P.N. Sall
Papa Ndiengou Sall is Director of Forestry Research at the Senegal Agricultural Research Institute in Dakar.
This article highlights the need for a strong research infrastructure with solid political and financial backing in the developing countries. Tree species may take decades to develop their full potential and so the time-scale for compiling and processing relevant information is such that a sine qua non for any successful undertaking in this sector is a sustained, long-term commitment.
In many developing countries expressions of political commitment to the forest sector are not reflected in institutional support. In fact, there sometimes appears to be an attempt to offset the lack of support to forestry institutions with vigorous declarations of intent. Within the sector as a whole, forestry research organizations tend to be particularly ill-equipped for meeting the demands placed on them with regard to helping forestry play its full part in addressing long-term socio-economic development challenges.
It would not be appropriate, however, to call into question the commitment of most developing countries to support forestry institutions because, without a laudable concern to give practical expression to the idea of national sovereignty, national forest research organizations would never have outlasted the independence process and emerged with a new identity. Without a strong sense of solidarity, the national, subregional and regional institutions responsible for forest research would have been dissolved long ago. For example, the establishment of the ministerial Conference for a Concerted Policy to Combat Desertification and Protect Nature (COMIDES) within countries affected by this phenomenon is a clear indication that our political leaders are keenly aware of the problem and are determined to confront it. The political support for the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP) also underscores this.
The most recent campaign was engaged at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), where the member nations of the Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought
Control in the Sahel (CILSS), supported first and foremost by the Group of 77, secured the adoption of a plan to negotiate a convention on desertification, thereby confirming their wish to relaunch a topic which was slipping down the political agenda.
The fact is that, in a period of general recession and scarce overall resources, the developing nations are obliged to implement "survival" policies (for example, concerning public health and education) while at the same time seeking to safeguard and exploit natural resources; this necessitates difficult choices. This having been said, however, given its multiple role and crucial importance in both everyday survival strategies and long-term conservation and development objectives, research into tree and forestry-related questions deserves unswerving commitment in which political patronage is backed by institutional support. Moreover, concern for national sovereignty in the establishment of research priorities would in itself justify a long-term financial commitment from the state.
Funds for forestry research in the developing countries basically come from two sources: national coffers (through the national agricultural research system or the forestry service) and research components of external assistance efforts. With a top-level policy commitment' additional allocations should be made to forestry and more of the total should go to research. The allocation to research of a larger percentage of total funding for forestry development is clearly in the interest of development projects (which are among the main users of research findings) in that it should enable them to have forward-looking research available rather than, as often occurs, research results that are only of use in emergencies. It is a disturbing truth that, in some countries, the budget and even the staffing of a single externally funded and implemented forestry development project are often larger than those of the whole national forestry research sector. For those of us with first-hand experience in forestry research in developing countries and who know the huge challenges facing the sector and the modest results that have been achieved, it is difficult to subscribe to the thesis that no more than 0.26 percent of forest production value should be earmarked for forestry research, as is the case in the developed countries.
A great strain is often placed on forestry research organizations when they have to seek bridging loans in order to continue work on plant material that has been abandoned because funding, either internal or from an externally funded project, has been terminated as a result of short-view planning. This is a major challenge but it is vital that information collection continues uninterrupted, as any break would jeopardize its accuracy. One way to guarantee the independence of and regular financing for research activities would be to create a forestry research fund, financed from development projects as well as with a portion of revenues gained from forest and forest resource users and/or a substantial contribution from the national forestry fund. Since there is little scope for research to generate and plough back its own income in the short term, such a mechanism will initially need strong national backing. In this sector, as in many others, a major expression of gratitude will be owed to those who play a significant part in the removal of the main stumbling blocks.
In terms of external funding, while the tradition of bilateral cooperation between developed and developing nations is highly commendable, it should be noted that this form of technical assistance for forestry research is not always underpinned by financial support. If foreign funding is sought, it is desirable that the outside partners take over the commitments left unmet by the previous donors. The support of such partners will continue to be enlisted, in accordance with UNCED's message which urges us to consider the world as a global village.
To be effective, their contribution must be consolidated, coordinated and sustained. If the funding of a project-based forestry research programme seems too risky, those concerned should not flinch from postponing it until a more favourable time rather than launching initiatives that are doomed to fail.
Donors could be asked to contribute to these resources in the context of negotiations for a common forestry research fund using unassigned credits.
However, it should be borne in mind that, before entering into any commitments, many donors insist on having information about the background to the research programmes they are being asked to support as well as on knowing which countries are taking part.
A more palatable option from the donors' point of view might be an agreement covering all research cooperation in the sector and specifying all the commitments made by both sides, with a view to carrying through the planned activities as effectively as possible. It should be noted that, although the availability of regular funding would prevent data losses and an over-reliance on perceived trends, it obviously would not eliminate the need for full forestry trials.
The above-mentioned challenges facing national forestry research organizations militate in favour of collaborative efforts for the purpose of tackling issues of common interest. Each country may set up the bodies best suited to its forest policy aims and resources, but the time has now come to translate into action the decision-makers and political leaders' calls for collaboration.
This would provide an opportunity to extend forest research beyond the networks now being set up, by identifying "leader" countries to look after some of the concerns of the various members. While this would mean sacrifices on the part of those selected, these countries would also be contributing to the creation of centres of excellence in strategic research. The priority aim would be to develop competent, motivated national teams of researchers, equipped with the requisite resources. Forest research facilities in developing countries are extremely fragmented and human, logistical and financial resources are widely dispersed. They need to be more concentrated in order to create viable long-term structures with efficient teams able to gear research to the level of the countries concerned. The overlapping of substandard structures in the same ecological area is no longer a realistic option; the time has come for cost-effective and well-organized undertakings. Whether it is a matter of a programme, an operation or a single piece of research, a subject such as the genetic improvement of Faidherbia (Acacia) albida should not be handled by each interested country separately. Similarly, it now seems illogical for each country to set up its own research unit on the in vitro culture of ligneous plants.
However, at the same time a word of caution is merited against the unwarranted formation of too large a number of, or even competing, specialized regional support mechanisms. For example, despite the commendable political will that spawned the Sahara and Sahel Observatory, this body has not enjoyed the best of relations with the CILSS or the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD).
It is to be hoped that the Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific (FORSPA) can be extended and adapted to provide a model for similar networks in other regions and subregions. This would be a first important step in the organization of the sector and would obviate the need to approach the main forestry research partners individually [Ed. note: see article by Rao, p. 27].
The Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) [Ed. note: see article by Sayer, p. 32] has the potential to be of significant benefit to the developing nations, particularly if it profits from the experience of the Special Programme for Developing Countries (SPCD) run by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) [Ed. note: see article by Riley, p. 21]. In all cases, CIFOR must build on the progress already made, and support and complement the initiatives of such bodies as FAO and the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) to strengthen forestry research capacities. It must also devise mechanisms for the regular supply and exchange of plant material and scientific and technical data among forestry research bodies. These two areas, both vital to any form of research, are at present dealt with on an ad hoc basis.
At the international level, one can only deplore the eligibility conditions of the Global Environment Facility. If the developing countries are unable to convince their partners that environment, desertification and reafforestation are interlinked, it is vain to expect forestry research to be able to draw on these funds. Suffice it to note that the monitoring of permanent plots for the study of plant dynamics as part of biodiversity studies necessitates the long-term availability and mobilization of adequate financial resources.
The conservation and wise use of forest and tree resources has become an essential part of agricultural and overall development strategies. In this context the need for capacity-building in forestry research is recognized in Agenda 21 and the forestry principles, promulgated by UNCED. Sadly, a lack of long-term political commitment and the resultant lack of continuity in the provision of resources has made it impossible for forestry research to make its full contribution to development efforts.
Political leaders in the developing nations must be convinced that quality forestry research infrastructures and results are necessary. They must also understand that they require a sustained political and financial commitment as well as a skilled staff and that priorities need to be determined. The fact that the sector straddles other areas also requires an openness to other disciplines and thus a redistribution of resources that reflects these new horizons. Endorsing these principles by providing a steady injection of needed resources is the best way of persuading international partners to continue their assistance as well. The cost of programmes to ensure continued development of forestry research infrastructures in the developing countries may be high today, but if we fail to act promptly it may well become astronomical.
FAO. 1993. Proceedings of the Meeting of Experts on Forestry Research. FAO Forestry Paper No. 110. Rome.
Le Flamboyant. 1992. Special edition on the Rio Conference. Le Flamboyant, 23124 (Paris).
Maini, J.S. 1991. Sustainable development of forests. Unasylva, 43(169): 3-8.
Toulmin, C. 1993. The fight against desertification: preliminary considerations for a world convention. Paper No. 42. London, IIED
