Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Planning in Government Forest Agencies
Planning in Government Forest Agencies
Planning in Government Forest Agencies
Table of Contents
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: FORESTRY PLANNING REVISITED
FOREWORD
Agenda 21 and the "Forest Principles" adopted by UNCED in 1992 emphasized the need to protect the environment
and for people's participation to achieve sustainable development in the long run, in addition to maintaining the
contribution of forests to economic development. With this shift in emphasis in forest development has come a need
for new approaches and processes for forestry planning.
The Planning and Statistics Branch of the Policy and Planning Division of the Forestry Department of FAO, under
the supervision of Yves C. Dub, Forestry Officer (Planning), with the support of an interdisciplinary group from
various Divisions in FAO, has issued in September 1996, a Working Paper titled "Planning for Forest Use and
Conservation: Guidelines for Improvement". Dr. Jan G. Laarman from the Forestry Department of the North
Carolina State University drafted the original version.
This Agenda for Training Workshop corresponds to a revised version of the September 1996 Working Paper,
following the recommendations of an expert meeting organized in Accra, Ghana, in January 1997, by the FAO
Regional Office for Africa in collaboration with the National Forestry Programme Coordinating Unit and the
Forestry Policy and Planning Division of the FAO Forestry Department.
It is hoped that this publication will be an important reference framework for senior managers, planning leaders and
trainers in government ministries and agencies as they review their planning systems for forest use and conservation
and that the approaches recommended will be widely tested and adopted and thus contribute to the enhancement of
capacities called for by UNCED's Agenda 21.
Lennart Ljungman
Director
Policy and Planning Division
Forestry Department
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of planning for forestry development is to establish a workable framework for forest use and
conservation which incorporates the economic, social and environmental dimensions on a sustainable basis. The
framework is about creating a shared vision of how forests will be used and protected. This can be summed up in a
single central question: Trees and forests for whom and for what? The question is not new but what is new is the
perception that so many different groups have an interest in the reply.
Forestry planning has traditionally been mainly concerned with the production of timber for industry and other wood
products, and with forest industry development. Planning for environmental goals also has a long history but was
largely restricted to designated areas for exclusive conservation. National forestry development agencies were
essentially responsible for the sustained yield management on protected public forest lands and for reserved forests.
The term "sustained yield" was mostly limited to wood production and therefore excluded the majority of other
forest products and services. Although most forestry agencies have made progress towards multiple-use
management, planning remains often biased towards timber in a wide range of countries. Many of the actions taken
in order to stimulate forestry development in the immediate failed to sustain the momentum of growth in the longer
term. Short term achievements sometimes resulted in degradation or destruction of the stock of natural capital
needed in order to maintain growth in the future or reduced options for future end uses by degrading the forest
capital.
Today, forestry planning must adapt to rapidly changing social, economic, and political circumstances. Around the
world, the forestry profession is challenged to embrace new goals, principles, and management approaches. These
changing perspectives (see Box 1) imply that forestry planning has to adjust as follows:
To manage forests not only for industrial timber, but also for nontimber products and
for aesthetic, spiritual, cultural, and environmental contributions;
To account for both the private and public goods supplied by forests, and to search for
helpful processes that determine how much of each to produce;
To apply multiple criteria in order to compare forest options in terms of biological
diversity, social acceptability, total economic value, and overall sustainability;
To expand the spatial scope of planning from individual forest sites to entire
ecosystems;
To conduct planning in a manner that will recognize biological, social, and
environmental uncertainties;
To make greater efforts to reflect the interaction of forestry with other sectors like
agriculture in particular with reference to food security;
To recognize that policies outside the forestry sector such as macroeconomic policies,
population growth, agricultural, energy or environmental policies play an important role
in forest use and conservation;
To emphasize the potential contribution to poverty alleviation and the priorities of
vulnerable groups such as indigenous people, women and children, people at the lowest
levels of subsistence, and those in future generations;
To recognize that disagreements about forest uses occur within a world of sharply
divided values and preferences, and that forest-based communities are local and global.
Among the leading themes in forestry planning are: (1) wide participation by interest groups, (2) negotiation of
competing rights to forest resources, and (3) decisions that lead to forest sustainability. These themes are relevant
everywhere, even though their context varies from one country to another.
Yesterday
Today
Forest products are timber, game,
Forest produces not only commodities, but also biological diversity, protection
fuelwood, and water.
benefits, indigenous homelands, preservation values, and other cultural and
spiritual benefits.
The natural world can be managed Humans have profound impacts on the natural world, and many of these
and controlled.
impacts are beyond our capacity to understand and control.
Forest-dependent communities are Communities which benefit from forests are local, regional, national, and
The planning cycle consists of seven stages (Box 3). In this planning cycle, success consists of small positive
accomplishments that reinforce each other through the years. Or as shown at the bottom of Box 3, progress expands
outward in the form of a spiral.
The process appears simple, but this can be deceptive. An organisation needs capable management in order to (1)
know when and how to organize and supervise the planning, (2) adapt planning to be appropriate for a country's
unique circumstances, and (3) learn from planning's successes and failures. The whole of the process relies on
management, creativity, and cooperation. Any of these can be limiting. But for each constraint, the response is the
same: to work for continuous improvement.
1.2 At the End of a Process that Never ends: What are the
Results of Planning?
Strategic planning in relation to forests has the following characteristics:
Development plans set economic and social targets in relation to population growth, economic
production, savings and investment, income distribution, and other macroeconomic measures.
National development planning determines the budgets for sectors, agencies, and programs (e.g., in
forestry).
Regional and
When it works well, planning in regions and local areas is coordinated with national development
Area Planning planning. In forestry, regional and area planning are important because of the way forests are
separated by gradients of climate, watersheds, transportation infrastructure, and other biophysical
aspects.
Sector Planning The forestry sector refers to linkages among the owners, managers, and users of trees and forests.
Sectoral planning considers the different ways these owners, managers, and users will gain and
lose because of alternative options for forest use and conservation.
Land-Use
Land-use planning occurs at different levels and scales, from continental to local. It indicates the
Planning
advantages and disadvantages of a specific use on a particular unit of land according to physical,
economic, and social criteria.
Project Planning Projects attempt to combine resources to achieve results in an efficient manner. Usually, projects
are defined by well-specified objectives, budgets, time frames, and beneficiaries. In top-down
planning, projects support goals at sectoral, regional, and national levels. In bottom-up planning,
projects are specified prior to being considered for plans at sectoral, regional, and national levels.
Forest
Management planning chooses among production and conservation options for specific forests.
Management
The "manager" is a person or an entire organization, depending on the context.
Planning
Forest Enterprise Enterprise planning refers to business operations (not always for profit) that use one or more forest
Planning
goods and services. Enterprises are owned and managed by governments, communities, private
companies, and individuals. Enterprise planning focuses on resource supply, production
technology, and product marketing.
Strategic planning never truly ends, but there are milestones along the way to mark the progress. The results of
planning can be the following:
1. Bottom-up and top-down communications that help integrate the different units within
an agency. In this way, planning contributes to team building and a sense of shared
purpose. But when these communications are poorly managed, they create resentment
and frustrations.
2. Partnerships between the forestry agency, other agencies, and interest groups. For this
to be effective, the forestry agency must genuinely want and respect the ideas it receives
from persons not employed there. Just as importantly, the forestry agency cannot leave
out any key groups - since that creates more problems than it solves. The risks of badly
managing outside participation may partly explain the past reluctance of many forestry
agencies to invite it.
3. A vision of the future and a path to get there. To plan is to create a shared vision of the
future. Worksheet 2 presents a checklist of elements found in a good strategic plan for
forest use and conservation, although the format may be different between organisations.
Important functions for watersheds, coastal zones, etc., are neglected because there is
no accountability for them. Each agency (or department) assumes that "somebody else" is
responsible.
In a functional or geographical area, the agency is doing the same type of work as
another organization, but with conflicts or duplicated efforts.
In policy and program development, the organization is slow to act upon the directives
coming from top levels.
In a geographic area, the missions of other organizations (e.g., for agriculture, minerals,
roads, land reform, etc.) interfere with the agency's role to protect and manage forests.
Different agencies, NGOs, and interest groups misunderstand each other. Even worse,
many do not talk with each other.
These problems are widespread. Hundreds of management consultants agree that there is no easy way to solve them.
But for planning, the agency must attempt to define a clear and concise statement of its mission in relation to other
missions (Box 4). If this is done well at the national level, it can provide the basis for missions at subordinate levels
(e.g., for regions, provinces, and districts).
Box 4. What an Agency Should Expect in a Good Mission Statement
A good mission statement should........
cover all of its organization's functional, geographical, and service commitments;
complement (not conflict with) the missions of other government and private organizations;
be realistic, concise, and easy to understand.
Discussions about missions can be long and seemingly endless. This is a situation to be avoided. Management
experts make the following recommendations:
1. Convene workshops or meetings in a neutral place, and use the services of a preferably
neutral person (someone outside the organization) to facilitate group discussion about
roles and mission. Invite leaders from organizations (public and private) that have the
greatest interest and most questions about the mission of the agency.
2. Start by having everyone individually answer Worksheet 3. Then initiate group
discussions about these questions. This has to be handled carefully. Each special interest,
and each unit of the agency, will interpret the mission in a different way.
3. Based on these discussions, write a draft of a new or revised mission statement. This
can be the responsibility of a small team. Do not be overly constrained by laws,
regulations, and other legislation. In most agencies, many important roles are not written
in laws and documents. Moreover, the agency is aiming to produce a statement of what
its mission should be. This is the improvement you seek.
4. Circulate the draft to the invited leaders, as well as across and down the agency. Ask
for comments, and revise the draft accordingly. When properly managed, this can be a
powerful means of communication and team building.
Box 5 presents a sample mission statement for the fictional XYZ Forestry Department. The mission statement
cannot be a "dead document," but on the contrary should motivate the work of the whole agency. In countries where
it is appropriate, different regional and functional offices should write their own mission statements that start from
the national model - modifying it to reflect the special circumstances of that region or office. At all levels, a clear
statement of the mission is highly important for defining improvement goals, as follows.
Box 5. Example of a Mission Statement for a Forestry Agency
The XYZ Forestry Department contributes to the protection, utilization, and management of the nation's trees and
forests in ways that are socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable by:
1. Continuously assessing areas, conditions, and trends in tree and forest cover, and making the information widely
available.
2. Protecting public forestlands from encroachments, fires, insects, diseases, and other threats to the healthy
condition of trees, forests, and associated natural resources.
3. Maintaining a system of natural areas protected from harvesting and other intensive uses in order to promote
ecosystem preservation, environmental services, and scientific research.
4. Providing harvesting and other utilization rights to individuals, communities, and commercial enterprises in
selected zones of public forests, and insuring that harvesting is sustainable.
5. Assessing and efficiently collecting a fair revenue for government from the individuals, communities, and
enterprises which utilize products and services of the public forests.
6. Providing low-cost and efficient extension services in relation to trees, forests, and associated resources for
farmers, communities, and private businesses.
7. Providing policy analysis on forest-related issues to the highest level of national authority and decisionmaking.
8. Interacting cooperatively with international assistance agencies, donor groups, and NGOs in the programming of
improvement goals than can be implemented at one time. For obvious reasons, the effort to consolidate and
prioritize goals has to be a careful exercise in diplomacy.
Worksheet 6 classifies improvement goals by three levels of priority. Also, an agency can employ methods in
Chapter 3 to show how proposed goals relate to each other, to national priorities, and to feasibility factors. The mix
of goals should:
Objectives
Planning often fails at this stage of proposing action ideas. For example, the agency usually makes a mistake when it
proposes actions "for" somebody who does not actually participate in the planning. Secondly, action ideas may
suffer due to unrealistic cost estimates. Often this is because of too little attention in the office to budget and
financial management.
Box 8 illustrates actions to accomplish objectives (and see Worksheet 8). The action statements should be prepared
by the persons directly responsible for the objectives. Note, too, that not all actions have to be written on paper,
especially if they do not need approval at higher levels.
Planning Cycle - Stage 5
Negotiation: Seeking Agreement and Compromise
If the planning is done well, many disagreements will have been resolved by this stage. Ideas are moving laterally as
well as up and down when people discuss mission, goals, objectives, and actions. Obviously, the quality of this
discussion varies with:
Responsibility
Self (Chief, Utilization Section, XYZ
Forestry Dept.), with staff assistance
Self in collaboration with Training
Director, Technical Services Division
Self in collaboration with Budget
Director, Central Office
Time Frame
By December 1998
1st group - June 1999
2nd group - Dec. 1999
By June 1999
Many planning guides rely heavily on the Critical Path Method, Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT),
and related scheduling methods. These methods indicate the most efficient way to schedule planned activities in
order for others to begin immediately after them. These techniques are widely available in computer software at
reasonable prices. The leaders of planning groups should become familiar with these techniques, and possibly apply
them.
However, not too much emphasis will be given to them here. They work best where organizational systems are
stable. They are far less useful where politics are volatile, the government is re-organizing every six months, and the
agency's budget may be cut by half. Many managers do just as well with a big chart on the wall, and an eraser to
correct it every month.
This publication is not about management per se. However, strategic planning implies a management orientation.
The strategies have to be broken down into the parts that can be implemented, evaluated, and improved. Essential
elements in this are communications and supporting resources (budget, training, organization, and supervision).
Additionally, the people who are responsible for carrying out objectives must have the authority to do so. Finally,
there must be a system of incentives to reward good performance. All of this is management.
Planning Cycle - Stage 7
Evaluation and Adjustment: Learning from Experience
An agency needs to anticipate how it will evaluate the successes and failures of its planning (Worksheet 11). How
will it know what went wrong? What has to be done better next time, and why? This is the self-correcting feedback
for continuous improvement.
There are ways to be conscious of both the planning process and its results. First, the agency should study the
previous strategic plan and evaluate its successes and failures, and the reasons for them. Secondly, the people who
participate in the current round of planning should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the process. This also
refers to individuals outside of the agency who have been participating.
Finally, the individuals responsible for carrying out the specific actions of the plan will be reporting their problems
and progress over the years. Was the planning too ambitious? Or too cautious? Did anything happen that was totally
unexpected? What was the role of good luck and bad luck? Or was the luck created through human factors? Where
problems occurred, were they because of faulty concept or poor implementation? This kind of reporting is very
instructive. However, it demands an "institutional memory" to track results and make them available for the next
generation of planners.
1. Methods to clarify issues and problems. - All planning teams need creativity and
analytical rigor to define problems and compare options. Several structured techniques
promote both creativity and rigor.
2. Methods to examine spatial and inter-sectoral relationships. - Strategic planning for
forests has to account for cross-cutting functional and spatial relationships. The methods
for this rely on maps and area planning, together with computer simulations and models
in regional economic geography.
3. Methods for social, environmental, and economic analysis. - The planning team needs
to anticipate the social, environmental, and economic impacts of its proposed goals and
strategies. Several frameworks are available for this.
4. Methods to discuss the future. -Planning is about forecasting the future and deciding
how to prepare for it. The planning team should practice and learn from techniques of
"futures analysis."
Planning tools do not have to be quantitative to be useful. Quantitative models can be important, but they are not the
only or best techniques to promote the "systems approach" in thinking about a problem and its possible solutions.
Box 10 presents criteria to help an agency evaluate the appropriateness of different planning methods and tools,
whether alone or in combination. Let these criteria guide its selection.
Insufficient application of planning tools leads to disorganized thinking. The discipline of the tools keeps the
planning focused and organized. But an agency wants the tools to serve your process, not to control it. It is often
easy to allow the tools to become ends in themselves. Especially in the industrialized countries, some expensive
efforts in forest planning have failed exactly for this reason.
Source: Adapted from FAO, 1994, Formulation of Agricultural and Rural Investment Projects: Planning Tools,
Case Studies, and Exercises, Volume 2 (Reconnaissance), Rome, Italy, Tool No. 5.
Logical Framework. - The logical framework encourages planners to specify causeand-effect relationships, and to explicitly state all assumptions. At the top of the
framework is a clearly defined goal. Lower levels of the framework specify the why,
what, and how to achieve this goal (Worksheet 16). For these linkages to be possible, the
internal logic of planning must be sound, and the assumptions of the agency must be
valid. Box 13 illustrates for a strategy to reduce depletion pressures on fuelwood
supplies.
Summary
Indicators
Means to Verify
To reduce depletion Reduce fuelwood
No. of headloads removed
Rapid appraisals; spot
pressures on
removals from upland
checks; periodic surveys.
fuelwood supplies pine forests, South
Region.
(1) To lessen
(1) Fuelwood collection is (1) Number of hours per week per
(1) Focus groups; time
women's work;
time- consuming;
woman for fuelwood collection;
studies;
(2) To aid forest
(2) Trees are mutilated
(2) Field evidence of damaged trees and (2) Walk-through spot
regeneration and
and regeneration is poor regenerating trees
checks; forest inventories.
growth
Fuelwood is more Increase supply and
Reduce average walking distance per
Interviews; time studies;
available and better decrease demand
headload; fewer headloads per week;
physical measurements
utilized
smaller size of headloads.
(mass and volume).
(1) Grow energy
(1) Promote clean(1) Plant 5,000 trees per year of species (1) Walk-by inspections
trees in home
burning species;
X, Y, and Z, starting in year 1998;
and household surveys;
gardens;
(2) Increase the
(2) Only 1 in 50 families (2) Increase to 2 in 50 families by year (2) Household surveys;
adoption of cooking uses them now;
2001;
stoves;
(3) Seek kerosene (3) Debate through
(3) Reduce kerosene price 25% by 1999. (3) Market studies.
subsidies
political means
Force-Field Analysis. - Most goals are characterized by restraining forces that hold back
an agency and driving forces that push it forward. In force-field analysis, the agency
identifies these forces, and it assesses its degree of influence to control them. If the
agency knows which forces are holding it back and which can carry it forward, then the
planning focuses on how to reduce the former and exploit the latter. The agency rates the
different forces for both importance and the extent of its control over them. The agency
concentrates its actions on the high-rated forces (Worksheet 17). An example is
presented in Box 14 for improving success in afforestation and reforestation.
Figure
Importance
2
2
Your Control
2
4
Total
4
6
4
2
5
2
9
5
2
5
2
1
5
6
4
5
4
3
8
8
High
Neutral
High
Poor
Annual
Expenditure
Very Large
Large
Modest
Large
Biodiversity
++
++
+++
+++
Political
Acceptability
++
++
+
?
Role Playing. - An agency wants members of its planning team to interpret problems
and feel emotions in the same way as its actual interest groups. The use of role playing
can be surprisingly effective for this. The agency assigns different team members to "act"
as if they are personalities among its interest groups (Worksheet 19). Role playing is
never a substitute for genuine participation by these groups. But it can be used within the
planning team to widen perceptions, compare options, and prepare for comments by the
real personalities.
Maps and Land-Use Plans. - Worksheet 20 indicates several types of information that
the agency may want presented in the form of maps. Simple techniques, such as
overlaying different kinds of maps to show a composite picture of selected areas, can be
perfectly adequate in strategic planning. Seldom does an agency need Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) to cover all areas, particularly during the early stages of
identifying problems and issues. Rather, it relies on simpler and less expensive methods.
The agency considers GIS only where detailed analyses will be warranted because of
sensitive issues or particularly important land-use tradeoffs.
Computerized Simulations. - Some computerized simulations show how land uses will
change because of population growth and migration, agricultural expansion, and so on.
These simulations can be helpful for discussing where and how fast forests are likely to
be converted to non-forest uses. Some simulation models illustrate environmental
impacts of forest conversion at a regional scale. Others are able to project future demands
for forest products and services. An increasing number of these models will become
available as computer software continues to improve, and as more packages are adapted
for international use. At the same time, an agency wants its planning team to be aware of
the many intangible and non-quantitative details that simulations cannot address.
Models in Economic Geography. - Regional models are helpful for indicating how
different kinds of investments-such as in forest plantations, tourist facilities, etc. - will
create demands for credit, transport services, infrastructure, and employment. To explore
these issues, an agency may want to employ input-output models, regional trade flow
models, and production linkage studies. Other models show how populations locate in
response to economic and social "growth poles." These and related approaches are
described in the references on regional economic development (see Appendix II, Part
B).
Social
Environmental
Economic Ranking*
Total Score**
Ranking*
Ranking*
A
2
1
3
6
B
1
3
4
8
C
5
4
5
14
D
3
5
2
10
E
4
2
1
7
To conclude, the social, environmental, and economic tools an agency selects for its strategic planning should be
determined by:
Trend extrapolation. - In this approach, an agency extends past and current observations
into the future, usually through quantitative relationships. For example, if the agency
knows fuelwood consumption per capita, and if you also have a forecast of population
growth, then you are able to project the growth of aggregate fuelwood consumption into
the future. At the same time, the agency needs to identify what may happen because of
possible new trend components (e.g., changes in subsidies for petroleum-based fuels). In
more complex situations, the demand for one or more forest products is related to several
explanatory variables simultaneously (e.g., population, income, prices of substitute
materials, and others). Similarly, an agency can attempt to project deforestation rates,
diffusion of agroforestry technologies, etc., in relation to their explanatory variables.
These types of projections require reliable data sets and experts capable in advanced
statistical methods, both of which may be limiting in many situations.
Scenario construction. - Here an agency uses perspectives from different people to
explore alternative states of the future. The agency asks individuals to describe how they
visualize future political, cultural, economic, and technological dimensions of a particular
issue related to forests. It then applies qualitative judgments to separate likely scenarios
from those which are less plausible. In another type of scenario construction, it asks
individuals to imagine the future they want (i.e., in reference to a particular issue), and
then to describe a series of events and conditions to achieve it.
Historical analogy. - Sometimes an agency asks its planning team to look backwards to
think about what may happen in the future. For example, it can ask everyone to view its
interest groups in an ongoing historical struggle of forces and counterforces, goals and
constraints, and actions and reactions. In a second kind of analysis, the agency asks its
planners to describe a particular problem about forests and humans in terms of past and
current social dilemmas. Then, what could happen in the future that would help the
country to solve these dilemmas? In both cases, the agency is looking for historical
patterns that signal that an important transformation is possible or even likely. (Also, see
"force-field analysis" in section 2.1.)
Delphi and other techniques based on collective opinions. - Several forecasting
techniques rely on group interactions to arrive at a collective opinion. In the Delphi
method, different persons respond individually and confidentially to a sequence of
questions. At each stage in the sequence, the results from the preceding questions are
revealed to everyone. Then, each member of the group is given the opportunity to change
his or her assumptions and predictions. Because these changes are made confidentially,
each individual is free to change a previous position without being influenced by personal
relationships. In a variation of this method, the discussions are open and shared.
However, this sometimes gives dominant personalities a great amount of influence, e.g.,
by getting other individuals to "agree" with them.
Note that all forecasts of the future apply the same basic approach. They identify patterns of behavior, and explore
how these patterns will change or stay the same as a basis for anticipating what will happen in the future. In
planning, an agency is doing its best to make the future "knowable" by carefully studying Factors A, B, and C that
lead to Result Z. The agency uses theories and concepts to predict the future in relation to the present and past. In
this sense, the planning team needs to appreciate that good forecasting is a science-it is not wild and undisciplined
guessing.
An agency should be alert to books, articles, and videos for forecasting approaches that may be helpful. Particularly
because of computer simulations, forecasting models are able to represent increasing numbers of variables and
relationships. However, an agency should never accept these in the form of "black boxes." Somebody has to reason
that A, B, and C lead to Z. For this, the methods of trend extrapolation, scenario construction, historical analogy,
Delphi technique, panel of experts, etc., are basic and indispensable. They require that planners apply structured
thinking, even if not always with the assistance of computers. The challenge of the agency is to practice these
techniques, and to learn how to adapt them to meet its objectives (see Worksheet 24).
CHAPTER 3: INTEGRATING
PARTICIPATION INTO THE PLANNING
PROCESS
3.1 When Participation Works, What Does It Accomplish?
3.2 Design a Framework for Participation: Overview
3.3 Develop the Participation Plan
3.4 Work With Regions and Districts
3.5 Work With Other Agencies
3.6 Work With Interest Groups
3.7 Work With Advisory Committees
3.8 Prepare a Participation Summary
3.9 Hold the Door Open for Continued Participation
Participation is instrumental to ensure that planning will work towards reflecting the priorities and interests of all
major groups and that they will be committed to playing their role in translating planning into action. Most public
agencies agree with the principle of inviting citizens and interest groups to participate in strategic planning. But
participation demands preparation, management, diplomacy, time, money, and hard work!
The challenge of an agency is to define who the different interest groups are, and then to interact effectively with
each of them. Many forms of participation, from passive to active, can be appropriate in different circumstances and
with different people. But when participation is not handled well, it can turn into a confrontation over competing
ideas and interests. The agency's aim is to prevent this from happening by learning and practicing the principles of
effective participation, as summarized in this chapter.
By inviting participation, a forestry agency will never satisfy everyone. On the other hand, the agency has to avoid
the isolation that leads to bad choices. It has to encourage partnerships that go beyond what any forestry agency can
do alone.
Large numbers of mainly rural people who depend on trees and forests to provide
products and services for their subsistence (e.g., fuelwood, construction materials, food
products, medicinal plants, and the like);
Private businesses - both large and small - whose incomes derive entirely or in part
from the use of forest goods and services;
Defining who the interest groups are in the different stages of planning, and finding
effective means of seeking their participation in those stages;
Defining the information that interest groups need from the agency, and vice versa, for
participation to be productive;
Anticipating the issues and conflicts that will arise, and how to handle them; and
Preparing a participation plan that addresses the preceding points.
The ideal first step is to hold a series of interviews, community meetings, and focus groups to identify the pressing
issues in forest use and conservation as perceived by organized groups and individual citizens. This is done in the
forest regions, as well as in the main cities. This initial fact-finding (also known as "scoping") is the time to assess
(1) what the issues will be during the rest of the planning exercise, (2) how the different interest groups feel about
these issues, (3) which people hold the keys to the problems and solutions, and (4) what kinds of participation will
be desirable and feasible.
Box 17. When Participation is Successful, It Offers Attractive Results..........
1. PROVIDES OPENNESS (TRANSPARENCY), FAIRNESS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY. This saves the planning from
criticism by helping to make the process legitimate, credible, and socially responsive.
2. STRENGTHENS THE PLANNING BY INCREASING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF INFORMATION AND IDEAS.
Participatory planning is a means of communication. Through it, people provide facts, questions, perceptions, and
opinions. This increases the quantity and accuracy of the "information" that goes into planning.
3. PROMOTES CONSIDERATION OF A BROAD RANGE OF INTERESTS IN FORESTS. Participation of a wide
diversity of people helps a country discover the variety of wants, needs, and preferences in forest conservation and
development.
4. ALLOWS DISAGREEMENTS AND COMPLAINTS TO BE EXPRESSED EARLY AND OPENLY. Participants who
disagree on goals and strategies have the opportunity to discuss them. In planning, certain disagreements can be
negotiated before they grow into major conflicts.
5. INFORMS INTEREST GROUPS ABOUT THE REALITY OF DIFFICULT CHOICES. By inviting outside
participation, a forestry agency strives to get other people to understand its issues and problems. In the long run, this
can help build political and citizen support.
6. INCREASES ACCEPTANCE OF PLANNING AND THE DECISIONS THAT RESULT FROM IT. Through
participatory planning, a forestry agency increases the probability that the plan will be accepted at the conclusion of
discussions ('the dialogue") about it. The participants who work in the planning develop an ownership of it, and this
helps create the commitments for successful implementation.
The early definition of problems and issues can be one of the most difficult tasks in strategic planning because:
The proposed solution for one group's issue is the problem for another group. To
illustrate, the farmers' group that wants free seedlings is a problem for the private
nurseries that want to sell them. The rural settlement that wants legal hunting rights in the
forest is opposed by the NGO that wants this land for wildlife conservation.
Many people will not say what they feel, especially in the presence of elites. It can
require special intermediaries to bring out issues at the bottom of the socioeconomic
ladder. Leaders of NGOs, local governments, community associations, etc., are
themselves elites who do not necessarily speak for the people they claim to represent.
For these reasons, it can be important to contact people who are not in organized groups. Unfortunately, many
planning teams feel obliged to interact with group leaders only. In other cases, people in the communities will not
speak out if a government official is present, particularly in a setting of illegal activities (e.g., game poaching and
clandestine logging). This poses an obvious problem for choosing who to send on the fact-finding teams. Sometimes
the agency avoids sending government personnel and relies instead on neutral intermediaries. This refers to
independent advisors, civic or religious leaders, respected teachers, and the like.
Following the initial fact finding, an agency may want to organize one or more advisory committees to work with
the planning team. Frequently, a citizens advisory committee is set up separately from a technical advisory
committee. The technical committee can be an inter-agency mix of professionals and staff, perhaps joined by
representatives of the key interest groups. The citizens committee can be a cross-section of community and civic
leaders who are well respected.
The choice of people for these committees is not easy where political, ethnic, and other kinds of tensions divide a
society. An agency has no formula other than to learn from committee structures that have worked in the past, either
with the agency or in another context.
In small countries, the staff of the forestry agency can usually name all of the interest groups. But in other settings,
the number of environmental and rural NGOs runs into the hundreds. This makes it more complicated to design a
framework for participation. The means of identifying interest groups is then a combination of several approaches
(Box 18).
Several studies conclude that, beyond a certain point, the list of key interest groups does not change, no matter how
many additional search techniques you apply. On the other hand, the participation of citizens is a more open-ended
selection.
In designing its participatory framework, an agency needs to think carefully about who should be active in the
different planning stages. For convenience, it should recognize different groups and levels of participants, such as:
participants and the agency. Finally, the agency has studied the special circumstances of the planning context as a
guide to choosing participation approaches.
At this point, the ideas and proposals of an agency should come together in the form of a written participation plan.
The participation plan is developed in consultation with the agency's subordinate offices and with the other agencies,
interest groups, and citizens who will participate in the planning. The agency wants the planning to be visible and
politically accountable. This means asking people if they can be satisfied with the proposed process before the
agency actually implements it.
Planning Stage
Apply only the easiest participation strategies until they are mastered; do not
attempt approaches that are beyond your agency's capacity to manage.
Multiply the efforts by inviting selected "neutral" individuals or groups to cosponsor the planning; seek joint planning opportunities in the context of other
programs and initiatives.
Short or long duration of the planning A short planning process requires extensive preplanning and preparation; a
period
long process requires continuous visibility (e.g., via newsletters, media
events, and the like).
Technical complexity
Often demands a good technical advisory committee; can be an opportunity to
As noted earlier, trees and forests are "inter-sectoral" resources that cut across divisions of land ownership and
government programs. For this reason, the approach to get other agencies to participate is critical. Generally, an
agency has several opportunities to encourage inter-agency participation (Box 22).
Box 22. Opportunities to Encourage A Variety of Government Agencies to Participate in the Planning for
Forests
1. PLANNING SCOPE AND DESIGN. The top administrators of key agencies need to participate in the early stages
of planning, especially in decisions about its scope and design. If reports merely given to these agencies to review
after the planning is underway, their "ownership" of the process is minimal. Moreover, they will not understand the
tradeoffs and conflicts unless they participate from the beginning.
2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES. If it works well, inter-agency participation helps link strategic planning
for forests with initiatives and plans elsewhere in the government. In some cases, inter-agency cooperation provides
access to studies and data that otherwise would be difficult to obtain. Importantly, only an inter-agency group can
coordinate strategies for river basins and other bio-geographical regions. If the emphasis is ecosystem or land-use
planning, the agency relies on inter-agency cooperation for the "systems approach."
3. PERIODIC REVIEWS. As noted, a good participation plan provides for periodic reviews to evaluate progress and
problems. These reviews provide additional opportunities for the forestry agency to call upon the other agencies.
INTER-AGENCY COMMISSIONS AND TASK FORCES. In principle, improvement goals for forest use and
conservation can be distributed across several agencies. For example, a rural extension agency may have goals to
expand its agroforestry services, while a research institute has goals to expand its tree seed collection. Other
agencies take on responsibilities for yet other improvement goals, e.g., for wildlife and watersheds. In the end,
several agencies share responsibilities in a cross-organizational plan for land use.
Especially because of past fragmentation, inter-agency committees attract considerable attention. More and more
forestry officials will find themselves working within these new organizational structures, often in response to
government reorganizations for sustainable development.
In these inter-agency committees, the success of strategic planning for forests depends on accountability for results.
Accountability, in turn, depends on clear mission statements and clear lines of authority. It also depends on how the
new organizations deal with management complexities and inter-agency rivalries. Worksheet 30 helps an agency
discuss a number of key points.
Help define issues and problems important for the design of the planning;
Serve as communications links between the forestry agency and other agencies, interest
groups, and communities;
Help design, organize, and co-sponsor the participation plan;
Assist in informing high levels of government, interest groups, and the communities
about the importance of the planning;
Help select individuals or groups to carry out background analyses, participatory
assessments, and other tasks in support of the planning;
Help evaluate the adequacy of technical, social, and environmental information that
goes into the planning;
Help resolve conflicts among various interests; and
Assess the quality control of planning reports before they are released more widely.
Obviously, these are important responsibilities. Yet when committees are poorly selected or organized, they cause
continuing frustrations for the agency and the committees themselves. The agency faces several potential problems
to be avoided or minimized (Box 24).
Box 24. Problems to be Avoided When An Agency Chooses Advisory Committees
1. DISTRUST BETWEEN A CITIZENS COMMITTEE AND A TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. This happens when one
committee perceives it has less status and influence than the other. To attempt to prevent this, the agency provides
both committees the same materials and access so that one committee does not feel neglected relative to the other.
The agency promotes communications between the committees by appointing some persons to sit on both of them.
They are the bridge of communications. Moreover, the agency insures that each committee is fully occupied with
genuinely important tasks.
2. UNCLEAR OR CONTESTED ROLE IN THE PLANNING DECISIONS. A forestry agency is striving to give
"ownership" of the planning to citizens and interest groups, but that can be carried too far when advisory committees
want control of final decisions. The final decisions rightfully remain with the agency. To avoid misunderstandings, it
clearly defines the limits of an advisory group's authority in advance of its participation, preferably in writing.
3. ADVISORY COMMITTEES AS POWER ELITES. Because of the information and influence they acquire, advisory
committees can turn into power elites. They can become the authorities on particular issues, and they can manipulate
decisions to suit personal interests. The longer a group exists, the greater are the possibilities for this to happen. One
way to try to prevent this is to limit the existence of advisory committees to the duration of the planning period.
4. MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE. When individuals participate in
advisory committees, they often moderate their views as they begin to appreciate the many tradeoffs in the issues
they face. This can be excellent for the agency and the country. But it may anger constituency groups if they do not
understand the reasoning behind various compromises. To these interest groups, their "representatives" are out of
touch with reality. The best prevention is to make sure that two-way communications keep flowing. This puts the
emphasis on frequent briefings, open meetings, and other means to facilitate information flows.
The main challenge in selecting people to serve on advisory committees is to satisfy everyone that the agency is
including the appropriate mix of interests. Box 25 reviews the advantages and disadvantages of several approaches.
Method
Comments
1. The agency directly chooses the committee
This can raise suspicions that the agency selects people that it can
members in order to try to balance different
control, while excluding its critics.
interests.
2. The agency chooses the interest groups and
The agency should be open to inviting a wide variety of interest
communities, and the interest groups and
groups and communities, including those it does not know well.
communities choose the committee members.
3. The agency turns to neutral organizations to
The agency asks a civic group, NGO, external aid agency, or other
choose the committee members.
third party to appoint the advisory committees. This requires trust
and good communications between your agency and the partner
organization so that each understands what the other needs.
4. The agency announces that it is seeking
This usually favors privileged interests and individuals. People
committee members, and individuals come
who are remote, poor, and politically inexperienced are least able
forward to volunteer (self-selection).
to volunteer.
5. The agency uses advisory committees that have The committee members have experience in working together (an
worked in the past, but perhaps for purposes
advantage). But they are not necessarily the main interest groups
unrelated to forests.
in forests (a disadvantage).
6. Members of advisory committees are elected byThis may work for a citizens committee where there is an election
popular vote.
infrastructure and a timely opportunity to vote. But ordinarily,
forest planning is not raised to this political level.
7. The agency combines two or more of the
For example, the agency selects some of the members. They, in
preceding methods.
turn, select others and also invite volunteers. The selection of the
first members is important, since they are responsible for
choosing others.
A forestry agency has two other primary responsibilities in working with advisory committees:
It responds to the requests of advisory committees for information and resources. The
potential goodwill with advisory groups is ruined if the agency does not meet their needs
for information, staffing, travel support, and other resources. Agreements about these
resources have to be established from the beginning.
It must assign the agency's top executives to interact with the advisory committees.
Advisory committees are seldom content to meet solely with an agency's liaison staff. If
the advisory groups cannot meet regularly with the leaders, then they are showing that
their priorities are elsewhere. This can be very damaging for an agency which claims a
commitment to a participatory process.
The type of participation that occurred (drawing from the participation plan to
summarize what, when, where, who, why, etc.);
The issues and viewpoints raised by the planning participants; and
The ways in which this participation influenced the strategic plan of the agency.
The participation report helps protect the agency from potential accusations that its planning process was closed.
Secondly, the report informs citizens and interest groups that their participation matters. Finally, the report is a
valuable means to communicate on issues of forest use and conservation.
The participation report should use simple and direct language. It needs to be issued simultaneously with (or only
shortly after) the strategic plan. An agency can express its gratitude for the participation in a number of ways:
Forced relocation of communities when forested lands are set aside for national parks, infrastructure projects, and
other developments.
Disagreements about use rights for timber, water, game, fuelwood, and other forest resources.
Inadequate consultation with women as forest users at the community level.
Disagreements over planting native vs. exotic tree species.
Disagreements about criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management.
Lack of communication between and among interest groups
Disagreements among the national government, external aid agencies, and NGOs on priorities for forest use and
conservation.
1. Cooperative strategy. - This is also called the "soft bargaining" approach. It minimizes
the degree of conflict by generating trust and kindness. The agency is looking for
common ground and joint interests, and it wants everyone to benefit. The agency
compromises, and it expects other people to do the same. The approach is at its best when
other individuals similarly cooperate. But it does not work when others regard the
agency's "soft" approach as a weakness that they can exploit.
2. Competitive strategy. - This is "hard bargaining" in which the agency gives nothing and
demands everything. The agency applies pressure to get its way. This approach is
important when an agency absolutely must win, even if other persons will lose. The
approach works well when an agency faces weak or confused negotiators. It is less
appropriate when a long-term relationship has to be maintained, or when the opponents
are well prepared.
3. Analytical strategy. - In this approach, negotiation is a problem-solving exercise to
create options that benefit everyone. This is sometimes called "interest-based bargaining,"
or "principled negotiation." The agency tries to: (1) separate the people from the problem;
(2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) generate options for mutual gain; and (4) use
objective criteria to make decisions.
The negotiator who favors "principled negotiation" does not rely on a forceful personality, or on a position of power
in the relationship. Rather, he or she recognizes that everyone has legitimate interests to be satisfied. These interests
are met through a search for mutual agreement rather than by application of one-sided force.
Yet this analytical approach also has its limitations. The two or more sides to an argument are not always logical. It
can be impossible to avoid taking positions when individuals on the other side of a dispute are being irrational. This
is especially true when the conflict is largely about differences in beliefs and values.
A competent negotiator knows what kind of image he or she projects. Good negotiators also recognize and respond
to the negotiating styles on the opposite side of an argument. For example, is the conflict with someone who
generally needs social approval, and who therefore will favor cooperative negotiation? Or is the conflict with an
aggressive personality who enjoys defeating an opponent? Other styles include negotiators who are intuitive, naive,
deceptive, hostile, sarcastic, and so on. In each situation, an agency tries to understand its negotiating personality in
relation to others. This increases the prospects for the negotiation to succeed.
Box 28 presents the advantages and disadvantages of the different negotiation styles. An agency should review them
each time the planning team prepares to interact with people who strongly disagree with it, or with each other.
There may not be time or resources People avoid hard Bargainers in order to
to mount a defense against a strong interact with someone else.
competitor.
If "soft spots" are exposed in hard
bargainers, they lose effectiveness.
This offers advantages for a weak By refusing to take a position, you may
group that confronts a strong
unnecessarily prolong the time to settle a
opposition (by stressing principles, not conflict.
power).
You emphasize objectivity and The approach is one of the best
Analytical methods do not work when
the use of information.
means to create "win-win" solutions in the problem is the persons, not the issues.
a wide variety of conflicts.
You try to persuade the other side
"Objective standards" usually favor the
by presenting facts, standards,
status quo (i.e., what is, not what should
civility, and mutual benefit.
be).
People are quiet and defensive at meetings if their leaders:
Does it have sufficient strength to convince the different interest groups to negotiate
(with it, and with each other)?
Does it have sufficient strength to produce an acceptable agreement?
The negotiating strength of the agency relative to the other side has three sources: (1) it applies pressure due to its
authority, status, and control.; (2) it has something the other side wants, and they are willing to trade for it; and (3) it
is credible because its arguments are legitimate and reasonable.
The first source of an agency's negotiating strength is force, i.e., it is bigger and stronger than the other side. The
forestry agency derives its authority from laws and regulations. But in reality, the agency may be small,
underfunded, and in other ways poorly positioned to negotiate on the basis of its authority. For example, its use of
the law is ineffective without adequate enforcement capacity. Its strength is measured by a large number of sanctions
and court judgments favorable to the agency. To date, many countries are unable to obtain this result. Moreover, the
application of top-down authority as a source of strength can be inconsistent with the spirit of empowerment, i.e.,
working through bottom-up incentives.
Hence an agency's second source of negotiating strength is to trade something of value with the other side. What
does the other side want that an agency can afford to give? The agency must accurately identify the needs of these
individuals, and then convince them that a negotiated solution can meet their needs. The agency's approach is: "Our
proposal is in your best interests".
Finally, negotiating strength depends on credibility. An agency is credible if the other side sees it as trustworthy,
competent, and dynamic:
When the two or more persons in an argument recognize their own inability to reach an
agreement;
When one of the disputing persons judges another to be "irrational"; and
When neutral assistance is needed to add information, conduct technical evaluations,
and carry out other problem-solving tasks.
Third-party intervention is especially valuable in conflicts where consequences are serious, positions are rigid, and
arguments are personal. It is also valuable where one side has much more power than another, but the agency needs
a solution that will be fair to the weaker side. Outside persons may succeed because they have no immediate interest
in the outcome. This can be a huge advantage where feelings are intense, and where the conflicting sides are
struggling to win at all costs. Depending on the circumstances, an agency calls upon third parties for several
different roles (Box 29).
Box 29. Outside Negotiators Can Help An Agency in the Following Ways
1. FACT FINDING. This is when an agency asks someone outside the conflict to review the facts and evidence of the
situation, and to report his or her observations to the group.
2. CONCILIATION. The third party talks separately with the disputing sides in order to reduce tensions, and to
develop a resolution process that will be agreeable to everyone.
3. MEDIATION. The third party participates in the negotiation process, and attempts to help the disputing sides
reach an agreement. But he or she has no authority over the decisions that are reached.
4. ARBITRATION. The disputing sides select a third party who reviews the facts and makes a decision. In advance of
Having the agency's director assume a lead role in the design of the planning;
Learning exactly what the director wants from the planning, and working hard to insure
that these needs can be met;
Scheduling frequent informal sessions so that the director is well informed of progress
and problems during all phases of the planning; and
Finding ways to give credit to the director for accomplishments that emerge from the
planning.
The wise planning team accepts the responsibility for failures in the planning, but generously attributes its successes
to the agency's director. To the extent that the director feels rewarded, he or she will be more likely to endorse the
planning and to implement its recommendations. Conversely, no director can embrace a strategic plan that threatens
his or her authority. The challenge is to create the right psychological and administrative setting for the strategic
planning to reward rather than threaten the agency's leaders (Worksheet 35). This is frequently the single most
important thing that can be done to promote the integration of strategic planning with decisionmaking.
participation by citizens and interest groups. This requires team members who can define interest groups, and who
can choose among alternative methods to interact with them (CH 3).
5. CONFLICT NEGOTIATION. An agency needs team members who are good at developing options and
compromises when people disagree over goals and strategies in "Trees and forests for whom and for what." The best
negotiators are trustworthy, competent, and dynamic (CH 4).
APPENDIX I: GLOSSARY
Accountability: (in management science) The responsibility of an organization to provide evidence that its policies,
programs, and projects satisfy its interest groups.
Action team: (in planning) A group of people who are responsible for implementing a specific improvement goal.
Administrative culture: The prevailing attitudes, values, beliefs, and rules for acting within an organization.
Benefit-cost analysis: Relationship of projected outcomes to projected costs, with both outcomes and costs
expressed in monetary terms.
Bottom-up process: (in planning) To transmit ideas and recommendations from the bottom of an organization to its
higher levels
Brainstorming: A structured method to address problems by asking people to rapidly propose ideas, while the group
temporarily withholds its comments and criticisms.
Cause-and-effect analysis: (in planning) A method to help a group examine underlying explanations (causes) for
what they observe (effects).
Capacity building: (in relation to development planning) The process of improving organizations, human resources,
and legal and regulatory frameworks.
Consensus: A feeling within a group that its conclusion represents a fair summary of the conclusions reached by the
individual members of the group. Each individual accepts the group's conclusion on the basis of logic and feasibility.
Continuous improvement: To raise the performance of an organization through a never-ending process of choosing
and adjusting missions, goals, objectives, and action strategies.
Critical path method: (in planning and programming) A method of scheduling to show a logical and efficient order
of activities and events.
Decentralization: The distribution of decisionmaking and operations to lower levels of government (and sometimes
to non-governmental organizations).
Delegation: The transfer of planning and management functions to organizations which are funded by a central
government, but which do not come under its operational control.
Delivery system: (in management science) Organizational arrangements to provide program services to the interest
groups (activities, information, materials, physical outputs, etc.).
Delphi: (in forecasting the future) A method of obtaining forecasts from a panel of experts.
Distributional effects: The ways in which your policies, programs, and projects redistribute resources (and benefits
and costs) in the general population.
Efficiency evaluations: (in management science) Analyses of the costs (inputs) of programs in relation to their
benefits or effectiveness (outputs).
Empowerment: To transfer authority and resources to enable a person or organization to obtain a greater amount of
autonomy and control.
Environmental impact assessment: Analysis of how a particular policy, program, or project may affect water, soils,
flora, fauna, and human health and well-being.
Ex ante analysis: (e.g., in impact assessment) An examination of likely or probable effects prior to implementation
of a policy, program, or project.
Ex post analysis: (e.g., in impact assessment) An examination that looks back in time to see what happened. While
ex ante analysis is anticipatory, ex post analysis is historical.
Externalities: (in management science) Effects of a policy, program, or project that impose costs on (or give benefits
to) people who are not in the target population.
Facilitator: (in planning teams) A group member whose role is to help the group function more effectively.
Feedback: (in management science) The information that returns to your organization about the consequences of
your interventions. The feedback is available for "learning" so that behavior and decisions can be corrected to favor
positive outcomes. See monitoring.
Force field analysis: A method of identifying favorable and hindering factors relative to achieving a particular goal.
Forecasting: (in planning) Views on what will happen in an "unknown" future.
Goals: (in planning) The particular results that an organization strives to produce in carrying out its mission.
Impact: The net effects of a policy, program, or project. See impact assessment.
Impact assessment: (in management science) Evaluation of the extent to which a policy, program, or project causes
changes (e.g., economic, social, environmental) for a target population.
Inputs (in planning): The information, budget, personnel time, and other resources that go into and support a
planning process.
Institutional development: To improve the laws, regulations, and human resources affecting one or more
organizations (see capacity building).
Interest groups: (in relation to forests) Persons and groups who claim rights and interests in the ways that forests are
protected and managed, now and in the future.
Intervention: (in management science) A planned effort to produce favorable changes in a target population.
Key result areas: (in planning) The tasks and activities that are most important in determining if an organization or
individual will be successful (e.g., in achieving a goal).
Leadership: Guidance of a group of people to accomplish one or more goals.
Milestone: (in planning) The completion of an important event or activity in a longer sequence of events and
activities (i.e., a measure of progress).
Mission: (in planning) The broad general purposes for which an organization exists.
Model (in planning) A simplified physical, conceptual, or mathematical abstraction of the real world to help
understand relationships (such as cause and effect).
Monitoring: Assessing the extent to which a policy, program, or project is implemented in ways that are consistent
with its intention.
Needs assessment: Systematic appraisal of the type, depth, and scope of a problem.
NGOs: Non-governmental organizations such as rural development societies, private businesses, workers groups,
cooperatives, social and religious organizations, tribal associations, environmental organizations, and other
collective units that are not controlled by a sovereign State.
Objectives: (in planning) Details about goals in terms of what, how much, when, and by whom an action is to be
accomplished.
Opportunity cost: If you are following Plan A, then you give up the opportunity of alternative Plans B, C, etc. The
value of what you give up (i.e., sacrifice or forego) is the opportunity cost.
Outputs: (in planning) The products that emerge from a planning process in terms of information, actions, and other
results.
Ownership: (in planning) To agree with and accept a plan, especially because of having contributed to its
formulation.
Pareto principle: The concept that most of a given set of results are due to a small number of causal factors (e.g., 80
percent of the results can be explained by 20 percent of the causes).
Participatory planning: To invite people to express their beliefs, preferences, and recommendations during the
course of a planning exercise, especially when the participation extends to people outside the organization that does
the planning.
Performance indicator: (in planning) The measurement or other type of evidence that shows whether or not a goal is
being achieved.
Planning: The process of looking into the future and defining strategies (actions, interventions) to achieve goals.
Population at need: The elements of the population who have or will develop a particular need, want, or risk.
Role playing: Individuals (e.g., in a planning team) are assigned to act out opinions and behavior in a given
situation. This builds understanding of different perspectives, and helps the "players" anticipate real-world
interactions.
Root cause: The underlying reason for a symptom, problem, or result.
Scenario: An account or story about what may happen (actions) in a particular set of circumstances (possible
environment).
Social impact assessment: Analysis of how different elements of a population gain or lose because of a policy,
program, or project. Social impact assessment pays particular attention to the interests of the poor, ethnic minorities,
and women.
Social indicator: Measurement of a particular indicator of social welfare in order to track the course of a social issue
or problem through time.
Steering committee: A group of advisors who provide information and advice at an executive level.
Strategy: (in planning) A broad course of action, chosen from among alternatives, to attempt to achieve a stated goal.
Survey: Systematic collection of information about a defined population, often by means of interviews of a
subsample of the population.
Target population: The persons, households, organizations, and communities to be reached with your interventions
(policies, programs, projects).
Team: A group of people working together for a common purpose, e.g., a planning team.
Top-down process: (in planning) To transmit decisions and controls from the high levels of an organization to its
lower levels.
Transfer of functions: The handover of some planning and management powers from governments to nongovernmental organizations.
Uncertainty: (in planning) The lack of confidence associated with a particular set of predictions or forecasts about
the future.
2..........................................................
3..........................................................
No.
No.
No.
No.
2 What information and records will the agency need in order to evaluate successes and failures? And what steps is it
taking to insure that this information will be collected?
3. What is the agency's schedule for evaluation? What factors could change this?
4. How will the agency actually use the results of it monitoring and evaluation to help it adjust its goals and
strategies?
Ask the group to define criteria for choosing which ideas they want to explore in more detail (e.g., reasonable cost,
political feasibility, legal conformance, etc.). For the problem at hand, what are these criteria?
1............................................................................................................................................
2............................................................................................................................................
3............................................................................................................................................
4............................................................................................................................................
5............................................................................................................................................
3. Focus Your Attention
Combine, modify, and discard ideas according to criteria in Step 2 preceding. For all ideas that now remain, which
one(s) will you focus on?
1......................................................................................................................................
2......................................................................................................................................
3......................................................................................................................................
causes is itself a problem that may have other causes underneath it. Continue until you reach the most fundamental
causes at the bottom (roots) of the tree. (For an example, see Box 12 in the text.) Practice by constructing problem
trees for the following issues (if they are relevant):
Option A............................................................................................................................
Option B............................................................................................................................
Option C............................................................................................................................
Option D............................................................................................................................
Option E............................................................................................................................
Step 2. Define The Criteria for Comparing the Options (write in a few words).
Criterion 1. ............................................................................................................................
Criterion 2. ............................................................................................................................
Criterion 3. ............................................................................................................................
Criterion 4. ............................................................................................................................
Step 3. Rate Each Option According to Each Criterion (fill each cell with words, symbols, or numbers to indicate
how each option meets each criterion). One will need to use additional paper for writing space.
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Option E
Step 4. Construct the Comparison Matrix. In each pair below, which option is preferred? (in each cell, write the
superior option)
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Step 5. Count the Number of Times Each Option Is Preferred Over Another.
Exercise: Play out the drama described above for South Region, and answer the following questions. Or focus on a
conflict that the agency is facing now, choose "actors," and begin!
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach, based on what you observed?
2. If you will repeat this exercise in the future, how can it be improved? Consider place, time, choice of "actors," and
preparations.
and negative) as possible. This requires that you account for onsite and off-site impacts. The agency attempts to recognize and
quantify Total Economic Value (TEV) of the forest resources.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. - This approach is used when
benefits cannot be valued in monetary terms. For a given target in
your plan (e.g., number of community meetings in South Region),
the analysis specifies the most efficient (least-cost) means to
achieve it.
Weighted Social Benefit-Cost Analysis. - This method weights
benefits and costs according to who pays and who receives.
Benefits and costs are weighted heavily if they accrue to favored
socioeconomic group (e.g., women, landless people, tribal groups,
and so on). Conversely, the agency assign smaller weights to
benefits that accrue to "the rich."
how? Who are these new groups, and why does the agency want them to participate with it in the planning?
7. In what ways, if at all, will the agency have to adjust its procedures or share its authority if other agencies
participate with it?
8. What will the agency do to get participation from the highest administrative levels (where appropriate) rather than
from officials of lesser authority?
9. Does the agency anticipate a confrontation with any of the agencies it intends to invite? What will the agency do
to avoid or mitigate this? (link this with conflict negotiation, CH 4)
When an agency concludes with these questions, it lists the officials of other agencies that it wants to invite as
partners in the planning, specify their roles, and indicate how and when they will be contacted. Assign
responsibilities for this.
Source: Adapted from J.L. Creighton, 1981, The Public Involvement Manual, Abt Books, Cambridge, MA, pp. 159164
1. Has the agency invested sufficient time and effort to develop as many negotiating options as it needs?
2. What does the agency know about the options of the person(s) on the opposite side of the argument?
(i.e., few or many, weak or strong, etc.)
3. Does the agency have a clear and workable "walk away" position in case the negotiation should go badly
for it?
What can the agency do to learn exactly what the director wants from the planning? How can it set up the planning
so that these needs will be met?
How will the agency keep the director informed of progress and problems during all stages of the planning process?
How will the agency give the director positive recognition for the successes that come out of the planning process?
What else should the agency do to create a positive administrative and psychological setting so that the agency's
leaders will gladly claim "ownership" of the planning?