Edmund Barrow, et al.:Governments are Decentralizing Responsibility for Forest Management in Africa, but Are Rural People Able to Take on Their Rights?
- 1. Governments are Decentralizing Responsibility for Forest Management in Africa, but Are Rural People Able to Take on their Rights? Edmund Barrow, Isilda Nhantumbo, Kamugisha-Ruhombe Jones, Rene Oyono & Savadogo Moumini International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1
- 2. I will argue that: • Tenure & secure rights to land are important, but not enough to improve livelihoods & sustainably manage forests • Rural people need: – Greater sharing of power (equity, gender); – Ability to organize, have rules, & sanction; – Ability to negotiate as “equals”; – Ability to process & value add; and the – Ability to competively enter the market. International Union for the Conservation of Nature 2
- 3. This Presentation • Summarizes some findings of 4 regional studies on “Who Owns Africa’s Forests” (RRI partners); & • Will look at tenure & decentralization conditions needed for rural communities to take on their rightful role in forest management International Union for the Conservation of Nature 3
- 4. History: Waves of Change in Forest Tenure in Africa • Early indigenous (forest dwellers) communal forest tenure disrupted & dislocated by migrations (to appx 1900); • State as master of land & forest (colonial & post colonial, 1900 – 1990’s); and • Post 1990’s Forest reforms & decentralization (both to trees on farm, and in the forest). Created complexity of tenure & decentralization regimes – with overlaps (customary-statutory), & conflicts – over 35 countries in Africa now have “community forestry” on “books” International Union for the Conservation of Nature 4
- 5. Forest Tenure – Where are we in Africa? • Most of “forest” – State owned even if increased emphasis on community • Of 9 most forested countries – Sudan, Tanzania, Cameroon, Congo & Zambia show increasing community ownership (approx Ha 6 million) • In W. Africa – increases in forest land for local communities in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Niger and Gambia – but data incomplete (approx Ha 3.6 Mill) (Source: RRI, 2008) International Union for the Conservation of Nature 5
- 6. Various forms of decentralized forests • Community & decentralized forests in some West African countries (Mali, Burkina Faso, Senegal) – “terroire villegois”, & village forests in Tanzania • Decentralized to Area Councils (Gambia, Niger, Sudan) • Joint (or Collaborative) forest management promoted between Government and communities (Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon) International Union for the Conservation of Nature 6
- 7. Policy & Law changes – But has Anything Changed??? We have lots of good laws/policies – but are we really implementing them? & has this translated into a greater ability of rural people to both better manage & benefit from the forest? In general – rights to less valuable forests &/or products devolved, not high value forest products (except trials in Ghana, Tanzania); varying levels of planning & restrictions imposed International Union for the Conservation of Nature 7
- 8. Tanzania – an example Forest type Area Central Forest Reserves (managed 12.3 mill Ha (36.5%) by central gov.) Local Authority Forest Reserves 1.6 mill Ha (4.8%) (managed by Districts Village forest reserves (managed by 2 mill Ha (5.9%) (4.1 mill Ha under or village), area increasing with in process of being transferred to registration villages in over 2,300 villages) Private forests (private sector) 61,000 Ha (0.18%) Forests on general lands (non- 17.7 mill Ha (52.6%) reserved, de facto community) Sacred, traditional forests (ones 370 Ha “formally known”) Totals 33,661,370 Ha Source: Blomley et. al. 2008 International Union for the Conservation of Nature 8
- 9. But are we really making progress in decentralized forest Tenure in Africa?? Forest: % in Africa % in Latin America % in Asia Administered 98% 33% 66% by Government Use by local 1% 8% 3% communities Owned by local less than 25% 25% communities 1% Owned by less than 34% 6% individual 1% Source: RRI, 2008 (based on Statutory data sets of FAO & governments International Union for the Conservation of Nature 9
- 10. What does this mean? - Get beyond policy & legal words so as to • Encourage ownership rights not just “use” rights • As ownership is stronger (incentives, exclusion, reduced conflicts) • Basis for investment & livelihoods, & can benefit all (forest goods & services) • Get beyond commercial timber forestry to forests for people (community based forestry) • Will reduce forest conflict, & be a strong platform for managing for “climate change” International Union for the Conservation of Nature 10
- 11. For Rural People - Forests for What? • Non-Timber Forest Products (fruits, medicines, gums, resins, oils etc.) • Grazing & browsing (pastoralists) • Building materials • Cultural/spiritual values • And Yes – timber & environmental services (but not the main focus) International Union for the Conservation of Nature 11
- 12. Are rights secure? • In decentralized forest management – extent & scale to which Government can withdraw rights undermines decentralization (e.g. Central Africa) • If communities have ownership – can they make best use of their rights? – to manage, process, value add? (plans, permits, taxes, rules) • Attainment of rights often delayed (even if conditions met) by “lack of willingness” International Union for the Conservation of Nature 12
- 13. Equity & Gender • Its much more than “community”! – whose rights & responsibilities within a group/village • Women often “de facto” providers at farm level, yet with little power to manage • Legislating not enough without implementation (which may result in power struggles & conflict) • Effects of culture & tradition on gender & rights of different groups (excuse to hold onto power!) • Elite capture (from within or external) – esp. If resources increase in value International Union for the Conservation of Nature 13
- 14. Do devolved rights reduce poverty? • Poverty & forests often go hand in hand in a “vicious cycle” • Contribution of forests to GDP, National accounts negligible, as data not captured even if very important at local level • Inability to add value & market (beyond subsistence) mean real value of rights reduced International Union for the Conservation of Nature 14
- 15. But the Forests are Hugely Valuable!! Country Forests & GDP Econ Value Other values Sudan 10% $650 mill p.a.; Gum Arabic 66% pop involved with $80 mill p.a. forestry. 70% depend on fuel wood Tanzania 3.3% (& 10% of 2.8% value of agric. Sector; 92% depend on fuel exports) In Shinyanga $14 p.p. p.m. wood for 2.25 million people (800+ villages) South 2% or 1.7% (FAO) $4,674 mill p.a. – 55% of Over 325,000 Africa which NTFP employed Namibia 6% Devils claw worth $10 mill 89% rural use fuel p.a. wood (20% urban) Uganda 2% (Min finance) Forest business worth 90% fuel wood, & or 6% (Forest $165 mill p.a. 90% herbal remedies sector) International Union for the Conservation of Nature 15
- 16. Key Opportunities • Tenure rights – important but ability to negotiate, defend & benefit from • Equity & Gender in context of elite capture & male conservatism, but can create space for democratization • Minor or high value products – Moves to higher value forest products (e.g. Ghana, Tanzania)? • Shift from Government to Private sector – can create opportunities for partnerships with communities • Role of JFM/CM – community stake in reserved estate – but high transaction & planning costs • Climate change may enhance importance of sector & need for enhanced community rights International Union for the Conservation of Nature 16
- 17. Some Threats • If decentralized – Is there adequate support (technical, financial, management) for communities to use opportunities in policy & law? • Often very high transaction costs (time, plans, rules, regulations, permits, taxes, delays, corruption) • Role of customary rights (recognized?) – evictions, contested rights, encroachment – forest dwellers, pastoralists – its an ethical issue as well • Forests low on agenda – therefore less focus in PRSPs (Governments, donors) – though climate change is changing that! • Population pressures & displaced peoples International Union for the Conservation of Nature 17
- 18. Some Conclusions • Official data not reflect policy rhetoric of community forestry – with exceptions, nor the richness of community forests • Emphasis & accelerate changes from State to Community Owned • Improved forest tenure not yet result in improved livelihoods – nature of resources devolved, community support mechanisms in place • Forest sector not really in national accounts - undervalues its importance • Forest projects short term, yet forest management long term (investment, management, support, markets) • Civil society role in facilitating change & translating rhetoric to action – key to future success International Union for the Conservation of Nature 18
- 19. So: • Its more than devolved rights, more than communities managing forests, its more than ownership (all of which are critical); • Its more than “small” (but important) subsistence benefits; • Lies in ability of rural communities to invest & enter the market; and • Requires longer term investment & removal of perverse (negative) incentives. Goes beyond tenure & management plans to Sustainable Forest Management as business for communities International Union for the Conservation of Nature 19
- 20. Challenges for us, even with increased community ownership: • How can we demonstrate the REAL ($, cultural, environmental, land use) value of forests (& trees) to rural livelihoods & livelihood improvement? • How can these values be integrated in national accounting? • How can local/customary institutions and knowledge systems be better integrated into more formal knowledge & institutional systems?? • What will it take for rural communities to be able to negotiate on a EQUAL level with others (Gov, Private sector, NGOs etc.) International Union for the Conservation of Nature 20