Avoided deforestation, community forestry and options for channeling payments to the community level
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Avoided deforestation, community forestry and options for channeling payments to the community level

on

  • 2,274 views

Tom Blomley, independent forestry & natural resources consultant

Tom Blomley, independent forestry & natural resources consultant

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,274
Views on SlideShare
2,245
Embed Views
29

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
42
Comments
0

3 Embeds 29

http://rightsandclimatechange.wordpress.com 16
http://rightsandclimate.org 11
http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Avoided deforestation, community forestry and options for channeling payments to the community level Avoided deforestation, community forestry and options for channeling payments to the community level Presentation Transcript

  • From Project to Programme: Experiences with Mainstreaming and Institutionalising PFM in Tanzania Tom Blomley, Hadija Ramadhani, Charles Meshack, Lawrence Mbwambo, Cassian Sianga Avoided deforestation, community forestry and options for channeling payments to the community level: Lessons from Tanzania Tom Blomley
  • National Context and Background Unreserved forest 54% Private and community forests 9% Government Forest Reserves 37% Total forest area: 33 million hectares Deforestation rates = highest
  • Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Village Councils can “declare” forest areas on “village land” as Village Land Forest Reserves or Community Forest Reserves. This entitles them to assume full management responsibility, undertake patrols, levy fines for illegal forest users, issue licenses for forest products, retain forest revenues, set rules and regulations regarding forest management and use. Joint Forest Management (JFM) This is a collaborative approach to forest management, where forest adjacent communities enter into management agreements with the forest owner (government or private sector) over the management of forest resources Legal and Policy Framework
  • CBFM - Potential Impact on Livelihoods Unreserved forest (area) Poverty Index
    • Current status of PFM in Tanzania (2008):
    • Approximately 2.4 million hectares under village management (CBFM) in around 1400 villages = around 12% of unreserved forestland
    • Approximately 1.7 million hectares under joint forest management (JFM) between the state and about 830 villages = around 13% of reserved forests
    • PFM operating in over 63 districts (out of 98) under various levels of support
    Spread and Adoption of PFM
  • PFM – Some challenges Incentives : Early stages of PFM involve forest restoration and protection – before benefits of sustainable harvest and utilisation can be realised. Viability of Joint Forest Management in Catchment Forests and Nature Reserves is questionable at community level – as legal benefits from harvesting are minimal
  • Opportunities from REDD
    • Carbon financing could provide a new financing tool that:
      • Provides the “missing” incentives to communities to restore degraded forests and woodlands during early stages of PFM
      • Stimulates CBFM in poor and remote areas
      • Rewards communities for the costs they incur in management of catchment forests
      • Ownership, tenure and benefit-sharing conflicts
      • How will carbon benefits be equitably shared between government and communities under JFM schemes when management of the resource is shared? Government sees REDD as an important and legitimate and sustainable source of funding to pay for costs of managing catchment forests – but what about community interests and demands? Whose voice will be loudest?
      • Sharing of benefits between local and national government – eg: national forests managed by local governments.
      • How can carbon benefits be equitably shared within communities to avoid problems of elite capture?
      • Unreserved forest lands – potential land grab?
    Payment mechanisms
  • Payment mechanisms
      • Reducing transaction costs
      • PFM tends to take place in relatively small and dispersed areas – not large single blocks.
      • Transaction costs for administration & verification are high
      • Opportunities for reducing monitoring and administration costs through national focal point – representing community interests?
      • MJUMITA Community Forest Network?
      • Standardised, but simple community-based monitoring systems?
  • Payment mechanisms - options
      • 1. “Micro-projects” (eg Endowment funds, National Park revenue sharing – Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania)
        • Transparent
        • Opportunities for targeting certain conservation-friendly investments or groups
        • Relatively high administration costs (screening, selection)
        • Tends to go to public good, infrastructure projects – which may have displacement effect on government investments
        • Does not really constitute “payments” …but “projects” for environmental services
  • Payment mechanisms - options
      • 2. Payment voucher systems (Uluguru PES model- proposed)
        • Vouchers redeemed for “shopping list” of investments – improved seed, credit with potential for adding value
        • Either individual or group based investments
        • Avoids risks of funds being used for non-productive activities (beer) or conservation unfriendly investments
      • 3. Direct transfers of cash to groups (WMAs):
        • Small amounts of cash may make it non-viable at individual level
        • Concerns from some quarters about funds not being used “productively”
        • Concerns that funds may be used in ways that conflict with conservation objectives (chainsaws, snares etc)
        • Less costly/complex to administer
        • HOWEVER: Assumes that people are capable of making up their own mind in a responsible manner!
  • Individual vs. Group-based models
      • Individual payments (eg agroforestry, conservation farming, energy conservation)
        • Cost/beneficiary - high
        • Highly targeted - transparent, targeted and risks of elite-capture limited
        • Maybe some gender issues concerning use and ownership of revenue within household
      • Group based payments (eg REDD in community forests)
        • Cost/beneficiary - low
        • Safeguards needed to ensure transparency, accountability and an equitable distribution of benefits:
          • Clear rules on who qualifies, what funds are spent on etc
          • Opportunities for members to hold committee accountable through public scrutiny, election of members etc.
  • Conclusions and Lessons Learned