International NGOs as Partners in ProPoor Forestry

1
International NGOs as Partners in Pro-Poor
Forestry

• Phil Franks
• CARE International

2
CARE in Pro-Poor Forestry

• Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania Empowerment for
  Participatory Forest Management
• Nepal Strengthened Actions for Governance in
  Utilization of Natural Resources
• Ghana Forest livelihoods and rights for
  sustainable forest Management
• Mozambique Vietnam under development
• Global A rights based approach to natural
  resource/environmental governance with particular
  emphasis on womens empowerment

3
Potential Value Added by INGOs in Pro Poor
Forestry

• Advocacy
• by INGOs at regional/global levels
• by partners and INGOs (??) at national level
• Learning
• Facilitating cross fertilisation
• Action research supporting learning and advocacy
• Pioneering new approaches/strategies, e.g.
• Rights-based approaches
• Landscape approaches
• High quality expertise (capacity building and TA)
• Key programming themes governance, conflict
  management,
• ME, adaptive project/program management
• Fund-raising

4
Constraints to INGO contribution to Pro-Poor
Forestry

• Poor quality control/management
• High cost of INGO operations
• High transaction costs of partnership
• Financial cost
• Confusion from unclear accountability
• Institutional inertia (business as usual)
• INGOs interests affecting outcomes

5
INGOs Affecting Outcomes

• Both environmental and humanitarian NGOs may
• Create/reinforce power imbalances serving
  specific interest groups (directly and by proxy),
  
• Polarise the poverty-conservation discourse
  making consensus and comprise more difficult
• Create/exacerbate conflict at local level
• In the context of pro-poor forestry the most
  common concern is environmental/conservation NGOs
  promoting national and/or global interests

6
Realising the Potential Contribution of INGOs to
Pro-Poor Forestry

• Clarify and justify pro-poor forestry
• Emphasise equity in benefits/cost distribution
  within communities
• Expose the deficiencies of poverty-blind
  forestry
• Promote realistic and honest discussion of
  trade-offs
• Demand higher standards of INGOs
• All INGOs improve programme quality
• All INGOs conduct basic social impact/conflict
  assessment
• Environmental/conservation NGOs adhere to do
  no harm principle to forest management/conservati
  on
• Promote accountability of environmental NGOs to
  local level constituencies the existence and
  legitimacy of a pro-poor environmental agenda
• Engage like-minded INGOs in regional/global
  alliance to challenge the traditional forest
  management mindset