View
1.245
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Day 2, Session 3: The role and perspectives of forest communities in the forest reform process Presentation by Charles Meshack, Tanzania Forest Conservation Group
Citation preview
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
Recommended