**5. Recommendations based on identified policy and legal gaps**

It is desired by proponents of CFM that time has come for not just demanding government's support for continuing CFM as it now exist but rather to revitalize the campaign for truly benefit-oriented and equitable model of people's participation in forest management. This means restating the basic premises of collaborative forest management in Uganda and pointing to the broad directions of policy change that are required. The following recommendations are made to the corresponding policy gaps:


communities. For example: (a) the NGOs should reinforce and complement each other rather than seeing themselves as competitors. The most important thing in the end is delivery of services to the target group, the communities; (b) the NFA field staff is of the opinion that all the service providers and NFA should develop a joint work plan for CFM implementation; (c) the service providers can, within the period of their projects, build and shape partnerships with each other and NFA and develop a joint programme of action on common themes e.g. support to income generating activities, exchange visits, training etc.

**3.7 Improving and developing internal organization which should reflect the needs of** 

Some of the activities could include: maintaining, developing and strengthening partnerships and networking; securing finances to fund CFM activities; building capacity of CBOs to implement the CFM agreements; developing and delivering core conservation activities; developing and delivering livelihood activities through FBEs; investment in

The future for participatory approaches in Uganda that includes CFM on gazetted forest reserves, community forests and private forests is bright. The struggle though remains incorporation of such initiatives in the bigger Environment and Natural Resources sector, mainstreaming it into the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) pillar (now National Planning Authority Master Plan) on natural resources. Making sure it is in the Non-sectoral Conditional Grants, mainstreaming in the District Development Plans and making sure there are resources for implementing activities that make participatory approaches a success. It is clear that: (i) Communities need to move from positions as subordinate beneficiaries, receiving a share of access, products or other benefits, into positions where they may themselves regulate this source of livelihood and with longer-term perspectives; (ii) CFM promotes good governance and accountability in the management of gazetted forests. Collaborative Forest Management reduces the ills associated with policing, and provides for access rights and may serve as an insurance against degazettement of Forest

**5. Recommendations based on identified policy and legal gaps** 

recommendations are made to the corresponding policy gaps:

It is desired by proponents of CFM that time has come for not just demanding government's support for continuing CFM as it now exist but rather to revitalize the campaign for truly benefit-oriented and equitable model of people's participation in forest management. This means restating the basic premises of collaborative forest management in Uganda and pointing to the broad directions of policy change that are required. The following

i. There is need for harmonizing legislation, reviewing guidelines and finalizing regulations. The guidelines that require immediate attention include guidelines for forest benefit sharing, transfer of property rights, forest resource control by

ii. There is need for the government of Uganda to build the capacity of institutions to undertake CFM. This includes building the capacity of the Forestry Inspection Division

**member CBOs** 

forestry by CBOs.

**4. Conclusion** 

Reserves.

communities.

to provide guidance on CFM implementation, NFA to step up its manpower and resources for collaborative initiatives and the DFS to pilot CFM. It is also recommended that government undertakes to establish Forestry Committees provided for in the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act. These Committees will provide a forum to discuss collaborative forestry issues with due consideration of the needs of the communities.


Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

Economics, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Makerere University Printerly.

September 1998, Kampala.

*Applied Sciences* 4(1): 10-16.

Republic of Uganda, Kampala.

Republic of Uganda, Kampala.

Government. Entebbe: Government Printer.

Publishing and Printing Corporation.

*conservation in India.* New Delhi: Sage.

security in Nepal', *Unasylva* 51(202): 37–45

Programme (FRMCP). Republic of Uganda, Kampala.

Printer.

Kampala.

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 73

Strengthening and Empowering Civil Society for Participatory Forest Management in East

Ghate, R. (2003). Ensuring collective action in participatory forest management. Working

Gombya-Ssembajjwe, W.S. & Banana A.Y. (2000). Collaborative Forest Management in

Government of Uganda, [GOU]. (1993). *The Local Government (Resistance Councils) Statute*.

Government of Uganda [GOU]. (1995). *The National Environment Act*, Laws of Uganda,

Government of Uganda [GOU]. (1997). *The Local Government Act*, 1997. Ministry of Local

Government of Uganda [GOU]. (1998). *The Forest Reserves (Declaration) Order* 1998.

Government of Uganda [GOU]. (2003). *The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act*. Acts

Jacovelli, P. & Carvalho, J. (1999). The private forest sector in Uganda: Opportunities for

Kothari, A., Singh, N. & Surin, S. (1996). *People and protected areas. Towards participatory* 

Kugonza A., Buyinza, M & Byakagaba P. (2009). Linking Local Community Livelihoods and

Malla, Y.B. (2000). 'Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food

MWLE [Ministry of Water Lands and Environment]. (2001). *The Uganda Forest Policy*.

MWLE [Ministry of Water Lands and Environment]. (2002). The National Forest Plan.

MWLE [Ministry of Water Lands and Environment]. (2003). Guidelines for Implementing

National Biomass Study. (2003). Technical report for the period 1996-2002. Forest Department, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Kampala.

Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda. Produced under the EU's Forestry

Cap.153. Entebbe: Uganda Publishing and Printing Corporation

Instruments. EMPAFORM Policy Research Paper No.1.

Africa [EMPAFORM], (2008). The integration of participatory forest management into Uganda's policy and legal framework: an analysis of the level of Uganda's domestication, compliance and Implementation of PFM provisions in Global Legal

Paper No.3-03, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental

Uganda: The Case of Butto-Buvuma Forest Reserve. In: *Community-based Forest Resource Management in East Africa* , W. Gombya- Ssembajjwe and A.Y. Banana, eds.

Uganda Gazette No. 55, Vol. LXXXV1 of 31st December 1993. Entebbe: Government

Statutory Instrument Supplement No. 63 of 1998. *The Uganda Gazette* No 56,

Supplement No.5. The Uganda gazette, No. 37 Vol XCVI. Entebbe: Uganda

greater involvement: A report for Uganda Forest Sector Review under the Forest Sector Umbrella Programme. Uganda Forest Sector Co-ordination Secretariat,

Forest conservation in Masindi district, North western Uganda. *Research Journal of* 

support to the District Forest Services to undertake participatory forest management approaches. Advocacy work needs to be stepped up at policy level to influence government on good governance issues in the forest sector, the role of both the political and civil leadership, accountability of responsible institutions, and collaborative forest management. There is need for civil society to influence government plans to incorporate collaborative forest management issues in overall government priority plans.
