**1. Introduction**

50 Sustainable Forest Management – Case Studies

Sunderlin, W.; Ndoye, O.; Bikié, H.; Laporte, N.; Mertens, B. Pokam, J. (2000). Economic

Tewari, A. & Phartiyal, P. (2006). The Carbon Market as an Emerging Livelihood

Topa, G.; Karsenty, A.; Megevand, C. & Debroux, L. (2009). *The Rainforest of Cameroon: Experience and Evidence from a Decade of Reform*. Washington, DC: World Bank UNDP. (2006). *Human Development Index 2006: Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global* 

Unfc /fc /sbsta /2007/misc.14. (2007). Views On Issues Related To Further Steps Under the

Available from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/sbsta/eng/misc14 UN-REDD. (2010). The United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from

Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. & Kongphan-apirak, M. (2009). Emerging REDD+: A Preliminary

Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (2006). Payment for Environmental Services: A Solution for

World Bank. (2005). World's World Development Indicators. 23.08.2011, Available from

World Bank. (2006). World Bank's World Development Indicators database. 16.08.2011,

World Bank. (2008). Democratic Republic of Congo: Growth with Governance in the Mining

World Bank. (2009). World Bank's World Development Indicators database. 25.08.2011,

World Bank. (2011). World Bank's World Development Indicators database. 25.08.2011,

Zahabu, E.; Malimbwi, R. & Ngaga, Y. (2005). Payments for Environmental Services as

Zhang, Q.; Justice, C. & Desanker, P. (2002). Impacts of Simulated Shifting Cultivation on

2011-2015. Retrieved from www.un-redd.org

Available from http://devdata.worldbank.org

Available from http://devdata.worldbank.org

Available from http://devdata.worldbank.org

*Environmental Conservation,* Vol.27, No.3, (July 2000), pp. 284-290

Tchiofo (2008)

Natal, South Africa

Bogor, Indonesia

http://devdata.worldbank.org

Paris, France

No.43402-ZR.

6–9 November 2005

Crisis, Small-scale Agriculture, and Forest Cover Change in Southern Cameroon.

Opportunity for Communities of the Himalayas. *ICIMOD Mountain Development*, No.49, pp. 26-27, Central Himalayan Environmental Association, Nainital, India Tieguhong, J. (2008). *Ecotourism for Sustainable Development Economic Valuation of Recreational* 

*Potentials of Protected Areas in the Congo Basin*. PhD thesis, University of Kwazulu-

*water crisis.* Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf

Convention Related to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action: Submissions from Parties, 03.07.2011,

Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries: Program strategy

Survey of Demonstration and Readiness Activities. *CIFOR Working Pape*r No.46,

Biodiversity Conservation? *IDDRI Working Paper* No.7, Natural resources, IDDRI,

Sector. Oil/Gas, Mining and Chemicals Department AFCC2, Africa Region, Report

Incentive Opportunities for Catchment Forest Reserves Management in Tanzania. Paper to the Tanzania Association of Foresters Meeting. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,

Deforestation and Carbon Stocks of the Forests of Central Africa. *Agric Ecosyst Environ,* Vol.90, No.2, (July 2002), pp. 203–209, DOI 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00332-2

In many countries including Uganda, management of forest resources has moved away from command and control system to a more participatory approach that require involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders. The introduction of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) was sparked by several factors: both international and local. At the international level, treaties and accords such as the Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP), an outgrowth of the agenda 21 framework initiated in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992, sought to reverse the loss of forests through the involvement of stakeholders, especially adjacent communities. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) highlights the importance of sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits that arise from biodiversity resources. At the local level, the original argument for increasing community participation in the maintenance of rural conservation projects stemmed from the need to better target people's needs, incorporate local knowledge, ensure that benefits were equitably distributed and lower management costs (Wily, 1998). The inclusion of communities in the management of state-owned or formerly state-owned forest resources has become increasingly common in the last 25 years. Almost all countries in Africa, and many in Asia, are promoting the participation of rural communities in the management and utilisation of natural forests and woodlands through some form of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) (Wily & Dewees, 2001). Many countries have now developed, or are in the process of developing, changes to national policies and legislation that institutionalise PFM. PFM encompasses a wide range of different co-management arrangements with different levels of control from relatively conservative "benefit sharing" to genuine "community-based natural resource management" where local communities have full control over management of the resource and the allocation of costs and benefits (Wily, 2002).

Participatory forest management encompass processes and mechanisms that enable people who have a direct stake in forest resources to be part of decision-making in all aspects of forest management, from managing resources to formulating and implementing institutional frameworks. Notable among the participatory forestry management approaches are Joint Forest Management (JFM), Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) and Collaborative Forest Management (CFM). All these approaches tend to

Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

accessing forest resources.

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 53

(Willy, 2002). Many Scholars (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1997; Ghate, 2003; Malla 2000; Victor, 1996) believe that CFM provides local incentives for conservation of forest resources by sharing the costs and benefits of conservation. They further note that the implementation of CFM may result into ecological, socio-economic, institutional, infrastructural and policy impacts to both the communities and forestry sub-sector. The ecological impacts may include stabilised and/or forest resource use patterns and improved quality and or condition of forests. The economic impacts include improved livelihoods through sale of forest products, increased skills, employment and exclusion of non-CFM actors from

Other authors (Beck, 2000; Campbell et al., 2003) notes that the impact of CFM on community livelihoods directly influences people's participation or involvement. They argue that participation and commitment of communities under CFM encourages regulated legal access to socio-economic benefits. The more the community are involved in CFM, the fewer the number of illegal activities in the forest managed under CFM and the higher diameter at breast height, the basal area and density of trees. In contrast, lack of community involvement may result in high occurrence of illegal activities and lower basal area and density of trees. It is thus argued that providing socio-economic benefits to communities under CFM results into sustainable utilisation of forest resources by local communities and hence improved conditions of the forest. Improvement in the condition of the forest may also lead to increased socio-economic benefits derived by the communities and increased community participation in CFM (Ghate, 2003). If CFM provides no socio-economic benefits to communities, illegal activities may increase leading to forest degradation. Degradation of the forest may lead to loss of socioeconomic benefits to communities leading to loss of community participation in CFM. Building on experiences from India (Kothari et al., 1996; Poffenberger & McGean, 1996), collaborative forest management (CFM) was adopted in Uganda in 1993 around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, BINP (Wild & Mutebi, 1996), and by 1996, collaborative initiatives had spread to other protected areas (national parks)

In the forest sector, research on CFM began in 1996 with pilot activities in some selected Ugandan forests, for example Butto-Buvuma (Gombya-Ssembajjwe & Banana, 2000). The Forest Department, however, held consultations from 1996 to 1997, and on July 1998, the CFM programme was officially launched (Scott, 2000). Since then, pilot activities were initiated by the Forest Department (FD), emphasising equitable distribution of benefits, participation of local people at all stages, gaining consensus on the terms of management and representation; instilling the sense of ownership and authority over the resource in local management partners, ensuring flexibility on the part of the Forest Department towards the potential compromise and building mutual trust and respect as a strong foundation for future partnership. This has now been institutionalised in the 2001 Uganda Forest Policy (Ministry of Water Lands and Environment [MWLE], 2001) and in the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, of 2003 (Government of Uganda, 2003). Guidelines have also been put in place for the implementation of CFM arrangements in the forest sector (MWLE, 2003). The CFM programme is currently being practiced in all the seven forest management ranges as designated by the NFA. A total of 27 CFM agreements have so far signed, 30 Application

However, the actual benefits accruing to local communities under the CFM agreement are largely unknown. Little is also known regarding the impact of CFM on the livelihoods of people. According to Scher et al., (2004) an understanding of CFM actual benefits on the

such as Mt Elgon, Kibale, Mgahinga, and Murchsion falls (UWA, 2001).

approved by NFA for CFM implementation and 28 initiated (Driciru, 2011).

emphasize decentralisation or devolution of forest management rights and responsibilities to forest adjacent communities with the aim of producing positive social, economic and ecological outcomes (Carter & Grownow, 2005). Joint forest management is the type of participatory approach that allows forest adjacent communities to enter into agreements with government and other forest owners to share the costs and benefits of forest management by signing joint management agreements (Wily, 1998). Under this arrangement, local communities are co-managers of the forest owned by the central or regional government. It considers communities as "rightful beneficiaries" than as "logical source of authority and management". JFM may also be defined as a specific arrangement among different social actors around the forest sharing of rights and responsibilities in managing a specific body of resource (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) is management of forests exclusively based on the efforts of the local communities, and at times with limited extension advice from government. In CBFM, both the ownership and user rights over the forest resource belong to the community. In CBFM, local communities declare- and ultimately, gazette-village, group or private forest reserves on village land. Under this arrangement, communities are both owners and managers of the forest Resource (Blomley *et a*l., 2010). CFM in general is loosely defined as a working partnership between the key stakeholders in the management of a given forest–the key stakeholders being local forest users and state forest departments, as well as parties such as local governments, civil groups and non-governmental organisations, and the private sector (Carter & Gronow, 2005).

In Uganda, the form of Participatory Forest Management approaches adopted for managing forest resources include Collaborative Forest Management (CFM), Community Forests (CFs) and Private Forests (PFs) (Strengthening and Empowering Civil Society For Participatory Forest Management in East Africa [EMPAFORM], 2008). CFs is the forest management approach where communities register as legal entities for purpose of seeking gazettement of a forested communal land as a Community Forest and henceforth manage it for the common good of the community. PFs is the forest management approach where local community members manage own trees on private land or participate in the management of private natural forests, private plantations, forests owned by cultural and traditional institutions. CFM is the most widely used and adopted form of participatory forest approach in Uganda today. It is a forest management approach where communities enter into agreement with the National Forestry Authority (NFA) in case of Central Forest Reserves and District Forestry Services (DFS) local governments in case of Local Forest Reserves to manage part or the whole of gazetted forest reserve. CFM is defined as a structured collaboration between governments, interested organisations and community groups, and other stakeholders to achieve sustainable forest use. It defines a local community's rights to use and/or participate in forest management and focuses on improving the livelihoods of the forest adjacent communities through mutually enforceable plans but the government does not surrender ownership of the forest to partner stakeholders (National Forestry Authority [NFA], 2003) and is the most widely used form of PFM in Uganda.

CFM is a co-management arrangement widely practiced in India, Nepal, Philippines and Latin America (Ghate, 2003; Malla, 2000) as government forest agencies and other actors recognise its potential in supporting local well-being and sustainable forest management. CFM has also gained recognition as a means of flow benefits to local people and is widely practiced in many African countries like Tanzania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Mali and South Africa

emphasize decentralisation or devolution of forest management rights and responsibilities to forest adjacent communities with the aim of producing positive social, economic and ecological outcomes (Carter & Grownow, 2005). Joint forest management is the type of participatory approach that allows forest adjacent communities to enter into agreements with government and other forest owners to share the costs and benefits of forest management by signing joint management agreements (Wily, 1998). Under this arrangement, local communities are co-managers of the forest owned by the central or regional government. It considers communities as "rightful beneficiaries" than as "logical source of authority and management". JFM may also be defined as a specific arrangement among different social actors around the forest sharing of rights and responsibilities in managing a specific body of resource (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) is management of forests exclusively based on the efforts of the local communities, and at times with limited extension advice from government. In CBFM, both the ownership and user rights over the forest resource belong to the community. In CBFM, local communities declare- and ultimately, gazette-village, group or private forest reserves on village land. Under this arrangement, communities are both owners and managers of the forest Resource (Blomley *et a*l., 2010). CFM in general is loosely defined as a working partnership between the key stakeholders in the management of a given forest–the key stakeholders being local forest users and state forest departments, as well as parties such as local governments, civil groups and non-governmental organisations,

In Uganda, the form of Participatory Forest Management approaches adopted for managing forest resources include Collaborative Forest Management (CFM), Community Forests (CFs) and Private Forests (PFs) (Strengthening and Empowering Civil Society For Participatory Forest Management in East Africa [EMPAFORM], 2008). CFs is the forest management approach where communities register as legal entities for purpose of seeking gazettement of a forested communal land as a Community Forest and henceforth manage it for the common good of the community. PFs is the forest management approach where local community members manage own trees on private land or participate in the management of private natural forests, private plantations, forests owned by cultural and traditional institutions. CFM is the most widely used and adopted form of participatory forest approach in Uganda today. It is a forest management approach where communities enter into agreement with the National Forestry Authority (NFA) in case of Central Forest Reserves and District Forestry Services (DFS) local governments in case of Local Forest Reserves to manage part or the whole of gazetted forest reserve. CFM is defined as a structured collaboration between governments, interested organisations and community groups, and other stakeholders to achieve sustainable forest use. It defines a local community's rights to use and/or participate in forest management and focuses on improving the livelihoods of the forest adjacent communities through mutually enforceable plans but the government does not surrender ownership of the forest to partner stakeholders (National Forestry Authority

CFM is a co-management arrangement widely practiced in India, Nepal, Philippines and Latin America (Ghate, 2003; Malla, 2000) as government forest agencies and other actors recognise its potential in supporting local well-being and sustainable forest management. CFM has also gained recognition as a means of flow benefits to local people and is widely practiced in many African countries like Tanzania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Mali and South Africa

and the private sector (Carter & Gronow, 2005).

[NFA], 2003) and is the most widely used form of PFM in Uganda.

(Willy, 2002). Many Scholars (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1997; Ghate, 2003; Malla 2000; Victor, 1996) believe that CFM provides local incentives for conservation of forest resources by sharing the costs and benefits of conservation. They further note that the implementation of CFM may result into ecological, socio-economic, institutional, infrastructural and policy impacts to both the communities and forestry sub-sector. The ecological impacts may include stabilised and/or forest resource use patterns and improved quality and or condition of forests. The economic impacts include improved livelihoods through sale of forest products, increased skills, employment and exclusion of non-CFM actors from accessing forest resources.

Other authors (Beck, 2000; Campbell et al., 2003) notes that the impact of CFM on community livelihoods directly influences people's participation or involvement. They argue that participation and commitment of communities under CFM encourages regulated legal access to socio-economic benefits. The more the community are involved in CFM, the fewer the number of illegal activities in the forest managed under CFM and the higher diameter at breast height, the basal area and density of trees. In contrast, lack of community involvement may result in high occurrence of illegal activities and lower basal area and density of trees. It is thus argued that providing socio-economic benefits to communities under CFM results into sustainable utilisation of forest resources by local communities and hence improved conditions of the forest. Improvement in the condition of the forest may also lead to increased socio-economic benefits derived by the communities and increased community participation in CFM (Ghate, 2003). If CFM provides no socio-economic benefits to communities, illegal activities may increase leading to forest degradation. Degradation of the forest may lead to loss of socioeconomic benefits to communities leading to loss of community participation in CFM. Building on experiences from India (Kothari et al., 1996; Poffenberger & McGean, 1996), collaborative forest management (CFM) was adopted in Uganda in 1993 around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, BINP (Wild & Mutebi, 1996), and by 1996, collaborative initiatives had spread to other protected areas (national parks) such as Mt Elgon, Kibale, Mgahinga, and Murchsion falls (UWA, 2001).

In the forest sector, research on CFM began in 1996 with pilot activities in some selected Ugandan forests, for example Butto-Buvuma (Gombya-Ssembajjwe & Banana, 2000). The Forest Department, however, held consultations from 1996 to 1997, and on July 1998, the CFM programme was officially launched (Scott, 2000). Since then, pilot activities were initiated by the Forest Department (FD), emphasising equitable distribution of benefits, participation of local people at all stages, gaining consensus on the terms of management and representation; instilling the sense of ownership and authority over the resource in local management partners, ensuring flexibility on the part of the Forest Department towards the potential compromise and building mutual trust and respect as a strong foundation for future partnership. This has now been institutionalised in the 2001 Uganda Forest Policy (Ministry of Water Lands and Environment [MWLE], 2001) and in the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, of 2003 (Government of Uganda, 2003). Guidelines have also been put in place for the implementation of CFM arrangements in the forest sector (MWLE, 2003). The CFM programme is currently being practiced in all the seven forest management ranges as designated by the NFA. A total of 27 CFM agreements have so far signed, 30 Application approved by NFA for CFM implementation and 28 initiated (Driciru, 2011).

However, the actual benefits accruing to local communities under the CFM agreement are largely unknown. Little is also known regarding the impact of CFM on the livelihoods of people. According to Scher et al., (2004) an understanding of CFM actual benefits on the

Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

the greatest possible extent.

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 55

rather the process of negotiation that produced them. The output will be as strong or weak as the process that led to it; (d) there must be real and complete participation of all partners from the beginning. If other stakeholders are to be partners, then they must be involved in all decisions. It is not real participation if you go to the other partners and start to discuss management if a large proportion of the decisions have already been made without them; (e) the process takes time, ''rapid'' is never ''participatory''. If the process is rushed, it will not give the other party the chance to fully participate. This approach is new for the community and the FD, they will need time to adjust and feel comfortable in their new roles; (f) It should result in a fair deal for all parties. If the FD expects considerable benefits from CFM, then they should not be surprised if the other parties also expect considerable benefits. The natural tendency is to give what you get; (g) it must result in a fair distribution of benefits. In addition to ensuring a fair distribution of benefits between the community and the FD, it is vital that the benefits from CFM are shared fairly within the community; (h) flexibility is very important in CFM. The FD must be open minded, and go into the process with a clear understanding of their own objective but a fully open regarding how these objectives can be satisfied through collaboration; (i) responsibilities agreed through CFM must be appropriate. It is important during negotiations that the different partners agree to the responsibility that are appropriate. One partner will not be able to do everything. It is most beneficial if both parties take on responsibilities that maximize their capacity; (j) it should address the real issues. In order for CFM to work, it must address real issues both on the side of the FD and on the side of other partners. It should be tackled head on and a solution sought that suits both parties. Compromise on both sides will be essential; (k) it must offer long term security. In order to adopt a long-term perspective to the management of forests, both partners must be sure of their long-term security to rights and benefits; (l) all interest groups must be involved. Everybody within the community with an interest in the forest must be involved during the process of arriving at an agreement. If they are not involved in decision making that affects their lives, they are unlikely to respect and abide by the agreement and management plan; (m) agreements should be arrived at through consensus. The majority of the population must be in agreement with the decisions if they are to abide by them and be enforced by them. It is, therefore, critical to gain consensus to

**1.3 The rationale, goal, purpose and objectives of the CFM process in Uganda** 

Sustainable management of forest resources in Uganda has remained a challenge to forest managers and policy makers because the population is highly dependent on them for timber, agriculture, energy production and other non-timber forest products (Turyahabwe & Tweheyo, 2010). In addition, forest agencies responsible for forest management have been unsuccessfully in their effort to sustainably manage forests due to breakdown in law and order, ineffective rules and inadequate funding to manage forest resources (Banana et al., 2007). Since most of the forest reserves are small and scattered over a large area, the governmental lacks both financial and human resource to monitor the use of the resources (Buyinza & Nabalegwa, 2007). Therefore, in the current forest policy, there has been a shift of control of forest resources, especially those outside protected areas from state controlled to community level in an attempt to improve management (Kugonza et al., 2009). CFM was viewed as the one approach to achieving improved and more efficient management of the country's forest estate. The rationale behind CFM approach include: (i) a recognition that

peoples' livelihoods around Protected Areas (PAs) are critical in sustainable forest management. Information is also lacking to show whether CFM has improved the condition of the forest by way of controlled illegal forest access, yet this information is essential for strengthening both the CFM policy development and implementation in Uganda. Due to entrenched power structures within both government institutions and communities, it is not easy to promote social justice and sustainable livelihoods through. Overall, mechanisms of CFM are diversifying, reflecting a greater recognition of the need for partnerships in forest management.

This chapter analyses the reviews Uganda's experience in CFM to date Benefits, Strengths, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions in Uganda. It identifies a number of possible strategies and makes recommendations on how to improve CFM. The analysis done in this chapter may be used to improve or re-arrange the idea about participatory Forestry Management not only in Uganda but also in other countries with similar situations.
