**Box 2. CFM process in Uganda**


Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

inconceivable that that would be practical and feasible.

Arrest culprits with NFA

Patrol the forest with NFA

Impose fines on culprits with NFA

Impound illegally harvested timber with NFA

handing over to superior authorities e.g. NFA. Police etc.

that are to be carried out jointly e.g. patrols.

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 65

Responsible Body (in this case the National Forestry Authority) with whom the community signed an agreement; (xi) Unpractical provisions within CFM agreements whereby many of the responsibilities to be executed by local communities (Box 3) and CBOs are written to be executed together with NFA. Yet going by the limited number of NFA staff, it is

**Box 3: Roles and Responsibilities of communities under CFM** 

A more practical approach would entail, among others, inclusion of provisions with regard to: (a) type and limits of fines, procedures for collecting exhibit and accounting for them, and reporting about them; (b) procedures for arresting or submission of names of culprits to NFA for arrest; and (c) custody of exhibits (e.g. illegal timber) and their recording before

(xii) Most of the CFM agreements are signed with local community, NFA, NGOs and Local Governments. No reference is made to the private sector or business community, cultural institutions, research institutions etc, where they may have strategic roles to support CFM. The role of Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) in relation to wildlife within the CFM Agreements is not strong either; monitoring plan is a crucial instrument that should be annexed to the agreement. A key weakness was that there was no independent system for monitoring. Communities cannot be the "judge and party" and there is need to have an objective, independent monitoring system and most of these plans are not yet made where CFM agreements have been signed; (xiii) CFM negotiations exhibited different interests. It is the goal of NFA to maintain the wide range of values of forest resources, including both use and non-use values. To the communities the immediate attraction is to access the tangible use values. In most management plans, there are 3 types of management zones, namely: (a) buffer zone, (b) production zone and (c) strict nature reserve. Human interference is highly restricted in strict nature reserves. NFA recognizes these zones but it did not appear that communities were fully mobilized to understand and appreciate the rationale for such zoning. This message will have to be consistently communicated because in some forest reserves, the closest areas to the communities are strict nature reserves that they cannot access; (xiv) matching of benefits and costs-Communities are eager to come on board for CFM in order to gain regulated access to forest products. That eagerness overshadows the need for a basic understanding of how the potential benefits compare with costs communities incur for certain responsibilities they accept to take on e.g. joint patrols and sometimes supervision, arresting culprits, collect and provide information about illegal timber harvesting, participate in fighting wild fire, sensitizing communities about conservation to mention but a few. Owing to fewer numbers of NFA staff around protected areas and poor funding, they cannot always respond to community request for activities

### **2.5.2 Stakeholders concerns**

Like responsible bodies, there are also a number of concerns for stakeholders involved in CFM operation. (i) Parties involved in CFM agreements always have a hidden agenda – forest resources managers opt for CFM to solve encroachment and not necessarily as a management tool and the communities take on CFM to legalise illegal activities in the forests; (ii) there is a lack of forest committees at district and sub county level that would hold responsible Bodies accountable. These committees would also fight for the plight of forestry extension under NAADS. The committees would also guide local political patronage to bless collaborative forest management, community forests and private forestry; (iii) funding for collaborative approaches/activities is limited. Communities argue that if government and development partners can fund private tree farmers planting trees on Central Forest Reserves, why not identify funds for implementation of forestry friendly economic activities such as apiary, harnessing of white ants, collection of rattan and mushrooms for collaborating communities and funds for community and private forests?

(iv) Lack of tangible benefits from CFM participation and lack of guidelines for benefit sharing. The burden of roles and responsibilities that are transferred to communities under the signed Agreements are not commensurate to the benefits; (v) corruption and illegal practices/activities that erode sustainable forest resource management and jeopardizes communities and members of the private sector who would otherwise have interests in private forestry. There is a general lack of professionalism in the sector with politicians wanting to get involved in the decisions that affect the electorate and this is a disappointment to committed and contending communities; (vii) the management of community forests is regulated by the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 while the establishment of the Community Land Associations (CLAs) is regulated under the Uganda Land Act, 1998 (GOU, 1998). This has caused management delays in gazettement of Community Forests which is dependant upon an established Communal Land Associations (CLA). Establishment of CLAs has lagged behind because the implementation of the Land Act has been slow. Therefore the CLAs have not been instituted and yet Community Forests can only be gazetted if the CLAs are in place. The interest of the community is the standing forest and any barrier to communities securing their interest is dismay to participatory forest management approaches. Many communities had expressed interest in registering CLAs but in vain;

(viii) The initial lifespan of CFM agreements range between 5 and 10 years with a provision to extend them for longer periods if implemented to satisfaction. However, the benefits of some listed activities, particularly restoration of degraded forest areas would come much later. The time frame for CFM agreements with the "Responsible Bodies" is 10 years. Comparatively, the Tree Planting Permits issued by NFA to private tree planters is minimum 20 years. The 10 year period does not provide sufficient motivation for tree planting under CFM given that most trees require more than 10 years to mature. To that effect, communities are entering CFM half-heartedly. Communities would prefer a relatively longer period; (ix) communities allege that CFM is only earmarked for only degraded forest reserves or degraded compartments of forest reserves. Not only do they find nothing left to share as benefits, but also de-motivated for having been handed a degraded resource. Coupled with the 10 years margin, then this becomes totally a disincentive for communities to actively engage in CFM; (x) many of the communities are manipulated by the self seeking persons who enter into leadership and never want to retire. Someone becomes chairperson of a CFM group for as long as he lives; later becoming a proxy representative of the

Like responsible bodies, there are also a number of concerns for stakeholders involved in CFM operation. (i) Parties involved in CFM agreements always have a hidden agenda – forest resources managers opt for CFM to solve encroachment and not necessarily as a management tool and the communities take on CFM to legalise illegal activities in the forests; (ii) there is a lack of forest committees at district and sub county level that would hold responsible Bodies accountable. These committees would also fight for the plight of forestry extension under NAADS. The committees would also guide local political patronage to bless collaborative forest management, community forests and private forestry; (iii) funding for collaborative approaches/activities is limited. Communities argue that if government and development partners can fund private tree farmers planting trees on Central Forest Reserves, why not identify funds for implementation of forestry friendly economic activities such as apiary, harnessing of white ants, collection of rattan and mushrooms for collaborating communities and funds for community and private forests? (iv) Lack of tangible benefits from CFM participation and lack of guidelines for benefit sharing. The burden of roles and responsibilities that are transferred to communities under the signed Agreements are not commensurate to the benefits; (v) corruption and illegal practices/activities that erode sustainable forest resource management and jeopardizes communities and members of the private sector who would otherwise have interests in private forestry. There is a general lack of professionalism in the sector with politicians wanting to get involved in the decisions that affect the electorate and this is a disappointment to committed and contending communities; (vii) the management of community forests is regulated by the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 while the establishment of the Community Land Associations (CLAs) is regulated under the Uganda Land Act, 1998 (GOU, 1998). This has caused management delays in gazettement of Community Forests which is dependant upon an established Communal Land Associations (CLA). Establishment of CLAs has lagged behind because the implementation of the Land Act has been slow. Therefore the CLAs have not been instituted and yet Community Forests can only be gazetted if the CLAs are in place. The interest of the community is the standing forest and any barrier to communities securing their interest is dismay to participatory forest management approaches. Many communities had expressed interest in registering

(viii) The initial lifespan of CFM agreements range between 5 and 10 years with a provision to extend them for longer periods if implemented to satisfaction. However, the benefits of some listed activities, particularly restoration of degraded forest areas would come much later. The time frame for CFM agreements with the "Responsible Bodies" is 10 years. Comparatively, the Tree Planting Permits issued by NFA to private tree planters is minimum 20 years. The 10 year period does not provide sufficient motivation for tree planting under CFM given that most trees require more than 10 years to mature. To that effect, communities are entering CFM half-heartedly. Communities would prefer a relatively longer period; (ix) communities allege that CFM is only earmarked for only degraded forest reserves or degraded compartments of forest reserves. Not only do they find nothing left to share as benefits, but also de-motivated for having been handed a degraded resource. Coupled with the 10 years margin, then this becomes totally a disincentive for communities to actively engage in CFM; (x) many of the communities are manipulated by the self seeking persons who enter into leadership and never want to retire. Someone becomes chairperson of a CFM group for as long as he lives; later becoming a proxy representative of the

**2.5.2 Stakeholders concerns** 

CLAs but in vain;

Responsible Body (in this case the National Forestry Authority) with whom the community signed an agreement; (xi) Unpractical provisions within CFM agreements whereby many of the responsibilities to be executed by local communities (Box 3) and CBOs are written to be executed together with NFA. Yet going by the limited number of NFA staff, it is inconceivable that that would be practical and feasible.

**Box 3: Roles and Responsibilities of communities under CFM** 


A more practical approach would entail, among others, inclusion of provisions with regard to: (a) type and limits of fines, procedures for collecting exhibit and accounting for them, and reporting about them; (b) procedures for arresting or submission of names of culprits to NFA for arrest; and (c) custody of exhibits (e.g. illegal timber) and their recording before handing over to superior authorities e.g. NFA. Police etc.

(xii) Most of the CFM agreements are signed with local community, NFA, NGOs and Local Governments. No reference is made to the private sector or business community, cultural institutions, research institutions etc, where they may have strategic roles to support CFM. The role of Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) in relation to wildlife within the CFM Agreements is not strong either; monitoring plan is a crucial instrument that should be annexed to the agreement. A key weakness was that there was no independent system for monitoring. Communities cannot be the "judge and party" and there is need to have an objective, independent monitoring system and most of these plans are not yet made where CFM agreements have been signed; (xiii) CFM negotiations exhibited different interests. It is the goal of NFA to maintain the wide range of values of forest resources, including both use and non-use values. To the communities the immediate attraction is to access the tangible use values. In most management plans, there are 3 types of management zones, namely: (a) buffer zone, (b) production zone and (c) strict nature reserve. Human interference is highly restricted in strict nature reserves. NFA recognizes these zones but it did not appear that communities were fully mobilized to understand and appreciate the rationale for such zoning. This message will have to be consistently communicated because in some forest reserves, the closest areas to the communities are strict nature reserves that they cannot access; (xiv) matching of benefits and costs-Communities are eager to come on board for CFM in order to gain regulated access to forest products. That eagerness overshadows the need for a basic understanding of how the potential benefits compare with costs communities incur for certain responsibilities they accept to take on e.g. joint patrols and sometimes supervision, arresting culprits, collect and provide information about illegal timber harvesting, participate in fighting wild fire, sensitizing communities about conservation to mention but a few. Owing to fewer numbers of NFA staff around protected areas and poor funding, they cannot always respond to community request for activities that are to be carried out jointly e.g. patrols.

Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

mushrooms, rattan and hunting);

denied an opportunity to take root;

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 67

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

(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

(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,
