**3. Future strategies**

## **3.1 Awareness creation and capacity building**

The need for capacity building focusing on those capacities needed for local stakeholders to adjust to changing ecological and socio-economic circumstances and institutional circumstances, including both adverse events and opportunities for livelihood improvement. The emphasis on changes means that both Resource Capacities (RCs) and Institutional Capacities (ICs) of local stakeholders need to be strengthened, where: *Resource capacities* (RCs) refer to adequacy in terms of "hardware" (funds, equipment, material and infrastructure) and "software" (information, knowledge and skills; and *Institutional Capacities* (ICs) (or governance capacities) relate to the enabling institutional environment, which allows for a cost effective use of RCs. ICs encompass several factors associated with the concept of good governance, including: (a) adequate information, Net Working and Information exchange; (b) transparency in management procedures; (c) Accountability, both upwards (to higher administrative levels) and downwards (to civil society); (d) inclusive/ participatory decision making processes and adequate representation; of local interests in

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

The need for capacity building focusing on those capacities needed for local stakeholders to adjust to changing ecological and socio-economic circumstances and institutional circumstances, including both adverse events and opportunities for livelihood improvement. The emphasis on changes means that both Resource Capacities (RCs) and Institutional Capacities (ICs) of local stakeholders need to be strengthened, where: *Resource capacities* (RCs) refer to adequacy in terms of "hardware" (funds, equipment, material and infrastructure) and "software" (information, knowledge and skills; and *Institutional Capacities* (ICs) (or governance capacities) relate to the enabling institutional environment, which allows for a cost effective use of RCs. ICs encompass several factors associated with the concept of good governance, including: (a) adequate information, Net Working and Information exchange; (b) transparency in management procedures; (c) Accountability, both upwards (to higher administrative levels) and downwards (to civil society); (d) inclusive/ participatory decision making processes and adequate representation; of local interests in

management of forest resources.

**3.1 Awareness creation and capacity building** 

**3. Future strategies** 

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