EXPANDING THE IMPACTS OF SOCIAL FORESTRY PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES



By
Scott J. Josiah
Hans M. Gregersen



Policy Brief No. 10, February 1995



For more information or copies of this publication, contact:

Scott J. Josiah and 
Hans M. Gregersen
Department of  Forest Resources
University of Minnesota
115 Green Hall
1530 N. Cleveland Ave.
St. Paul, MN  USA  55108

Tel: (612) 624-6298
Fax: (612) 625-5212
Email: hgregers@mercury.forestry.umn.edu



Produced by:

Ellen A. Maurer
Communications Director
EPAT/MUCIA
University of Wisconsin
1003 WARF Office Building
610 Walnut Street
Madison, WI  USA  53705  

Tel: (608) 263-4781
Fax: (608) 265-2993
Eamil: eamaurer@facstaff.wisc.edu


Edited by Ellen Maurer
Layout and Design by Lesa Langan


* Some figures and/or tables included in the printed version of
this publication could not be included in this electronic
version.  If you need copies of these figures or tables, please
contact the author.



PROJECT INFORMATION



A USAID-funded global program, the Environmental and Natural
Resources Policy and Training Project (EPAT), is implemented, in
part, by 15 universities and development organizations through
the Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities,
Inc. (MUCIA). 

EPAT/MUCIA has research, training, and communication components
that offer the latest information about:

  * Energy, Industry & the Urban Environment
  * Forestry & Watershed Management
  * Macroeconomic Policy
  * Population & the Environment
  * Institutions & Policy Implementation
  * Environmental Policy Training 
  * Environmental Policy Communications

EPAT/MUCIA publications include:

  * Policy Briefs - short overviews of environmental policy 
    concerns
  * Case Studies - outlining specific in-country policy 
    challenges
  * Manuals - how-to-do-it environmental policy handbooks for 
    easy reference
  * Working Papers - of environmental policy research in progress
  * Monographs - detailing the state of knowledge in particular
    subject matter areas.

EPAT/MUCIA environmental policy partners have applied their
research to real problems, and they collaborated with researchers
throughout the world.

For more information about EPAT/MUCIA contact: 
  Chief of Party
  1611 North Kent Street, Suite 807
  Arlington, VA  USA 2209-2134   
  Tel: (703) 841-0026
  Fax: (703) 841-0699

EPAT/MUCIA-Research and Training partners include University of
Arizona; Cornell University; University of Illinois; Indiana
University; University of Iowa; University of Michigan; Michigan
State University; University of Minnesota; The Ohio State
University; Purdue University; University of Wisconsin; Abt
Associates; Development Alternatives, Inc.; Development
Associates, Inc.; and World Resources Institute.

Policy Brief ISSN # 1072-9496



MESSAGE FROM USAID

This POLICY BRIEF is a product of the Environmental and Natural
Resources Policy and Training (EPAT) Project funded by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID).  It is part
of USAID's effort to provide environmental policy information to
decisionmakers and practitioners in developing countries.  The
objective is to encourage the adoption of economic policies to
promote sustainable use of natural resources and to enhance
environmental quality.

EPAT POLICY BRIEFS are written for development professionals and
policymakers in developing countries who are responsible for
establishing and implementing policies on the sustainable use of
natural resources and for civil servants, project officers, and
researchers who are directly involved in the implementation of
development activities.  This POLICY BRIEF reviews issues related
to increasing the effectiveness of social forestry programs in
developing countries.  Since growing rural populations in those
areas rely heavily on forest products for their livelihood,
development professionals working with social forestry programs
need more information on improving program effectiveness.

Several organizations have supported this work.  The contribution
of USAID toward writing, printing, and distributing this document
is estimated to be $11,000.  The document is being distributed to
more than 2,000 policymakers and professionals in developing
countries.  We will assess its effectiveness by soliciting the
views of recipients and enclose an evaluation sheet with each
mailing of EPAT publications for that purpose.



David Hales                        Twig Johnson
Deputy Assistant Administrator     Director
Center for the Environment         Office of Environment &       
USAID/G/ENV                        Natural Resources
Washington, D.C. 20523             USAID/G/ENV/ENR
                                   Washington, D.C.  20523

EXPANDING THE IMPACTS OF SOCIAL FORESTRY PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES



The Importance of Social Forestry


Most rural people in developing countries rely on trees for fuel,
building materials, food, fodder, and medicines for their own use
and for sale.  Traditional systems to manage forest resources can
be effective.  

However, increasing populations, growing external demand for
wood, and changing land tenure systems can severely inhibit these
traditional management systems.  As a result, many millions of
people face a declining forest resource base, a critical scarcity
of forest products, and intensified rural poverty. 

To reverse these trends, rural dwellers need better ways to
manage existing tree resources and to create new sources of
forest products.  Social forestry [note 1] (see box 1) programs
significantly contribute to helping rural people meet these
needs.  


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Box 1.

"Social forestry" means that rural people and community groups
control local tree and forest resources.  People use tree- or
forest-related activities to provide products for their own use
or to generate income. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Some programs have been particularly effective.  They have helped
people improve the availability, quality, and use of resources. 
Unfortunately, these successful efforts normally reach only a
small portion of those in need.

In this policy brief, we examine the issues and look at policies
affecting the expansion of social forestry program impacts.  We
also discuss how to assess expansion strategies [note 2]. 



Limited Program Impacts


Because social forestry involves decentralized activity at the
community and farm level, small local nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) often carry out these programs most
effectively.  They usually have extensive long-term experience in
the community, using local personnel.  

Community organizations have credibility in the area and in-depth
knowledge and understanding of neighborhood conditions.  Their
flexibility and adaptability promote innovation and creative
problem solving.  And their organizational autonomy and relative
independence lets them be more accountable to the community.
While local organizations can successfully implement community
programs, these activities seldom contribute significantly to
regional or national development needs.  

Reasons for lack of large-scale success are their:  

* dispersed and isolated nature, 

* limited resources and organizational capacity, 

* restricted scale of operations because of geography and
programs, and 

* lack of comprehensive programs. 


Even the combined impacts of many independent small-scale
programs usually do not have large-scale impacts. 

Enlarging the size or operational scale of local organizations is
one option to expand program impacts.   

Large organizations have several advantages over small
organizations.  They include a wider resource base, greater
organizational capacity and depth, and an ability to operate
large-scale projects.  In addition, they can capture significant
economies of scale.

Yet, large centralized organizations often have complex
hierarchies that prevent efficient flow of information and
resources.  They often adopt top-down decision-making strategies
that directly conflict with local authorities and power
structures.  They usually do not incorporate the advantages of
small-scale organizations.

In many cases, large centralized organizations design standard
programs that discourage local participation and are insensitive
to local needs and conditions.  Thus, programs often do not fit a
community's unique context.  Not surprisingly, large-scale,
centrally-run and dominated social forestry programs often do
poorly at the local level.  Both small- and large-scale programs
have weaknesses and strengths.  

Thus, to achieve large-scale impacts while being responsive and
effective at the local level, social forestry programs need to
combine the positive attributes of both large and small
organizations.



The Challenge of Expanding Program Impacts


The challenge is "...to multiply what are in many cases
relatively small-scale initiatives...into larger-scale rural
forestry programs that will penetrate throughout the rural areas
as quickly as possible" [note 4].  

Given the effectiveness of small programs, we need to ask, "How
large can small become?" [note 5]  That is, at what size or
operational scale do small organizations lose their advantages of
smallness?  How do we apply lessons learned from both small- and
large-scale successes to large-scale programs?



Linking Macro and Micro Approaches to Expand Impacts


To expand program impacts, we must deal effectively with the
dilemma of organizational size and scale to meet local needs. 
"Even the largest development program must be broken down to the
size of the farm, the city block, or the school, and be seen in
terms of the ultimate beneficiary.  Macro and micro approaches
are complementary" [note 6].  

Successful large-scale social forestry programs in Haiti,
Bangladesh, and Korea operated on a local level but within a
national structural and policy framework.  These programs showed
that the combined impacts of small-scale local successes resulted
in large-scale impacts [note 7] (see box 2).


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Box 2. Village Forestry Development in the Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea's social forestry program, implemented in
the 1960s and 1970s, partly owes its success to strong linkages
between community NGOs and Korea's national legal, policy, and
management framework.  Korea built this cooperative
interorganizational arrangement on the long tradition of village
cooperation and organization.  They blended top-down and
bottom-up planning and capitalized on the advantages of both
small-scale NGOs and regional and national government agencies. 
They planted and managed hundreds of millions of trees, resulting
in positive large-scale ecological, economic, and social impacts
[note 3]. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Program designs need to capitalize on the organizational
advantages of both large and small organizations, stressing the
advantages of organizational size and scale and minimizing the
disadvantages.  

Development efforts must have effective linkages between the
macro and the micro, between major donor agencies, and between
organizations implementing local programs [note 8]  

Effective linkages and a positive institutional environment can
ease and stimulate expanded impacts of social forestry programs.
Guiding the Expansion Process Figure 1 provides an overview of a
process for assessing the elements to consider in impact
expansion.  The framework considers: 

* the organization's objectives, 

* relevant policies and contextual factors affecting expansion, 

* options for expansion, and 

* other important factors that help develop expansion strategies.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Expanding Social Forestry Program Impacts: A Strategy
Development Model

Organizational/Contextual Assessment
Expansion Options
Strategy Formulation

Figures will not transfer to the gopher format.

-----------------------------------------------------------------



What are the Organization's Ojectives?  

As a first step, we need to carefully assess the organization's
objectives.  Do its mission and mandates limit or encourage
expansion?  Does the organization really want to expand its
program impacts? [note 9] 


What conditions are affecting the current situation?  

We need to understand the extent of unmet needs and opportunities
for social forestry.  We need to determine how local contextual
conditions favor or constrain particular expansion approaches.  

For instance, many capable rural NGOs may exist.  As part of a
large-scale multiorganizational arrangement (an umbrella NGO
approach), we can ask these groups to carry out new programs in
their communities.  Or there may be few NGOs, requiring other
approaches.  

We can determine priorities and general expansion approaches by
analyzing the organization's objectives, the need for additional
services, and the operational context. 


How can program impacts expand?  

See box 3 for specific ways to expand impacts.  One option is to
improve the efficiency of existing program services.  We also
could encourage a positive policy environment that removes
expansion obstacles. 

Or, we can choose a structural approach (box 3, numbers 3 to 7)
that fits existing contextual conditions.  This approach should
emphasize the comparative advantages of both small and large
organizations and avoid the disadvantages of each.  Based on the
organization's priorities and the operational context, it can use
a combination of these approaches.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Box 3.  Ways to Expand Program Impacts

There are at least eight ways to expand the impacts of social
forestry programs to provide services over broader geographic
areas to greater numbers of people. 

1. Increase the efficiency and or relevance of current programs
to improve program effectiveness and diffusion.

2. Pressure for local, regional, or national policy reform to
strengthen policies that encourage expansion of impacts on
existing programs.

3. "Scale up" or internally "grow" an existing organization by
adding staff, resources, and infrastructure.  

4. Link organizations using multi- or inter-organizational
arrangements (networks, umbrella structures, franchise
approaches).

5. Replicate the program through other existing organizations or
individuals.  A central group can plan or direct the replication
or it can spontaneously diffuse from one existing organization to
another without central control or direction. 

6. Multiply the project's design or interventions in new areas by
newly-formed organizations.  A central group that facilitates the
development of new community organizations usually controls and
directs multiplication.  These new organizations then implement
the social forestry program in their own communities. 

7. Decentralize authority and functions to local autonomous or   
semi-autonomous organizational units.  This will enable local
decisionmakers to make more appropriate, equitable, and effective
decisions and program designs.

8. Centralize authority and planning through vertical integration
and consolidation to implement programs on a large scale. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------


How do other factors affect an expansion strategy?  

Factors such as leadership, internal organizational systems, and
program may affect the relevance and effectiveness of an
approach.   

For instance, competent leaders may be scarce, limiting immediate
expansion possibilities.  Organizational capacities may be
inadequate to handle increased administrative and managerial
work-loads.  Or we may need to modify the program itself to
operate on a larger scale.  

We also need to carefully review issues related to the
sustainability, equity, and efficiency of the strategy.  Consider
all these factors before designing an overall expansion approach.



Policy Needs


To expand impacts successfully, policy and financial environments
must encourage local activities to complement and add to official
development programs [note 10]. 

Expansion strategies should use the best features of small-scale,
community-based organizations and larger more-centralized
organizations.  

For a strategy to meet both local and national needs, public
policy should help:  

* support and strengthen local organizations, 

* create linkages, and 

* identify and implement new institutional arrangements.


Developing and Strengthening Local Organizations 

Policies need to ensure access to necessary infrastructure and
resources, including training, research, and credit.  These
resources enhance institutional capacity and help leverage
national, multinational, and private-sector support.  

It is important to identify critical bottlenecks that inhibit
impact expansion and to design policies to remove them.  An
appropriate policy environment also will allow local
organizations to innovate and serve as "social laboratories" to
test, refine, and ultimately transfer positive ideas [note 11].


Creating Linkages

To expand program impacts, experience shows that it is vital to
create and maintain strong horizontal linkages among local
community groups.  Vertical linkages within regional or national
organizations, networks, or government, are also essential.  

Such linkages help integrate bottom-up and top-down planning,
policy setting, decision-making, and management (see box 2). 
They can improve operational efficiency and program effectiveness
[note 12].  

Linkages also help coordinate local activities so they directly
complement and support national development programs [note 13].

Policies that help link local organizations can enhance
cooperation, communication, and the sharing and diffusion 
of ideas and innovations.  They promote large-scale replication
of key features of successful programs. 


Identifying and Implementing New Institutional Arrangements

With strengthened local organizational capacity and more
effective linkages, it may become possible and appropriate to
transfer some governmental field functions, authority, and
resources to local groups.  

This can occur through informal channels or regulatory mechanisms
that formally transfer responsibilities.  However, governments
should not give up responsibilities that are best retained by the
state.  Nor should they use NGOs mainly as instruments of the
state.  

Policies also should encourage new institutional arrangements
that capitalize on advantages of both small and large
organizations.  Such arrangements (umbrella structures,
NGO-government linkages, networks, coalitions) link large and
small organizations and enable them to implement programs jointly
on a large scale.  

Finally, policies need to ensure that local decisionmaking is
compatible within the existing national policy framework.  This
will assure that all are working together toward common goals.



NOTES 



1. Gregersen, Hans M., S. Draper, and D. Elz.  1989.  PEOPLE AND
TREES: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL FORESTRY IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. 
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 

2. EPAT/MUCIA currently is conducting research that will
identify and synthesize contextual factors that facilitate or
inhibit the expansion of social forestry program impacts.  The
research will also show how these factors affect the selection
and performance of organizational strategies.  It will provide
conceptual and planning tools to evaluate the organizational
environment and to design expansion strategies for particular
contextual conditions.  

3. See Gregersen, Hans M.  1982.  VILLAGE FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT IN
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA: A CASE STUDY.  Forestry for Local
Community Development Programme GCP/INT/347/SWE.  Rome, Italy:
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

4. Spears, J.  1984.  REVIEW OF WORLD BANK FINANCED FORESTRY
ACTIVITY, FY 1984.  Washington DC: The World Bank.

5. Annis, S.  1988.  "Can Small-scale Development be Large-scale
Policy?"  In S. Annis and P. Hakim, eds., DIRECT TO THE POOR:
GRASSROOTS DEVELOPMENT IN LATIN AMERICA.  Boulder, Colorado:
Lynne Rienner Publications.


6. Masoni, V.  1985.  "Nongovernmental Organizations and
Development."  FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT 2:38-41.

7. Examples of successfully expanded large-scale social forestry
or rural development programs are described in:  

Lovell, C. H.  1992.  BREAKING THE CYCLE OF POVERTY: THE BRAC
STRATEGY. WestHartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.  

Josiah, S. J. (in press)  "Implementing Large-scale Agroforestry
Projects through Umbrella NGOs: A Case Analysis from Haiti."  In
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD NORTH AMERICAN AGROFORESTRY CONFERENCE,
August 15-18, 1993.  Ames, Iowa.  

Gregersen, Hans M.  1982.  In the work cited.

8. Annis, S.  1987.  "The Next World Bank?: Financing Development
from the Bottom Up."  GRASSROOTS DEVELOPMENT 11(1):24-29.

9. It is important to recognize that the expansion of program
"impacts" may or may not include expansion or growth of the
organization itself.  

10. Masoni, V.  1985.  "Nongovernmental Organizations and
Development."  FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT 22:38-41.

11. Reilly, C. A.  1993.  "The Road from Rio: NGO Policymakers
and the Social Ecology of Development."  GRASSROOTS DEVELOPMENT 
17(1):25-35.

12. Annis, S.  1987.  In the work cited.

13. Masoni, V.  1985.  In the work cited.