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)

Outline
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

National Context and Background
Forest Land Management Systems
Private and community
forests 9%
Forest on general
land 54%
Total forest area: 33
Government Forest million hectares
Reserves 37%

What Community Organizations?
NGOs and CBO
These included
Tanzania Forest Conservation Group – TFCG
Village Natural Resource Committees – VNRC
Lawyer Environment Action Team – LEAT
Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania - WCST
LAMP/OURGUT
WWF
CARE International
Community Forest Network (MJUMITA),

My role & Perspectives?
Facilitation
• Involving communities on the ground – 1996 before the
establishment of Forest Policy 1998
Participation
Provide input/comments in the drafting of the Forest
Policy
Consultative 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
Editor
Community newsletter produced in Kiswahili
Producing articles/papers
Writing articles/papers in newspapers and Journals

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

The Role of TFCG:
Bid for projects
Developed the communication strategy for National
Forest Programme (NFP),
Service provider in Facilitating PFM Planning
Create awareness
Prepare information in user friendly and
disseminate

Impact of participation
• 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

Spread and Adoption of PFM to date
2,500,000
2,000,000
Forest area under CBFM
Area (ha)
1,500,000 (hectares)
Forest area under JFM
1,000,000 (hectares)
500,000
0
1999 2002 2006
Years

Spread and Adoption: JFM
JFM and CBFM occurance across different forest types
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
Community Based Forest
Area (ha)
800,000 Management
600,000 Joint Forest Management
400,000
200,000
0
Montane Mangroves Coastal Miombo Acacia
evergreen Forests woodlands woodlands
forest and
thickets
Forest Types

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 Livelihoods
Community 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 governance
Little evidence so far… but some evidence that villages are
more effective at collecting revenues than districts…
Annual Forest Revenues Collected by Iringa District Council and 14
villages implementing CBFM
Iringa District Council
14,000,000 14 Villages
12,000,000
10,000,000
Tsh
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Note: 153 villages in Iringa District

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 Community
Joint Forest
Forest Based Forest
Management
Management Management
All Costs and Sharing of Costs All costs and Benefits
Benefits with State and Benefits with Community
Conservation benefits Development benefits

The decentralisation continuum
Characteristics Exclusive State Joint Forest Management Community Based
Management Forest Management
Community Threat Beneficiary Actor/partner
Seen As? Forest User Manager
Consultee Decision maker
Rule Follower Rule maker
Subject Citizen
Local Passive and by Centred around sharing of Centred around
Involvement invitation only. Benefits (eg NTFPs, paid Rights and sharing of
Seen as? labour) and sometimes Power
income Centred around
Centred around Use Management
Unnecessary Optional Mandatory
Overall Reducing threat of To reduce management To decentralize
Management forest destruction costs by co-opting Management rights
Objective and by community communities through and responsibilities
approach? sharing costs and benefits Devolution and
Policing Negotiation emplowerment
Livelihood None Limited benefits sufficient To maximize
Objective? to maintain interest in forest livelihood benefits
management from sustainable
utilization of forest

The decentralisation continuum
Some possible indicators of decentralised forest governance for discussion
State JFM CBFM
Management
Who initiates? Not applicable State Village / District
Who signs / Not applicable State + village Village and District
formalises?
Who terminates? Not applicable State Village / District
Who decides State State Village
allowable benefits
from harvesting?
Who decides State State Village
harvesting levels?
Who has overall State State + village Village
management
responsibility?
Who enforces the State State + village Village
rules?
Who keeps the State State (some Village
money? village)

Conclusions and Lessons Learned
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 benefits
As 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)