Börje K. Steenberg
C. Hollis Murray
S. Dennis Richardson
Stanley L. Pringle
Börje K. Steenberg
FAO's tasks, as spelt out in its Constitution, include the conservation of natural resources and improved methods of production. If written today, the text would probably use the word "sustainability".
In the early days of FAO, rebuilding the war-torn world required timber, and FAO's task was then centred on forest utilization and wood conservation. But humankind's interest fluctuates. The set of values that determine a human being's demands are not constant. This is also the case with demands on forests.
Demands on forests cover a wide spectrum and their relative strength depends on the strength of the components of the current set of values. I choose the word "current" because forest values show a remarkable volatility. The list of forest values is becoming very long and includes material values, economic values, protective values, spiritual, ethical and a series of cultural values.
The longevity of trees requires that the core components of a forest policy are acceptable not only today, but in the future. Only in this way can the human investments in sorely needed forest conservation and regeneration come closer to needs.
Börje K. Steenberg,a Swedish national, joined FAO as Director of the Forestry Division and then became the Assistant Director-General for Forestry when the Department was created in 1970. He retired from FAO in 1974 and is currently based in Stockholm, Sweden.
C. Hollis Murray
In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Forestry Division (Forestry Department after 1970) devoted much of its attention to assisting Member Governments to identify and assess the potential of their forest resources. It advised on and supported the development of primary industries. At that time serious attention was already being given to strengthening national capabilities (although the current catch-phrase had not yet been coined) through the establishment of a number of training institutions at all levels.
In the 1970s, the new Department undertook a series of forest inventory projects to identify the potential of forests for utilization, and at the same time to identify areas requiring preservation or conservation. Alongside the inventory and assessment activities grew the need for advice and assistance to countries in not only the "what" was present but also the "how" to benefit from those resources in their development efforts.
The Organization was called upon to advise and guide governments in their negotiations with multinational companies, since most developing countries were ill-prepared to deal with such powerful industrial giants. Concern was felt in certain quarters that the Organization could compromise its neutrality by placing itself in a position where it could come into conflict with the interests of an influential company of an important member country. In those instances when the Organization did assist governments in sometimes delicate negotiations no such conflicts did arise.
I parted company with the Forestry Department from the end of 1973 to the beginning of 1989 and so would not wish to dwell on that period. During my term as Assistant Director-General (from 1989 to 1994) the level of international interest in forestry rose dramatically. The Tropical Forests Action Programme was being implemented and had begun to attract the attention and receive the scrutiny of environmentalists and non-governmental organizations. The debate on the role of forests and forestry in the preparatory process for UNCED escalated and the issue of sustainable forestry development eventually dominated the Rio Summit.
Looking towards the future, notwithstanding the advent of other organizations with an interest in forestry, FAO remains unique. It is still the only international organization with a comprehensive breadth of expertise. It has over the years built up a technical information base on forests and forestry second to none and, because of its privileged access to governments, has a comparative advantage in many areas. It is also best placed to develop interdisciplinary approaches to forestry and land-use questions since the Organization houses under the same roof, so to speak, all the related disciplines - agriculture, fisheries and overall economic and social rural development.
Most important in the post-UNCED period is the question of achieving or working towards the sustainable management of the world's forests - boreal, temperate, subtropical and tropical - and preparing the ground for the further evolution or development of the Forest Principles into a universal legal agreement applicable to all forests. In pursuing these major and most important thrust areas, the Department must be ready and willing to collaborate closely with other organizations - international, private, universities and NGOs - which are active in forestry and environmental matters. It should build partnerships which recognize the strengths of each partner.
Finally, FAO needs to ensure that it does everything possible to build and strengthen the capacity of countries and their institutions to manage and conserve their forest resources on a sustainable basis.
C. Hollis Murray,joined the FAO Forestry Policy Service in 1968. He subsequently served as Project Operations Officer for Latin America and the Caribbean, and then in the Forest Resources Division. After a period of service outside the Organization and then in the Office of the FAO Director-General, Mr Murray was appointed Assistant Director-General of the Forestry Department in 1989, a post he held until his retirement in 1994.
Depending on whether one is, by nature, pessimistic or optimistic, a glass containing water is either half empty or half full. A divergence of opinion of this same nature presents itself, at the end of the twentieth century, with regard to the world's forests. The "optimists" affirm that the forests have never been in better shape even if, here and there, some problems exist. Problems that they minimize and consider as transitory. The "pessimists", on the other hand, affirm that the forests are condemned, at best to be degraded and at worst to disappear completely. The position I espouse is one of "reasonable optimism": that the international community, confronted by a danger that we do not deny, must not abandon hope but, rather, take action as the worst is never inevitable.
The pressure of increasing rural populations in the developing countries is excessive and cannot but result in forest destruction - as was the case in the so-called developed countries not too long ago. Nonetheless, the same challenges have been met in the developed countries when they all, not so long ago, were developing. Furthermore, improved technologies and the techniques for their transfer are much more advanced than those at the time of the "agricultural revolution" in today's developed countries. This might compensate for the complexity of today's challenges, so long as the developed countries, and developing countries work together and with the necessary resources.
FAO, which groups under one roof all the fundamental activities of rural development (agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry and fisheries), has all the elements necessary to promote and coordinate the agricultural revolution needed in today's developing countries in order to permit conservation of their forests or the appropriate portions of them.
For a final word, I would turn to Voltaire who concludes Candide saying,
"That is all very well, but now we must cultivate our garden"
(i.e. attend to our own affairs).
Louis Huguet,a French national, worked with FAO in varying capacities in the field and at headquarters over a period spanning more than 30 years and was Director of the Forest Resources Division from 1977 until his retirement in 1980. Since then, he has continued to work as an independent consultant.
S. Dennis Richardson
Approaching, like Unasylva, some 50 years of involvement in professional forestry (in sawmilling, forest management, education, research and, above all, forest policy - although I have never worked for FAO) it is surprising to find that it is easier to look forwards than backwards.
There have been many changes and many issues. Surprisingly, perhaps, the issues which dominate reflection are not technical. Many, of course, are influenced by technology but my personal catalogue of the great issues of the past 50 years (and the challenges for the next 50) is concerned more with the changing perceptions of the purpose of forestry, and its socio-economic and political dimensions.
The burgeoning global interest in forestry stems from the growth in environmental awareness and, perhaps more important, the immediate publicity given to controversial natural resource issues through modern electronic technology. The new Remote sensing monitors (and environmental activists) recognize no national boundaries. Issues have been globalized and the stakeholders multiplied.
Other changes are quasi-political; the growing recognition of multiple economies and their implications for policy formation, and the shift (triggered in China but rapidly spreading throughout the world) from "command" to "guidance" planning, to privatization, and a search for institutional and administrative innovation.
Transparency of solutions must match that of issues. I remain convinced that the greatest challenge in conservation is not the sexual orientation of giant pandas, spotted owls or even biological diversity; it is the enhancement of soil fertility to enable sustainable development in a world reluctant to accept the concepts of steady-state economics.
A distinction is drawn between the formation of policy and its formulation; the former is a political process to which foresters have no more (nor less) to contribute than the masses of people who will be affected by the policies; policy formulation, on the other hand, is a specialized process demanding the skills of planners, economists, sociologists, lawyers, as well as professional foresters. The major task for foresters lies in implementation, for which they have been trained and (hopefully) have acquired a maturity which includes recognition of their limitations and the need to seek cooperation from other disciplines and stakeholders. Resistance to the closer involvement of this wider constituency, or a tendency to listen only to the vociferous and politically powerful, can only lead to a distorted picture without perspective.
John Maynard Keynes was, perhaps, the most influential economist of this century. His observation that "in the long run, we are all dead" encapsulates the essence of neoclassical economics and the constraints of short-term horizons. It is our preoccupation with the short term that creates problems in discussing economic issues in sustainable forest management and, in particular, the community management of natural forests. Within these parameters, sustainability is economic nonsense! But slowly we are coming to accept the need for a holistic approach which views ecology, economics and ethics as part of a whole - an interconnected circle - which at the present time appears to be broken.
In a recent note Fri posed three questions:
"Is sustainable development more likely to thrive under some particular set of political and economic institutions than under others?"; "Should the values that underpin this development become part of mainstream ethical systems?"; and "If the answer to these questions is yes, are we prepared to live with the results?".
He concludes that the political, economic and ethical setting in which sustainability (including sustainable forestry) is pursued will determine success or otherwise.
Another seminal publication in this debate is, I believe, the Revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development presented by Michael Dove (1993). Dove begins with a parable from Kalimantan relating how the discovery of a diamond can bring misfortune to a poor miner; he suggests that the parable applies more generally to resource development in tropical forests and that the major challenge is not to give more development opportunities to forest-dependent people but to take fewer away. Other case-studies demonstrate the predisposition of political and economic forces in society to take over successful resource development in the tropical forests. Any resolution of the problems of tropical forest development conservation must begin not by searching for resources that forest dwellers do not already have, but by identifying and modifying the institutional forces which restrict forest dwellers' ownership and productive use of existing resources.
Fri, R.W.1992. Questions that seem important. Resources, (Spring 1992) 107: 1-5.
S. Dennis Richardson,a national of New Zealand, has held many responsible positions over a career spanning nearly 50 years, including Director of the New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Chair of Forestry at the University of Wales, Senior Forestry Specialist for the Asian Development Bank and Director of the New Zealand Forestry Council.
A feature which I soon became aware of when I joined the FAO/ECE secretariat in Geneva in 1959 was the universal spirit of camaraderie and willingness to cooperate among the many delegates and experts taking part in the meetings and other activities. This may have been partly, as foresters often jokingly claim, because of the natural fraternity that exists between foresters worldwide, but another explanation could be that the forestry sector was not, generally speaking, high on the political agenda and did not create tensions between countries. Even if forests and forestry have now become much more transparent to the public and politicians and attract far greater attention than ever before, let us hope that the cooperative spirit that existed in the past will not be lost.
Until the 1970s, forestry in much of Europe had been largely concerned, in practice even if not in theory, with the production of wood. Increasingly, however, other aspects began to come to the fore. With its material needs largely satisfied, Europe's dense and progressively urbanized and wealthy population also began to demand other satisfactions from the forest, notably for recreation and nature conservation, while at the same time becoming more aware of matters concerned with the protection of the environment.
More recently, European foresters, who had believed that they had been doing a reasonable job as stewards of the forest heritage, found themselves being criticized for overemphasizing the wood production role and ignoring the other functions of the forest. While highly competent technically they were often out of their depth when it came to conducting a dialogue with the public and justifying their actions. They also found that they were poorly equipped with the kind of information needed for such a dialogue and for use as a basis for adapting forest practices, where necessary, to encompass multiple forest use. Nevertheless, much more attention has been given in recent years to "environmentally friendly" forest practices and equipment. And forestry has attracted increasing attention at a high political level, notably through the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the first of which was held in Strasbourg in 1990 and the second in Helsinki in 1993.
European forestry in the 1990s is facing a whole series of new pressures and challenges, as a result of which it is likely to look very different in the twenty-first century from what we see today. One likely change (for better or for worse) may be the decline in the influence which those traditionally concerned with the sector, the foresters themselves, exert on policies and decision-making relating to it. Forestry will become increasingly integrated with other sectors, such as overall land and resource planning, rural development and environmental protection, and "outsiders" will gain a greater control of the forest sector's development. All in all, it is a fascinating time for those who are involved in the process of change. I sometimes wish I were at the start of my career again in order to take part in these exciting events. On reflection, however, I recognize that this is best left to the next generation. While wishing them luck, I shall be happy to remain a deeply interested spectator.
Timothy Peck,a British national, was with the FAO/ECE Agriculture and Timber Division in Geneva from 1959 to 1993. He became Chief of the Timber Section in 1978 and Director of the Division in 1989. Based in Vaud, Switzerland, he is currently Chairman of the Board of the European Forest Institute and United Nations Regional Adviser on Forestry and Forest Industries to countries of central and eastern Europe with economies in transition.
When I started work as a forest economist in the late 1950s, the main developmental thrust was towards creating a modern industrial sector. Industrialization was seen as the key to the rapid accumulation of the capital surpluses needed to sustain and diversify growth. The agricultural sector was essentially relegated to a supporting role. It was assumed that the wealth being created by the urban sector would "trickle down" to rural populations.
Forest industries were seen as playing an important part in the process of development through industrial growth. Their products were widely used throughout the modern sector of the economy and provided inputs to other industries; thus the presence of forest industries could contribute to industrial growth in general. International markets for many forest products also offered the potential for earning foreign exchange.
By the mid-1970s, the limitations of a narrow industry-based development strategy, and the folly of neglecting agriculture, had become glaringly evident. It was recognized that, not only was agricultural growth essential, but economic growth could not be sustained if large parts of society remained impoverished. The focus of developmental thinking consequently shifted towards giving greater priority to the rural sector - rural development, agriculture and meeting the "basic needs" of the poor.
It was this greatly increased attention to agriculture and the rural economy that did most to precipitate the increased awareness in the 1970s of the extent of rural people's dependence on forests and trees in order to meet some of their most fundamental needs. Initiatives, at both the national and international levels, put into place new programmes, policies and legislation which materially changed the shape of forestry in many countries.
This fundamental shift has occurred largely through a process of learning by trial and error. Production and use of the forest goods and services at the local level were often found to be embedded in complex resource and social systems, within which most of the factors that affect our ability to intervene with forestry solutions are of a non-forestry nature.
The process of learning what is the appropriate response from the forestry sector has been made more complicated by the continuing evolution of development thinking and priorities in the 1980s and 1990s. The concept of food security encompasses a broader range of links between forests and the task of meeting people's requirements than was implicit in the earlier focus on basic needs. Structural adjustment and the related emphasis on decentralization, deregulation and privatization of state services have important implications for the traditional institutional framework of forestry. The concept of sustainable development introduces yet another factor into the debate about forestry and development.
Not all these different threads result in congruent, or compatible, demands on the forestry sector. The task of identifying how the sector can best adapt to them, and to broader political and developmental concerns, evidently continues to present us with a formidable challenge. Although the degree of success in responding to the changing demands of the past several decades has been considerable, it can be argued that this has not been matched by progress in entrenching lessons of experience from these changes in appropriate theories and prescriptions to take the place of those that have become obsolete. This is not to suggest that the sector's efforts to respond to current needs and opportunities take a back seat while we bring the knowledge base up to date. But there are clear dangers in continuously moving forwards before the lessons of the past have been adequately documented and digested. We need to strike the right balance between doing and learning.
J.E. Michael Arnold,was with FAO from 1964 to 1986. He was the first head of the FAO/SIDA Forestry for Local Community Development Programme, and subsequently Chief of the Forestry Policy and Planning Service. Currently he is with the Oxford Forestry Institute, United Kingdom.
When the expression "sustainable management" started to appear in black and white, there was an almost universal explosion of exhilaration: now we know what to do and how to do it, now we really have the key to the solution of the problem - we must sustain land productivity because, by so doing, development will become sustainable and this will lead to a sustainable society. It was a memorable surprise for everybody except the forester who knew this story well but had been unable (or uninterested) to "sell" it).
Of all land users, foresters were the only ones to sustain, and possibly increase, in perpetuity the productivity of the land entrusted to them. Who else worried, at least to the same extent - farmers? grazers? hunters? miners? Today it would appear that of all land users, most of whom have little or no tradition in sustainability, it is only foresters who are called upon to defend or justify their work.
The traditional vision of foresters tended to be confined to the forestry component of forested ecosystems, which perhaps they had never been told existed. But how much better the global situation of the environment would be now if foresters had been provided in all countries, by the political leaders, with the necessary resources and support to conceive and implement sustained-yield working plans for the forestry component of terrestrial ecosystems. But, for decades and even centuries there has been a lack of appreciation of the value and implications of foresters' work. Have they been unable to communicate or were other ears too clogged to hear?
A big regret for me is that my generation of foresters has failed to appreciate fully the force of the "green wave" that was mounting. Alone, pioneers on the front line, those foresters found themselves overtaken by the wave and left alone again. But behind.
One small suggestion for the present generation of foresters: be proud of your work and of the work of your predecessors. Sustained-yield forest management is not very different from sustainable forest management: it is only narrower and the difference is not much more than marginal. The basic concept, always known to us but unknown to or ignored by others, is at least similar if not identical. Stop being on the defensive and become proactive in the struggle for a better environment and a better quality of life for society.
Oscar Fugalli,an Italian national, was with FAO from 1951 to 1982. Subsequently he was Director of the IUFRO Special Programme for Developing Countries. He currently alternates between Vienna, the location of IUFRO headquarters, and Rome.
Stanley L. Pringle
My first duties with FAO, commencing in 1959, were in East Africa, when the three countries of Kenya, Uganda and the then Tanganyika were united in a type of federation administered by the East African High Commission. My task was to appraise the current and prospective future demands for wood in the three countries. The project developed a number of sampling techniques for estimating the use of wood products not processed by domestic mills or imported. It drew attention to the substantial production of simple furniture, the large consumption of poles used in buildings and fencing and, above all, the huge volume of wood being used for cooking and heating.
During the fieldwork, on the morning of New Year's Day in 1960, just as the sun was rising over a flat, dry and barren plain in the centre of Uganda's northeastern province of Karamoja, I saw a sight that will live forever in my mind. A tall, completely naked Karamojan was walking across the plain with a load of fuelwood on his head. How many kilometres he had come or had to go was not evident, but it was clearly many, for no wood source nor dwelling was in sight. At that moment I saw, with clarity, the relative value of wood products in that portion of the world. Many of our subsequent wood consumption studies drew attention to the serious drain of fuelwood use on the limited resources of arid and semi-arid areas, and the critical plight of people living there.
I claim a small and remote credit for a major development in international forestry. In the late 1960s, FAO and UNCTAD held a series of joint meetings. Here, as co-secretary, I made the suggestion of a tropical timber bureau, formed from the tropical timber exporting developing countries. This bureau would have had the functions of promoting trade in tropical timber, especially lesser-known species, and of obtaining and making available to member countries market information relevant to this trade. A project proposal emerged but never became functional. Much later, as tropical timber supplies became tighter and prices began to rise, industrialized consumer countries were willing to join in an UNCTAD effort supported technically by FAO. After a large number of preparatory meetings, this led to an agreement on tropical timber and to the formation of the International Tropical Timber Organization.
Stanley L. Pringle,a Canadian national, was with FAO from 1961 to 1980 and retired as Chief of the Policy and Planning Service. He currently works as a consultant in international forestry and is based in British Columbia.
Three essential conditions must be met for forest-based industry to have a chance to work for development. The first is that the roundwood output is processed in the country of origin and the further along the production chain that the processing goes, the better. The second is that the workers employed are nationals of the country concerned and not imported immigrants. The third is that the forests are harvested and managed in such a way that adequate and appropriate replacement stands are put in place so as to sustain the raw material supply.
In several well-documented cases where these conditions have been met, the thesis, set out so eloquently by Jack Westoby in 1962 - that forest-based industries can be powerful means for tackling the problems of economic and social underdevelopment - has been proved [Ed. note: see Forest industries in the attack on economic development, Unasylva, 16(67): 168-201]. However, in most of the tropical forests, these conditions have been almost completely ignored, with even more well-documented results. This has resulted in condemnation of the thesis, rather than mispractice, even by Westoby himself. This is not just a mistaken, but risks being fatal to the cause of tropical forest conservation.
There are two unavoidable facts of life that have to be faced in the whole issue of the conservation of the tropical forests, which has now subsumed the development issue. The first, despite all the hypocrisy with which the world tries to ignore it, is that conservation depends, above all, on providing a guaranteed and permanent alternative livelihood to the hundreds of millions of people who, in their present conditions, have no choice but to keep clearing forests to grow food. The second, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, is that forest-based industrialization is one of the few means for doing this on the scale and with the continuity needed. In effect, like it or not, sustained yield management and utilization of the tropical forests for industrial wood is a necessary condition for their conservation. This is not to say that forest-based industrialization can deal with all of the poverty that underlies deforestation; it can make a sizeable contribution but it is not the whole solution.
The extension, under UNCED, of sustained yield into the broader and more stringent requirement of sustainable management adds another imperative to the three listed earlier. Timber harvesting for industrial purposes now has to be conducted in such a way that it inflicts no long-term, irreversible change of damage on forest ecosystems, their environments or the downstream social and ecological environments that depend on them. There is no escaping the fact that the extra cost of compliance will be substantial, perhaps more than can be borne by forest-based industries in the tropics as they now stand. So is there any hope at all?
I am sure that there is, but it will depend on a fundamental shift in industry practices. Innovative forms of market research, market development and standards of processing and servicing for specialized markets will need to be found and applied. The most drastic changes will be required in terms of thinking and attitudes, rather than in terms of technologies. To move ahead, such a reorientation will require the momentum that only a body such as FAO can provide. The thing to stress, without either apology or deference to popularity or vested interests, is the indispensable role of forest industries in tropical forest conservation. What is required is a capacity for imaginative lateral thinking, combined with the intellectual integrity and determination to counter a sadly misinformed and misguided public opinion.
Alf Leslie,a native of New Zealand, was Director of the FAO Forestry Industries Division from 1977 to 1981.
Contrary to what might be expected, it is not easy for an FAO old-timer like myself to comment on past professional experiences and to select the ones which provide the most meaningful lessons. On reflection, however, I must conclude that the most important conclusions that can be drawn are the simplest ones.
Recent years have seen country after country, industrialized and developing alike, shaking off the rigid structures of governmental centralization, and shifting developmental activities to free enterprises and market forces - with beneficial results for everybody. I cannot overemphasize the need for promoting and strengthening a market-oriented approach to developmental activities in forestry.
Another point I would stress is the crucial role of the human component of development efforts, particularly in the case of field projects. Before embarking on a project, no time and effort should be spared in finding the right people for the job. This obvious and simple, but absolutely essential, requirement for success is often ignored or forgotten.
I would also like to stress the importance of the meeting organized by the FAO Forestry Department. There are those who criticize this aspect of the Organization's work - "too many meetings, too many papers". I can testify to the fact that there is nothing to match these activities in their usefulness for the evaluation and dissemination of important technical, economic and policy information. Since leaving FAO, I have attended many professional meetings organized by other institutions. All too often they are fora with a hidden agenda of promoting the products and services of the organizers. The independent and unbiased nature of FAO meetings and the related documentation is often missing.
Josef Swiderski,a United States citizen, was Director of the FAO Division of Forestry Industries from 1966 to 1979. Since then he has been an international consultant in the field of forest industries.
My experience suggests that the goals set for forestry projects in general should be less ambitious and more realistic, taking into account more fully the time and resources available. It is better to set and achieve more moderate objectives than to have to seek to justify the failure to achieve more ambitious goals. In this same vein, given the very nature of forestry, the time frame for forestry projects usually needs to be lengthened and the concept of a second or follow-up phase to projects should be included from the beginning.
The selection of appropriate personnel as Chief Technical Advisers for FAO Forestry Projects is a key to their success. First of all, CTAs should have a minimum of 10 to 15 years of field experience, to give them adequate background. On the other hand, "geniuses" or "luminaries" are not required; rather, what is needed are normal, responsible professionals with capability and commitment. They must be good "salesmen" of ideas and at the same time be able to respect and learn from their national counterparts.
Within the vast range of technical assistance needs, motivation and capacity building are the most important and transcendental of all technical assistance. The old parable "if at the sea you encounter a hungry man, don't give him a fish, but rather teach him to fish" is the simple truth. In general FAO has been effective, particularly in its early years, in the area of forestry projects aimed at building educational institutions, especially at higher levels. It would appear, nonetheless, that there is still much to be done in this area, and most of all in capacity building at the technician level. A key to success is the production and dissemination of clear, practical guides and manuals. A good example of the work done in this area is the collaborative effort with the Instituto Forestal Of Chile. Moreover, it is my feeling that the Forestry Department should continue to give its fullest support to community forestry and local community development projects in which the direct improvement of local people's living conditions is the primary aim.
Gumersindo Borgo,a national of Mexico, began his work with FAO in 1965 and retired in 1986, having worked as Chief Technical Adviser or as an expert on projects in Colombia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Peru, as well as working at FAO headquarters.
In their forestry development efforts, the countries of the Near East region require external technical assistance. To be truly useful, this assistance must be intelligent, complementary and limited in time. Intelligent assistance is that aimed, first of all, at identifying the real constraints to national forestry development, and then in finding adequate solutions. This requires the active participation of national counterparts in conceptualization as well as implementation.
To have a lasting impact, international assistance must complement national efforts. This means that the execution of a project must be by national experts, even if they do not have the highest technical qualifications. The role of the external expert is to assist national personnel, not to substitute for it.
Finally, assistance must be limited in time - limited to the time necessary for formation of national capacity to continue the work that has begun. In this respect, the building of national capacity is the most precious and most useful assistance that a donor or agency can offer a recipient country. Among the most valuable projects assisted by FAO and UNDP in the Near East region in the last 50 years are the Ecole forestière de Salé in Morocco and the Ecole forestière de Bouka in the Syrian Arab Republic. These two institutions, one at the national and one at the regional level, are a key in the training of forest engineers and technicians for all of the countries of the region.
Michel Khouzami,a Lebanese national, was Forestry Officer for the FAO Near East and North Africa Regional Office from 1978 to 1989, and Associate Secretary-General for the 10th World Forestry Congress from 1990 to 1993. He is currently an independent forestry consultant, attached to the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture in Beirut.