Forestry and the environment : The Gambia case study

This study finds that the project was largely unsuccessful for the following reasons. (1) The concept of community woodlots proved unworkable in practice; there was no easy way to assign responsibility for offtake and management, and no clear incentive for community participation. (2) In the case of plantations, it was determined by 1985 that they were not economically efficient and should not be used for firewood. An alternative approach stressing management of the natural forest (which had been destroyed in order to establish the woodlots) proved manageable as well as beneficial in the short-term. (3) Gmelina was an inappropriate species for both plantations and woodlots, and assumptions about its growth and survival rates were overly optimistic for The Gambia, especially during the severe drought of 1984-86. (4) Community woodlots require substantial labor, labor which is also needed to plant food crops. Long-term forestry benefits could not compete with the basic short-term needs that agricultural activities fulfill. (5) Although deforestation is a growing problem, there are still ample supplies of wood in the forests that people can cut and use for fuelwood; community woodlots, while environmentally sound woodlots, were not the only alternative for securing firewood. (6) Even fast-growing species, such as Gmelina, usually require 10 years before they can be coppiced and the timber used for poles or sold commercially; thus, their benefit is only long-term. (7) The woodlots did not respond to needs as perceived by the villagers, which were for fruit trees, not firewood. When many of the Gmelina seedlings died after the first year due to drought, many communities replanted fruit trees and/or horticultural crops. In response to this project's poor performance, USAID/Gambia has reoriented its natural resource strategy to focus on economic incentives to encourage wise use of resources and on support for community control over natural resources.