Optimizing State Forest Institutions for Forest People: A Case Study on Social Sustainability from Tunisia

Abstract

In Tunisia the livelihoods of nearly 750,000 “forest people” strongly depend on state forests. State forest institutions that manage more than 90% of forests have a special responsibility for the social sustainability of these people’s situation. Thus, it is important to evaluate the performance of these institutions, as such evaluations represent an option to help formulate sustainable development strategies for forest people. This study evaluates the performance of state forest institutions in regard to forest people based on a comprehensive three-layer model. The data were collected in 2016 and 2017 from documents, observations and interviews. The results partly supported the first hypothesis that “state forest institutions employ different market, non-market and political instruments to influence the use and the protection of forests”, with an exception for market instruments. The second hypothesis stating that “the outcomes of these instruments for forest people differ from those for the general forest sector” was supported by empirical evidence. The evaluation revealed practices in Tunisia that provide a basis for organizational reforms supporting forest people. Adapted technologies that fit the traditional know-how of forest people and a better representation are required. Furthermore, the strengthening of state forest institutions against the influence of foreign donors would contribute to elaborating a development strategy for forest people.

1. The Unsolved Sustainability Issue of “Forest People”

In international literature, the term “forest people(s)” has often been used to describe local forest people [1], people living in forests and having customary rights [2], or local and indigenous communities [3,4]. In the Tunisian context, two languages are officially used to write legal and official texts: Arabic and French. The Arabic texts use the term “forest inhabitants” (سكان الغابات) while the translation from French is “forest people/population” (population forestière). Both terms are used to describe forest users (only subsistence use) living in forests as well as those living within a five-kilometer radius around forests [5,6]. Based on this definition, the term “forest people” is used in this study to describe this category of people who live in and around forests and who have the legal rights of access to forest resources for subsistence use.

Forest areas in Tunisia cover around 1.2 million ha and are considerably inhabited. Therefore, forest people are an important social part of sustainable forestry. The social aspects of sustainability considered in this study are focused on the contribution of forests to the living conditions of forest people. From the total population of Tunisia estimated at 11 million inhabitants [7], nearly 750,000 people live in forests and within five kilometers from forests [5]. In general, there is no real diversity of ethnic groups in Tunisia due to the unity of language and culture, except in the case of some minorities [8]. Nevertheless, in specific regions there are still cases of social organization in families and tribes that are not significantly different from an ethnic perspective. In Tunisian forested areas, the poverty rate is high (45.8%) compared to the national average (15.5%) [5]. Since more than 90% of these forests are state-owned [9], the responsibility of state institutions to manage these resources is high. During the pre-colonial period, most forests were owned by communities. When French colonization started in 1881, these communities lost all property rights and the state became the legal owner and manager of the resources. Moreover, forest people lost even their traditional user rights in 1890 [10].

From 1900 to 1970 there was a decline of 50% of the total forest area within the context of an exceptional rural population growth and an increase of agricultural land areas [11]. Despite the stabilization of this situation, forest people were subject to a continuous and repressive forest policy regarding user rights, something that was inherited from the French colonists [11]. Forest people expressed their hostility toward this coercive policy, which explains the development of many “illegal” activities of product exploitation and the difficulties in registering many state-owned forest areas [11]. In 1988, forest people were given the possibility of organizing themselves within associations after the Forest Code reform [6,12]. Despite the existence of initiatives to support these associations, the representation of forest people remained weak. Furthermore, forest people faced a social crisis resulting from the increasing competition of households to obtain social aid and temporary employment from the state [11]. After the Forest Code reform, forest people gained access to resources only for subsistence use and they were (and still are) not allowed to commercialize any forest product. The change in legislation was not sufficient to stop or reduce the daily activities of illegal forest product sales by forest people. Sales, especially those of charcoal, represent a way to gain a small additional income in order to survive [11,12]. The incapacity of the state to control the use of forest products led to a certain “legitimization of the illegal” [11]. Very often, forest officers or rangers responsible for control and monitoring used to write fines only in case of “obvious” offenses. This made sound and sustainable forest management impossible [11].

In general, limited customary rights, the deprivation of land tenure, and the weak representation of forest people are among the main challenges in the Tunisian forest sector. Furthermore, the conflicting situation has been amplified since the revolution of 2011. After the collapse of the old regime, the forest administration lost much of their repressive control of forestlands, and this benefited forest people. International pressure, as well as the increase of illegal logging and wildfires, led to the formulation of a new forest strategy for 2015–2024, which claims to focus on solving this conflict between the Tunisian administration and forest people, and to design strategic solutions to improve the living conditions, by increasing people’s income from forests. At the same time, it should consider ecological sustainability and the rational use, protection and development of natural resources.

What is more, in the new forest strategy the forest administration remains the main actor, with the greatest responsibility regarding forest resources and forest people. Therefore, the issues of forest people cannot be solved without considering the state forest organizations. This is not a question of reforming forest bureaucracy in general, as discussed frequently, but of focusing on the specific role the state forest organizations play in the issues affecting forest people. The existing evaluations and conceptualizations of forest administrations provide no sufficient basis for such an analysis, since they are more focused on the organizations as such [13,14]. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to find out how state forest organizations deal with the important social issue of sustainability regarding forest people and how they contribute to solving their problems and conflicts. It is essential to consider economic as well as political interventions by state forest organizations in order to form a broad picture. The purpose behind including forest administrations in the analysis of forest people’s issues is to add one factor that will be highly relevant for the design of solutions to be applied in the future. In this paper, the three-layer-model (3L-model) is described as a theoretical basis that is very suitable for the evaluation of the role of state forest organizations in regards to forest people’s issues. Later, the study presents the empirical methods of fieldwork carried out in 2016 and 2017, as well as the results.

2. Comprehensive Model and Hypotheses Focused on Forest People

State forest organizations are often evaluated from an economic point of view focusing on areas such as profit or cost efficiency. Such a narrow focus does not cover the multiple duties and activities of state forest institutions well. In order to improve the evaluation Krott and Stevanov (2008, 2013) have designed the 3L-model of state forest organization evaluation, which covers a broad range of activities and goals [15,16]. It measures the performance of state forest institutions comprehensively, covering economic, political and ecological aspects of sustainability. This model allows researchers to approach the complex issues of forest people in an adequate way.

The 3L-model enables its users to make evaluations that are politically relevant and have a solid foundation on theory and empirical data. Thus, political relevance, theories and empirical measurements make up the three layers of this model, as shown in Figure 1: (1) the layer of policy programs comprises all political statements formulated not only in forest laws and strategies, but also in international agreements and dialogues; (2) the layer of theoretical frameworks consists of suitable theories—from economics, natural sciences and political science—that are linked to relevant goals of the first layer and are used to describe and define the factors driving the performance of state forest institutions; (3) the layer of empirical measurement consists of empirical data produced quantitatively and qualitatively [15,16]. The political goals of the first layer in Figure 1 are deduced from the current forest laws and political strategies in Tunisia. This way, the evaluation becomes relevant for the political discourse. The integration of a theory layer linking political programs to empirical measurements is a specific strength of the 3L-model. Theories turn vague political terms of the political discourse into specific terms that can be analyzed soundly. For example, one of the specific evaluation criteria is “sustainability of forest stands”, which results from linking the vague and complex political goal of sustainable forestry to precise forest management/natural science theories. Thus, the linkage between policy and theories contributes to the emergence of eight evaluation criteria (from C1 to C8 in Figure 1 and

Table 1. The eight evaluation criteria of the 3L-model (source: combination of own and previous research [16,19].)

Criteria (C)	Explanation of the Criteria
Orientation toward market demand	Concerns forest goods and services that can be exchanged on the market (e.g., wood) and the market limits.
Orientation toward non-market demand	Relates to forest goods and services that cannot be exchanged on the market (public goods) or those which are considered as necessary to secure public welfare (merit goods)
Sustainability of forest stands	Refers to the policy goal of maintaining forest size and the capability to continually produce wood using forest management theories.
Technical efficiency	Refers to the efficiency that allows production to approach the maximum.
Profit from forests	Concerns the evaluation of the importance of revenue generated from forests.
Orientation toward new forest goods	Focuses on the orientation of institutions toward developing new sources of revenue from forests.
Advocacy for forestry	Relates to the role, within political processes, of forest institutions in managing the use and protection of forests. The advocacy’s role shows the focus of the institution on specific interests in forests without considering all different actors’ interests.
Mediation between all interests in the forest	Deals with the capability of the institution to apply forest governance. It is an opportunity for stakeholders to take part in policy processes.

) observed empirically by means of indicators (I) (Figure 1). The selection of suitable theories was made by researchers who developed the model [15,16]. Choosing these specific theories to develop a set of evaluation criteria does not imply that other theories cannot be linked to the same political goals. In other words, the vague political discourses described earlier cannot be restricted to one particular theory.

The selection of the criteria is oriented toward such prominent issues of the forest policy debate as efficiency and profitability, performance in timber markets, new forest products, and also the contribution of forestry to general interests, which often serves non-market demands. Additionally, the political role of representing the forest sector in the policy process is taken into account [15,16]. The theoretical basis of the criteria was detailed earlier [15,16]. The 3L-model makes explicit the link to the political debate, theory and empirical evidence, whereas most other comprehensive evaluation methods, e.g., the criteria and indicators by Forest Europe, are based on expert judgments that mingle all aspects together [17]. This way they risk losing the link to politics as well as to scientific arguments. There are other applicable frameworks relevant to the analysis of the issue of social and ecological sustainability in general. For example, Ostrom in 2009 developed a general framework analyzing the social-ecological systems that considers governance to be a subsystem interacting with many other components [18]. However, in the current study the focus is on the performance of the forest administration that manages almost all of the forest area in Tunisia, an area which can be better evaluated by using the specific 3L-model.

The main challenge related to the use of the 3L-model is the operationalization of indicators to measure the performance of the forest administration in different contexts. This model was applied in several contexts, including selected Western Balkan countries, Poland and Brazil [17,19,20]. However, some indicators were not applicable for this case study and needed to be adapted. For example, initially the criterion “orientation toward market demand” was designed to evaluate the institution’s market orientation. However, Tunisian state forest institutions do not generate any revenue from forests. All revenue goes directly to the national treasury. Thus, the indicators of this criterion were adapted in order to evaluate the support provided by state forest institutions to forest people in obtaining market revenue. The details of the criteria and indicators will be explained later, together with the results.

Institutions are evaluated by means of a score, on a scale from zero (zero performance) to three (strong performance). These scores result from a specific combination of indicators, as shown in Appendix B and Appendix C (

Table A2. Performance of state forest institutions with management and authority tasks: General Directorate of Forests and regional institutions. (source: Stevanov and Krott, 2013, some indicators and “performance raw” modified).

Criterion (C)	Ordinal Scale	Combination of Indicators		Performance
C1: Orientation toward market demand	3	Supporting market revenue for forest people substantial a AND Support for professional marketing competence exists		0
	2	Supporting market revenue for forest people substantial AND Support for professional marketing competence does not exist
	1	Supporting market revenue for forest people not substantial AND Support for professional marketing competence exists
	0	Market revenue for forest people does not exist AND support for professional marketing competence does not exist
C2: Orientation toward non-market demand	3	Plans for production/provision of public/merit goods exist AND financial inflow for public/merit goods production/provision substantial b AND auditing exists		2
	2	Plans for production/provision of public/merit goods exist AND financial inflow for public/merit good production/provision substantial AND no auditing
	1	All other combinations
	0	No plans for production/provision of public/merit goods AND financial inflow for public/merit good production/provision not substantial AND auditing exists OR not
C3: Sustainability of forest stands	3	alternative A Sustained forest stands on the whole area (cca. 3/3)	alternative B (Obligation to sustain forest stands exist) AND (forest management plans exist for the substantial c forest part) AND (sustained forest stand requirements fulfilled on the whole area)	1
	2	Sustained forest stands on the greater area (cca. 2/3)	(Obligation to sustain forest stands exists OR not) AND (forest management plans exist on substantial forest part) AND (sustained forest stand requirements fulfilled on the greater area)
	1	Sustained forest stands on the lesser area (cca. 1/3)	All other combinations
	0	No sustained forest stands	(Obligation to sustain forest stands does not exist) AND (no forest management plans for the substantial part of the forest) AND (sustained forest stand requirements fulfilled on whole OR greater area OR lesser area OR not fulfilled)
C4: Technical efficiency	3	Managerial accounting exists AND technical productivity of work is higher than the average for private enterprises		1
	2	Managerial accounting exists AND technical productivity of work is nearly the same as for private enterprises
	1	Managerial accounting exists OR not) AND technical productivity is lower than the average for private enterprises
	0	Presence OR absence of managerial accounting AND zero productivity
C5: Profits from forests for forest people	3	Freedom of harvesting substantial d AND profit-driven reform substantial e		1
	2	Freedom of harvesting exists f AND profit-driven reform substantial
	1	Freedom of harvesting exists AND profit-driven reform exist g
	0	No freedom of harvesting AND no profit-driven reform
C6: Orientation toward new forest goods	3	Existence of professional market information AND investments into new forest goods substantial h AND new external partners exist		1
	2	All other combinations
	1	[Existence of professional market information AND no substantial investments into new forest goods AND no new external partners] OR [Absence of professional market information AND no substantial investments into new forest goods AND new external partners exist] OR [Absence of professional market information AND investments into new forest goods substantial AND no new external partners]
	0	Absence of professional market information AND no substantial investments into new forest goods AND no new external partners
C7: Advocacy for forestry	3	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector AND advocate’s role aspired AND advocate’s role accepted		3
	2	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector AND advocate’s role not aspired AND advocate’s role accepted
	1	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector AND advocate’s role aspired AND advocate’s role not accepted
	0	Trustful cooperation with actors from wood-based sector AND advocate’s role not aspired AND advocate’s role not accepted
C8: Mediation between all interests in forest	3	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND mediator’s role aspired AND mediator’s role accepted		0
	2	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND mediator’s role not aspired AND mediator’s role accepted
	1	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND mediator’s role aspired AND mediator’s role not accepted
	0	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND mediator’s role not aspired AND mediator’s role not accepted

Legend: (3) strong, (2) moderate, (1) weak performance, (0) zero; a- substantial support of market revenue for forest people: when the state allows forest people to generate revenue from more than 70% of harvested forest products; b- inflow is considered substantial when ≥30% of total revenue flows in (from outside the institution) for public/merit goods production/provision; c- substantial forest part means more than 2/3 of the total forest area under the management of a state forest institution; d- freedom of harvesting is substantial when the state institutions allow harvesting for forest people for their own use and for commercialization as well; e- profit-driven reforms are substantial when they exceed 30% of the realized reforms and they are validated by the law (in execution); f- freedom of harvesting is only for subsistence use; g- profit-driven reforms exist when they consist of less than 30% of the reforms of the institution or/and they are still projects of reforms (not executed); h- substantial, making 1/3 of all investments or more.

and

Table A3. Performance of a state forest institution with management tasks: Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office. (source: Stevanov and Krott, 2013, some indicators and “performance raw” modified).

Criterion (C)	Ordinal Scale	Combination of Indicators		Performance
C1: Orientation toward market demand	3	Supporting market revenue for forest people substantial a AND Support for professional marketing competence exists		0
	2	Supporting market revenue for forest people substantial AND Support for professional marketing competence does not exist
	1	Supporting market revenue for forest people not substantial AND Support for professional marketing competence exists
	0	Supporting market revenue for forest people not substantial AND Support for professional marketing competence does not exist
C2: Orientation toward non-market demand	3	Plans for production/provision of public/merit goods exist AND financial inflow for public/merit goods production/provision substantial b AND auditing exists		2,5
	2	Plans for production/provision of public/merit goods exist AND financial inflow for public/merit goods production/provision substantial AND no auditing
	1	All other combinations
	0	No plans for production/provision of public/merit goods AND financial inflow for public/merit goods production/provision not substantial AND (auditing exists OR not)
C3: Sustainability of forest stands	3	alternative A Sustained forest stands on the whole area (cca. 3/3)	alternative B (Obligation to sustain forest stands exist) AND (forest management plans exist for the substantial c forest part) AND (sustained forest stand requirements fulfilled on the whole area)	1
	2	Sustained forest stands on the greater area (cca. 2/3)	(Obligation to sustain forest stands exists OR not) AND (forest management plans exist on substantial forest part) AND (sustained forest stand requirements fulfilled on the greater area)
	1	Sustained forest stands on the lesser area (cca. 1/3)	All other combinations
	0	No sustained forest stands	(Obligation to sustain forest stands does not exist) AND (no forest management plans for the substantial part of the forest) AND (sustained forest stand requirements fulfilled on whole OR greater area OR lesser area OR not fulfilled)
C4: Technical efficiency	3	Managerial accounting exists AND Support for new technology and high productivity high d		1
	2	(Managerial accounting exists OR not) AND Support for new technology and high productivity moderate
	1	(Managerial accounting exists OR not) AND Support for new technology and high productivity low
	0	(Presence OR absence of managerial accounting) AND No support for new technology and high productivity
C5: Profits from forests for forest people	3	Revenue from forests for forest people substantial e AND integration of people in realizing activities defined by development plans/projects substantial f		2
	2	Revenue from forests for forest people exist AND (integration of people in realizing activities defined by development plans/projects Substantial OR exits)
	1	(Revenue from forests for forest people exist OR not) AND integration of people in realizing activities defined by development plans/projects exits
	0	NO revenue from forests for forest people AND no integration of people in realizing activities defined by development plans/projects
C6: Orientation toward new forest goods	3	Existence of professional market information AND investments into new forest goods substantial g AND new external partners exist		0
	2	All other combinations
	1	[Existence of professional market information AND no substantial investments into new forest goods AND no new external partners] OR [Absence of professional market information AND no substantial investments into new forest goods AND new external partners exist] OR [Absence of professional market information AND investments into new forest goods substantial AND no new external partners]
	0	Absence of professional market information AND no substantial investments into new forest goods AND no new external partners
C7: Advocacy for forestry	3	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector AND advocate’s role aspired AND advocate’s role accepted		0
	2	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector AND advocate’s role not aspired AND advocate’s role accepted
	1	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector AND advocate’s role aspired AND advocate’s role not accepted
	0	Trustful cooperation with actors from wood-based sector AND advocate’s role not aspired AND advocate’s role not accepted
C8: Mediation between all interests in forest	3	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND integration of people in the decision-making process substantial		1,5
	2	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND integration of people in the decision-making process moderately substantial
	1	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND integration of people in the decision-making process exists
	0	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors AND integration of people in the decision-making process does not exist

Legend: (3) strong, (2) moderate, (1) weak performance; a- substantial support of market revenue for forest people: when the state allows forest people to generate revenue from more than 70% of harvested forest products; b- inflow is considered substantial when ≥30% of total revenue flows in (from outside the institution) for public/merit goods production/provision; c- substantial forest part means more than 2/3 of the total forest area under the management of a state forest institution; d- high support when more than 80% of realized activities support the use of new technology and pushes toward high productivity; e- Substantial when the institution helps to generate a revenue covering more than 80% of their needs; f- substantial when more than 70% of planned activities are realized by forest people; g- substantial, making 1/3 of all investments or more.

). Some indicators may vary depending on the type of tasks fulfilled by the institution evaluated (authority or management tasks) or on a particular characteristic of the institution as determined through fieldwork and document analysis.

The criteria and indicators are able to cover the different activities of the forest administration, ranging from key economic tasks, such as selling forest products in market, to political tasks, like playing the mediator role between different interests. This broad set of activities will lead to the elaboration of a first hypothesis. However, focusing on the question of the impact of the orientation of state forest institutions on forest people requires an additional theoretical framework for these criteria. For example, within a stronger market orientation, it is important to differentiate between the impact of high technical efficiency on the whole forest sector and that on forest people. The orientation of state forest institutions toward market demand will transform these institutions into influential market actors, a role they will play instead of being involved in poverty alleviation and livelihoods development [21].

The following hypotheses were formulated based on the aforementioned theoretical framework:

H1. 

State forest institutions employ different market, non-market and political instruments to influence the use and the protection of forests.

The 3L-model assumes that state forest institutions perform multiple activities to fulfill their tasks. These comprehensive means can also be tested in regard to the issue of forest people.

H2. 

The outcomes of these instruments for forest people differ from those for the general forest sector.

It makes a difference whether state forest organizations are evaluated by their contribution to the overall forest sector or to such specific issues as those related to forest people. For example, the technical efficiency of the forest sector in Tunisia might increase by employing technologies relying on harvesting machines. However, such a gain in efficiency for the overall forest sector will reduce the opportunities for forest people to take part in forest activities and consequently they will benefit less from forest resources. This evaluation study should make these differences visible.

3. Triangulation of Multiple Empirical Methods

The fieldwork applies multiple empirical methods and checks the collected data by means of triangulation. Triangulation is applied in social science research by making observations from different points of view, increasing the accuracy of work [22].

One important source of data was a senior civil servant. This key informant, who has an experience of three decades in a state forest organization, provided important indications on relevant actors, documents and developments. Thus, the contact with this person generated much more data (documents, interviews) than other interviewees and helped to explain many complex issues related to the functioning of forest administration during the whole study. This knowledge is checked by examining the original documents, statistics and field observations. Very often, the experience of the key senior civil servant who had participated in international project studies, including work with different stakeholders involved in the forest sector, contributed to the examination of different data that would have otherwise been left unconsidered.

During the fieldwork from May 2016 to May 2017, 90 documents were collected. Most are in Arabic and French, and 80% are non-public. The majority of these documents were obtained under request (especially internal documents, statistics, annual reports, and projects of law reform). The collection and analysis of documents relevant to the Tunisian forest sector was a substantial part of this work. It made possible an understanding of the overall functioning of the forest administration, and of the different laws and political goals set for the sector. In addition, prior field observations made in 2013 and 2014 were an important source to check data about causative factors that drive Tunisian forest policy.

Based on this first analysis, expert interviews were performed with key actors from state forest institutions, the Ministry of Environment and researchers from the forest-related sector. At many times, it was important to contact the same interviewee several times (by phone or email) in order to understand the collected data. Thus, the majority of these interviews were short and related to specific topics. Conducting many short interviews revealed more information and provided better understanding than did carrying out long ones. In total, forty email contacts and more than sixty phone interviews were made with the actors illustrated in

Table A4. List of interviews.

Date	Interview Number	Type of Interview	Position of the Interviewee	Institution
25/05/2016	Interview 1	Sent via email	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests
21/09/2016	Interview 2	Questionnaire	Responsible for forest protection	General Directorate of Forests
21/09/2016	Interview 3	Face-to-face	Responsible for forest product sales	Forest Use Authority
22/09/2016	Interview 4	Face-to-face	Responsible in the Environment department	Ministry of Environment
29/09/2016	Interview 5	Questionnaire	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests
29/11/2016	Interview 6	Sent via email	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests
09/12/2016	Interview 7	Phone interview	Lecturer in forest science	Silvo-Pastoral Institute of Tabarka (Tunisia)
15/12/2016	Interview 8	Sent via email	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests
24/01/2017	Interview 9	Sent via email	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests
30/01/2017	Interview 10	Sent via email	Responsible for and coordinator of projects	Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office
30/01/2017	Interview 11	Sent via email	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests
01/02/2017	Interview 12	Sent via email	Responsible for and coordinator of projects	Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office
08/02/2017	Interview 13	Sent via email	Responsible for administrative and financial affairs	General Directorate of Forests
10/02/2017	Interview 14	Phone interview	Doctoral students working on ecotourism	National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia
27/02/2017	Interview 15	Sent via email	Responsible for silvo-pastoral development	General Directorate of Forests

(Appendix D). In this table, only 15 interviews that revealed crucial information employed in the analysis are presented.

Finally, regular meetings with the research group provided an important theoretical triangulation to avoid a personal bias. The logic of the arguments and the theoretical basis were checked.

4. Overview of the Main Actors Involved in the Forest Policy in Tunisia

According to Hasnaoui and Krott [14], the main actors involved in the forest sector in Tunisia are:

• The governmental actors: the General Directorate of Forests and its regional representations, state research institutions, the forest use authority, the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral office, different ministries (Agriculture, Tourism and Environment).
• Market actors, including wood and non-wood product industries.
• International organizations/donors who finance development projects, but also intervene in the elaboration of forest strategies and studies.
• Forest people living in and around forests who have limited legal use rights.

Given that the focus of this study is to evaluate the performance of state forest institutions regarding forest people, it will present insights into the two following categories of actors: Forest people and state forest institutions.

4.1. Insights into the Situation of Forest People in Tunisia

The total number of people living in forests is estimated at 750,000, occupying 14 governorates (from a total of 24) with an average density of 86 users per km² of forest. This number of forest people, who have user rights, includes those living in forests and in the area within five kilometers of a forest [5]. Before this reference material about forest people was collected in 2012, the customary rights for those living around forests had been abolished, and only people living inside forested areas kept these rights. Thus, it is essential to define who forest users are. Furthermore, the referential framework about forest people was realized with the support of the forest administration. This reveals the difficulties that the state is facing in enforcing the law that deprives a large number of forest people living around forests of their user rights.

The income of users living in forests includes livestock breeding (58%), logging yards organized by the state to use or maintain forests (28%), charcoal use (5%) and other forest product use (9%) [5]. This indicator shows the importance of forests in supporting livestock breeding activities, mainly by providing a pastoral resource.

Based on the statistics of the referential framework [5], Figure 2 was elaborated presenting key indicators related to forest people in comparison to the national average.

The indicators in Figure 2 show the socio-economic problems forest people are facing. The poverty rate reached 45.5%, while the national average is 15.5%. This is in addition to an unemployment rate of 30% against 19% at the national level. Furthermore, forest areas are characterized by very limited infrastructure. For example, the rate of access to safe drinking water is estimated at 15%, while the national average is 83%. All these statistics reflect the complexity of the situation and the need for a forest policy reform that reduces these discrepancies.

4.2. Relevant State Forest Institutions

The evaluation involved two institutions, namely the General Directorate of Forests and the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office. The regional institutions were evaluated together with the General Directorate despite being administratively independent (under the Regional Commissions of Agricultural Development existing in every governorate of the Republic). In fact, they are functionally (technically) managed by this directorate and represent it in regions.

Considering the focus of this study, an evaluation of the Forest Use Authority was not carried out, since the activities of this institution focus on the use and sales of forest products according to the forest code and management plans designed by the General Directorate of Forests. It has low decision-making power and a small impact on forest people, and it collaborates with regional institutions to control the harvesting process and fieldwork. Nevertheless, the data collected from this institution (for example the annual reports) were used to evaluate other institutions. Different tasks of forest institutions at national and regional levels are specified in Appendix A (

Table A1. Tasks of state forest institutions in Tunisia.

Tasks	State Institutions
	National Level		Regional and Local Levels
	Ministry of Agriculture
	General Directorate of Forests (DGF)	Forest Use Authority (REF)	Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office (ODESYPANO)	Forest Divisions, Districts, Subdivisions, and Units *
Forest policy formulation
Engagement in designing forest laws, orders, decrees or other mandatory and/or voluntary prescriptions other than law, contribution to designing forest strategies and action plans.	++	+	0	++
Law implementation Enforcement of forest laws, implementation control	++	++	0	++
Information providing
Extension services	+	0	++	+
Public reporting about forests	++	0	0	++
Economic support
Financial support (incentives, compensations, investment credits, donations in kind)	+	0	++	0
Technical support (conducting operations in state-owned forests, extension excluded)	++	+	++	++
Implementation and support of development projects	++	0	++	++
Planning
State-wide level	++	0	0	+
Regional level planning	++	0	++	++
Local level	++	0	++	++
Representing the owner (Setting the goals; Making decisions on concessions if some; etc.)	++	+	0	++
Management of state assets (Management of real estates, lands other than forests)	++	0	0	+
Management of forests
Producing wood products	++	0	0	++
Producing non-wood products	++	0	0	++
Wood harvesting (organizing tenders for wood sales, thinning and sanitary cutting)	0	++	0	+
Non-wood products harvesting (Cork, Pistacia lentiscus, rosemary, mushrooms, charcoal, myrtle, thyme, Aleppo pine nuts, etc.)	0	++	0	+
Infrastructure amelioration and socio-economic development (Tracks, access to drinking water, etc.)	+	+	++	+

(+): task legally based; (++) task legally based and has high priority for the institution; (0) task not fulfilled by the institution; (*) administratively under the Regional Commissions of Agriculture (CRDA) and technically under the General Directorate of Forests.

). Table A1 was made based on observations and document analyses, and its information was corroborated by means of interviews.

4.2.1. The General Directorate of Forests and the regional institutions

The first administrative body of forestry in Tunisia was created in 1883. This body had always been a separate service assigned to such other entities as the agriculture administration. It evolved over the years until the creation of the General Directorate of Forests in 1990. This directorate is located in the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources and Fishing and is composed of four sub-directorates: forest conservation, socio-economic development, silvo-pastoral development and regulation and control. In addition to 1.2 million ha of forests, the Directorate (in collaboration with regional institutions) also manages grazing lands estimated at 4.5 million ha, as mentioned in the second national forest and pastoral inventory [23]. This institution fulfills management as well as the authority tasks, which are defined by Stevanov and Krott to include policy implementation [16].

The regional institutions are under the administration of the Regional Commissions for Agriculture (known as CRDA in Tunisia). In every commission, there is a division of reforestation and soil and water conservation supervising a district of forests. This district has many representations at the local level, which are called units. The link between districts and units is ensured by subdivisions created to divide the area for better management. The number of districts and subdivisions may vary depending on the importance of the forest area within a governorate.

The administrative and the technical hierarchies are different. The administrative organization is as following: (1) The Regional Commissions for Agriculture; (2) Division; (3) Districts; (4) Subdivisions; (5) Units. However, technically, the General Directorate cooperates directly with the districts so that the hierarchy is (1): General Directorate of Forests; (2) Districts; (3) Subdivisions; (4) Units [13]. In other words, to elaborate the annual national program, the Regional Commissions for Agriculture, as well as the divisions, do not intervene and the cooperation is directly between the national level (General Directorate of Forests) and the districts. On the other hand, the procurement and maintenance of equipment for the districts are the tasks of the Regional Commissions of Agriculture.

Since this institution implements both management and authority tasks, the evaluation was performed by integrating the authority and management indicators in the same evaluation.

4.2.2. Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office

This office was established in 1981 in order to manage watersheds in this region. Later, its activities were extended to provide extension services, donations and micro-credits through the implementation of development projects funded by international donors. The most relevant contribution of this institution to such activities was within the project of the Northwest Forest Development (PNO), with its different phases funded mostly by the World Bank. Collected data show that the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office is implementing the fourth phase of this project (PNO4). The investment budget of this institution is very limited and highly depends on development projects.

Despite its limited area and scope of intervention, this study focused on the evaluation of the performance of this institution, since it is the only one whose main task is to support and integrate rural people. In addition, the Northwest of Tunisia includes an important forest area that represents nearly 50% of the total forest area [23]. The governorate of Jendouba, which is located in the Northwest of Tunisia, has the highest number of users and the greatest share of forest area in the country [5].

5. Results: Evaluation of the Performance of the Selected State Forest Institutions

The evaluation by means of the 3L-model showed the multiple contributions of state forest organizations to the issue of forest people (Figure 3). Table A2 and Table A3 of the Appendix B and Appendix C provide detailed information about the criteria and indicators. The results on the General Directorate of Forests and the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office are discussed separately, as shown in Figure 3 and summarized in

Table 2. Overview of the evaluation criteria, indicators and results.

Criteria (C)	Indicators for GDF Evaluation	Indicators for NWSPO Evaluation	Evaluation Result for GDF	Evaluation Results for NWSPO
C1 Orientation toward market demand	Supporting market revenue for forest people; Support for professional marketing competence	Supporting market revenue for forest people; Support for professional marketing competence	0	0
C2 Orientation toward non-market demand	Plans for production/provision of public/merit goods; financial inflow for public/merit goods production/ provision; Auditing	Plans for production/provision of public/merit goods; financial inflow for public/merit goods production/ provision; Auditing	2	2.5
C3 Sustainability of forest stands	Obligation to sustain forest stands; forest management plans; fulfilment of sustained forest stand requirements	Obligation to sustain forest stands; forest management plans; fulfilment of sustained forest stand requirements	1	1
C4 Technical efficiency	Managerial accounting; technical productivity of work	Managerial accounting; Support for new technology and high productivity	1	1
C5 Profits from forests for forest people	Freedom of harvesting; profit-driven reforms;	Revenue from forests for forest people; integration of people in the implementation of activities defined by development plans/projects	1	2
C6 Orientation toward new forest goods	Existence of professional market information; investments in new forest goods; existence of new external partners	Existence of professional market information investments in new forest goods; existence of new external partners	1	0
C7 Advocacy for forestry	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector; aspiration to role of advocate; acceptance of role of advocate	Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector, aspiration to role of advocate; acceptance of role of advocate	3	0
C8 Mediation of all interests	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors; aspiration to role of mediator; acceptance of role of mediator	Trustful cooperation with actors from different sectors; integration of people in the decision-making process	0	1.5

. To keep the size of the results section down to a reasonable length, only the detailed evaluation of the General Directorate is presented, since this institution is the main state administration dealing with both management and authority tasks. Concerning the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office, the evaluation is summarized in this section. The complete evaluation is found in the supplementary material section.

5.1. The General Directorate of Forests and the regional institutions

5.1.1. Criterion 1: Orientation toward Market Demand

The first criterion shows whether an institution supports the market orientation of forest people. Two indicators were used to measure this: supporting market revenue for forest people and the existence of professional marketing competence.

I.1 Supporting market revenue for forest people: This indicator covers the institution’s support for forest people to allow them to generate revenue from selling goods and services on the market. The General Directorate of Forests (in collaboration with regional institutions) takes part in the legislation formulation and has a role in the enforcement of the law. Legally, selling forest goods is the task of the Forest Use Authority, which organizes auctions for the majority of these forest products. However, pursuant to Article 37 of the Forest Code, forest people can use products only to satisfy their personal need and this use should not have a commercial or industrial aspect [6].

This legislative context can explain the poor socio-economic situation of people living in Tunisian forests. Despite having the right to participate in public auctions, the competition with wood and non-wood product industries is very high and unfair. If the orientation is pushed toward market revenue, it will benefit industrialists and traders but not forest people who are weak within the market competition. The prohibition of market revenue for forest people means that the support does not exist.

I.2 Supporting marketing/professional competence: This competence concerns the capacity of the institution to collect, analyze and utilize market information and to support forest people to develop marketing and professional skills. In the General Directorate of Forests, as well as at the regional level, there are no marketing departments or competencies working professionally to promote or tailor products. The performance of the directorate and the regional institutions can be considered not to be professional and, consequently, they cannot support forest people in this way (except by means of some initiatives based on foreign money to develop revenue-generating activities).

Performance judgment: By taking into consideration both indicators, the General Directorate of Forests’ orientation toward market demand can be estimated to be zero or “0” for forest people and even for the wood-based sector (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.2. Criterion 2: Orientation toward Non-market Demand

The second criterion concerns forest goods that are not exchangeable on the market (public goods) or that are considered to be essential to ensure public welfare. Thus, the contribution of state forest institutions to poverty alleviation for forest people can be assessed under this criterion by using the indicators below.

I.3 Plans for production and provision of public/merit goods: These plans concern the area in which the main goal is protection. They describe the specific amount of public goods that should be produced in that area. Tunisian forests have an essential role in protection, and the General Directorate of Forests, as well as regional institutions, have a wide scope of intervention in the whole country, with its varied climate and vegetation from the North to the South. The General Directorate collaborates with regional institutions to elaborate the plans of annual activities (e.g., annual reports of 2015 and 2014 [24,25]) to be performed in terms of protection, such as the management of natural reserves and national parks, plantations on the coasts and in deserts to fix the coastal and desert sand dunes, the protection of habitats, firefighting, etc. To support the protection of forests means to indirectly support forest people who depend greatly on forest resources to survive (grazing, firewood, etc.). In addition, the directorate and the regional institutions contribute to the elaboration of community development plans that are produced within the framework of development projects (e.g., Ordha-Khadouma 2015, and Jbel Zaghouan 2015 [26,27]). These community plans necessarily contain a section dedicated to poverty alleviation by supporting some activities to generate revenue (e.g., beekeeping) for people or by integrating them in implemented forest activities, as well as by improving their living environment (e.g., opening forest tracks, providing safe drinking water, etc.).

I.4 Financial inflow for public/merit goods production/provision: This inflow is defined as the amount of funding coming from outside the institution in order to finance the different activities related to producing or provisioning merit/public goods. A substantial financial inflow reflects the importance given to the orientation toward non-market demand. According to the budget of the national program of 2015 [28], the amount of money dedicated to forest protection and conservation (protected areas, firefighting, guarding and protecting forest wealth, etc.) represents about 40% of the total budget dedicated to different activities within forests. However, the budget devoted to the protected areas represents 3.7% of the total budget. This budget is considered to be very small (Interview 1). For this reason, there is strong cooperation between the forest conservation department, in the General Directorate of Forests, and the Ministry of Environment, which invests in these protected areas. However, the sources of these funds invested by the Ministry of Environment are mainly international projects, since the Ministry also has a limited budget (Interview 4). The General Directorate receives a substantial amount of money to perform protection activities in forests, as well as to support forest people to create sources of income for them, in order to reduce poverty in these areas. The money comes mainly from international organizations (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Bank, French Development Agency, Japanese project, etc.) and the budgets of these projects are very important in comparison to the state budget.

I.5 Auditing: It is conducted in order to allow the institution to evaluate the satisfaction of other public institutions that finance the production/provision of public goods. These professional examinations indicate the importance of the investment and the orientation toward non-market demand for the investing institution.

Despite receiving substantial funds from external institutions to conduct some public tasks, there is no auditing conducted by the ordering side (public institution). For example, some activities inside protected areas are subject to collaboration between the Ministry of Environment and the Directorate of Forests to define specifications (Interview 4). Thus, there is no ordering side and no task ordering taking place for such activities. The organization financing these projects may conduct audits to monitor budget utilization and different implementations. Therefore, auditing can be considered to be weak in these institutions.

Performance judgment: By considering all the indicator manifestations, the orientation toward non-market demand can be evaluated as moderate or “2” (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.3. Criterion 3: Sustainability of Forest Stands

The policy goal captured under this criterion is the maintenance of forest size and the capability to continually produce wood by applying forest management theories. However, maintaining the ability to produce wood is a narrow goal for sustainability. Other activities such as firefighting should be considered as well. A broader vision of sustainability benefits forest people.

I.6 Obligation to sustain forest stands: This obligation concerns the maintenance of the production capacity of forests stands and soil. In the Tunisian Forest Code there is an obligation to protect and develop forest heritage, which is described as being a part of national wealth that should be extended and safeguarded by the citizens [6].

I.7 Forest management plans: These plans are produced in order to protect the sustainability of wood production in the future. The Tunisian Forest Law includes an article clearly stating the obligation of forest institutions to produce management plans for forests. This document should contain technical details about wood removal in a determined period, and information about territories to close or open, such as grazing lands [6]. However, by referring to the latest statistics of the General Directorate of Forests in 2016, more than 50% of forests do not have management plans [29]. One can conclude that forest management plans exist for limited forest areas in Tunisia.

I.8 Requirements for sustaining forest stands: This indicator takes into consideration the growing stock and the current annual increment, which should not decline over the years. This indicator is based on the information available in national forest inventories. In Tunisia there have been two inventories published, in 1995 and 2010 [23,30]. Based on this data the requirements of sustainability are fulfilled. The current annual increment value for a period of 5 years has recorded a slight increase, from 513,241 m³ per year to 525,400 m³ per year in 1995 and 2010 respectively. Similarly, the growing stock has increased, based on the two inventories, from 17.3 million m³ to 22.2 million m³. However, since the revolution of 2011, other factors should be considered such as the increase of illegal logging and the number of wildfires and areas they affected. Statistics on illegal logging recorded after the revolution are not reliable, particularly during the first several years (especially in 2011). For security reasons, forest agents could not accomplish their task of recording offenses. Concerning wildfires, the statistics of the General Directorate of Forests [31] showed an important increase in the extent of the areas burned after the revolution of 2011 (from 227.5 ha in 2001 to 5946 ha in 2014). In addition, there are exceptional fires caused by military intervention in some zones (Governorates of Kef and Kasserine), which reached a peak at 8900 ha in 2014 [31]. As a conclusion, we can state that the requirements for sustainability are not accomplished appropriately.

Performance judgment: By combining these three indicators the performance of the General Directorate of Forests for this criterion can be assessed as weak or “1” (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.4. Criterion 4: Technical Efficiency

This criterion refers to the impact of technical efficiency of production on the situation of forest people. This efficiency can be defined as “the degree to which an actual output of a production unit approaches its maximum” [32]. One type of opportunity for forest people to improve their incomes is having a temporary job that consists of taking part in state forest activities. High efficiency diminishes such options for forest people.

I.9 Managerial accounting: This kind of accounting contains the information available for the use of the managers of the institutions at the internal scale and it serves to support the decision-making process for a better use of the resources. The General Directorate of Forests has no revenues from forest activities or products and is not profit-oriented. Moreover, there is no financial department within the institution. There is only one employee with an economic management background who manages financial tasks within a development project and who makes additional efforts to deal with daily financial procedures of the General Directorate (e.g., purchases). This employee also collaborates with the general director to elaborate the functioning budget of the General Directorate (purchases, maintenance, etc.) (Interview 13). In addition, by observing different forest programs from 2011 until 2015, the program and the budget are nearly the same [28,33,34,35,36]. To conclude, there were no efforts made in terms of managerial accounting.

I.10 Technical productivity of work: Basically, this indicator is a calculation of the ratio of annual removals of wood (output) and the total number of employees (input) and it is calculated for at least three institutions to create intervals of evaluation [16,19]. In Tunisia this calculation is not feasible since the majority of wood is sold by the Forest Use Department in auctions as standing wood (Interview 3). According to the annual reports of the Forest Use Department (e.g., 2014 and 2015 [37,38]), a small quantity of wood can be processed by the administration and sold in private sales by the Use Department. The General Directorate and the regional institutions intervene in this type of use by conducting forestry activities (thinning, sanitary cutting, etc.). The evaluation is based on the comparison of the productivity in fieldwork (yards) managed by the administration and the same activities allocated to private enterprises (also designated by the administration based on specifications). In 2016, there were no requirements from the administration for the daily productivity of employees, while private enterprises required of workers a productivity of two to three cubic meters per day (Interview 15). The administration does not focus on the technical productivity in these yards because such activities have a political target of reducing unemployment by assigning the maximum number of working days to the highest possible number of contractual employees (who are generally old people, people with handicaps or nonqualified persons who do not have another source of income). With the absence of productivity requirements for institutions, technical productivity is clearly lower there than for private enterprises. This low productivity requirement is very convenient for forest people who are not skilled and who need this work to survive.

Performance judgment: The performance of the institution concerning this criterion can be assessed as “1” or weak (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.5. Criterion 5: Profits from Forests for Forest People

This criterion deals with the support of the state forest institution for forest people in making a profit from forests.

I.11 Freedom of harvesting: As mentioned previously, the Forest Law provides freedom of harvesting to forest people as users of the resource. The commercialization of these products is forbidden. The freedom of harvesting to make a profit is limited, but it allows these people to survive (by grazing, the use of firewood, etc.)

I.12 Profit-driven reforms: This indicator concerns the presence of reforms or projects for reform (orientation) to encourage profit making from forests for forest people. The collected data contain several projects for reform in the Tunisian Forest Law, including the co-management agreement model elaborated in 2014 [39]. These agreements are developed to allow forest people belonging to local associations (namely the Agricultural Development Groups) to have access to resources for use, transformation and profit generation from selling them in the market. However, these reform projects cannot be considered to be substantial, since they act only at a legal level.

Performance judgment: For this criterion this institution performance has been rated as “1” or low (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.6. Criterion 6: Orientation toward New Forest Goods

The sixth criterion concerns the efforts of the institution to develop new sources of revenue that benefit forest people.

I.13 Professional market information: The indicator concerns the information collected, treated and disseminated in a professional way. Such communication does not exist in the General Directorate and regional institutions (Interview 13). In addition, the majority of forest products are traditionally sold in auctions by the Forest Use Department, and the revenues generated go directly to the national treasury. State forest institutions do not benefit from this income.

I.14 Investments into new forest goods: This refers to an investment in transformed or completely new services and goods that can be considered to be innovative for the institution. This kind of investment is not a priority for the institution. According to the annual budgets and reports, the expenditure orientations have been kept the same for several years. There have been some efforts within national parks to create ecotourism tours and eco-museums (financed almost entirely by development projects), but there are no applicable entry fees to these parks. The particularity of legislation and decrees related to the creation of each park and natural reserve makes the applicability of the entry fees complicated. In some cases, fees for entering the protected areas are required and in other cases entry is free. Some protected areas are created on collective lands and the problems related to the land ownership are not solved. No fees are paid to the forest institution to access protected areas, while private agencies for ecotourism or related associations generate revenues from organizing tours within these areas (Interview 14). The General Directorate of Forests supports non-wood products such as mushrooms, pine nuts, etc., based on foreign development project budgets. This institution is currently discussing the possibility of providing some concessions for creating innovative projects (e.g., the creation of cable cars in the mountain in the Northwest of Tunisia), which will create job opportunities for forest people by providing services to visitors. Despite having the intention to produce innovative forest products, the investment in new forest goods and in the transformation of existing goods is not substantial since it cannot achieve 30% of the total investments of the institution.

I.15 New external partners: These partners can be from different companies and organizations collaborating with the institution to produce or provide new forest goods and services. The main partners of the General Directorate of Forests are international organizations, NGOs, research institutions, Ministries of Environment and Tourism, etc. By means of concessions the institution can form new partnerships that have a market orientation, such as the creation, by innovative people to whom the concessions have been granted, of eco-touristic projects, or the production of new forest essences.”. These types of concessions are currently being discussed in the institution, but there has been no progress in terms of their implementation.

Performance judgment: The performance of the General Directorate of Forests can be judged as scoring a “1” or “weak” for this criterion by combining these three indicators (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.7. Criterion 7: Advocacy for Forestry

This criterion is related to the role played by forest institutions within the political processes that manage the utilization and the protection of forest resources. The advocacy’s role reflects the fact that the institution dominates the representation of the forest sector.

I.16 Trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector: Such cooperation is based mainly on a partnership with actors from the wood industry or other sectors related to the forest sector. The main partners mentioned in interviews (Interview 1 and Interview 5) are state institutions (ministries of environment, tourism and other departments from their institution), research institutions, and associations that deal with the environment and forests. These answers reveal the orientation toward cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector. The situation with forest people is considered to be conflictive, and the main causes for this conflict are overcutting and the illegal exploitation of resources.

I.17 Aspirationto role of advocate: It refers to the intention of the institution to represent the forest sector. This role was approved (Interview 1 and Interview 5) by considering the position of the institution to be very strong in terms of the role of an advocacy for forestry.

I.18 Acceptance of roleof advocate: It refers to the perspective of other institutions concerning the admission of the forest institution’s role as an advocacy for forestry. It has been confirmed that the General Directorate is considered to be the advocacy for forestry (Interviews 2 and 7). Foresters, especially in regions, consider strict forest protection to be their main task despite the efforts in the central administration to build a strategy based on conciliation and the participatory approach of different actors (Interview 4).

Performance judgment: The General Directorate of Forests engages in trustful cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector, but not with forest people. In addition, it aspires to the role of an advocate for forestry and other actors accept it as such an advocate. Thus, the institution is a strong advocate for forestry and its performance can be judged as being strong or scoring a “3” (Appendix B, Table A2).

5.1.8. Criterion 8: Mediation of all Interests in Forests

This criterion concerns the capacity of the institution to ensure forest governance, which is considered an innovative role within processes of forest protection and use policies. This role represents a preferable option for forest people by considering their interests and offering them the opportunity to take part in policy processes.

I.19 Trustful cooperation with actors from all sectors: This refers to cooperation based mainly on partnership with several actors from different sectors, including forest people. In addition to participating in trustful cooperation, mainly with actors from the wood-based sector (as it was revealed in criterion 7), there are conflicts leading to a lack of trustful cooperation with other actors. For example, there is a permanent conflict between the directorate and people living in forests, as mentioned in the previous criterion. These people are subject to many restrictions related to grazing, since the forest administration always advocates sustainable forest use by limiting the access to grazing, or even prohibiting (for a period of time) the breeding of some animals, such as goats, in some areas.

I.20 Aspirationto role of mediator: This refers to the intent of cooperation of an institution with actors from different sectors. The Directorate cannot be in a mediatory position, since its main role is to protect forests (Interview 1 and Interview 5). This fact, associated with a strong cooperation with actors from the wood-based sector, shows that it does not aspire to the mediator role.

I.21 Acceptance ofrole ofmediator: This concerns the degree to which other actors recognize forest institutions as being mediators between different interests. State forest institutions in Tunisia claim to play a conciliatory role. However, the General Directorate of Forests, and especially the employees at the regional level in practice, are perceived as being very strict when dealing with the forest sector (Interview 4, Interview 7).

Performance judgment: The General Directorate cooperates mainly with actors from the wood-based sector. Moreover, it does not aspire toward a mediator role and it is not accepted as a mediator. By combining these indicators, the resulting score would be a zero or “0” performance (Table 2 and Appendix B, Table A2).

5.2. Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office

As mentioned earlier, the complete evaluation of the performance of this institution is in the supplementary material of this paper. The results are summarized below, presenting the highlights of the performance of the institution vis-à-vis the evaluation criteria of the 3L- model.

The office has no orientation toward market demand. Its main task is to implement international development projects. These projects provide some funding to support forest people in the creation of micro-enterprises that improve their limited incomes. The revenue generated from such enterprises is limited [40] and is considered to be a contribution to poverty alleviation. It helps to support small profits from forests with these activities rather than supporting a market orientation. The orientation toward non-market demand is the focus of the institution, this by contributing to the implementation of Community Development Plans within development projects. Parts of these plans are dedicated to forest activities targeting the improvement of forest people livelihoods. Forest activities included in the Community Development Plans contribute to the sustainability of forests. Nevertheless, this contribution is not substantial since it is geographically limited to the Northwest region. Also, the main entity responsible for producing management plans is the General Directorate of Forests. In terms of technical efficiency, the focus of the institution on poverty alleviation does not make high technical efficiency and productivity a priority, despite some attempts to slightly improve and use innovative technologies in the context of microenterprise creation (see supplementary materials).

Similarly, there is no orientation toward creating new forest goods. The office has kept the same investment line for several years, focusing on merit goods and implementing international projects without elaborating new orientation. Advocating forestry is the task of the general directorate. The office adopts a more participatory approach, trying to integrate forest people into the decision making process. That is to say, it plays a mediator role, considering the interests of local people in their programs. Nevertheless, it remains a weak mediator role, relying on foreign donors and covering limited areas that are concerned with the intervention zones of international projects and the office.

The results obtained for the General Directorate of Forests and the regional institutions as well as the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office, summarized in Figure 3 and Table 2, show that both institutions have similarities in their performance, which is marked by the absence of the orientation toward market demand, while their performance in the orientation toward non-market demand is considerably better. In addition, both of them display a weak performance with regard to technical efficiency and sustaining forest stands. Nevertheless, the institutions have some differences. While the General Directorate of Forests plays exclusively and strongly the role of the advocacy for forestry, the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office is oriented toward playing the mediator’s role. A profit from forests for forest people is more supported by the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office, while the General Directorate of Forests tries, although weakly, to look for new forest goods. Given the absence of a market orientation for forest people, the results in part support the hypothesis that assumes that: State forest institutions employ different market, non-market and political instruments to influence the use and the protection of forests.

The results revealed also that, at times, a weak performance of the institutions might be advantageous for forest people. Generally, an institution is asked to improve its technical efficiency. However, low technical efficiency in the Tunisian case allows forest people with limited technical skills to remain competitive in terms of being able to realize forestry activities and to generate some additional income. This confirms the second hypothesis that considers that: The outcomes of these instruments for forest people differ from those for the general forest sector.

6. Discussion and Conclusions: Optimizing State Forest Institutions’ Performance regarding Forest People

A specific policy mix is needed to solve the social sustainability issues related to forest people within the context of state-owned forest resources. A policy mix can be defined as “a combination of policy instruments which has evolved to influence the quantity and quality of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision in public and private sectors” [41]. This section will discuss the results of the performance of state forest institutions in Tunisia regarding forest people. The eight criteria for evaluation show priorities in the activities of the two state institutions. After discussing the overall performance, we will highlight three important activities that include a future potential for support for forest people.

The market orientation of both state forest institutions is limited. The prohibition of forest product sales on the market outside the framework of public auctions supports self-supply. In fact, giving more freedom to market supply can lead to an increase in competition in the presence of market actors who have more power resources. In that case, forest people might lose their material bases, and they could have more difficulties in terms of satisfying their own needs as approved by the Forest Code. Also, strong market-based solutions require more competitive enterprises and can therefore weaken forest people. State forest institutions’ inactivity in Tunisia regarding the market sector is not beneficial for the country’s economy, but it does not influence forest people negatively, given their weak competitiveness. This result is well in line with the criticism by Dressler et al. (2015) on pushing state forest organizations strongly toward market demands [21].

The non-market demand orientation of state forest institutions is moderate in Tunisia. Poverty alleviation is considered to be one of the merit/non-market goods. Supporting poverty alleviation and protecting forests where forest people live directly and indirectly benefits forest people and contributes to social sustainability. Therefore, state forest institutions could focus more on this issue instead of supporting market orientation in the future.

For sustaining forest stands the performance of the General Directorate of Forests and the regional institutions, as well as the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office, is weak. Considering the defined policy goal used for this criterion, which is the “preservation of forest size and ability to produce wood continually by the use of forest management theories”, the weak performance does not have a direct impact on forest people, at least in the short term. These people are not competitive in timber production within the wood market. However, an innovative definition of sustaining forest stands could support the forest people and the special issue of poverty alleviation. This innovation is based on considering the traditional know-how of local people in forest policy formulation, especially in regards to the use and transformation of non-wood forest products, firefighting, etc., without focusing on increasing the wood production.

Low technical efficiency as displayed by state forest institutions in Tunisia does not affect forest people negatively. It is even beneficial for them since they have very low technical skills in performing forest activities. If state institutions were focused on achieving higher technical efficiency, these people would be excluded from performing these activities and would be replaced by machines. Consequently, their income from forests would decrease. An adapted technology based on traditional knowledge and on more technical supervision from the state forest institutions’ employees and experts would be preferable for forest people.

Profit from forests does not only comprise money gained from marketable products. It also includes the rights granted to forest people to use forest products. This profit could be supported and maximized for these people as a priority. In order to increase this profit, state forest institutions could provide more support for forest people by allowing more legal flexibility, and also by encouraging effectively the creation of local small markets to commercialize traditional products (essential oils, honey, etc.).

A future orientation toward creating new forest goods adapted to the needs of forest people would be of interest to them. For example, the ecotourism sector based on creating and developing local economies and directly implicating forest people could be one of these new forest goods. Currently, the ecotourism sector in Tunisia benefits the organizers (mainly travel agencies and individuals) rather than forest people.

The strong performance of the General Directorate of Forests and the regional institutions as the advocates for forestry is not in favor of forest people, since it leads to their exclusion from the decision-making process. Despite the claim that these institutions use a participatory approach that integrates forest people in their strategies and program formulations, the indicators revealed that the role of the advocate for forestry is strongly performed by the institutions. However, the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office performs, although weakly, the mediator’s role. Its limited area of intervention, along with a small budget and dependence on foreign money, are the main causes of its weak performance. A better performance of this office could be achieved by empowering its position and increasing the state budget in order to allow an independent, stable and powerful impact by this institution. The government could give more decision-making freedom to this institution within the forest sector in order to play properly the role of a mediator between all interests in forests and especially the interests of forest people.

(a) Innovative adapted forest technology for forest people: a future option

Adopting forest technology to fit forest people’s needs would be a step forward in the poverty alleviation process and therefore in social sustainability. An adaptive forest management should be applied for this purpose. This concept is relatively recent in the management of resources and consists of “integrating local and scientific systems of knowledge and practice” [42]. The local or indigenous knowledge can be defined as the practices of local forest users who have received their knowledge from preceding generations, experts or science and used it to manage their own forests [43]. In the case of Tunisian forest people, local knowledge consists mainly of traditional technical skills applied in order to use and transform some forest products such as herbs, nuts, etc. It has been admitted that neglecting this local knowledge of resource users is one of the most usual defects in the conventional scientific management of resources [42]. In order to avoid this weakness in Tunisia it is important that state forest institutions take into consideration these traditional skills of local forest people rather than encourage high technical efficiency. Basically, state forest organizations have a key role to link and balance the local knowledge with a high standard of scientific knowledge [44].

(b) Diminishing the dependency of state forest institutions on foreign donors

The balance between national state organizations and international organizations has already been described [45]. International organizations are becoming more empowered and contribute even to deregulation in the presence of weak and dependent states [45]. These organizations form coalitions with domestic bureaucracies and use funding and capacity building through direct access to impact the reform process of administration structure and policy, which affects natural resources and forests more precisely [45]. Formally, international organizations may have the role of empowering sustainable ecological goals, but informally they weaken the role of state actors and support the extraction of forest production, which consists of an augmentation of wood harvesting and export. Using the pathway of discourse, the World Bank contributed to a restriction of the forest people’s access to resources by considering this access to be illegal logging, since this is the main cause of deforestation in Armenia [45]. In addition, these organizations have informal political and economic interests since they bring foreign consultants, transfer technologies and extend their markets. Also, they have political and strategic interests [46]. The case of Armenia could be quite similar to the future of Tunisian forests, where foreign money received by the state institutions in the context of development projects, and the number of studies conducted, are increasing. Many of these projects encourage the market, as well as high productivity and efficiency under the umbrella of poverty alleviation, especially regarding non-timber products. International organizations encouraged the implementation of a Forest Code reform, which is oriented toward more open access to resources by investing into development projects such as the latest project of the World Bank, supporting production chains (The final project title is “Integrated Landscapes Management in Lagging Regions”) or by financing and formulating strategies (Forest Strategy 2015–2024 [47]; Forest Investment Program [48], etc.). In Tunisia there is a great need for a strong national policy that is able to overcome the status of a “fragile state” characterizing “the countries where there is a lack of political will or capacity to provide the basic functions needed for poverty reduction, development and safeguarding of the security and human rights of their populations” [49].

To solve forest people’s issues, it is essential to strengthen forest institutions, with a special focus on the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office, which since its creation has had the role of supporting the rural population. In order to strengthen it, this institution should first receive a solid state budget, allowing it to become independent from international funds. In addition, the Office could be legally supported in order for it to wield a stronger influence on the forest sector. With such a strong legal position and a state budget, cooperation with international organizations would be more balanced and the position of the institution would shift from a limited implementation of projects to a decision-making role.

(c) Strengthening the mediator role of state forest institutions for forest people

In general, if many forest users are organized in groups, they can represent their interests in the political process more strongly and more efficiently than when they act as separate individuals ([50], p. 73). In fact, by lobbying, forest associations struggle to limit the impact of political programs on their interests in forests (e.g., limiting their business activities by imposing additional costs) ([50], p. 81).

In Tunisia, forest people have a weak representation in the forest sector, especially in the presence of a weak performance by state institutions as the mediators of different interests in the forests. The weak mediator role of state forest institutions means that forest people have little participation in the decision-making process and little access to policy formulation. Since 1988, the Forest Code has recognized in Articles 43 and 44 the right of forest people to participate in the management of forest resources by creating forest associations with a collective interest [6]. According to the forest investment program in Tunisia (2016), ten pilot operations of integrated development were implemented in 1994 [48]. These operations were supported by the Northwest Silvo-Pastoral Office and consisted of the implementation of ten forest associations with a collective interest [48]. However, these experiences failed due to the restrictions of resource use in the Forest Code. Later, the Agriculture Development Groups replaced these associations legally [48]. These groups were not adapted to the intervention in the forest sector management, since they targeted the organization of agricultural producers and fishermen for a better production and management of natural resources [48]. Since 2014, a process of reform has been initiated, along with the objectives of the forest strategy (2015–2024). One of these reforms is to sign co-management plans with forest structures/associations representing forest people [51]. The co-management concept can be defined as the compromise to share power between the state and the community utilizing a resource [52]. This definition fits the definition of community forestry, described as “forestry practices which straightly involve direct forest users in common decision-making processes and the implementation of forestry activities” [53]. However, powerful actors can drive community forestry, since there is a coherence of 82% to 90% between the interests of powerful stakeholders and the outcomes for local users [54]. In other words, the empowerment of direct users is essential to allow them to achieve poverty alleviation. The empowerment comprises: (1) access to information on forests, (2) access to decision-making, and (3) access to forest land and resources, including the ability to exclude others from using the resources. This relies upon “knowledge, information, legal restrictions, technical materials, money and informal access to the forest” [53].

To conclude, the comprehensive evaluation of the performance of state forest institutions revealed that the activities of the state are important factors in forest policy for forest people. Policy concepts that ignore state forest organizations have a high risk of failing in practice.

Furthermore, linking policy for forest people with reforms of state forest organizations might be tougher, but would achieve more relevant results regarding social sustainability, the promotion of which is a statement in the policy programs and development projects, rather than a concern in real actions.