**2.6 Gaps in CFM policy and legal framework in Uganda**

The practice of CFM in its present stage is yet to deliver on poverty reduction and forest conservation because of a number of issues relating to rights, privileges, roles and responsibilities. There are many implementation, conceptual as well as policy framework issues which need to be thoroughly re-examined along the key milestones. There is need to move from considering communities as forest user groups to appreciating user groups as forest managers. Finally former user groups need to be seen to become forest owners and therefore managers of the resource. The detailed account of the policy gaps are as follows: (i) the 2001 Forestry Policy provides for CFM but not community based forest management and therefore the communities are only obliged to collaborate with "responsible bodies". The law only accords them "responsible body" status when it comes to establishment of community forests and private forests on land that is communally owned by the communities or privately owned respectively; (ii) although sharing the resources is provided for in the policy, there are no guidelines for forest-benefit sharing. Quite often communities are left with low value items (mushrooms, water ponds, medicinal species etc). The high value products (reserved timber species and revenue from forestry services such as eco-tourism) are maintained by the Responsible Body (NFA). The CFM Agreement for Hanga-Kidwera community in Masindi district for example says in part: *"*Local inhabitants are privileged to obtain free of charge and in reasonable quantities to the discretion of the forest officer, bush firewood, bush poles, timber from unreserved tree species and sand for domestic use only. Domestic animals are allowed to visit water and salt lick points in the reserve".

(iii) Government pledges to promote CFM as indicated in Policy Statement No. 5 of the 2001 Forestry Policy, chapter 5.5 of the 2002 National Forest Plan and Section 15 and 17 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, but has limited institutional capacity to ably handle CFM. The process for registering Community Forests and Private Forests has stalled (The Vision 2025 of Ugandans for the 21st Century); (iv) the Forestry Inspection Division has no direct mandate for CFM, the NFA is understaffed, the District Forest Services are not fully operational. The Private Sector is not motivated to register private forest and community forests. The National Forestry Authority has limited ability to take on CFM applications received are way above what can be handled by NFA; (v) whereas CFM seems to be taking off at a snail speed in Central Forest Reserves managed by the National Forestry Authority, there is limited attempt to introduce CFM in Local Forest Reserves managed by the DFS of local governments; (vi) the lack of guidelines for registration and declaration of Community and Private Forests. Where as there are published guidelines for CFM there are no guidelines for undertaking initiatives to declare Community Forests and guidelines for registration of Private Forests. Where as Section 17 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting provides for the declaration of the Community Forests, Sections 21–27 for Private Forests, there are no guiding principles to be followed before acceptance by the District Land Board, the District Council or even the Minister; (vii) transfer of property rights and control of resources to communities is provided for as a strategy and opportunity in the 2001 Forestry Policy but has never become a reality because forest resource managers are sceptical and pessimistic about CFM being a viable arrangement with fears that communities may indulge in illegal activities rather than implement the agreed plan.

(viii) There is a lack of information and lack of information dissemination to communities about the available opportunities in participatory forest management. Section 91 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 provides for access to information on forest

The practice of CFM in its present stage is yet to deliver on poverty reduction and forest conservation because of a number of issues relating to rights, privileges, roles and responsibilities. There are many implementation, conceptual as well as policy framework issues which need to be thoroughly re-examined along the key milestones. There is need to move from considering communities as forest user groups to appreciating user groups as forest managers. Finally former user groups need to be seen to become forest owners and therefore managers of the resource. The detailed account of the policy gaps are as follows: (i) the 2001 Forestry Policy provides for CFM but not community based forest management and therefore the communities are only obliged to collaborate with "responsible bodies". The law only accords them "responsible body" status when it comes to establishment of community forests and private forests on land that is communally owned by the communities or privately owned respectively; (ii) although sharing the resources is provided for in the policy, there are no guidelines for forest-benefit sharing. Quite often communities are left with low value items (mushrooms, water ponds, medicinal species etc). The high value products (reserved timber species and revenue from forestry services such as eco-tourism) are maintained by the Responsible Body (NFA). The CFM Agreement for Hanga-Kidwera community in Masindi district for example says in part: *"*Local inhabitants are privileged to obtain free of charge and in reasonable quantities to the discretion of the forest officer, bush firewood, bush poles, timber from unreserved tree species and sand for domestic use only. Domestic animals are allowed to visit water and salt

(iii) Government pledges to promote CFM as indicated in Policy Statement No. 5 of the 2001 Forestry Policy, chapter 5.5 of the 2002 National Forest Plan and Section 15 and 17 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003, but has limited institutional capacity to ably handle CFM. The process for registering Community Forests and Private Forests has stalled (The Vision 2025 of Ugandans for the 21st Century); (iv) the Forestry Inspection Division has no direct mandate for CFM, the NFA is understaffed, the District Forest Services are not fully operational. The Private Sector is not motivated to register private forest and community forests. The National Forestry Authority has limited ability to take on CFM applications received are way above what can be handled by NFA; (v) whereas CFM seems to be taking off at a snail speed in Central Forest Reserves managed by the National Forestry Authority, there is limited attempt to introduce CFM in Local Forest Reserves managed by the DFS of local governments; (vi) the lack of guidelines for registration and declaration of Community and Private Forests. Where as there are published guidelines for CFM there are no guidelines for undertaking initiatives to declare Community Forests and guidelines for registration of Private Forests. Where as Section 17 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting provides for the declaration of the Community Forests, Sections 21–27 for Private Forests, there are no guiding principles to be followed before acceptance by the District Land Board, the District Council or even the Minister; (vii) transfer of property rights and control of resources to communities is provided for as a strategy and opportunity in the 2001 Forestry Policy but has never become a reality because forest resource managers are sceptical and pessimistic about CFM being a viable arrangement with fears that

communities may indulge in illegal activities rather than implement the agreed plan.

(viii) There is a lack of information and lack of information dissemination to communities about the available opportunities in participatory forest management. Section 91 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 provides for access to information on forest

**2.6 Gaps in CFM policy and legal framework in Uganda** 

lick points in the reserve".

products and services. Quite often information does not trickle down to the end users, especially local communities. CFM benefits to the communities are not well articulated. CFM information (such as its contribution to livelihoods improvement, fuel wood for more than 92% of Uganda's population, value for environmental conservation, contribution to rainfall and soil protection) is not reflected in government statistics. Therefore, the importance and contribution of CFM to the gross development strategies of the communities and the country are underestimated. This undermines the significance of CFM to rural livelihoods especially for the forest dependant poor; (ix) CFM agreements (wherever they are signed) have been drafted in English with less than 10% of the community members being able to comprehend the contents of the agreement (Organizational Capacity Assessment [OCA] Report, 2006). The issues contained therein are therefore not appropriately deciphered and has always been a major hindrance to the negotiation and implementation process. Chances of getting distorted information are high. This provides a window for manipulation of the unsuspecting communities by self seeking and opportunistic CFM leaders. Above all that, communities can not hire offices and staff; therefore their documents are kept with the Chairperson of the group and this establishes an additional barrier of access to information; (x) CFM Agreements have a life span of 10 years yet many forestry activities are of a longer gestation period. For example trees take 20 years and above to mature. Private tree farmers in Central Forest Reserves are given permits of up to 50 years. This is a disincentive for communities to undertake long term and lucrative investments under CFM restricting them to subsistence tendencies (collection of mushrooms, rattan and hunting);

(xi) Gender and equality is a mere formality under the CFM agreement. It is intended to serve the interests of the "Responsible Body" as a counterpart to the agreement. Equal participation, fairness and sharing of benefits have left a lot to be desired. Women and the elderly have fallen victims of this inequity problem with approximately 80% of the women in the agreements not being able to tell the simplest of CFM and not knowing their rights (EMPAFORM, 2006). Disadvantaged members of the community such as persons with disability, the old and vulnerable groups have little in the know about CFM. Males still dominate and take up most of the decision making positions as evidenced by the (OCA, 2006); (xii) the 2001 Forestry Policy empowers civil society organizations to be at the forefront in the management of forest resources in the country. However, there are no networks of civil societies at grass roots level fighting for CFM issues. Some of the active forestry associations, for example, the Uganda Forestry Working Group, Forestry Governance Learning Group, Mabira Forest Integrated Community Organization, Nature Conservation and Promotion Association, etc. have only expressed interest in big policy issues rather than community issues; (xiii) there is a general failure to recognize value of forest resources by decision makers (including national and local politicians) and attaching low priority to CFM. This has resulted into poor governance fuelling forest destruction, over-exploitation and encroachment to the detriment of the CFM goal. In as long as encroachment and or illegalities is seen as the easiest way to access forest resources, collaborative forest management, community forests and private forest approaches will be denied an opportunity to take root;

(xiv) Failure to recognize the value of forest resources has led to critical lack of extension and/or advisory service provision to communities. It may be argued that communities have preferred enterprises with immediate returns such as piggery, poultry, maize, beans, etc. Communities have little motivation to indulge in long-term activities that involves planting,

Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

benefit from their commercial exploitation.

**3.3 Strengthening the partnership arrangements** 

**3.4 Development of Forestry Based Enterprises (FBEs)** 

shortage of business and technical skills.

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 69

decision-making fora; (e) managerial skills (in particular regarding financial matters, group dynamics); (f) cost effectiveness, business skills and management; (g) sustainability

Promoting on-farm forestry and management of forests on private lands are critical. There is need for NFA to should popularise hitherto unknown species so that communities can

The Community- Government partnership should: (i) include the private sector/ Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) as a partner in the assessment of CFM because private operators often: (a) replace forestry services where these have inadequate means of operation; (b) pre-finance forest related initiatives involving communities including diversification of forestry related income generating activities; and (c) easily link to other government programmes like NAADS for leverage and synergy especially in the area of capacity building; (ii) move beyond forests and consider forest management in a landscape perspective, where forests are only one amongst the possible uses of land by rural populations; (iii) mainstream CFM into Local Government Development Plans. This would open doors for capturing and mainstreaming indigenous knowledge (IK) into local planning and natural resource management initiatives. It would also avail the communities the opportunity to tap into Local Government resources for community development projects.

Support Forest Enterprise development as alternative livelihoods. Viable forest enterprises depend not only on market demand but also on the sustainable management of resources. However, there are constraints that will affect FBEs and they should be addressed. These include: (a) inadequate information on markets; (b) weak linkages between small suppliers and large buyers; (c) limited access to credit, finance, capital and technology; and (d)

Under the CFM agreements, communities have been allocated specific compartments to co manage with the NFA. However, when it comes to joint protection work (community and NFA), the community's work extends beyond the boundaries of the designated compartments. There is therefore concern among the community that the NFA should reward them for their role in the protection of forests outside their CFM compartments. Perhaps a study could be commissioned to determine how much NFA is saving through CFM. A scheme could then be worked out to pay the community a percentage of the NFA savings as an incentive. This will definitely boost community morale and interest in forestry.

According to the NFA field staff, the relationship between the service providers so far has been cordial. However, there is need to stream line the activities of the NGOs providing services to the communities so that resources and benefits are equitably shared among the

**3.5 Provision of incentives for community participation in forest management** 

It will also help them to directly link their development to conservation.

**3.6 Streamlining service provider activities in all NFA management ranges** 

strategies and mechanisms; and (h) recourses mobilization and management skills.

**3.2 Sustainability of the resource through investments in forestry** 

growing and protecting trees. It may be true that high poverty levels, immediate needs like medical bills and basic household requirements are a motivation for enterprises with quick returns. However, it is also true that demand driven forestry extension service delivery has failed and communities have received little advice from the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS). The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) has reluctantly adopted forestry activities as enterprises and therefore market opportunities for forest products and services remain in oblivion. No wonder that forestry does not feature in most NAADS strategic enterprises. There is also inadequate understanding of forestry based livelihood opportunities despite efforts for its inclusion in the Poverty Eradication Action Programme (PEAP); (xv) benefits from forest reserves have remained hidden. There is a lack of market information and therefore CFM communities remain attached to the traditional opportunities. This jeopardizes CFM approach to support community livelihoods initiatives. It is a fact that trees take too long to grow, but it is also a fact that many communities have not been introduced to alternatives that are of a short-term income generating nature. Ecotourism and activities that reduce stress from the forest could be introduced as alternatives and providing a right balance between long-term and short-term investment options;

(xvi) There is political jeopardy and interference by government directly supporting encroachment in gazetted forest reserves and degazettement of reserves with preference to large scale agricultural investors (the case of Butamira Forest Reserve in Eastern Uganda and Bugala Island Forest Reserves, in Kalangala District) at the expense of the interests of the communities. Forest resources managers (NFA and DFS) are undermined. There is loss of credibility and therefore communities remain sceptical about CFM. This lessens the morale and speed of implementation of CFM; (xvii) there is a breakdown of the rule of law in the management of forests. The 2001 Forestry Policy and 2003 forest laws are defied by the civic and political leadership. This has resulted into lack of respect for professionalism on the part of government; lack of respect for the CBO/CSOs voice and opinion in this regard and therefore reduces the speed of implementing CFM approach. Recent media reports have indicated that politicians have interfered with the management of forest resources) and neglected a call by the civil society to "keep eyes on but hands off" the management of forest resources.
