The role and perspectives of forest communities in the forest reform process

Presentation to International Conference on Forest Tenure, Governance and Enterprise - Cameroon

May 2009

Charles Meshack (TFCG, Tanzania)

1. What community organization participated in the reform process?2. What was my role & unique perspectives?

3. What has been the role of my organization in reforms?

4. What other specific roles the organization has played?

5. What impacts?6. What are the lessons learned

Outline

National Context and BackgroundForest Land Management Systems

Forest on general land 54%

Private and community forests 9%

Government Forest Reserves 37%

Total forest area: 33 million hectares

NGOs and CBOThese included Tanzania Forest Conservation Group – TFCGVillage Natural Resource Committees – VNRCLawyer Environment Action Team – LEATWildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania - WCSTLAMP/OURGUT WWFCARE International Community Forest Network (MJUMITA),

What Community Organizations?

Facilitation• Involving communities on the ground – 1996 before the

establishment of Forest Policy 1998

ParticipationProvide input/comments in the drafting of the Forest PolicyConsultative Meetings/workshops in the preparation of Forest Policy 1998, National Forest Programe (NFP 2002), Forest Act 2002.

My role & Perspectives?

Trainer• Facilitating and Training Decision makers and

practitioners on Participatory Forest Management

EditorCommunity newsletter produced in Kiswahili

Producing articles/papersWriting articles/papers in newspapers and Journals

My role & Perspectives?

Identifying scope of reform;Resulted after implementing the policies:e.g. By providing feedback – Harmonization of Participatory Forest Resource Assessment methodologyTwo different Participatory Forest Management (PFM) guidelines (Community Based Forest Management – CBFM & Draft Joint Forest Management – JFM)Informing decision makers and politiciansParticipate in public trade show – by displaying the achievements and challenges of PFMPrepare and disseminate targeted materials e.g. Mass media – Television, video show, newspapersPrepare displays during parliament session

The Role of TFCG:

Bid for projectsDeveloped the communication strategy for National Forest Programme (NFP), Service provider in Facilitating PFM Planning

Create awarenessPrepare information in user friendly and disseminate

The Role of TFCG:

• Approximately 1.9 million hectares under village management (CBFM) in around 1500 villages

• Approximately 1.6 million hectares under joint forest management (JFM) between the state and about 530 villages

• PFM operating in over 60 districts (out of 104) under various levels of support

Impact of participation

Spread and Adoption of PFM to date

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1999 2002 2006

Years

Are

a (h

a) Forest area under CBFM(hectares)

Forest area under JFM(hectares)

Spread and Adoption: JFM

JFM and CBFM occurance across different forest types

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Montaneevergreen

forest

Mangroves CoastalForests

Miombowoodlands

Acaciawoodlands

andthickets

Forest Types

Are

a (h

a) Community Based ForestManagementJoint Forest Management

Impact on Livelihoods

Joint Forest Management

• Much of donor funds for early PFM directed towards “catchment” forests with high biodiversity values – with limited use potential under prevailing laws

• Government has not provided guidance on benefit / cost sharing in JFM arrangements

• Reduction in fines over time as illegal activities drop –negative incentives

• Increases in wildlife populations causing conflicts • “Elite capture” within the village management – uneven

share of costs and benefits within the village

Impact on Livelihoods

Some signs of inequitable sharing of costs and benefits within communities as well as between stakeholder groups in JFM arrangements

Impact on LivelihoodsCommunity Based Forest Management- Degraded forest resource base = low potential to

generate revenue in first years- Increases in wildlife populations causing conflicts- Some resistance by communities and districts to start

harvesting- Some villages now harvesting modest amounts (eg

revenues around 10-15,000 USD per year)- Some interesting new opportunities where

communities are gaining rights over large areas of valuable miombo woodlands – potential forest revenues up to USD 70,000/village/year

Impacts on governanceLittle evidence so far… but some evidence that villages are

more effective at collecting revenues than districts…

Note: 153 villages in Iringa District

Annual Forest Revenues Collected by Iringa District Council and 14 villages implementing CBFM

02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,000

10,000,00012,000,00014,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Tsh

Iringa District Council14 Villages

Impacts on governance

Local level forest governance remains one of the largest constraints to effective PFM

However….Improved legal literacy and awareness of villagers results in:

– Defending their resources and preventing “asset stripping” by unscrupulous logging interests

– Demanding PFM from leaders at local government levels

– Challenging corrupt practices – from their own leaders, district staff, and loggers

– Preventing elite capture within the village and transparency of management institutions

The decentralisation continuum

Emerging Differences between CBFM and JFM

State Controlled Community Controlled

Traditional Forest

Management

Joint Forest Management

Community Based Forest Management

All Costs and Benefits with State

Sharing of Costs and Benefits

All costs and Benefits with Community

Conservation benefits Development benefits

The decentralisation continuumCharacteristics Exclusive State

Management Joint Forest Management Community Based

Forest Management Community Seen As?

Threat Beneficiary Forest User Consultee Rule Follower Subject

Actor/partner Manager Decision maker Rule maker Citizen

Local Involvement Seen as?

Passive and by invitation only. Unnecessary

Centred around sharing of Benefits (eg NTFPs, paid labour) and sometimes income Centred around Use Optional

Centred around Rights and sharing of Power Centred around Management Mandatory

Overall Management Objective and approach?

Reducing threat of forest destruction by community Policing

To reduce management costs by co-opting communities through sharing costs and benefits Negotiation

To decentralize Management rights and responsibilities Devolution and emplowerment

Livelihood Objective?

None Limited benefits sufficient to maintain interest in forest management

To maximize livelihood benefits from sustainable utilization of forest

The decentralisation continuum

State Management

JFM CBFM

Who initiates? Not applicable State Village / District Who signs / formalises?

Not applicable State + village Village and District

Who terminates? Not applicable State Village / District Who decides allowable benefits from harvesting?

State State Village

Who decides harvesting levels?

State State Village

Who has overall management responsibility?

State State + village Village

Who enforces the rules?

State State + village Village

Who keeps the money?

State State (some village)

Village

Some possible indicators of decentralised forest governance for discussion

Both JFM and CBFM are spreading rapidly and now cover more than 10% of the total forest area of mainland Tanzania

Effective forest management tool that devolves management responsibility to lower levels and leads to improvements over open access management regimes

Joint Forest Management remains problematic, if it is to realise its two other objectives of improved livelihoods and local governance

Conflicts have emerged due to:- Limited benefits available (especially catchment forests)- Lack of cost-benefit sharing mechanism and ratios- Crop raiding from wildlife- Elite capture of the few benefitsAs a result, management costs to communities often exceeds

benefits

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

Community Based Forest Management promises greater returns to livelihoods, but in many cases these have yet to materialise.

Some areas generating revenues from their forests which are enough to maintain PFM process with a surplus to community development

Evidence that massive increases in efficiency in forest revenue collection when responsibilities devolved from district to village

Single most effective mechanism for improving local forest governance is civic education and legal literacy around rights, responsibilities and returns from sustainable and community based forest management systems

Rolling out of PFM nationally requires working top-down (laws, regulations, guidelines) and bottom –up (awareness)

Conclusions and Lessons Learned