forestry and Negotiation with Community Leaders conservation-related activities. By recording the Formal agreements with officials in Bank- types of information disseminated throughout financed forestry projects in Cameroon and the project and the nature and frequency of Ghana designated for harvesting tree bark, cane, stakeholder consultations and participation, a and chewing sticks were effective in defining the systematic learning approach is built into project scop of forestuserrights. Thewrittenagree. 'monitoring and evaluation. Such documentation scope of forest user rignts. The written agree-otnctasderiinsfsakhlr' ments facilitated distribution of forest project often contains descriptions of stakeholders' benefits across villages and user groups, espe- instit ution hesr roes anld responsibilities, and cially among women. Dispute Resolution Processes Documentation may be in the form of written reports, videos or slides, or pictures and illustra- Once a conflict occurs, all affected parties are tions. PRA results such as social mapping brought into the resolution process. Such open exercises, transecs, community case studies, and negotiations provide a means for understanding diagrams provide valuable input. With proper and sorting out the sources of conflict. This gives documentation, problems are detected during conflicting parties a sense of ownership (or supervision, facilitating strategic planning and stewardship) over the outcome of the dispute risk management. resolution process. Joint Monitoring and Evaluation The resolution of a dispute can break down for a Sometforetry and b versityon variety of reasons. The diversity of the popula- Some foresLry and biodiversity conservation tion (several villages and etluric groups, compet- projects in Niger, India, and Malawi have ing forest users) may make resolution difficult. organized joint government and stakeholder The parties to the conflict may have unequal monitoring and evaluation groups. In general, power or st , or oe pthe government measures the technical indica- power or status, or one party may be politicallyg powerless, illiterate, or disenfranchised by the tors (such as seedlngs and tree plantation rates resolution process (unequal treatment of indig- or financial management), while stakeholder resolutifonproestdws (unleqal aitreatment ofer igroups are in charge of the social and participa- enous forest dwellers in legwal arbitration over Lo set ffrsr aaeet R logging areas). Resolution may be hindered tion aspects of forestry management. PRA whnteol opio is to efrc lea sac techniques are sometimes used to gather new wens theonflys o tion s te foregalanc- data that are compared with previously collected rights). information to detect changes in forestry project performance. Participation Series 23 Annex 1: World Bank-Financed Forestry Projects with Social and Participation Components, by Region Loan/Credit Region/Country Project Name Year (US$ millions) Africa 574.8 Niger Forestry Technical Assistance 1978 4.5 Burundi Forestry 1979 4.3 Mali Afforestation I 1979 4.5 Rwanda Integrated Forestry & Livestock 1980 34.3 Malawi NRDP Wood Energy II 1980 21.0 Burkina Faso Forestry 1980 14.5 Senegal Forestry 1981 9.3 Niger Forestry II 1982 10.1 Kenya Forestry Im 1982 37.5 Zimbabwe Rural Afforestation 1983 7.3 Burundi Forestry II 1985 12.8 Nigeria Forestry II 1986 71.0 Malawi Wood Energy II 1986 16.7 Ethiopia Forestry 1986 45.0 Mali Forestry II 1986 6.3 Uganda Forestry/Firewood 1987 13.0 Rwanda Forestry II 1987 14.1 Central African Rep. Natural Resources Management 1990 19.9 Cote d'Ivoire Forestry Sector 1990 13.8 Kenya Forestry Development 1990 146.8 Zimbabwe Forest Resources Management & Development 1990 19.9 Benin Management of Natural Resources 1992 14.1 Mali Natural Resource Management 1992 20.0 24 Environment Department Papers Annex 1 Loan/Credit Region/Country Project Name Year (uJS$ millions) Asia 898.1 Philippines Smallholder Treefarming & Forestry 1977 6.7 India Uttar Pradesh Foriestry Development 1979 23.0 India Gujarat Communuity Forestry 1979 37.0 Bangladesh Mangrove Forests 1980 11.0 Nepal Forestry I 1980 17.0 India West Bengal Social Forestry 1981 29.0 India Haryana and J.K. Social Forestry 1982 33.0 Nepal Forestry II 1983 18.0 India Kamataka Social Forestry 1983 27.0 Bhutan Forestry I 1984 5.5 India Kerala Social Forestry 1984 31.8 Bangladesh Forestry II 1985 28,0 India National Social Forestry 1985 165.0 Bhutan Forestry II 1988 1.1 Nepal Hill Community Forestry 1989 30.5 Sri Lanka Forestry Sector Development 1989 19.9 Indonesia Second Forestry Institutions & Cons. 1990 20.0 Bangladesh Forest Resources Management 1992 58.7 India Maharashtra Forestry 1992 142.0 India West Bengal Forestry 1992 39.0 Bhutan Forestry III 1994 8.9 India Andhra Pradesh Forestry 1994 89.0 India Forestry Researchi Education 1994 57.0 EMENA 305.5 Tunisia Forestry 1987 20.0 Morocco Forestry III 1990 100.0 Algeria Pilot Forestry & VVatershed Management 1992 37.4 Tunisia Second Forestry l)evelopment 1993 148.1 LAC 124.1 Haiti Forestry 1982 4.0 Brazil Minas Gerais Forestry 1987 48.5 Mexico Forestry Development 1989 45.5 Haiti Forestry & Environmental Protection 1992 26.1 Note: Classification of forestry projects based on project activities rather than on number of participants or percentage of total project costs allocated (due to unavailability of data). In general, for these projects, about 20 to 60 percent of project costs aire spent on activities that involve stakeholders. Source: Projects funded for 1979-89: World Bank (1991a). Participation Series 25 Annex 2: Social and Participation Components of Selected Bank- and GEF/Bank-Financed Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation Projects, 1990-95 Country/ Amount Social and Participation Year Project ($millions) Components Tunisia Second Forestry 69.0 Established village-based prairies, shrub and 1993 Project Development cactus plantations, and rehabilitation of existing pasture; carried out socioeconomic studies; and set up integrated forest pilot operations with NGOs. Bangladesh Forest Resources 49.6 Used integrated environmental and socio- 1992 Management Project economic criteria in design of management strategies to be endorsed by government; devel- oped pilot scheme for people's participation in forest development. Bhutan Third Forestry 5.4 Adopted multiple use management of forests; 1994 Development Project social forestry component included financing of NTFPs and related livelihood; involved rural communities in managing forests and improving farm output in tree planting on private lands. Indonesia Second Forestry 20.0 Involved local groups in the development of 1990 Institutions and plans and models for conservation and multi- Conservation Project sectoral sustainable use of mangrove resources and management of ten national parks. Philippines Conservation of 20.0 GEF-financed grant supported a new framework 1994 Priority Protected for partnership of government and NGOs in the Areas Project management of ten nationally protected areas; three-fourths of grant funds administered by an NGO consortium; local involvement in develop- ment of management plans; resolution of con- flicts at local level; provision of social funds for community livelihood projects. Kenya Forestry 19.9 Promoted pilot projects on tree farming through 1990 Development extension services (including some NGOs) to Project smallholders and rural communities; integrated indigenous forest conservation and protection practices into pilot farming projects. 26 Environment Department Papers Annex 2 Country/ Amount Social and Participation Year Project ($millions) Components Cote d'Ivoire Forestry Sector 80.0 Made use of private sector management of 1990 Project 500,000 hectares of gazetted forest lands under a long-term contract; supported private industry and local communities in preparation of a detailed land use and agricultural development plan for the buffer zones of one gazetted forest as a pilot project. Zimbabwe Forest Resources 1.4.5 Conducted rural afforestation in communal 1990 Management and areas; developed pilot project for wildlife and Development forest grazing using participatory resource Project management; private forestry industry improved efficiency of wood processing. Central African Natural Resource 19.0 Developed pilot agroforestry and land manage- Republic Management ment programs in the forest zone around Bangui 1990 Project to be implemented by local communities; pro- moted local participation in the protection of dense forest reserves and wildlife conservation. Morocco Second Forestry 49.0 Integrated local uses of forests for domestic stock 1990 Development grazing with protection of watersheds; used low Project cost techniques and community participation in forest range management and small water catchment projects; provided village plantations covering 5,000 hectares of fruit trees. Algeria Pilot Forestry and 25.0 Conducted participatory surveys of local resources 1992 Watershed and peoples' needs in identifying priorities; had Management negotiations between government and villages where Project government will provide social services and infrastruc ture while local villages will commit to natural re- sources management responsibilities; developed farm activities on private and collective lands; encouraged pilot reforestation operations using low cost techniques that also increased farmers' incomes. Haiti Forestry and 26.1 Provided long-term lease contracts between 1992 Environmental forest agency and farmers where farmers paid an Protection Project annual lease fee and implemented agreed upon conservation and cultivation practices; supported agroforestry activities of farmers living in and near the Pine Forest Reserve, Pic Macaya, and La Visite national parks and buffer areas; supported tree planting of fruit and timber, contour con- servation, soil conservation; distributed tree seedlings, trees in hedgerows, and credit to small peasant groups through subcontracting of NGOs who will design the implementation strategy in the Belle Anse area; government will sign agreements with NGOs that would specify their rights and obligations. Participation Series 27 Participation in Forest Management and Conservation Country/ Amount Social and Participation Year Project ($millions) Components Ecuador Biodiversity 6.7 Introduced legislative reforms that allowed 1994 Protection Project public and private property within reserve areas and gave rights to private property owners to participate in resource management; developed regulations for community participation in the administration of protected areas and buffer zones; outreach activities focus on conflict resolution through supported consultations and public awareness; used regional coordinating committees to oversee implementation and conflict resolution; financed studies of indigenous practices; engaged in negotiations between government and local communities on manage- ment of natural resources. Congo Wildlands 10.0 Developed protocol surveys of local populations; 1993 Protection and improved NGO capacity through training; Management created alternative economic activities for local Project populations; involved international NGOs in management of reserves in partnership with local villages. Czech Rep. Biodiversity 2,3 Conducted consultation and consensus building 1993 Protection Project at local and regional levels on design of manage- ment plans for protected areas; funded small grants program for NGOs; developed public awareness and education programs and on- ground research stations in local communities. Lao PDR Wildlife and Protected 5.0 Mobilized communities in and around four 1992 Areas Conservation protected areas to participate in planning and Project management of forest resources and buffer zones; US$1.3 million allocated for village development activities; identified areas to be demarcated for timber, fuelwood and NTFPs under long-term agreements with the forestry service; organized a conservation trust fund from external sources and the Forest Management Fund to finance village livelihood projects. Bolivia Biodiversity 4.5 Strengthened community participation in prepara- 1992 Conservation tion of management plans in protected areas; Project organized consultation with villages, colonists, and businesspeople; encouraged participation of indig enous groups identified by the Bolivian Indigenous Institute and the Indigenous Indian Federation; established a trust fund of about US$5 million for long- term financing of community livelihood and conserva tion projects. 28 Environment Department Papers Annex 2 CountLy/ amount Social and Participation Year Project ($millions) Components Poland Forest Biodiversity 4.5 Promoted of ecological agriculture affecting some 1992 Protection Program 450 small farmers in the Bialowieza Primeval Forest; introduced primary production of basic grains, forage crops, and potatoes and livestock improvement support schemes to increase farmers' incomes; provided cash incentives to farmers who shift from chemical to ecological agriculture; created the Bialowieza Primeval Forest Foundation to support long-term manage- ment of the area. Algeria El Kala National Park 9.2 Local Algerian social scientists conducted detailed 1994 and Wetlands Complex socioeconomic studies to design participatory Management Project management approaches; attracted US$100,000 to fund NGO participation, including active involvement of the University of Annaba, in coordinating participation of local groups in species inventories, studies, and adaptive re- search programs. India Andhra Pradesh 89.0 Formed forest protection committees for joint 1994 Forestry forest management; allowed retention of 25 percent of incomes to villages from sales of forest products; organized multisectoral committee to handle conflicts over forest production distribu- tion; encouraged joint village and state forestry agency monitoring and evaluation; conducted PRAs and Objectives-Oriented Project Planning workshops during project preparation, enabling participation of numerous stakeholder groups. India West Bengal 39.0 Supported joint forest management agreements 1992 Forestry 11 between state forestry agency and villages in periphery over distribution of benefits from forestry products and collection of NTFPs; allowed retention of 35 percent of incomes from sales of sal poles to local villages; during project preparation local NGOs conducted PRAs and training of forestry officials and village leaders. Mexico Forestry 45,5 Provided credit support to Amerindian commu- 1990 Development nities, based upon recommendations of completed Project surveys carried out in Durango and Chihuahua; financed purchase of traditional logging equipment of small producers and road maintenance for use by qidos and other small communities; encouraged institutional strengthening of National Amerindian Institute for local capacity building and assisted in credit applications of qidos. Participation Series 29 Annex 3: Selected International and Regional Forestry and Conservation Networks International Forestry Networks Regional network of about 300 members on agroforestry and trees and farms technolo- 1. Forests, Trees and People Programme (FTPP) gies. - International Rural Development Centre, 2. African NGOs Environmental Network Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, ANENcan P.O. Bonmental N enya Box 7005, S-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden; and (ANEN)-P.O. Box 53844, Nairobi Kenya Food and Agriculture Organization of the Includes agricultural and drylands; forestry United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy network links agriculture with forestry Focuses on community forestry activities; studies. network composed of individuals and inetituton; comiisted of ooperativelyby 3. Agricultural Information on Online Access institutions; administered cooperatively by- USDA, NAL Building, Beltsville, MD International Rural Development Centre 20705, U.S.A. (IRDC); Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Community Forestry Unit, FAO; 4. Agroforestry Research Networks in Africa SIL VA, France; and various regional pro- (AFRENA) - ICRAF, P.O. Box 30677, gram offices in Latin America, Asia, and Africa; publishes quarterly newsletter and Nairobi, Kenya monographs. Administered by the International Centre for Agroforestry; this network links agriculture 2. Rural Development Forestry Network and forestry research and outreach programs (RDFN) - Overseas Development Institute, in Africa. Regent's College, Regent's Park, Inner Circle, London NW1 4NS, England 5. Asian Pacific Agroforestry Network (APAN) More than 1,800 members worldwide are - Forest Research and Development Centre, included in this network; publishes a P.O. Box 382, Bogor 16001, Indonesia quarterly newsletter, monographs on social Focuses on agroforestry research, specifically forestry, and various other briefs; maintains on shifting cultivation systems. an extensive library available via online services such as the Internet and other 6. Current Agricultural Research Information electronic gateways (more than 4,220 titles System (CARIS) - c/o FAO, via delle Terme listed as of 1992). di Caracalla, 00100, Rome, Italy Regional Forestry Networks 7. Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE) - 7170 1. Agroforestry Information Service for the Turrialba, Turrialba, Costa Rica Pacific Region (AIS) - c/o NFTA, 1010 Holomua Road, Paia, Maui, Hawaii, 96779, U.S.A. 30 Environment Department Papers Annex 3 8. Center for Indigenous Knowledge for 16. International Tropical Timber Organization Agriculture and Rural Development (ITTO) - Sangyo Boeki Centre Bldg., 2 (CIKARD) - Iowa State University, Ames, Yamshita-cho, Naka-tu, Yokohama, Japan Iowa 50011 U.S.A. 17. International Society for Tropical Foresters 9. Center for International Forestry Research (ISTF) - 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, (CIFOR) - Jalan Gunung Batu 5, Bogor MD 20814, U.S.A. 16001, Indonesia 18. International Union for Forestry Research 10. European Tropical Forest Research Network Organizations (IUFRO) - ASFRIS (ETFRN) - c/ o ATSAF, Hans Bockler Str. 5, Programme, Federal Forest Research Station, DW-5300 Bonn 3, Germany Seckendorff-Gudent-Weg 8, A-1131, Wien, Austria 11. Forestry/Fuelwood Research and Develop- ment Network (F/FRED) - Kasetsart 19. Inter-Tribal Forestry Association of British University, Faculty of Forestry, P.O. Box Columbia - 201-515 Highway 97 South, 1038, Kasetsart Post Office, Bangkok 10903, Kelowna, British Columbia V1Z3J2, Canada Thailand This network was initially funded by 20. Inter-Tribal Timber Council - 4370 N.E. USAID; composed of over 1,000 members; Halsey St., Portland, Oregon, 97213, U.S.A. publishes a quarterly newsletter, mono- Association of nearly 100 American Indian graphs on forestry, agroforestry, and tribes in the U.S.; holds annual National fuelwood research. Indian Timber Symposium; provides technical and commercial support to forest- 12. International Association for the Study of owning Indian tribes Common Property (IASCP) - Woodburn Hall 200, Indiana University, Bloomington, 21. Oxford Forestry Institute - South Parks Rd., Indiana 47405, U.S.A. Composed of more Oxford 3RB, England than 4,000 subscribers to a quarterly newslet- ter and over 450 members from industrial 22. Regional Community Forestry Training and developing countries; sponsors biarn- Centre (RELOFTC) - Kasetsart University, nual conferences on common property, Bangkok 106900 Thailand tenure, and access topics. 23. Red de Informacion Forestal para America 13. International Council for Research in Latina y el Caribe (RIFALC) - Universidad Agroforestry (ICRAF) Global Study on Nacional del Nordeste, Avda. las Heras 727- Alternatives to Shifting Cultivation - P.o. 3500 Resistencia, Choco, Argentina Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya 24. Southeast Asia Sustainable Forest Manage- 14.. International Centre for Integrated Mountain ment Network - Centre for Southeast Asia Development (ICIMOD) - GPO Box 3226, Studies, University of California, 2223 Kathmandu, Nepal Fulton, #617, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. 15. Informacion y Documentacion Forestal para America Tropical (INFORMAT) - 7170 Turrialba, Turrialba, Costa Rica Participation Series 31 References Banerjee, Ajit Kumar. 1989. Shrubs in Tropical GEF (Global Environment Facility) and The Forest Ecosystems: Examples from India. Technical World Bank. 1993. Guidelinesfor Monitoring and Paper No. 103. Washington, D.C.: The World Evaluation of Biodiversity Projects. Washington, Barnk. D.C. Bradley, P.N., and K. McNamara. 1993. Living _ . 1994. Incorporating Social Assessment and with Trees: Policiesfor Forestry Management in Participation Into Biodiversity Conservation Projects. Zimbabwe. Technical Paper No. 210. Washington, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank and GEF. D.C.: The World Bank. Mohnar, Augusta, and Gotz Schreiber. 1988. Bureau of Forest Development. 1979. The Inte- Women and Forestry: Operational Issues. Technical grated Social Forestry Program of the Philippines. Paper No. 428. Washington, D.C.: The World Quezon City, Philippines: Department of Envi- Bank. ronment and Natural Resources. Nair, P.K,R. 1990. The Prospects of Agroforestry in Cleaver, Kevin, and others, eds. 1992. Conserva- the Tropics. Technical Paper No. 131. Washing- tion of West and Central African Rainforests. ton, D.C.: The World Bank. Environment Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. 1985. The Fuelwood Crisis in Tropical West Africa. Washington, D.C. Cook, C., and M. Grut. 1989. Agroforestry in Sub- Saharan Africa: A Farmer's Perspective. Technical .1986. "Ethiopia Forestry." Washington, Paper No. 112. Washington, D.C.: The World D.C. Bank. -. 1987. "Uganda Forestry/Firewood." Davis, Shelton, ed. 1993. Indigenous Views of Land Washington, D. C. and the Environment. Discussion Paper No. 188. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. .1989. "Nepal Hil Community Forestry.", Washington, D.C. _.___ 1994. The Social Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation. World Bank-Global Environment . 1990. "Kenya Forestry Development." Facility Working Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Washington, D.C. The World Bank and GEF. .1991a. Forestry: The World Bank's Experi- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the ence. Washington, D.C.: Operations Evaluation United Nations) and SIDA (Swedish Interna- DepartmenL tional Development Authority). 1991. Restoring the Balance: Women and Forest Resources. Rome. 32 Environment Department Papers References .1991b. The Forest Sector. A World Barn _.1994d. Review of Implementation of the Policy Paper. Washington, D.C. Forest Sector Policy. Washington, D.C. .1992. "West Bengal Forestry II." Washing- _. 1994e. Social Assessment: Incorporating ton, D.C. Participation and Social Analysis into the Bank's Operational Work. Washington, D.C. Environment .1994a. A Strategyfor the Forest Sector in Department. Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.: Africa Region Technical Department. .1995. "Social and Participation Issues in Biodiversity Conservation Projects: A Review of .1994b. Environmental Assessment GEF/Bank-Financed Pilot Phase Projects. Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Environment Washington, D.C.: Environment Department. Department. Draft. .1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook Washington, D.C.: Environmentally Sustainable Development. Participation Series 33 Environment Department The World Bank 818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 202 473 3641 . 202 477 0565 FAX :_._ ._ ._-_-_-_._._-_._-_ . Printed on 1 00%/.post-consmr recycled paper