Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Box 1.13
The Forest Sector in Cameroon
The World Bank has been involved in the forest sector
in Cameroon since 1982, and has helped put forest sector
issues at the center of policy debates and encouraged
a multisectoral approach. A review of the World
Bank’s engagement between 1982 and 1999 found that
interventions have appropriately focused on policy and
institutional issues, and some forest product marketing
has been liberalized. However, overall the results of the
interventions have not been up to expectations. At the
time, the establishment of a transparent, efficient, and
equitable forest management system was compromised
by lack of government commitment and capacity, the
resistance of key actors in the sector (including logging
companies and parliament), implementation strategies
that were not compatible with the underlying political
and socioeconomic dynamics, and lack of policy
implementation. In addition, forestry interventions
were isolated from broader rural development concerns
(agriculture, for example), and permanent mechanisms
for local participation in decision making were
not developed.
In Cameroon, tropical timber wealth is concentrated
in a small group of economic agents. The sustainability
and equity of the sector is largely determined
by the structure of the industry, ownership patterns,
industry investment, employment, and linkages
with the rest of the economy. The structural underpinnings
of the sector have been little affected and local
communities have been left out of the reform process
despite a declared objective to include them. The
World Bank recommended that communities be
actively involved in forest management and in 1994 a
law was passed to this effect. However, because rights
and responsibilities have not been specified, there are
no clear mechanisms for limiting elite capture and the
sharing of taxes has not been fully implemented.
Results, therefore, have been mixed.
Some lessons learned include (i) the need for
broadly based government support and avoiding relying
solely on the executive branch to deliver on reforms
because other powerful individuals or institutions may
have motivation to block changes; (ii) knowledge and
information are essential for policy making and implementation,
as are clarity and specificity of terms and
mechanisms for implementing laws and regulations;
(iii) local institutions are needed for success and sustainability;
and (iv) overdependence on technical assistance
does not always overcome institutional weakness.
Source: World Bank OED 2000.
■
■
■
Methods to enhance communities’ ownership and active
collaboration should be assessed for the given project
context. Participatory mapping exercises, using mapping
tools appropriate for the local communities, should be
included.
Capacity building is needed for local communities, government
staff, and other involved stakeholders.
Efforts to combine local practices (bottom-up) and government
or private approaches (top-down) are essential.
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PRACTITIONERS
Task managers need to keep in mind not only the technical
aspects of forest management but the dangers and limitations
of a top-down technical approach, the complexity of
forest dynamics, as well as local use and rights (both formal
and informal). In all cases, an understanding of the motivations
of the different actors to support or block the desired
changes is helpful in knowing if the donor-facilitated
changes will actually take place.
Control over and access to forests not only facilitate economic
growth and poverty reduction but also empower
local people to articulate themselves socially and politically.
The spillover effects of local control over forests, as in India,
Mexico, and Nepal, can be quite large and impact a range of
sectors and decision-making arenas. Because forests can be
such an important share of a poor community’s asset portfolio,
control over and access to forests is not a trivial governance
concern.
At the same time, it should be noted that not all community
management results in positive outcomes. There are
areas with strong migration where transfer of rights to communities
has not resulted in sustainable management of forest
resources (for example, Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire). In
other countries there is a need to revisit the definition of
community and distinguish between traditional communities
managing forests and management of forests by more
recently formed communities.
In many developing countries, significant attempts at
decentralization have taken place, which, in theory, could
greatly facilitate CBFM, local benefits, and empowerment
NOTE 1.2: COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT 35