The Impact of Micro Policies on Forestry Sector in Sudan

Talaat D. Abdel Magid

Professor of Forestry-University of Bahri

Introduction:

 According to many studies, deforestation in Sudan continues at an alarming high rate, but in recent years, the net loss of forest areas is slowing down thanks to many efforts by governmental and non-governmental organizations to raise the levels of awareness and increase the reservation and planting of trees outside forests reserves.

Several sources (Bayoumi, 1995; Ibrahim, 2006; El Mahi, 2006 and FOSA, 2001) highlighted the level of forest recourse degradation.

Hassan & Tag Consultants, 2018. Undertook in-depth analysis of Drivers of Deforestation & Forest Degradation in Sudan under the auspices of Sudan’s REDD+ Programme.

The following points are highlighted:

• The production of red bricks, fired by firewood increases to meet the corresponding increase in population and the corresponding need for housing.

• Infrastructure: (i) hydroelectric power plants (e.g. Khasm El Girba, Twin Atbara & Setiet Dams) which have all deforested thousands of hectares of forests and woodlands or had their reservoir cleared of trees beforehand; (ii) highways and roads (e.g. Port Sudan – Haiya – Atbara – Khartoum, Haiya – Kassala – Gadaref, etc.); (iii) railways (Wadi Halfa – Abu Hamad – Atbara; etc.)
• Legal and institutional gaps: the absence or loopholes in existing relevant legislation coupled with lack or weakness of enforcement is a genuine underlying driver of deforestation and degradation.

•  Irrational decentralization of forestry due to several, local regional acts 1972,1980,1992 encouraged the states to mine the forest resources as a means of generating quick revenues to meet the cost of social and medical services
• Increasing levels of poverty, war displacement, drought displacement, Tarmac road extensions have made forestry a new occupation to many people and has allowed harvesting of previously in accessible and remote areas

• The dominant primary energy supply source for decades is biomass. Around 76% of the Sudanese population use low efficiency three stones and traditional and low-efficient cooking stoves. Substantial loss of energy also occurs from the conversion of wood into charcoal. Mud bricks fired with wood derived from Sudan’s forests are also used for construction.

• Forest products continues to be regarded as a service rather than a commodity with a market
• Planning and strategy of agricultural expansion continues horizontally, has taken up more than five million ha of former forestland.
• The petroleum industry has taken up more forest areas and resulted in appreciable changes and impacts the supply and demand of biomass energy.

• Mining gold, chrome, copper, iron, manganese, asbestos, gypsum, etc. All mining and extraction activities have contributed to the removal of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of vegetation mainly forests, rangelands and soils.

• The rural energy demand is expected to continue its dependence on wood fuel despite the availability of petroleum resources. This represents a considerable and generally un recognized drain on the forests
• According to forest resources assessment (2005) Sudan is one of the fastest countries removing their forests (current area decline = -589.000 ha per annum ) .

• Armed conflict in the country set direct limitation to sustainable forest management. Insecurity: this has expanded in Sudan in the aftermath of civil strife in most peripheries declared as “military operation zones”. Sizeable quantities of sawn timber, sawn logs, building poles and charcoal are hauled out of such areas, which are then converted into denuded forest and woodlands.

Policies, Legislation and Programmes to Reduce Forest Resource Degradation:

The Governor General of the Sudan issued the first policy statement on forestry in 1932. The prime objective of this policy was the reservation establishment and development of forest resources for the purpose of environmental protection and meeting the needs of the population for forest products. Legislative powers to give effect to the policy are conveyed by the Forest Ordinances 1932 (Central and Provincial) and the Royalties Order 1939. The first Forests Ordinance was laid in 1908. Forest Conservation Rules that are more progressive in 1917 superseded this. The Provincial Forest Ordinance was amended in 1948 to enable the Governors to delegate all or any of this powers to a local government. In order that this policy may operate as efficiently as possible, it has been decided that a division of responsibilities between the Forest Department and governors of provinces is necessary.

The following is an excerpt from Forest Ordinance 1932:

Article 70 (1) concentrating of cutting in forest reserves. All felling other than such as is required for village needs (and whenever possible for these also) will be in a definite felling areas chosen where regeneration, either by natural or artificial means can be assured.

• Restriction of privileges among local population. The construction and preservation of forest reserves involves in a greater or lesser degree the regulation of rights and restriction of privilege among of the tract within which the forest is situated. Therefore, such areas must be selected with due regard to the fuel and timber as well as to the agricultural requirements of the inhabitants in the immediate neighborhood, who will either have a certain area of forest set a side for their use or will be granted permission to obtain their normal requirements of fuel and timber within the reserve itself. In such cases, free licenses will be issued granting permission to cut or remove specified amount of fuel and timber. It must, however, be clearly recognized that a small area of forest reserve in which grazing and cultivation rights have been extinguished is preferable to a large area in which these still exist.
• Under the Forest Rules 1917, restrictions were placed on the right of registered landowners to cut timber on their own land. In future landowners should be encouraged to regard timber as marketable produce to be grown on a rotational basis in the same way as food crops and with a similar absence of restriction. Although the government will retain the right to levy royalty on such produce if used for commercial purposes, Governors will be granted discretion to exempt, subject to financial approval, such produce from payment of royalty in cases where it is desirable to encourage planting by private landowners.

 Protection of Forests:

• It should be the object of province officials to educate local inhabitants in the duty of protecting forests against damage by fire or by grazing, using whenever possible the agency of native administration. In 1986, the 1932 forest policy was revised and this time tended to involve people in tree planting and emphasized the protective and environmental role of the forests. The policy encouraged for the first time the establishment of community forests as well as private and institutional forests and stressed the role of forest extension. Assured reorganization of rights/privileges of the rural people inside or adjoining forest reserves, so as to enable them to satisfy their needs from forest resource.
• In 1989, the Forest Act was enacted, and it contained several items relating to forestry activities to be undertaken by the people and legalizes people participation.

According to El Mahi (1997), for the first time in forestry history in Sudan the definition of ownership in the Act enters owners other than government. Individuals, groups, communities and institutions who plant trees shall be entitled to use such trees and their products as they deem fit. Item 3 (b) defines communal forests as those established by citizens in their farms and around the cities and villages. Item 11 (d) deemed that communal committees elected by the people in the area manage forests. The Act also contained items encouraging the cooperation between the government and the public.

El Mahi and Abdel Magid (2002) argued that, the out come of both policies (1932, 1986) was far from satisfactory. They both aimed at conserving and improving the resource through forest reservation, protection and planting more trees.

Bayoumi (1995) and El Nasari (2000) stated that though the 1932 Forest Policy was considered to be a sound policy, the achievement of its objectives was met with some difficulties, notably in the forest reservation and afforestation aspects. It is evident that both policies have been initiated and prepared by foresters alone, without the participation of other sectors. Shawki (1958) blamed the failure of 1932 policy to institutional difficulties relating to division of power in forestry between different sectors concerned with implementation of policies. In 2002 the Forests and Renewable Natural Resources Act was enacted and published in the legislations’ annex of the Sudan.

The Act adhered to the constitutional laws regarding the distribution of power and outlook that forests itself as a national wealth are undividable, though its benefits are liable for division. Also it adhered to the inclusion of the renewable natural resources (Forests, soil, water resources and national pastures) in one law which organizes its associated problems as it is an indivisible whole. The law included the participation of native administration in the protection of forests (Ibrahim, 2003).

Kanoan (2004) in consistent with international trends in sustainable forest management, both the 1989 Act and the 2002 Act introduce new mechanisms for the promotion of private and community forestry, but failed to spell out the purposes of forestry legislation. Ibid, 2004 recommends that the 2002 Act must strengthen and support private and community forestry by providing information, training, advice, facilities, subsidies, allowances, credits, loans and tax exemption. Forest laws, presently based on the era of central control should become supportive of local management. The rules defined by the local community should be the starting point for effective law making.

El Mahi and Hamid (2004) discuss forest policy statement that the people of the Sudan considered: that tree goes deep into their culture to the extent that people and their villages are named after trees that eternal issues can only be settled through striking a balance between people’s need and conservation requirements and that the forest resources is a patrimony of the whole Sudan society. They advocated that, for the sustainable forest management, it is essential to develop the participation and collective decision-making and incorporate the traditional systems of natural resource management. In 2005, a new forest policy proposal was formulated by the project (TCP/SUD/2903 Revision of Forest Policy, Legislation and Institutional Reorganization in collaboration with FNC, Sudan). The drivers for the review of the forest policy include;

• Reduction of poverty, improvement of people’s well being, a melioration of physical environment and combating desertification. The development of the oil production was having direct and indirect impact on the sector. The economic reform for stabilization and liberalization. The peace agreement, the demand for better governance and commitment to international conventions. The following basic considerations of the policy statement were excerpted from the proposal.
• In administering forest resources, the government will base its decisions and actions in perusing a balance between people needs and conservation requirements.
• The government understands that the sole issuance of laws as compulsory tools would never result in achieving the good governors of forestry sector.

 Kerkhof, (2000) discuss the principle of co-management of forest resources. Exclusion of communities from the forest maybe not only unworkable but undesirable. Increasing evidence indicates that forests dependent villagers are well positioned to participate in the management of forestlands, especially when supported by some security of access or tenure and by technical assistance. Woodland management, as it has been conceived in the past by governments, forest services and donor agencies, is neither effective in meeting its declared objectives nor sustainable without much larger external inputs. Large-scale management of woodland resources in the sahel, if it is to take place, will require a sharing of responsibilities and a new social contract between governments and local communities.

 Social Forestry Activities in the Sudan:

Social forestry programmes and activities in the Sudan have been documented by several authors (Kuchelmeister, 1989; Shanks and Carter, 1994; Kerkhof, 2000; Vink, 1984; Sulieman, 1996, El Mahi, 1997; El Mahi and Abdel Magid, 2002; Abdel Magid, 1996,1997; Abdel Magid and Elsiddig, 2003; Anon, 1996; Anon, 1987) they reviewed the role of different organizations and projects related to social forestry. The following topics were highlighted:

• Their involvement ranges from raising a local awareness to encouragement of participation in forest establishment, protection and management.
• Rehabilitation of degraded and abandoned farm lands by individuals, communities and companies with involvement of government.
• Tree planting in compact blocks undertaken by institutions like farmers’ union in irrigated and rainfed sector (shelterbelts establishment of Acacia senegal).
• The role of different donor assisted projects and their linkages to food security and poverty alleviation.
• There is experience from different part of Sudan were local population have taken steps to slow down natural resource degradation. Among the nomadic Ababda in the northern region, livestock is kept away from certain areas during the cultivation season and illegal cutters of trees are taken to Shiekh and Omda who fines them.
• The Rawashda/Wadkabo Forests in the eastern sector and the Dali/Mazmoum group of forests the central sector were chosen by FAO project in 1987 to serve as models for popular involvement in forest management and protection, in an effort to optimize the sustainable benefits to people and reduce the cost of forest management to the forest authority. The involvement of sedentary people through village committees was more successful. Especially for forest regeneration, various methods were adopted, with full cooperation from nearby villages.
• Forestry extension with its objectives of:-
  • Raising the level of awareness among the general public and policy makers of the importance of sustainable management of forests.
  • Demonstration and provision of technical support services to rural populations, women group, pastoral sectors, as well as young generations and private sector in issues related to resource management.
  • Energy saving programmes to conserve forest resources.
  • Income generation activities (home nurseries).

 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations:

In reviewing, programmes and activities related to social forestry in Sudan, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented:

• Deforestation and Forest Degradation is a multifaceted process with many drivers operating at all levels and different sectors in Sudan and most of these drivers are outside the forest sector.
• The reduction of forest resources and the increase demand of forest products and services made the need for forest management top priority.
• It has been argued in the preceding pages that, forest policy is a valuable tool for forest resource development and that forest policy is not formulated in isolation, but within the context of national development objectives and land use planning.
• The establishment of community woodlots has contributed to rural development through the setting-up of communal facilities.
• Appreciation of villagers of the tangible forest benefits have been reflected in the new items of infrastructures established from forest returns (schools, health centers and electricity).
• Due to the intensive efforts of the forest extension, attitudes towards forestry have changed favourably in Sudan at different levels.
• Communal and cooperative spirit at community level have been largely sensitized and reactivated.
• There is a need for clear statement of policy changes in relation to community forestry development to facilitate procedures for community forest reservation in community ownership.
• Combating desertification by voluntary participation is not enough without strong political commitment of the government.
• Programs chosen should be acceptable to the communities and should not require any complicated cultural or adaptation changes.
• Land tenure problem should be tackled in such a way as to secure the participants rights.
• There is a need to clearly define and a greed upon land use policy and legislation to avoid conflicts and contradictions of interests between various users.
• There is a need to enforce and empower traditional institutions for resolving conflicts over natural resources.
• Community forestry programs should be part of an integral land use plan.
• Local interests and short-term profits should be carefully balanced in forest policy and its implementation, against national interests and long-term stability.
• Promoting the involvement of communities, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders in the management of forest, through amongst other things, partnerships. This too contributes to sustainable use and conservation and to slowing down the rate of deforestation.
• Adoption of sustainable animal production, environmentally friendly energy policies and comprehensive population, town and infrastructure planning policies.

 

 References Cited:

–    Abdel Magid, T. D. (1997) the Vision and Role of Community Forestry in Sustainable Development in Sudan. Voluntary paper. Proceedings of the XI World Forestry Congress, Turkey.

–    Abdel Magid, T. D. and Elsiddig, E. A. (2002) Social Forestry in Sudan. Its Current State and Future Potential, XII World Forestry Congress, Canada.

–    Abdel Magid, T. D.,  Balgees, M. E. Osman and Matayo, B. (1996) Report on Field Trip to Review Social Forestry Activities in Central Sector. Sudanese Social Forestry Network – Ford Foundation

–    Anon (1954) Forest Department Report for the Period 1954-1955. Ministry of Agriculture. Sudan Government.

–    Anon (1987) Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. Activity Completion Report. No. 073/87. Natural Resource Protection by the People. P. 43.

–    Anon (1996) FAO/Government Cooperative Program. Forestry Development Project. GCP/SUD/047. Project findings. Terminal report.

–    Anon (2000) Africa Environment Outlook. Past, Present and Future Perspectives. UNDP and other collaborators.

–    Anon (2005) Draft Forest Policy. Sudan. Study by TCP/SUD/2903 Revision of Forest Policy, Legislation and Institutional Reorganization.

–    Bayoumi, A. M. S. (1995) Review of Forestry Policies in Selected African Countries. Sudan National Report on Forestry Policy. African Development Bank.

–    Byron, N. and Arnold, J. E. N. (1999) What Future for the People of the Tropical Forest. World Development 27 (5): 789-805.

–    El Mahi, A. G. (1997) Consultancy Report on Community Forestry in Sudan and Turkey. RNE, Regional Forestry Office FAO.

–    El Mahi, A. G. and Abdel Magid, T. D. (2002) The Role of the Private Sector and Civil Society in the Formulation and Implementation of National Forest Policies and National Forest Programmes in Sudan. Paper presented to the International Workshop organized by FAO and FNC.

–    El Mahi, A. G. and Hamid. A. A. (2004) Forest Policy Statement. Principles, Values and Issues Underlining the Forest Policy. Issue paper. TCP/SUD/2903 Revision of Forest Policy, Legislation and Institutional Reorganization

–    El Mahi, A. G (2006) Implementing the IPF / IFF proposals for action  .Enhancing the national forest programme process in Sudan

–    El Nasari, H. M. (2000) Forest Policy of the Sudan, Past, Present and Future. MSc. Thesis Faculty of Forestry University of Khartoum (Unpub.). –    Hassan & Tag Consultants. 2018. In-depth analysis of Drivers of Deforestation & Forest/Range Degradation-Republic of Sudan REDD+ Programme

–    Ibrahim, A. M. (2003) Law of Forest and Renewable Natural Resources 2002. SudanSilva 9 (1) 2003.

–    Ibrahim, A. M. (2006) Overview of Sudan forest policy, legislation and management. Enhancing the national forest programme process in Sudan.

–    Kanoan, G. M. (2004) Report on Forestry Legislation in the Sudan. Final Report. TCP/SUD/2903 Revision of Forest Policy, Legislation and Institutional Reorganization.

–    Kerkhof, P. (2000) Local Forest Management in the Sahel. Towards A new Social Contract. SOS Sahel International UK.

–    Kuchelmeister, G. (1989) Development of a Forestry Program for Farmers. Field Document No. 33. Fuel Wood Development for Energy in Sudan.

–    Shanks, E. and Carter, J. (1994) the Organization of Small Tree Nurseries. ODI. Rural Development Forestry Network. Study Guide No. 1.

–    Shawgi, M. K. (1958) Review of Certain Aspects of the 1932 Forest Policy. SudanSilva Vol. 8 (1).

–    Sulieman, M. S. (1996) Changing Forest Management Strategies in Sudan, A Challenge for Forestry Educational Systems. PhD thesis University of Wageningen Netherlands.

–    Vink, A. T. (1984) Some Considerations in Forest Management, Forest Policy and Forest Administration in Sudan. Fuel Wood Development Project.