Bridging communities and technocrats: Guinea’s experience on 

forest resources governance

Serge NgendakumanaMike  BalingaFernand DelacourAmara KeitaAbdon Awono

Regional workshop on “Moving beyond Forestry laws”

04– 08 May, 2009 Hôtel Nord‐Sud, Bamako, Mali

1

Presentation plan

•Introduction

•Forest governance challenges in Guinea

•Understanding some key terms

•Disconnect between technocrats and communities

•Solutions for linking technocrats and communities 

•Conclusion, critical issues and recommendations

2

Guinea’s Forests• Constitute one of the world’s 25

biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecosystems

• Endangered biodiversity species include elephants, pigmy hippopotamus, and chimpanzees

• They are of national, regional and global importance (International Public Goods)

Introduction

3

Introduction

• Differences between communities and forestry authorities perceptions on forest resources and their use has resulted in pressure on Guinea’s forest

• Differences are found especially in the following areas:- existing laws governing forest resources- behavior- practices

• Pressure on forest resources includes:- increased deforestation and loss of habitat- increased land degradation- watershed degradation and disruption of hydrological

balance- decrease animal biodiversity

• The recurrent question has been: How do we bridge the gap between main actors in charge of forest resource governance?

4

Forest Governance Challenges in Guinea

• Forest governance challenges in Guinea include:

(i) the non-mastery of legal texts

(ii) lack of resources to implement governmentforestry strategies

(iii) no regular policy review to fit in changingcontext at international level

(iv) poor involvement of communities to reconcilethe diverse interest of various forestsresources users.

5

Some key terms

• Forest governance - the way or form by which forests resources and other related units in the landscape are managed and regulated by the existing policies and bodies and also the manner how dependent interest groups are governed or involved in decision making processes

Forest governance

6

Some key terms

• Technocrat : a technical expert in a managerial or administrative position, member of a highly skilled elite group enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status (Thesaurus online)

• In common discussions technocrats are:  ‐ (i)Forestry staff with clear mandate and 

legitimacyto ensure forest resources planning and use.

‐ (ii) Any state agent working to facilitate andcatalyze effective forests conservation and protection for sustainability

‐ (iii) Non governmental organization cadres who are

striving to contribute to natural resourcemanagement in landscapes

Technocrats

7

• Community : a group of people living in a particular local area and under the same government having common interests, sharing origins and participating in the development of the district or locality in which they live (Thesaurus)

• In common discussions forest based communities: a group with good level of decision making, with shared values, traditional norms and governing resource use systems with a clear special boundary

Some key termsCommunity

8

• Commonality ‐ having a certain management capacity either individually or collectively, which may be derived from acquired skills or traditional knowledge. 

• Synergizing their capacities could lead to better strategies to govern forests resources for the benefits of forest dwellers and related ecosystems. 

Some key terms

Commonality between Technocrat and Community

9

ACTION RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

Village group discussions

Rapid participatory diagnosis

visioning/future scenarios, informal interviews

Stakeholders’ analysis

10

Disconnect between communities and technocrats: real or imagined• Keys gaps observed:

‐Weak collaboration‐ No coherent and concerted legal frameworks‐ Power struggle at local levels‐ Identity tags and colored perceptions betweencommunities and technocrats‐ Top‐down intervention approach for forestryprotection

‐ Non‐valuation of local knowledge‐ Exclusion rights and gender bias.

11

Reasons for disconnect• Policy makers and technocrats considered forests 

management to be a state business solely• Poor knowledge of existing forestry acts and policies by 

local communities – leaving room for severe misinterpretations to the detriment of local groups and exclusion of forests dependent populations from forest resources benefits.

• Strong commercial forestry kind of thinking by forest staff embedded in a kind of economic welfare ‐maximizing mainly timber and non timber trading for their own interests.

• Complete absence of power devolution• Frustration  of local forest users ‐ ending up in rebellious 

attitudes towards forests management 

12

Reasons for disconnect

• Communities are aware of environmental benefits from forests but militate for short term livelihoods alternatives that technocrats failed to provide

• Divergent visions with regards to forests resources uses and control. 

• “Conservationist or protectionist” approach to forest management

• Deliberate non‐consideration of local knowledge. • Suggestions were to have a more adapted participatory 

model and integrate community champions in Forests management plans where they exist

13

Solutions for linking communities and technocrats

• Two solutions were tested based on identified gaps and challenges: 

(i)Agroforestry based Schemes to benefit local communities 

(ii) Facilitating a stronger connection between stakeholders through co‐management 

14

(i)Agroforestry based Schemes to benefit local communities 

• The support consisted in testing agricultural and agroforestry options that serve as non‐cash incentives for community : improved seed varieties, capacity building and support for collective actions. 

• Improved income of small‐holder communities living within forests and on forest margins has proven to iron out communities grievances against technocrats.

‐ joint efforts in tree planting for land reclamation andwatershed protection and critical habitatsenrichments alongside reducing pressure on forestresources in classified forests and protected areas inGuinea.

‐ through collective actions, about 300 000 assortedagroforestry and forestry species have been planted in4 target landscapes by communities in collaborationwith technocrats

15

Bridging through Group Dynamics and collective actions

Negotiated capacity  building of both technocrats and communties

communities and technocrats joint effort to claim degraded forest areas through collective actions

16

Facilitating a stronger connection between stakeholders through co‐management

Establishment of co‐management committeesInstilling community openness and involvement in forest managementEstablishment of capacity building schemes which allows them to:‐ assess the importance of forests for their environment andlivelihoods‐ use available knowledge in planning and implementing managementstrategies‐ collaborate with other players including the state agents and cadres (technocrats); exchange of views, ideas and strategies.‐ enhance dialogue and interest conciliation‐ organize and manage themselves‐ elaborate and implement action plans‐monitor biodiversity indicators, design and implement projects‐manage finances‐ negotiate with other stakeholders, and integrate nationallegislation and global biodiversity concerns into theirmanagement processes. 

17

Conclusions

After  three years  facilitation using  livelihoods  strengthening platform,  we  could  note  a  real  shift  in  communities  and technocrats’ behavior  towards

‐ collaborative forest management‐ a  new  arena  for  dialogue  and  land  use  planning‐ gender  sensitive  joint  efforts  in  policy  developmentand forests conservation. 

These  have  been  sustained  by:‐ introduced  agroforestry  base  non‐cash  reward

options  to  improve  community  livelihoods‐ negotiated  capacity  building  schemes  for  both

technocrats  and  community  basedorganizations(CBOs)

‐ community’ enthusiasm  and  active  participation  inforests protection initiatives as per management plans. 

18

Critical issues

Finally, though the road to success in the struggle for forest governance remains rough and long, the following critical issues must be factored in for such process to be successfully: adaptation capacity and willingness of stakeholders, clear future scenario and appropriate options for socio‐economic resilience, concerted bylaws and clear contracts, knowledge and information sharing. 

19

Recommendations

Outstanding challenges to maintain efficient collaboration and promote sustainable use of forests products in accordance with participatory management plans are :Enhance research activities to generate information for policy makers and shapers, Facilitate training schemes for technocrats and communities, Scale out co‐management experience nationwide, Engage public and private sectors  in forests management  through Agroforestry especially high level technocrats, Strategize entry points for policy review to suit current changes. 

20

MERCI POUR VOTRE

ATTENTION