CFM Lessons 2018 PDF
CFM Lessons 2018 PDF
CFM Lessons 2018 PDF
IMPLEMENTING COLLABORATIVE
FOREST MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA
LESSONS LEARNT FROM KASYOHA KITOMI
AND ECHUYA CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE
Review Report
Published by:
NatureUganda. P. O. Box 27034, Plot 1, Katalima Crescent,
Lower Naguru, Kampala, Uganda.
Copyright
© 2011 NatureUganda – The East African Natural History
Society
Edited by:
Achilles Byaruhanga and Robert Esimu
Recommended Citation:
NatureUganda (2011). Implementing Collaborative Forest
Management in Uganda; Lessons Learnt from Kasyoha
Kitomi and Echuya Central Forest Reserve. NatureUganda,
Kampala, Uganda.
A Study Report
Review Report
2011
Bamboo domestication in Echuya landscape
4 Implementing Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda;
Lessons Learnt from Kasyoha Kitomi and Echuya Central Forest Reserve
ACRONYMS
BATA Bitooma Abetereine Turinde Ebyobuhangwa Association
FR Forest Reserve
KK Kasyoha Kitomi
NU NatureUganda
1. INTRODUCTION 7
1.1. Background 7
1.2. Objectives of the Study 8
1.3. Methodology 8
3. FINDINGS 14
3.1. Assessment of progress in implementation of CFM 14
3.1.1. Awareness creation and training 14
3.1.2. Formation of community based organizations 14
3.1.3. Livelihood interventions 16
3.2. Capacity of the CBOs to negotiate CFM agreements for resource access,
rights and responsibilities 16
3.3. Participation and involvement of the local communities in managing the CFRs 16
3.3.1. Participation in planning 16
3.3.2. Participation in forest protection 16
3.3.3. Participation in forest restoration activities 17
3.3.4. Benefit Sharing 17
3.4. Evaluation of the impact of CFM implementation in the CFR 18
3.4.1. Social impacts 18
3.4.2. Economic impacts 18
3.4.3. Environmental Impacts 18
ANNEX 1: Roles, responsibilities, rights and benefits of stake holders in kanywambogo environmental and
development association (keda) 26
CFM activities in Echuya Central Forest Reserve (CFR) started in 2004 with funding from the People Parner with
Nature (PPN) Project, implemented by NatureUganda (NU), in collaboration with the National Forestry Authority
(NFA). The Development Objective of PPN Project was to “Reduce the destruction of forested IBAs and
contribute to the realisation of best participatory forest management practices for the benefit of all”.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
This report is mainly based on the original report prepared and submitted to NatureUganda in 2011, but with
some updated information to take into consideration new developments. The original study applied participatory
approaches and a mix of primary and secondary data collection methods, including review of literature, focus
group discussions, interview of key informants and field observations. The participation of the CFM community-
based organizations (CBOs) established through the guidance of NatureUganda, NFA staff, local government
officials and NatureUganda was instrumental in this study.
Because of the production and biodiversity importance of the FR, the Forest Management Plan (2006) provides for
a Community Livelihoods Working Circle which has the following objectives:
i. NFA, in collaboration with other organizations/institutions, will promote the meeting of basic needs and
alternative sources of wood products to improve the living conditions of the people.
ii. Communities adjacent to the FR will be encouraged to plant trees or engage in other initiatives for income
generation.
iii. Institutions such as National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), District Forestry Services, non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs)] will be encouraged to
give technical advice to farmers and local authorities in tree planting and other forestry programmes for
community benefit.
The Working Circle recognises that the forest resource available cannot meet all the demands of the rising population.
Therefore the forest management plan encourages support to the communities to enable them supplement the
resources from the FR by providing alternative wood and non-wood products through individual, family or group tree
planting and other income-generating activities on their land. In addition, it provides for licensed planting of woodlots
of suitable species in the grassland areas of the FR by the local people for the supply of timber, fuelwood and poles.
The Working Circle also provides for planting of trees along the FR boundary in a 10-20 metre strip inside the reserve
to meet their domestic and income needs. The implementation of CFM is in Kasyoha Kitomi is therefore supported
by the Management Plan, as well as the policy and legal provisions. However, since CFM is still a new practice in
protected areas, monitoring and evaluation of its implementation will continue to provide useful information to guide
future interventions. This assignment provides opportunity to inform all stakeholders about the experience and
lessons learnt so far from the Kasyoha Kitomi CFM interventions.
s
R.K
rk
0
N u ,
an y
Pa
on i
le Sem th
ati lik
w amb
al
o go
an wen en E o
R ue T
d K zo li
Kakasi
Q
300 22' E
R.
Bu F.R
hin
da g
i
IBANDA
COUNTY
do
to n
BUHWEJU COUNTY
u
R. Ch
R. R
ambu
ru
gu Kitomi N.R
ta un
ra
K
To ÷
÷ ≥#
BUNYARUGURU
% Katerera
COUNTY ‡
R.N
Station
go
ro
S
#
L.Kamunzuka Rukiri
Station
Ndekye Station
a
%
nd
he
#
ya
#
#
K
R.
Munyoni
R.L
‡
ub
S#
# S
al e
Bihanga Station
To Ishaka
Kasyoha N.R
R. N
Lut
oto
Lu Nyakashaka Station
ba
re S#
# S
Kalinzu R idg
F.R 0 e
30 06' E 5 0 5 Kilometres
i
Implementing Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda; 11
Lessons Learnt from Kasyoha Kitomi and Echuya Central Forest Reserve
2.2 ECHUYA CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE
Echuya CFR is situated in Bufumbira County (20% of its area) in Kisoro District while 80% of the forest is located
in Rubanda County now in Rubanda District (formerly Kabale District). It covers an area of 34km2 (340 ha) with
an altitudinal range of 2270 - 2750 m. It is situated on a high altitudinal ridge between L. Bunyonyi, 5 km to the
east and Mgahinga National Park 13km to the south west and 11km east of Kisoro town. The forest is dominated
by bamboo (Sinarudinaria alpina) on the hill tops and other woody and herbaceous plants especially Macaranga
on the hill sides and valley bottoms. Echuya CFR is a unique Afromontane habitat and an area of high endemism.
Particularly, it is an important bird area (IBA) AND Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) with about 137 species of birds
including Albertine rift endemics and a significant population of the globally endangered Grauer’s swamp warbler
(Bradyptereus graueri).
High human population density, extreme poverty and heavy dependence on the forest resources by the
neighbouring communities exert immense pressure on the forest reserve. NatureUganda concentrated on setting
up structures, namely organising and building capacity of six CFM associations in two sites, supporting prioritised
income generating activities including those targeting only women, setting up forest health monitoring systems
and building capacity of communities to apply them. Additionally, the Programme initiated advocacy activities
through the CFM associations that targeted to influence both the district local government and the central
government’s actions and decisions.
This role has seen the CFM groups linked to the Uganda Network of Collaborative Forest Associations
(UNETCOFA), an umbrella network for Collaborative Forest Management for individual and sub-regional networks
of CFM Associations that are constituted of local level CFM groups.
12 Implementing Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda;
Lessons Learnt from Kasyoha Kitomi and Echuya Central Forest Reserve
Muchuya Swamp in Echuya Forest Reserve
The relevance of the above stakeholders in CFM process is well appreciated. Annex 1 shows the KEDA example
of the roles, rights and benefits of the key parties involved, as they are enshrined in the CFM Plan which is part
and parcel of the CFM agreement. Each of these institutions tried to carry out their responsibilities in the best
way they could. Whereas some districts participation was limited to attending official functions like launching
and signing of the CFM agreements, others such as Kisoro and Rubanda in Echuya Landscape and Rubirizi
District in the KK landscape became part o te projects implementation partners. For example Rubirizi District
had advertised for Vermin Guards at the time of the study.
The Project also conducted CFM-related training events on conflict resolution; participatory resource
assessment; gender mainstreaming; institutional development; alternative income generating activities and
enterprise planning and implementation.
Training in management of enterprises and agroforestry practices were considered important in improving the
livelihoods of the FACs and reducing the over-dependence on forests products for their survival. Inter-parish
exchange visits were also organized to share lessons and experience in CFM implementation. In addition there
were exchange visists between the sites (Echuya and KK). These trainings were carried out in order to improve
skills, influence attitudes and provide knowledge that was necessary for successful implementation of CFM.
Table 1: Second Level CBOs Established by PEMA Project around Kasyoha Kitomi CFR
No.
Name of SL primary Youth/ Total No.
Parish CBO CBOs Women Men PWD of people
1. Buzenga BUECA 16 181 149 330
All the CBOs had signed CFM agreements with the NFA. The CFM guidelines were followed to generate
information to guide negotiations and inform the CFM agreements.
The following were the key weaknesses associated with the promotion of enterprises among the communities.
i. All the enterprises existed before PEMA II among communities and there was no clear message as to
the value-addition brought by PEMA II.
ii. The scale of some enterprises (e.g. 4 pigs for 300 households) meant that the gestation period of
waiting to benefit would be long for some families.
iii. The message on the linkage between the enterprises and conservation was weak.
iv. The choice of the enterprises, and their scale were not informed by basic benefit-cost analysis.
The implementation of CFM is highly dependent on CBOs as local institutions within the forest adjacent
communities that can steer CFM processes. The CBOs are recognized by communities and the responsible
bodies (in this case NFA). They are empowered to undertake activities on behalf of the communities, including
negotiating the CFM agreements and mobilizing the communities for CFM implementation. Apart from propelling
their formation, the Project invested in building their capacity to enable them to perform their roles effectively.
The capacity building activities included awareness creation and training as described in section 3.1.1 above. In
addition, the actual CFM implementation process provided hands-on experience to the communities in general,
but especially the CBOs.
The members of the CBOs who were directly involved in the entire CFM development process, particularly those
on the CFM Planning Teams, were better versed with the CFM-related policies, laws and the CFM guidelines.
The iterative process of negotiation of the CFM agreements provided opportunity for the CBOs to understand
the CFM process better and learn more about the intricate issues involved in conservation of biodiversity.
Key informants and focus groups indicated that the draft agreements were thoroughly discussed in general
meetings in which all the people were invited (see Box 1 for an outline of the milestones in the negotiation
process). This helped them to internalise the issues involved. They were real negotiations because even in some
of the meetings, sticky issues (e.g. timber harvesting, grasslands for tree planting in the FR) were openly and
conclusively discussed, with NU playing a mediation role, especially where they were disagreements.
However, the majority of the people within the CFM parishes did not fully understand the meaning and
implication of CFM agreements. To some, CFM was about allowing local communities free access the forest
reserve, especially for timber harvesting. In other cases, the CFM process was carried out hurriedly and the
communities did not sufficiently understand the steps given in the CFM Guidelines. After the CFM agreements
were signed, NU and NFA had to revisit some of the activities to help the members of the planning teams to
sharpen their negotiation skills. Even among the staff of NFA and NU, there was still need to strengthen capacity
to understand fully the concept and application of CFM so that they are all confident to independently steer the
CFM development process.
In general, CFM was considered as entailing technical approaches which required continued hands-on practice
in order to acquire the needed knowledge and skills. The continued support of the Project and other partners
was therefore necessary to firm the communities and other implementing stakeholders in the principles and
practices of CFM. NFA was also known to transfer staff, bringing in new ones who had no knowledge and
skills in CFM implementation. To this end, the continued capacity building process was needed for both the
communities and the CFM implementing partners.
The benefits are clearly indicated in the CFM plans. However, the benefit sharing mechanisms are not clearly
stipulated therein. A number of issues have made the communities to lose trust in the agreement arrangement.
For instance, while harvesting of various forest products for commercial purposes is included in the CFM
agreements, communities are still required to obtain a licence through the normal NFA procedures despite the
agreements. In effect access to harvest some of the forest products or plant trees is still limited. Similarly, tree
planting in the CFR would require the communities to get a separate licence. The CBOs are concerned that they
are subjected to other conditions when in effect the CFM agreement is supposed to be a binding document
Access to resources in the forest was a major motivation for community participation in CFM. Because of the
continued restricted access, the CFM members started compromising their integrity and fall back to forest
crime. In addition, the communities felt that the financial benefits they got from participating in forest protection
did not match their contribution. Simply put, the benefits are not commensurate to the level of effort they put in.
It was apparent that the CFM negotiation process between the communities and NFA did not sufficiently go into
details to ensure clarity roles, responsibilities, benefits and risks, and mitigation of conflicts.
The men who used to be employed as timber carriers by illegal pitsawyers have settled and contributing their
labour for increased agricultural production. It was observed that banana production in Mwongyera Parish had
increased owing to the increased labour force and application of soil and water conservation interventions. Also,
the children who used to be timber carriers are now able to go to school, and the men spend more time with
their families than before
Food security
The Project does not expressly focus on improving the food security of the FACs. However, the increased
involvement of the FACs in crop production, livelihood interventions and other income generating activities was
contributing to enhanced food security.
The project interventions themselves have established (in some cases individuals sold products such as passion
fruits, mushrooms, potatoes, bamboos, pigs, wine, etc). Whereas it still too early to assess the impact of the
income generating activities, however, as family projects continue to mature and the members are selling various
products, it is likely that these activities will boost household incomes, improve food security and improved
livelihoods at household level. In Echuya where the project interventions started earlier, there are records and
evidence of financial benefits trickling to the communities. For instance, many people who had embraced
growing of bamboo had started earning some income. It was also noted that whereas the green bamboo from
the FR costs about UGX 300 per stem, those on private lands are going for UGX 600, and this is stirring a lot of
interest among the people to grow bamboo.
Some challenges related to the implementation of the livelihood activities were however experienced. Some
benefits have reached very few people in the CBOs, let alone complete parishes. For example only about
60 pigs have been distributed among 1040 members of RPTPA. In some cases, few tree seedlings were
distributed to members especially in KK landscape. Such meagre interventions hardly create visible impacts on
family incomes, and hence the FACs pleaded the Project for more supplies.
In the focus group discussion in Mwongyera Parish, it was noted that the engagement of men in enterprises on-
farm has led to an increase in agricultural production, especially bananas, owing to the increased labour force
(people who have left the timber cutting related businesses), and the soil and water conservation interventions.
The proceeds from the sale of bananas are now used for paying fees for children who formerly used to be the
main carriers of timber which was cut by the men before the initiation of CFM in the area.
One woman in Buzenga, who confessed to have been one of the main timber dealers with a big store in the
area then, testified that the forest staff used to get bribes from them and turn around to arrest them once the
timber was in the store, and this made for continuous losses. But now, from the interventions of PEMA Project
and NFA, especially in soil and water conservation and the savings and credit arrangements established, she
earns “clean money” and has developed her family more than when she was dealing in timber
However, the project had been implemented for only four years, and this is too short for the forest cover to
be restored to near the original state. But it does indicate that the forest restoration campaign was effective in
getting the local people to appreciate the importance of effective forest protection.
Sustainability
In terms of sustainability, focus group discussions and key informants indicated that when NU goes, sustainability
of the people’s commitment was uncertain because there was very little input on the side of Government. The
same fears were also voiced by NFA staff.
ii. Granting legal rights is a strong incentive for forest dependent communities to win their commitment for
sustainable forest management (SFM). The legal right issuance is a motivation to local communities to
be engaged in conserving forests even when they are degraded forestlands with no ready-to- harvest
products.
iii. Effective and successful livelihood support from complementary natural resources related interventions
constitutes a good entry point and vehicle for building trust. It can also be used as an incentive to attract
community members to CFM, and creates opportunities to offer frequent interaction between NGOs,
government and local community. The gains in terms of cash and otherwise from the complementary
livelihood strategies allows members of CBOs to be less dependent on the forest and to allow forests
to restore. This is particularly important as parts of the forest allocated for CFM are often degraded and
are unable to provide sufficient short-term subsistence and cash needs to the members of CBO;
iv. Promoting alternative livelihood strategies allows forest aggradations and encourages CBOs to continue
with CFM processes, and to build their capacity and skills in becoming strong partners in SFM;
v. Diversification of livelihoods also contributes to food security, including better nutrition, and improved
health. It also allows the community to analyze the complex interrelationships between ecosystem
components, livelihood systems and to appreciate the need for integrated natural resource management.
Most of the livelihood interventions are agricultural. Sustainable operations of these livelihood activities
are basically supported by healthy forest ecosystems not only by inputs. For instance, unless water
resources are available, which in most cases are flowing from the forest ecosystem, sustainable rainfall
is unthinkable. Intensification of agricultural production through the complementary intervention on
already owned land would curb the horizontal expansion, which has been the case in the parishes
where the project has been operating;
vi. Building the capacity of all stakeholders in CFM partnership is an important pre-requisite for fruitful
understanding of CFM principles and practices, meaningful negotiations of the fruitful implementation.
All stakeholders must be clear about the relationships, responsibilities, rights and returns (benefits).
The process of negotiating the CFM agreements provided an added opportunity for the CBOs to
understand the CFM process better and learn more about the intricate issues involved in conservation
of biodiversity.
vii. CFM is best initiated by a third party (e.g. an NGO) but the process should be progressively handed
over to the two principal parties, with the third party remaining on the side lines to smooth out difficult
issues that arise from time to time.
viii. The wavering nature of NFA’s operational approaches towards CFM makes it difficult for the local
partners to trust that the CFM agreement is sufficient to safeguard their investments in certain activities
like tree growing in the FR. Neither does the NFA fully trust the local people to use the FR land and
resources without close supervision. The gap in mutual trust is still big, but it will continue narrowing as
NFA progressively fulfils its obligations under CFM plan.
x. Commitment to the nature and type of benefits shared is important in fostering trust among the local
partner in order to become effective partners in implementing CFM. The biggest problem in the CFM
partnership is the failure to develop formal benefit sharing mechanisms. The mechanisms are particularly
needed in the case of sharing proceeds from sale of illegal timber impounded through joint FR patrols.
Continued procrastination by NFA in allowing some degree of access for timber harvesting is making
the people restless, with possibilities of young people reverting to their old illegal activities.
xi. The support to livelihood activities provided through facilitating interventions, such as that of NU, is
usually very limited but catalytic. It tends to spread too thinly on the ground. The approach creates
a sense of inadequate achievement among those who receive one or two items, and disappointment
among those who do not get anything, and yet they belong to the same CBO. This is the case in most
of the CBOs involved in this study.
xii. Non-forest income-generating activities (e.g. piggery) do not have a direct forest conservation link
(except in cases where the beneficiaries were formerly engaged in hunting in the FR), and may not
necessarily guarantee sustainable community participation in CFM. Injection of funds into activities that
are not seen as forest-related (e.g. growing tea plantlets for sale at Rwajere) can generate enthusiasm
for CFM but it does not necessarily mean that the CBO members will remain committed to CFM.
All focus groups indicated that tree growing alone would not keep the CBOs alive. However, these
activities help to reduce the pressure on the FRs more so if they are of a commercial scale and are
evenly distributed among the CBO members
xiii. For CFM to get rooted into the normal business of forest management and conservation, it is important
that NFA staff appreciate it as an important activity, both at the field and top management levels. Divided
loyalties to CFM by the NFA superstructure create a sense of frustration among the forest-level staff,
and undermine community trust in the implementation of CFM. On the other hand, NFA transfers CFM-
wise staff without careful consideration of the qualities of those being brought in to replace them. This
results in lack of continuity and sustainability.
xiv. Development and implementation of CFM is a long process, and requires deliberate investment in
terms of funding and staff development. Initial investment would have to be done by the NFA and/or its
institutional partners (e.g. NGOs). This then tends to attract investments from other organisations which
are interested in working with organised communities that are involved in forest management and tree
growing.
xv. Honest and dedicated leadership of the participating organizations is key to meaningful CFM partnership.
In CBOs where leadership had vested interests, there was not much to show on the ground, while in
those CBOs with honest and dedicated leadership, progress is noticeable. A problem in leadership at
the helm of NFA was also the main reason why CFM had not received the support that is commensurate
with the importance accorded to it in the policy and law.
Recommendation: NFA should promote and invest in CFM as a tool for sustainable forest
management. NFA should also take deliberate effort to train her staff in CFM policy and
practices to ensure proper and appropriate implementation of CFM
ii. (ii) The implementation of CFM is highly dependent on the establishment of community based organizations
within the CFM area. The CBOs are recognized by the communities themselves as well as the responsible
body, and act as the focal point for community mobilization, negotiations of the CFM agreement and
development and implementation of the CFM plan. The capacity of the CBOs to drive the CFM process
will depend on the knowledge and skills of the members in the areas of CFM related policy and laws and
institutional arrangements. The members should also have good leadership and negotiation skills, among
others. For best performance, an independent external facilitator is necessary to guide the FACs to build
the case for CBOs and build their capacity for effective CFM partnerships.
iii. (iii) Incentives such as access to forest products and land for tree planting and direct financial benefits
are important in motivating the local communities. Some of the initiatives may be within the forest reserve,
while other benefits may be anchored outside. However, it is important that such incentives should be
clearly defined and understood by all parties, who in turn should be committed to their obligations to ensure
realization of incentives to the beneficiaries. Failure or lack of clarity in the flow of the incentives can break
trust among the parties and increase conflicts.
Recommendation: The CFM negotiation process between the communities and NFA must
provide for sufficient discussions and adequate details to ensure clarity and mitigate conflicts
before signing the CFM agreement.
iv. (iv) The nine-step CFM process takes a long period of time before eventually the parties arrive at a CFM
agreement and its subsequent implementation. This is mainly because it takes some time for both the
communities and NFA staff to understand, assimilate and commit themselves to CFM principles and
practices. There are also variations within the communities, with some moving faster than others. However,
stretching the CFM negotiation for too long (more than one year) does not necessarily increase the attitude
of process ownership exponentially. Realistic ownership comes with implementation.
v. (v) Although CFM is seen as contributing a lot towards sustainable forest management (SFM), it has not
yet been demonstrably accepted as a normal forest management practice by both partners. The partners
view CFM as a project that will come to a close, especially because the CFM development process was
championed by an NGO. This attitude is augmented by the fact that over the years of implementing the PEMA
or PPN Projects, NFA has not invested much in CFM in the same area or other forest reserves. Even the
Katanda CFM agreement negotiated through a process initiated by NFA with funding from Prime West could
not be signed. The NFA field staff had to ride on the back of the CFM agreements initiated by NU to have the
agreement signed.
Recommendation: The independent NGO (Nature Uganda) should continue building the
capacity of the FACs so that they are in position to undertake CFM processes and lobby and
advocate for their rights as well as promote community-based forest management initiative.
Where possible NFA should build its capacity with support from partners so as to be a dependable
partners in CFM and in SFM.
NatureUganda has its secretariat in Kampala- Naguru, and services its 2,000
members and supporters though branches in Gulu, Mbale, Busitema and
Mbarara.
Inspired by the original purpose of the East African Natural History Society to
document natural history of East Africa, NatureUganda’s work is hinged on
scientific information generated through well laid down research and moni-
toring programmes. Considering that 90% of Uganda’s GDP is derived from
Natural Resources (tourism, forestry, fisheries), biodiversity conservation is a
priority for the country. NatureUganda supports biodiversity protection and
economic development through its research, monitoring and conservation
programme, which provides quality scientific information mainly using birds
as indicators to support local and national governments to make informed
decisions. The support is provided through established partnerships with
government agencies including Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), National
Forestry Authority (NFA), National Environment Management Authority
(NEMA), Wetlands Management Department (WMD).
This report of “Implementing Collaborative Forest Management in Uganda;
Lessons Learnt from Kasyoha Kitomi and Echuya Central Forest Reserve” is
a culmination of this collaboration effort to document the status of biodiversi-
ty in Uganda.
NatureUganda
Plot 1, Katalima Crescent, Lower Naguru, P.O. Box 27034 Kampala, Uganda,
Tel: 256-414-540719, Email: [email protected], www.natureuganda.org