**2.4.6 Boundary cleaning and patrolling**

The boundaries of the forest reserve are cleaned to ensure that farms are not extended to the reserves. In addition, it ensures that wildlife in the forest do not enter into the farms of those who share a common boundary with the forest reserve. Most often, NFA use the forest guards to patrol and clean the forest boundary at regular intervals. Currently local communities are given contracts to perform such duties.

Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda:

therefore need for sensitization at all levels;

demean the stigma of CFM.

**Box 2. CFM process in Uganda** 

Step 2: Preparing an application for CFM

Step 4: Participatory situation analysis

Step 7: Continuation of Negotiations

Step 3: Meeting between applicant and responsible body

Step 8: Review of the Plan and Agreement by stakeholders Step 9: Implementation of the CFM Agreement and Plan

Step 5: Initial Negotiation and drafting a CFM plan Step 6: Institutional formation and development

Step 1: Initiating the process

Benefits, Implementation Challenges and Future Directions 63

on government and private forest land, today participatory forest management initiatives target (rather focus) on Central Forest Reserves. This has resulted into pressure onto the NFA in terms of capacity to meet the demands by communities. It is high time these initiatives started on private forest land and Local Forest Reserves that are managed by local governments; (ii) in Uganda a nine stage process (Box 2) has been developed that has to be followed by communities applying for CFM. This process takes time and leads to anxiety. It is clear that the time and skills are inadequate in NFA for community mobilization and effective sensitization of the communities. Along the process is local political interference that favours illegal activities that applicants often prefer to indulge in illegal activities than undertake an Agreement. Subsequently there are delays in signing agreements which at times causes apathy in community; (iii) there is a general lack of capacity for implementation of CFM-inadequate staffing at NFA and DFS to monitor and give backstopping (support) to field staff. Some decision makers are still sceptical about CFM

(iv) Quite often communities are lured to present CFM applications (again by self seeking and self appointed leaders) that do not have good intention for genuine partnerships for collaboration with the National Forestry Authority and other responsible bodies. Some communities think that an Agreement with responsible body is a permit for undertaking unacceptable activities such as charcoal burning and cultivation of crops. Thus responsible bodies are, however, re-orienting their thinking before they undertake the CFM process; (v) good governance in CFM requires sufficient funding. So far there is inadequate funding by NFA and DFS for CFM implementation and sometimes this funding is sporadic. Such delay in funding breaks the momentum of activities in the field; (vi) there are very few Community Based Organizations with experience in facilitating the CFM process and usually these cover a relatively limited area of the country. The National Forestry Authority would be more than willing to establish working relations with such NGOs to role out CFM activities. Many NGOs have created a culture of giving handouts (food and materials) to communities and this has created a dependency syndrome with communities demanding to be given handouts. Whereas this is a positive Social Responsibility approach, it stands to
