PARTE II: RECOPILACIÓN DE DATOS
5. Recopilación de leyes vigentes al TFC
One of the main characteristics of the reforestation project was its design.
A plantation forestry approach was considered appropriate to meet government
objectives even though it required a high degree of technical knowledge and management. The local people involved in the project had always lived in the forest, knew it well and used its products to meet many basic needs. However,
apart from planting a few tree crops like coconuts and cocoa, replanting the forest was generally outside their experience and needs. Members of the landowning groups were taught the skills needed to prepare the land, plant the trees and maintain then. In this sense, they were able to participate actively in the project. They did not receive the technical knowledge to manage a plantation style
reforestation project, address some of the problems that arose or plan the
operations. For such a project, continued external technical assistance would be required. Initially there was an intention to identify local people who might
receive forestry training. Eight were given on-the-job training, which taught them basic forestry workskills. However, further training in forestry science or management was hindered by the limited education of most of the members of the landowning groups. Two were sent to a preliminary course at the Solomon
Islands College of Higher Education with a view to completing a certificate in
forestry, but neither completed the course. Forestry staff could have done more to
enhance the skills and knowledge of project workers and members of the
landowning groups. Few efforts were made to work closely with the people. This
reflected the emphasis of the Forestry Division in the project on the tasks necessary to get trees in the ground rather than the wider goals of Solomon Island Government to promote self-reliance. Technological complexity and a limited appreciation by Forestry Division staff of their role in training local
villagers were thus constraints on the landowning groups gaining greater control
over reforestation activities on their land.
A necessary requirement for participation in the project was land which was suitable for plantation forestry and for which ownership was reasonably secure. This immediately excluded those without land, those with limited land which was needed for food gardens, those in more inaccessible parts of Malaita and those whose title to land was under dispute. Thus the reforestation model being promoted by the project was unlikely to facilitate the participation of the poorest people in the province. Other types of forestry for local needs would be more likely to have wider application. However, in a national context, most people on Malaita might be considered relatively disadvantaged compared with those on the main island or other island groups which are more developed.
Chapter 7 indicated that at Saenaua at least, most people involved in the project had few resources other than their land which was mostly undeveloped. The project also had demonstrated a potential to involve women in income-generating activities, and this could be considered assistance to a disadvantaged group.
Reforestation, particularly with hardwoods, is a long term investment for which major financial benefits are postponed for at least 30 years. The
government needed to convince local landowners to participate in such a project given the conventional wisdom is that people are more likely to be supportive of projects which have immediate, obvious and highly probable benefits. For people who have been used to trees always being there, a plantation reforestation project is outside their experience and its long term income or environmental benefits not readily understood. However, changes in their surroundings may have made people more receptive to the project. For example, the slash and
burn
system ofagriculture was generally not seen as having a substantial impact on the forest,
whereas impacts of recent logging are becoming increasingly obvious. People
have heard about or experienced how logging had altered the forest and affected
the environment (e.g. changes in the water table). The project addressed this
problem in three ways. First, some landowner leaders were taken to talk to customary landowners in other countries who had benefitted from similar
projects. These leaders were influential in gaining local support for the project.
Second, incentives were introduced, primarily in the form. of income for work.
Whether such a financial inducement was necessary or even the best form. of
incentive was not fully discussed before the project started. This certainly proved
its most problematic and controversial aspect. Another immediate and clear
incentive for the Saenaua people in particular, was the promise of a road through
the plantation site joining their two villages. This was demonstrated by their
great disappointment when this was not delivered. Third, the project did not
pose many risks for the landowners because they had sufficient land to continue
planting their food and cash crops. They could only gain in a material sense,
through paid labour and/or the possession of an enhanced asset. If there was a
risk, it was in being seen to be different by other Solomon Islanders. If the project was successful, the landowners would gain mana, if a failure they would lose face. The potential benefits overcame this psychological barrier and the landowners were prepared to participate.
One aim of the project was to ensure that income generated by labour payments was distributed widely in the landowning groups, thus work unions were recommended. In fact, the project commenced by employing a limited number of workers, restricting participation and the sharing of benefits. Participation in cash benefits and interest in the project increased with the
change to work unions in the second half of the project. The Saenaua group leaders particularly wanted all families to participate in the work of establishing the forest. They saw this not only as everyone gaining from the income available from working on the project, but also in a traditional sense of everyone having a claim on the trees planted and their eventual use. They feared that if some people did not participate in the project, conflict would result between those who had helped plant and tend the trees and those who had not. For this reason, they ensured that members of the tribe who lived at Arabala (a village away from the project site) also participated in the labour force.
The project design affected participation in other ways as well. A number of design issues have previously been mentioned: the method of employing labour, the technological nature of the project and the failure to consider the role of women at the beginning of the project. Three other design issues are particularly relevant: starting from local needs, flexibility and responsiveness. In terms of project design, much of the literature on social forestry has stressed that projects should start from local needs. The Malaita project did the reverse. It was
prompted by a national need and provided incentives to local landowners were given incentives to participate. It could be argued that the incentives responded to local needs (primarily money and employment), otherwise the local people would have seen no reason to participate. An interesting result of the project was the increasing interest by the landowning groups about how the project might respond to local needs for a range of forest products. They wanted to introduce agro-forestry components into the project. In some senses the project was flexible and open to change while in others it was not. While the project was flexible enough to consider agro-forestry possibilities, neither the Solomon Islands bureaucracy nor the aid donor had the skills or knowledge to respond. When an
effort was made late in the project to introduce an agro-forestry component, it
was poorly planned in terms of both the technical requirement of the project and
the social realities of the communities. The project was less flexible or responsive
to participation by the local groups because its focus was on planting trees rather
than developing the skills of the landowners to develop their own land. This is
related to the objectives of the project as seen by the Forestry Division,
and
the training of forestry officers, which gave little or no emphasis to participatory orcommunity approaches to forestry. Some officers involved in the project from the
Solomon Islands Forestry Division and from the New Zealand Ministry of
Forestry were willing to involve the local people but lacked the experience and
skills to do so effectively. The resulting narrow view of the project and, at times,
paternalistic approach made the landowners angry and frustrated. In a different sense the project proved flexible enough to respond to issues that arose. While
not totally successful, new structures such as the coordinating committee,
did
have a significant impact on participation by the landowning groups in the latter
stages of the project. The willingness of technical personnel on liaison visits
and
the review and evaluation missions to seek a consensus on areas of disagreement,
the establishment of the coordinating committee which became a vehicle for
landowners introducing their ideas, changes to the method of employing labour
and the involvement of women are examples of this point.
The level of