Since 1990, a lot of
noise has been made about the forests of the Congo Basin, both good
and bad. Now a new environmental wave is descending on the Democratic
Republic of Congo, of a scope very similar to that of the “Zaire
boom” in the seventies. However, the question is: are the Central
African forestry administrations -generally subject to insidious
sociological factors- aligned with the aspirations and needs regarding
welfare of the region’s inhabitants?
First of all, for an
African it is an act of bravery to restore to African people the
visibility of their forestry administrations and this for various
reasons. Of these, the first two are that “those who objectify reality
are not much appreciated” and that “foreign experts are still those
who determine priority fields of intervention in forest ecosystems.”
Africans need to define for themselves the forestry administrations
for their people, but this has not yet happened.
Two functions of forestry
administrations in Central Africa
We are considering
two of the main functions of forestry administrations in Central
Africa: the production of timber and the conservation of biological
diversity. In spite of the diversity of forms under which
they are presented, these functions are not fulfilled in a satisfactory
way. For instance all (or nearly all) the cities mainly consume
waste from sawmills; many cities lack timber even though the countries
export it; the construction of subregional or regional markets for
legal forestry products is taking for ever, while protection of
the European market is being strengthened.
For its part, biological
diversity conservation sets problems, even when it stems from noble
ambitions and even though experiments are being done in this field.
Over a decade has gone by since the launching of the first participatory
management programmes for protected areas executed under the auspices
of international organizations for the conservation of nature. However
most of them do not seem to contribute to the preservation of biological
diversity or to improve the living conditions of the peoples directly
involved. This is demonstrated in a recent analysis of the various
projects for the management of protected areas in Central Africa
(Ndinga, 2005). Not only do the neighbouring inhabitants of these
areas continue to have food, health and educational problems, but
they are also subject to restrictions that upset their interior
vision of harmony between the elements and their surroundings without
their participation in the protection of natural resources materializing,
despite the loud announcements made by international organizations.
All this invites us
to reflect. Historically it is a recognized fact that, to find answers
to the problems of the forestry sector, we must resort to people
who are capable of benefiting from what the various sciences have
to offer, (law, political, economic, social, historical and geographical
sciences, as well as natural science regarding the environment and
in particular, forests). We consider that this is the point where
forestry could favour the creation of conditions providing an opportunity
for the adjustment of Central African forestry administrations to
the needs and aspirations of the peoples directly involved. Only
the capacity of the African people to reflect for themselves on
the diversity of aspects involved in their forests will make it
possible, in the first place to contribute to get forestry administrations
to adjust to these needs and, secondly to end the dissemination
of foreign ideas, traditions and approaches on biological diversity
in their countries.
Models of decision-making
processes in the forestry administrations of Central Africa
Another major problem
that should be addressed jointly is the rationalization of decision-making
processes in the forestry administrations of Central Africa.
On one side are the
forestry administrations operating on the basis of a sort of “rationalized
neo-patrimonialism.” These resemble a set of more or less rival
tribal and/or political entities and individuals, considered as
so many other subsystems and structures surrounding the Head of
State. Their main type of action consists in updating routines (traditional
forestry operations), redistributing positions and forestry resources
and seeking some kind of credibility in the eyes of capitalist partners
and international NGOs. In this case, the central proposal for the
decision to be taken is the result of presidential intervention.
At the other extreme
are the forestry administrations that resort to extortion and violent
and direct depredation of forestry resources. This refers to the
cases of the most extreme and bloody political systems and to the
“war lords.” The forestry administration is then a set of tribal,
military and/or political entities structured around the war lords;
the main actions are then manifestations of violent impulses, updating
of routines, extortion and direct depredation of forestry resources
and the orchestration of fund providers and international NGOs.
The decision is a result of war lord intervention.
Between these two extremes
lies rational forestry administration. Even though the Head of State
continues to be the main actor, forestry administration is structured
around State institutions, the regulations governing them and the
nation’s values: the dominant type of action is a search for a response
to social demand for forestry products and environmental services.
The decision is a calculated solution to a strategic national problem.
It should be remembered
that these are only models. Evidently the universe of forestry administrations
in Central Africa is heterogeneous. Very often it is a mixture of
“rationalized neo-patrimonialists,” “war lords” and rational actors
and all have a dominating role to a greater or lesser degree.
However, models enable us to better understand the sociology of
forestry administrations in Central Africa and their internal decision
processes. This basis enables us to reflect on the rationalization
of such processes.
Internal factors influencing
decisions
From this standpoint,
it becomes evident that the significant factors influencing the
decisions of Central African forestry administrations need to be
visualized. “Neo-patrimonialism” privileges deviations from standards
and conformism; this has been so abundantly demonstrated that it
is possible to affirm for example that John Maynard Keynes would
never have made himself a career in such administrations. On the
other hand, the history and identity of Central African people,
although notable in many aspects, were open for a long time to networks
of more or less confessable activities. It is for this reason that
many Central African people, whether or not they be men/women of
State, allude to their will to put themselves at the service of
their country but, in fact, continue to legitimise deviations, offering
scant resistance and developing strategies to atomize forestry institutions
and competing among themselves to obtain the rank of interlocutors
with foreign experts, international organizations, or capitalist
organizations.
Thus, contrary to what
some may think, the significant internal factors to improve decision-making
in the forestry administrations of Central Africa are not only quantitative
(the amount of personnel and the importance of financial means)
but also qualitative, referring to the quality of the people and
the institutional context. For example the forestry administration
in the Congolese Republic, which in 1960 did not include any professional
foresters, now has over 200; its budget, insignificant in 1960 is
to-day various millions of CFA francs. Nearly all the Central African
countries have evolved similarly. However, forest management in
these countries is presently much worse than in 1960 if one considers
the generalization of corruption, forest degradation, the decrease
in wildlife or violence within forestry administrations.
External factors affecting
decision-making
In addition to the
above-mentioned factors, globalization and the insertion of Central
African countries in increasingly dense networks of international,
friendly or shared interest links have positive but also coercive
effects that weaken their commitment with the forest ecosystem cause.
This is due to western hegemony and to the culture of international
relations sociology in the western countries and to the African
people’s scant feelings of nationalism.
To this is added the
fact that diplomacy has considerable influence on decision-making
processes in Central African forestry administrations. Official
western diplomacy, in spite of appearing to be of a “generous nature,”
has another aspect that should be made known, particularly in the
field of forestry competitiveness. In fact, this diplomacy is usually
at the service of the forces which, in the past, caused the weakening
of the structures and impoverishment of the region; forces whose
primary concern is personal interest but that orchestrate the power
of their own State and international conventions; forces that, in
the field of forest conservation develop transversal strategies
in a struggle against other powers. So far Central African
diplomacy has been absolutely disorderly and impotent and has left
forest ecosystems (almost) entirely open to actors that influence
the decisions of African forestry administrations towards bowing
to their interests.
As a complement to
official diplomacy we find “non-governmental diplomacies.” These
do not limit themselves to activities carried out through organizations
of the same name. They have existed for centuries, have multiple
dimensions and directions and have numerous and diverse actors.
It should be noted that here “fluency of speech” and rhetoric contribute
to achieve their objectives. Seduced by their nobility and the generous
inspiration which they make a show of, Central African countries
overlook the distortions they induce in forestry administration
decisions. In fact there are many good souls who claim to be defending
the forests of the Congo Basin, but at the end of the day, what
they are doing, in erudite language, is to orchestrate African people,
promote corruption and cronyism or support dishonest politicians.
For example an African official in an international NGO who fabricated
a false mission report was “catapulted” to the post of auditor of
this organization. Another African, this time a competent one, found
that if he wanted to obtain a subregional post it was under the
condition he aligned himself with the position of a Minister who,
if our sources are true, was not exactly a referent in matters of
good political and economic governance.
Conclusions
First of all, it would
be advisable to strengthen the capacity of the African people to
define for themselves the functions of their forestry administrations.
Secondly, it should be made clear that the fact of reflecting on
these administrations, analyzing the factors that affect them, including
diplomacy, is not an intellectual or diplomatic heresy. Furthermore,
this approach is not entirely new, it is a prolongation of the efforts
made for decades now by numerous authors, mainly in the field of
international relations sociology and it provides social visibility
to factors that are frequently ignored but which explain to a great
extent the reasons for the ineffectiveness of so many measures adopted
at conferences, seminars and workshops.
This is a timely approach,
considering that Central African forestry administrations are much
more open than they were in 1960. In this context, the inclusion
of African people’s concerns in the functions of forestry administrations
will be favoured, not because of the discretion of the actors but
because of the support of public opinion and of companies.
This implies that the rationalization of decision-making processes
requires, at the forefront, public training on the sociology of
these administrations and on international relations.
Furthermore, when actors
in the so-called sustainable development only manage to provoke
the rejection of the honest people they are attempting to help,
it is hard to affirm that they are aiming, as their mission would
suppose, at promoting an improvement in the living conditions in
Central Africa. In this case, unless the international community
makes an effort to remove them from African forests, it will be
participating in poor forest governance and contributing to unsustainable
development.
Finally, those who
examine the function of the administrations studied in this analysis
will agree that it is necessary to build national, subregional and
regional markets for quality forest products. Such action will doubtlessly
be insufficient to achieve that the forestry administrations arrange
themselves in function of the needs and aspirations to welfare of
the inhabitants of Central Africa. However these are important advances
that should be strengthened in the future thanks to a better organization
of the beneficiaries, to rational experience and, above all, to
the justified support of public opinion.
By Assitou Ndinga,
e-mail:
ndinga_assitou@yahoo.fr. (Ndinga, A.,
Gestion des forêts d’Afrique centrale. Avec ou Sans les concernés?
L’Harmattan, collection Études Africaines,
Parls, 2005).
