POSITIVE PROCESSES AND CRUCIAL BARRIERS ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Eastern Finland] On: 16 January 2015, At: 03:33 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Forests, Trees and Livelihoods Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20

HOW TO HANDLE THE STICK: POSITIVE PROCESSES AND CRUCIAL BARRIERS OF PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT IRMELI MUSTALAHTI

a

a

Danish Center for Forest, Landscape and Planning , The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL) , Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 , Frederiksberg C , Denmark Email: www.sl.kvl.dk Published online: 04 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: IRMELI MUSTALAHTI (2006) HOW TO HANDLE THE STICK: POSITIVE PROCESSES AND CRUCIAL BARRIERS OF PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 16:2, 151-165, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2006.9752553 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2006.9752553

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions

Downloaded by [University of Eastern Finland] at 03:33 16 January 2015

and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2006, Vol. 16, pp. 151-165 1472-8028 $10 © 20046 A B Academic Publishers-Printed in Great Britain

HOW TO HANDLE THE STICK: POSITIVE PROCESSES AND CRUCIAL BARRIERS OF PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT


IRMELI MUSTALAHTI

Danish Center for Forest, Landscape and Planning, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL), Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark, [email protected], www.sl.kvl.dk ABSTRACT Although participatory forest management (PFM) has attracted increasingly positive attention and its importance is clearly accepted among practitioners, pilot projects are experiencing difficulties expanding from externally funded donor schemes. Case studies in Tanzania and Mozambique show that the forest is important for local people and they understand their new role as forest managers. However critical factors are the low capacity of local institutions and a lack of extension staff to train the communities in the forest management skills needed and to ensure the accountability of community leaders. Only a strong commitment from the Government will ensure the long-term financial sustainability of these participatory initiatives. This paper also examines the relationship between the local communities, national and local governments and external funding agencies, and concludes that conflicting interests at both the local level and at the central, political level are barriers to successful PFM. Research to analyse critically the reality and impact of participatory forestry is required to determine whether the PFM systems supported by donors can be sustained.

Key words: Community, forest, impacts, management, resources, sustainability

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade efforts to place participation at the centre of development have engendered a lot of new ideas from learning through practice in different countries and sectors (Blackburn et al., 1999). The ideas and practices of participatory approaches have gained acceptance in forestry: Participatory Forest Management (PFM) allows local people to participate in forest management and conservation and to contribute to their local economy and livelihoods (Oksanen et al., 2003). Wily (2002) claims that donor supported PFM pilot projects are opening the way to innovation and learning by doing. In Asia and Africa, where pilot projects have stimulated change in policy and law, the benefits have been significant (Brown et a/., 2002 and Wily, 2002). Several researchers and actors in development have recorded a dramatic increase in the formal opportunities for communities to play a responsible role in forest management: at least thirty countries in Africa have revised their forest laws (Wily 2003); in Asia, eleven Manuscript submitted 1.6.04; revision accepted 25.2.05


152

MUSTALAHTI

national governments have revised or are in the process of revising their forest polices (Malia, 2003). Unfortunately in poor countries such as Tanzania and Mozambique PFM initiatives persist with a high level of donor dependence. While donor support clearly has a useful role to play in promoting and supporting new approaches, the critical question is what happens to PFM initiatives after the end of external funding. The title of this paper refers to Robert Chambers' ideas of "handing over the stick" - meaning that participation is about building partnership and ownership from the bottom up. In PFM an important question is how can the local government or local organizations take over the "facilitation stick" and carry out the extension work related to PFM needed for success, especially in poor counties such as Tanzania and Mozambique. Little attention has been given to the sustainability of PFM projects where "the stick has been handed over" and external support has withdrawn. The objectives of the present paper are to define the PFM approach and then describe the two cases in order to discuss the impacts and future opportunities for and threats to PFM. In the first case the communities are co-managers of a National Forest Reserve, whereas in the second case villages both own and manage the forest themselves. This study is not a simple assessment of the impact of PFM activities on local communities, but is an attempt to analyze the relationships between the local communities, local governments, the national government and external funding agencies.

Defining Participatory Forest Management For the purposes of this paper, the term Participatory Forest Management (PFM) means forestry approaches whereby forest dependent communities participate in forest management. In most of the literature the term Community Forestry is used to describe PFM innovations. Malia (2003 ), for instance, defines Community Forestry as "Forest management by local communities for timber or commercial purposes, but also for subsistence, wildlife and biodiversity conservation and environmental, social, cultural and religious purposes". In PFM areas local people develop rules for the use and management of their village forests or the co-management forest, which they manage on behalf or together with its owner that is the Central Government in the most cases. Forest management plans and by-laws are at the central position to formulate the legal status and management agreements between the different stakeholders. Management plans are guiding "the managers", local community members, with methods to take care of their resources and utilise it in a sustainable way. The by-laws help "the managers" enforce the law whenever needed. However, the role played by facilitators, the forest technicians, is a crucial part of the process. One of my main arguments in this paper is that PFM is not sustainable without the extension support from qualified forest technicians. They are the capacity building agents who are highly needed when management of valuable natural resources is handed over to local people.


HOW TO HANDLE THE STICK

153

In Tanzania, the village forest committees are usually overall managers of the village forest reserve. A member of the forest committee in Makumba village in Tanzania described the importance of management plans and by-laws: "Without legally approved management plans and by-laws we can't protect the forest from ourselves and outsiders ... " 1 • This clearly expresses the situation where villagers are attempting to balance the competing interests. The pressure to exploit and mismanage resources often comes from inside the community, not only from outside. The by-laws contain a plan of action with the rules, how the forest resources should be managed, how the forest committee should be elected and what their responsibilities as managers should be.

Co-management case study, Mozambique The policy context of participatory approaches in Mozambique Since 1995 several policy changes have been approved and new agriculture and forestry policies and the Forest and Wildlife Law ( 1999) are now supporting participatory approaches in Mozambique. Also the Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty 2001-2005, known as PARPA, highlights the importance of developing participatory and sustainable ways to manage and use the forest and wildlife resources in order to contribute to poverty alleviation. However, in the case of forestry, the most important changes are the new laws and regulations relating to land ( 1997 onwards), forestry and wildlife ( 1999 onwards). These emphasise that forest dwelling communities should be the primary beneficiaries of development activities in neighbouring areas. They should also play an active role in the protection and patrol of forest resources. The Agrarian Policy ( 1995) and the Agriculture Investment Programme (PROAGRI) include development plans towards implementation of the Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM). The communities are allowed to hold community forest areas as a collective entity. In areas where the access is limited, communities should still get 20 per cent of all benefits from fees and licences collected by government. For example, in the case of private concession areas, central government is selling the logging licences and the profit should be shared with local communities. At the moment, the key question is how to implement these new regulations and how the mainly donor funded PROAGRI programme can improve empowerment of communities and ensure that funding is used effectively for CBNRM.

History of Derre Forest Reserve In Zambezia Province, Derre Forest Reserve was established by the Central Government of Mozambique in 1950 and has an area of about 160,000 hectares. 1 In Tanzania the management plan and by-laws become legal instruments when they have been passed by a Village Assembly and Ward Development Committee and been approved by the District Council.


154

MUSTALAHTI

The original idea was that it would serve as a reserve of umbila (Pterocapus angolensis), which is one of the most important commercial timber species in Mozambique. Unfortunately the forest area has decreased due to agricultural activities and illegal timber harvesting. There are communities inside the reserve, and farmers practise shifting cultivation in the forest. It is common to use burning as a method of opening settlements, but also for hunting bush rodents. Both hunting and agricultural activities favour ignition of forest fires in the reserve. During the process of developing and implementing sustainable participatory forest management in the Derre Forest Reserve, ACODEMADE (Associar;ao Communitaria de Defesa e Saneamento do Meio Ambiente do Derre) was identified by the PMSR project2 as the coordinator of local activities. Capacity building of the members of ACODEMADE has been the key component of the project, and PMSR has also supported training in fire management, beekeeping and fishpond management, as well as intensive training programmes for nearly a hundred carpenters in six communities. The members of the association come from nine "nucleos", the communities with their own traditional leaders, which are located inside or close to the Derre Forest Reserve. There are 700 members who have each paid a 25,000 Mt (US$ 1.25) membership fee. The main objective of ACODEMADE is to ensure the protection and conservation of the Derre Forest Reserve. In addition, there are plans to set aside 30,000 hectares of a forest management area close to the reserve, as a community forestry area. Hindering factors during the Derre process

Mozambican communities have a traditional leader and a local government administrator who are responsible for several communities. It is important to recognise that communities and districts are not well organised in Mozambique. By contrast, in Tanzania there are established village governments and related committees. At district level in Mozambique there are only very few administrative and extension staff members. For this reason, the development of participatory forestry would not have been possible without support for the development of local institutions - such as ACODEMADE. In the situation where local government is not yet clearly organised, other institutions play a very important role in terms of facilitating activities. Nevertheless, it is not always easy to work with local institutions which may have their own interests and reasons to be involved in such activities. Nhantumbo et al. (2003) recognised that the poorest members of communities often cannot get membership to associations and therefore are unable to participate effectively in activities. The study showed that ACODEMADE leaders belong to the same family and the real decision-makers form a small elite group rather than represent local communities. They concluded that beneficiaries of income generating 2The

PMSR (Projecto de Maneio Sustentadode Recursos) project works in Zambezia and Inhanmbane Provinces and has supported the provincial forest services and forest inventories since I 999. External support from Finland will come to an end in June 2005.


155

activities should not be restricted to the members of the association. During its last year, the PMSR project has decided to facilitate the association to improve the community representation issue. This will be challenging due to the strong traditional leadership and hierarchy in the villages.


Positive development in Derre In spite of the fact that the process in Derre has been slow and there has been a lack of trained extension staff in the field, there is still a positive development to be seen in terms of a more participatory way to manage forest resources. For example, the participatory process for the formulation of management zones for the reserve is definitely a step forwards (SPFFB/PMSR, 2003). The communities have been involved in the process to divide the forest into management areas: An intensive protection area, which is under conservation; a protection area where collection of non-timber products is allowed; an agriculture production area where agriculture activities are allowed. The zoning is a way to ensure that communities can improve their livelihood hand-in-hand with conservation activities. Private companies and loggers hold logging concessions and simple logging licences for the area close to the Derre Forest Reserve. Unfortunately the boundaries are not always clear to the loggers. Some of the communities have complained that private forest concession holders are logging in the planned community forestry area. However, there exist opportunities for co-operation between the private sector and communities. Beekeeping products and medicinal plants could also be commercialised if markets and transportation were on a sustainable basis. These ideas were raised during discussions with ACODEMADE leaders. They did, however, mention that it is difficult to make contact and negotiate with the private sector, and that without facilitation from PMSR or the Ministry of Agriculture they cannot develop co-operation. Thus far the most successful income generating activity has been the training programme for carpenters. The material for the furniture production comes mainly from the Forest Reserve: In the area of the Derre Forest Reserve illegal logging has occurred and some of the logs are left in the forest. In 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture granted a permit to the carpenters to use abandoned logs. The Provincial Forestry Service (SPFFB) under the Ministry of Agriculture has assisted the carpenters with transport of these logs to a sawmill. At a later stage, the planks are used for the production of furniture and coffins. The material for the building of coffins is free and community members pay only for the carpenters' labour cost. The number of coffins needed in this area is very high and consequently the carpenters have a lot of work. The most typical causes of death are malaria, AIDS, cholera or other diarrhoea types of illnesses. It is already possible to see that the project activities have reduced poverty in the area. The price of coffins has come down and this has had a positive effect for many households. Earlier only wealthier families managed to buy the coffins, others buried their relatives inside bamboo basket or tree bark.

156

MUSTALAHTI

Village forestry case study, Tanzania


Political background of PFM in Tanzania

In 1988, the Government of Tanzania initiated the preparation of the Tanzanian Forest Action Plan (TFAP). Between 1992 and 1994 TFAP was revised, including the assessment of policy related issues, as a result of the macro and socioeconomic policy reforms implemented in the country. In line with the approach adopted by TFAP, the forest policy was reformulated in a comprehensive way to cover all forests, regardless of ownership of administration, and include trees on farmlands (Forest Policy, 1998). A Forest Act 2002 was passed and provides clear guidance as to how central and local authorities are to involve communities as forest mangers or co-managers of Government Forests, and how communities may declare and manage their own reserves (Village Forest Reserves and Community Forest Reserves). The overall goal of the on-going National Forest Programme (NFP) is to ensure implementation of the Forest Policy and Act from government level to grass roots level, and to ensure the sustainable management and conservation of natural resources. PFM is an important part of the NFP process, and the ongoing implementation phase of the NFP aims to support the scaling up of joint forest management, village forestry and community based forest management (FBD, 2003). History of the PFM process in Mfundia forest

Mfundia is a lowland forest area of 786 hectares in the Tanga Region of Tanzania, in buffer zone of East U sambara Conservation Area. The forest used to be the public land utilised for such activities as grazing, firewood and building material collection by surrounding communities, but also, by other people far from the villages and district headquarters. Public land, which means land without any agreed land use or user, is still common in the districts where the land use planning has not been carried out and villages have not got demarcated boundaries. In 200 I EUCAMP 3 introduced the idea of Participatory Forest Management to the Korogwe District Council, as well as to five villages surrounding the Mfundia forest. Then the villages became interested in participatory forest management and decided together with District Council to establish a Village Forest Reserve, the agreement between five villages was so that that each village could manage the part of the forest falling within their boundary. Makangara 3Finland became involved in East Usambara Mountains in the late 1970s when they were supporting the Sikh Saw Mills Company. An international outcry among ecologists followed. and in 19861obbying on behalf of the Usambara forest led to a logging ban in the East Usambara Forest Reserve (Koponen and Siitonen 200 I). The initiation of the next phases of Finnish support was an attempt to correct past mistakes in the mountains of East Usambara with their high biodiversity value. In the third and last phase of Finnish support was called East Usambara Conservation Area Management Programme (EUCAM), which began in 1999 and ended at the end of 2002.


157

and Mkwajuni villages decided that they would manage their part of the forest together. Mkwajuni used to be a sub-village of Makangara and there is still close co-operation, especially in terms of development activities. (Mustalahti, 2002)


Land use conflicts in Mfundia forest At the end of 2001, the villages started the boundary demarcation process. It was discovered that the boundaries between different villages were overlapping and that the villages were not sure of their boundaries. The main conflict was between Kijango and Mkwajuni and Makangara villages. Villagers from Mkwajuni and Makangara noticed that farmers from Kijango had cut and burned trees in the forest in order to clear new farming land. No clear boundaries existed between the forest and farming land. In January 2002, more farmers started to clear new farming land in the forest. Mkwajuni and Makangara Village Governments and Divisional Secretary reported the issue to the District Forest Officer, who advised them to organise a meeting with Kijango Village Government. The three villages, together with district authorities, held the meeting and the decision made was that new farmers should leave the forest area. At the same time there were rumours in the villages that the Chairman of Kijango Village had sold the forest land to the new farmers. By the end of February it was discovered that 73 people had bought land and that approximately 50 hectares of forest had been cut and burned. The District authorities and Villages Chairmen from Kijango, Mkwajuni and Makangara agreed that those people who were still in the encroachment area should be immediately reported to the District Council. The Kijango Village Chairman was supposed to lead the operation. However, he did not and the district authorities decided to report the case to the police. The Chairman was arrested and the case was taken to court. Finally, at the end of March, after several meetings, the villages agreed on the boundary between the Kijango and Mkwajuni/Makangara forest areas. Their final decision was that the conflict area would be shared between Kijango and Mkwajuni/Makangara. Finally by the end of 2002 the surveyors from the District Council and the Forestry and Beekeeping Division managed to carry out the survey of the forest and produce the final maps of villages.

Promising future of M.fundia Forest It is important to recognise that the villagers reported the illegal encroachment to the District Council. In the beginning, the villages tried to solve the problem themselves. When they were unable to do so, they asked for help from the District Council. This shows that they took the issue seriously enough to find solutions to the conflict. In December 2003, I did my interviews in villages surrounding Mfundia and the situation was already different compared with my last visit in April 2002: The most significant change in the forest was that the


158

MUSTALAHTI

50 hectare encroachment area which had been completely burned and which was partly used to plant maize in 2002, was now covered by grass and new seedlings. Villagers who had encroached on the area a year earlier had moved back to Kijango village and the village forest committee reported that most of grazing was no longer taking place in the forest, only in the buffer zone area. The new forest committees have been elected and they have introduced the idea of forest management, forest management plans and by-laws to the villagers. The forest committee together with community members have agreed to start patrolling the area and, if needed, the by-laws will be used to enforce the regulations. If there are commercial activities taking place, or people from outside the village are collecting timber or non-timber products from the forest, the committee will collect the fees as planned. According to the forest management plans, commercial timber harvesting in Mfundia has been banned for at least five years as, based on the forest inventory results in 2002, it was concluded that there was not enough timber to be harvested (Veltheim et al., 2002). According to forest committees in Makumba and Kijango, villagers already have more concern for their forest. There were still some villagers trying to encroach on the forest, but pressure from the other villagers stopped them. The forest committee members in Makumba remarked that they had previously had several forest fires and it used to be a common practice to clear the forest for farming land, whereas in 2003 there were only two forest fires recorded in Mfundia Forest. The changes are significant and there are clearly some positive impacts such as regeneration, fire control and the change in villagers' attitudes towards forest management.

Discussion of PFM practices and crucial barriers Crucial issues: Land use problems and forest fires Conflicting interests in terms of land use and encroachment in the forest areas are common problems both in Mozambique and Tanzania. Derre and Mfundia, in both cases there are more farmers moving to the area. In Mfundia they live in surrounding villages but in Derre they live well inside the forest reserve. The land use problems in the communities are partly due to the pressure on land from outside the communities. In the areas surrounding Derre there exist both government commercial forestry areas, where the Government is issuing simple logging licences and logging is carried out by private Mozambican people, and forest concession areas, which are managed by private investment companies, often with foreign capital. The communities are also producing cotton and sunflowers for commercial purposes. These activities are important income sources for the communities collaborating with the loggers who offer work opportunities in the forest and with a company called AGRIMO that buys the commercial crops from farmers.



159

Even if there were better legal instruments to ensure sustainable land use in these countries, the implementation of new laws and regulations is not adequate. The conflict arises when the commercial activities begin to take more and more land. For example, in Mozambique, the private forest concession holders are attempting to protect their forest areas from encroachment. Therefore, the pressure to encroach inside the central government forest reserve is increasing. These types of conflicts would be easier to manage if the community boundaries were surveyed and land rights legally certified for different purposes through wider land use planning. Unfortunately, in both Derre and Mfundia, neither had adequate human capacity, meaning manpower with professional skills, and funding, either internal or external, provided to carry out land surveys and land use planning within the communities and the areas surrounding the forests. Forests are not isolated islands; a forest is normally a part of the bigger land area which can have several uses and users. The forest management planning and forest land use planning are not enough to ensure the sustainable use of resources. There is a need to come up with an agreement and plan for multiple uses and users of land in the surrounding areas as well. For example, if the forest area is protected or given to a private concession holder, there is need to reserve enough farming land nearby in order to make surrounding communities survive without encroaching into the forest. One of the most crucial issues concerning forest management in East Africa is how to prevent forest fires. For example, Derre Forest Reserve has been degraded due to forest fires caused by cultivation and hunting activities. In Mozambique, thousands of hectares of forest are burned every year by rodent and the other hunters. In remote areas, small-size game is an important protein source for the local people. PMSR has recognised that hunting is one of the major reasons for forest fires in the reserve since animal husbandry is not common. In Derre, fishponds were introduced in order to get alternative sources of proteins and, to reduce the forest fires. In addition to fish production, the international NGO called HEIFER International is assisting local communities with goat farming projects. These innovative ways are essential to help local communities to find a sustainable balance between different needs and to ensure better conservation. Alternative activities such as fishponds and goat production, together with forest fire prevention campaigns and training, have led to the positive changes taking place in the reserve. By using satellite (MODIS) detected active fire data4 , it was shown that in 2003 the forest fires existed mainly outside conservation areas (HamaUiinen 2004). The coming years will demonstrate if the communities have a long-term interest to continue with the promoted activities and how committed they are to prevent fires in the reserve.

What could be the incentives to encourage participation? Clear mechanism for sharing benefits appears to be critical for the success of ~Information based on SAFNET satellite images which are produced by the University of Georgia,

USA. More information from web pages www.safnet.umd.edu


160

MUSTALAHTI

participatory forest management in several countries (Warner, 1997; Matakala and Kwesinga, 2001 ). In Mozambique the Forest and Wildlife Law article 102 and its regulation 12/2002 point outs clearly that 20 per cent of total income from commercial forestry production should return to the communities. Several projects, together with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development have attempted to find and define the distribution mechanisms for the existing community funds without any concrete outcome so far (Unidade de Inventario, 2004; Nhantumbo and Macqueen, 2002). Unfortunately, the implementation of new laws and regulations has been very weak because of lack the capacity and human resources to facilitate the distribution of the collected community funds. The benefits may be forthcoming, but there is, as yet, no clear agreement on how the cost of participation in biodiversity conservation will be compensated. The question is how long the local communities will participate as co-managers without any clear benefits. Thus far, in Tanzania, most of the village and community forest reserves have been located in areas where there is no potential for commercial timber harvesting, and benefit sharing has not been the bottleneck. For the future, more areas with valuable timber and potential for harvesting have been proposed as village forest reserves; an example is the Angai Forest with area of 1,400 km 2, surrounded by thirteen villages in southern Tanzania, which is under the gazettment process to be declared the village land forest reserve. The Forest Act (2002) says that no royalty shall be required for the harvesting or extraction of forest produce within a village forest reserve or community forest reserve. However, the central government and local government are interested in collecting a tax on commercial timber harvesting in village and community forest reserves. It is understandable that central government and local government need the tax income in order to ensure the forest services and general development of the sector. The problem is that different areas and pilot projects have been using different benefit sharing guidelines and the central government has not managed to set up a common tax system for all areas. The Angai Forest is not the single case. There are several other village and community forest reserves where forest dependent communities have an interest in harvesting timber for commercial purposes. There is also an intention to involve communities in the privatisation of commercial plantations. During discussions in the Mfundia and Derre villages community members indicated a clear economic interest in the forest resources. The commercial activities such as logging in the community forest, beekeeping and carpentry could be ways to reduce poverty in the area. However, benefiting from forest resources is not at all that easy. There are many influencing factors such as existence of markets, quality, transportation and management skills that are required before a product from remote areas can generate income. Obviously local markets are important, as the example of coffins in Derre proves. However, the impact in terms of poverty reduction will be less notable if other markets are not easily accessible.



161

In Derre there has been discussion about co-operation with private companies for the harvesting and marketing of forest products. During discussions with private investors it became clear that the partnerships with local communities are considered to be difficult to organise: The private sector operators and local communities have completely different ideas about, for example, time and working routines. Private investors require that products from activities like beekeeping and carpentry are continuously available in large quantities. For local communities it is difficult to understand how such markets function. To develop partnerships with local communities requires time, commitment and patience. Private sector operators do not have the necessary participatory skills and, more importantly, any time to do so, and that is why they would rather use their time for more profitable activities.

Extension is needed, but how to sustain it? In the case of Mfundia, the local government has provided the extension services to villagers and the district forest officer follows up forest management activities. The District Council is still looking into possibilities to get external funding in order to improve extension in the Mfundia villages. In the Derre case, it is the local institution, ACODEMADE, who may be serving as an extension provider in the long term, although, at the moment, they still require some further capacity building in order to be able to strengthen their association. In order to ensure facilitation and extension during PFM processes, contributions from donors have been crucial, but not always sustainable. In Tanzania, the Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, has highlighted the fact that a high level of donor dependence is a barrier to effective scaling-up of participatory forestry and the long-term financial sustainability of activities (FOB, 2003). Their view is that improved revenue generation and retention procedures are needed. In addition they emphasise that communities should accept increasing responsibility for financing PFM, and the long-term costs of managing village forest resources will have to be met by these communities. The basic idea is that the community based forest management could reduce the government costs of forest management. However, my interviews proved that currently the system to establish the village forest reserves in Tanzania is so time, skills and financial resources consuming that legal boundary processes, forest inventories and management planning cannot be facilitated and financed by district councils. In most cases there is still a need for external facilitation and financial support, which originated from central government or donors. Both the improvement of government financial procedures and an increase in community contributions will be central issues for PFM, not only in Tanzania but in other countries as well. In Tanzania and Mozambique only a small share of the royalties is collected annually and these funds have a tendency to remain in the national treasury or just to disappear on the way to the treasury or before


162

MUSTALAHTI

the funds are supposed to be distributed to local governments or communities. The result is the unfortunate reality that very little extension and facilitation is carried out in PFM areas without donor funds. For example, the Mfundia villages have lacked extension since the EUCAMP project was phased out. During my interviews in Tanzania, district authorities emphasised that District Councils have very limited financial resources to carry out the extension and facilitation related to natural resources management. An unfortunate fact is that distances in Tanzania are so great that only travelling to the villages consumes lot of financial resources from District Councils. Even external financial support for forestry cannot solve the extension and human resource problems. For example in Mozambique, in spite of financial support from different donors, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development was unable to appoint professional foresters to stay in Derre Forest Reserve and facilitate the PFM activities. There were several reasons for this, such as conditions in communities. In Derre there are still land mines, a high risk of malaria and cholera, and medicines and food are constantly lacking. In these conditions it is difficult to expect that government officers and their families would be willing to stay there permanently. Often the key factors influencing the PFM may lie outside of forest sector. For example, implementation of health sector programmes, government investment plans for rural areas and government salary policies may be more influential for the nation's forests than donor support or specific policy and legislation on forestry.

Realities behind the barriers It is important to understand that, in the case of poor communities, the socalled elite and leaders are relatively poor as well. When common resources exist, for which they have responsibility, they may be tempted to misuse their position of responsibility for their own good. Communities are not homogeneous and different groups often have conflicting interests, and communities are not immune to corruption. The Mfundia and Derre cases point out clearly that the local elite is vulnerable to temptation to use their power in order to increase their own benefits. In Tanzania and Mozambique, the decentralisation of forest management has resulted from recognition by governments that they are not able to be legislators, law enforcers and providers of all services. However, in both countries, empowerment of local people has not happened easily. The level of decentralisation depends on how much control the government is willing to relinquish and who will finally hold the tenure of land. In the case of the most valuable forest areas in both countries, overall control and tenure have normally remained with the central government, and the joint forest management has been passed to local communities, local government authorities or private sector in order to reduce central government costs of forest management and protection. The reasons for a government's reluctance to release forest management responsibilities to communities do not always indicate that central government



163

is not ready to release their power. There can be serious reasons behind such reluctance. In areas with a highly valuable biodiversity, multi-purpose management of forests by local villagers does not automatically ensure better conservation. It is understandable that authorities at central and local government levels are afraid of communities misusing natural resources. For example, in the case of Mfundia it was unfortunate that the encroachment by villagers was as extensive as 50 hectares and that valuable trees were damaged in large quantities (e.g. Milicia excelsa, Brachylaena hutchinsii and Dalbergia melanoxylon). However, referring to my research I still argue that the experiences in Tanzania have been more positive in regard to village forest reserves compared with comanagement in Government Forest Reserves. In village forest reserves, individual villages or more villages collectively are the managers of the forest areas; and they clearly hold the tenure and management status of the forest by themselves. Customary lands are still very vulnerable to appropriation by the State. In my interview in Mfundia, villagers raised the issue that Central Government has recently sold land for commercial farming without consulting local communities. Also, gold miners have encroached into nearby forests. The villages did not believe that the customary rights could help them to stop commercial activities or miners.

Conclusions My main conclusion is that the villagers are capable of managing the natural resources in sustainable way if they can get access to extension. The Mfundia and Derre case studies have shown that participatory forest management has positive impacts and there are a lot of opportunities for the future. In Derre the reduction of forest fires in the forest protection zone is one positive impact of capacity building and participatory approaches in the area. In Mfundia, the most significant finding was that the condition of forest improved significantly since the villagers took on the management authority. My current research shows that enabling communities to manage forest resources sustainably and effectively is a process of negotiation between imbalanced powers and competing interests in the state. The barriers to participatory forestry are not only the conflicting interest in local level but also the political interests at central level. There is a need for national governments and external funding agencies to increase the debate about the political barriers and reasons for the poor performance of PFM programmes. It cannot be denied that pilot projects in participatory forestry are experiencing difficulties with upscaling from externally funded donor schemes. It is obvious that participatory processes are time-consuming and need piloting and external funding. However, this does not diminish the fact that reasons for low up-scaling of PFM can be political or caused by the inefficiency or misallocation of donor support.

164

MUSTALAHTI


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the Academy of Finland, which financed the prestudy on "Impacts of Finnish Aid in Participatory Forest Management". Thanks are due to Prof. Juhani Koponen and fellow PhD students at the Institute of Development Studies, Dr. Riikka Otsamo at Viikki Tropical Resource Institute, Finland and Prof. Finn Helles and Associate Prof. Thorsten Treue from the at the Danish Center for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Denmark for supervision and comments during the research and writing process, and to Indufor Consulting as well as project staff and government authorities in Tanzania and Mozambique for facilitation during the collection of information. In particularly, I would like to thank the following persons: Korogwe District Forest Officer Betty Munuo and Mr. Papucides Ntela and Mr. Jarno Hamalainen from PMSR project. I am also grateful to the villagers at Mfundia forest in Tanzania and the members of communities in Derre, Mozambique.

REFERENCES Blackburn J., Chambers R., and Gaventa J. 1999. Learning to take time and go slow: Mainstreaming participation in de1•elopment and the the comprehensive development framework (CDF). Prepared for Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank. Institute of Development Studies. Sussex, UK. Brown D .. Malia Y., Schrenkenberg K. and Spingate-Baginski 0. 2002. From supervising 'subject' to supporting 'citizens': Recent development in community forestry in Asia and Africa. OD! Natural Resources Perspectives. Number 75. London, UK. Community Based Forest Management Guidelines. 2001. Director. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. FBD 2003. Participatory Forest Management. A Report on Lessons Learnt. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Forestry and Beekeeping Division. National Forest Programme. NFP Coordination Unit Support Programme financed by The Ministry For Foreign Affairs of Finland and United Republic of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Hamiilainen J. 2004. Sustained Forest Resource Management Project in Zambezia and lnhambane. Final report of Provincial Forester of Zambezia (2002-2004) Koponen J. and Siitonen L. 2001. Forestry sector aid sustainability and participation. Zansibar and East Usambara compared. University of Helsinki, IDS, FAD Working Papers 112001. Malia Y. 2003. Community Forestry: Current State and Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. Seminar Presentation at Viikki Tropical Resources Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland. November 2003. Matakala P. and Kwcsinga F. 2001. Community Needs and Demands and their Actual Involvement in Forest Management: A Regional Analysis. Key note address in Stisen, S., Miiller, B .. Hald, S., Treue, T., Boon, T.E. (Editors) 2001. Proceedings from the Danida-DANCED Workshop on Sustainable Forest Management in Southern Africa, Windhoek, Namibia, August 14-14, 2001, pp. 11-30, 289 pp. Mustalahti I. 2002. The stick has been handed over. Recommendation of way forward in the Participation Forest Management in Korogwe and Muhe::.a Districts, Tan::.ania. EUCAMP Technical Report 66. Nhantumbo I., Norfolk S. and Pereira J. 2003. Community Based Natural Resources Management in Mo::.ambique: A Theoretical or Practical Strategy for Local Sustainable Del'elopment? The Case StudY of' Derre Forest Reserl'e. Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Research Paper Series. Paper 10. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. UK.



165

Nhantumbo I. and Macqueen D. 2002. Direitos das Comunidades: Realidade ou rettirica. Direq:ao Nacional de Floresta e Fauna Bravia. Republica de Mo~ambique Ministerio da Agrucultura e Desenvolvimento Rural. Maputo. Mozambique. Oksanen T.. Pajari B. and Tuomajukka T. (eds.) 2003. Forests in Pm•erty Reduction Strate~ies: Capturin~ the potential. European Forest Institute, Finland. Proceedings 47. SPFFB/PMSR 2003. Proposta de Zoneamento Reserva Florestal de Derre. Republica de Mo~ambique Ministerio da Agrucultura E Desenvolvimento Rural. Direc~ao Provincial da Zambezia. Servi~os Provinciais de Florestas e Fauna Bravia. Mozambique (unpublised). The Forest Act 2002. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Forestry and Beekeeping. Division. United Republic of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Forest Policy 1998. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Forestry and Beekeeping. Division. United Republic of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Unidade de Inventario 2004. Estrategia para o desenvolvimento do maneio comunitario com base nos diplomas relativos ao agente comunitario e a canaliza~ao dos 20%. Ministerio da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural. Maputo, Mozambique. Warner K. 1997. The vision and role of community forestry in sustainable del'elopmelll. Proceedings of the XI World Forestry Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 13 to 22 October 1997, FAO, Rome, pp. 57-66. Veltheim T., Kijazi M. and Killenga R. 2002. Participatory forest im·entory of proposed Mfimdia villa~e forest reserve. Technical Paper. East Usambara Conservation Area Management Programme. Tanga, Tanzania. Wily L.A. 2002. The political economy of community forestry in Africa. Gettin~ the power relations ri~ht. Forest, Trees and People Newsletter No.46 September 2002. Wily L.A. 2003. Community Forest Managemelll in Aji"ica Pmgress and Challenges in the 21st Centw:\'. FAO, Rome.