65878 ParticiPatory Forest ManageMent and redd+ in tanzania Policy note The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders. Supporting research for this document was carried out from July to October 2010. ii Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania Cover photo by Steve Ball Background Tanzania’s land, local government and forest laws empower rural communities with well-defined rights to own, manage and benefit from forest and woodland resources within their local areas through the establishment of village forests. This approach, known by practitioners as Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) leads to the legal establishment of Village Land Forest Reserves, Community Forest Reserves or Private Forests. A second approach called Joint Forest Management (JFM) takes place in government forest reserves, where management responsibilities are shared between local communities and the state. Spread of these two approaches has been relatively rapid over the past 15 years. By 2008, 1,460 villages on mainland Tanzania were involved in establishing or managing village forests covering over 2.345 million hectares. Additional 863 villages are currently involved in Joint Forest Management (JFM) approaches within government forest reserves, in which management responsibilities are shared by government and local communities. 1.78 million hectares of forest reserve under central or local government jurisdiction are currently under Joint Forest Management. Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania 1 Photo by Tom Blomley 2 Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania Since 2008, the Tanzanian government has useful insights to REDD+ policy and practice been making preparations for the establishment in Tanzania. of systems and structures for REDD+ (Reduced This policy brief is a summary of a Emissions from Deforestation and Forest larger report intended to provide social and Degradation). institutional inputs to the development of Since its genesis in Tanzania in the early policy processes currently evolving in Tanzania 1990s, a significant body of experience has regarding REDD+. emerged demonstrating optimal conditions for participatory forest management (PFM) approaches to be successful, as well as some Forest tenure and carbon rights of the underlying constraints to its scaling up. Transferring secure and unambiguous forest Experiences gained over the past 15 years in the tenure rights to community level managers is a development, implementation and scaling up of key means to restoring degraded forests. participatory forest management offers a range of Tanzania is currently promoting two different models of PFM––one where forest management rights and responsibilities are transferred from 2,500 central or local government to community institutions in a legally enforceable manner (CBFM) and another where responsibilities 2,000 for management are shared between the state and local actors (JFM) and where carbon rights Area (million hectares) 1,500 are largely unclear. Of the two models being promoted in Tanzania, CBFM appears to be more effective in improving forest condition and 1,000 reducing overall levels of forest disturbance. Studies conducted since 2001 point to the fact that when clear and enforceable rights, together 500 with corresponding responsibilities, are fully devolved (as under CBFM), incentives appear to be sufficient for communities to invest in 0 1999 2002 2006 2008 forest restoration and long term management. Year In situations where community managers Forest area under CBFM (hectares) are subject to weaker tenure, unclear rights Forest area under JFM (hectares) and external governance influences, the link to improvements in forest management and Figure 1: Spread of CBfm and Jfm between 1999 and 2008 conditions appears to be less clear. Therefore, Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania 3 these findings suggest that verifiable emission categories––“reserved� land, “village� land reductions from reduced deforestation and forest and “general� land. Reserved land is land set degradation are more likely to be realized in aside by the government for a specific purpose situations where forest (and carbon) tenure rights (such as biodiversity conservation through the are clear and enforceable, and when these rights establishment of nature reserves or national and responsibilities are devolved to the lowest parks). Village land is land that is under the possible level. direct management of village governments and includes land for settlement as well as local Inconsistencies in the land legislation over the use, contained within the “village area.� The extent and nature of “general� and “village 1999 Village Land Act defines general land as land� could create conflicts between central a residual category––‘all public land which is government and community forest managers not reserved land or village land’. In contrast over benefits from trees and forest carbon and somewhat confusingly, the 1999 Land Land in Tanzania is divided into three broad Act defines general land as ‘all public land, which is not reserved land or village land and includes unoccupied or unused village land’. Box 1 There are no provisions in either Act that clarify Village land or general land? what exactly the definition of unoccupied The Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) has developed a REDD+ and unused refers to. As a result of these legal demonstration pilot project in western Tanzania. The project inconsistencies and weaknesses, interpretations site encompasses the vast masito-Ugalla Ecosystem (mUE). vary widely between different parts of The mUE is a forested landscape of approximately 10,827 km2, composed mostly of native miombo woodlands and includes government about the true extent of village land 13 villages. The mUE is made up of approximately 470 km2 of with regard to general land (Box 1). woodlands actively managed by the 13 villages and on village This inconsistency creates further legal land; an additional 1,538 km2 of woodlands within two National “grey-areas� with regard to the management forest Reserves; and an additional 2,683 km2 of forest and and beneficiaries of timber harvesting on village woodland described by fBD as “General Lands�. land. This is because the Forest Act (2002) This “General Lands� designation has been challenged by a legislates differently for trees found on general number of key individuals in the surrounding 13 villages, arguing land as opposed to village land. Where the that these lands are ancestral, customary in nature and used boundaries between village land and general by villagers before the “villagization� exercise of the 1970s. As a land are uncertain, roles and responsibilities result, they argue, they are village lands and should be managed with regard to the management of trees, as well by the village council. Staff from the District Council (supported by NGOs such as JGI) argue that these areas are “unused and as the payment and beneficiaries of royalties unoccupied� and due to their size and distance from villages are and other revenues is often uncertain and open difficult to manage. Consequently, the land is general land and to local interpretation. This uncertainty is only administration falls under the remit of central government. likely to be accentuated through the addition of 4 Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania unclear carbon rights through REDD+. the need for a fund-based approach for carbon Looking to the future, it will be important for payments at the local level. Tanzania has a government to help clarify the following legal long history of effecting inter-governmental questions: transfers, particularly through the rapidly • the status and legal definition of “unused evolving local government reform process. PFM, and unoccupied� village land, outside as implemented by the Forestry and Beekeeping village land forest reserves and in particular Division has been instrumental in linking the those lands with extensive forest or transfer of financial and technical resources woodland cover; to local governments through decentralization reforms. The particular nature of REDD+ funds • the actual extent and geographical may, however, not lend it to full integration distribution of village, general and reserved within local government transfer systems, and land; it is likely that a more “stand-alone� model • the rights of village governments to carbon will be adopted. A number of options present revenues in unreserved forests on village themselves regarding the identify of such a land, and the possibility of creating more fund––although some form of autonomous, positive incentives for local management non-governmental status seems likely, perhaps and conservation; building on the experiences of the Eastern • the rights of community level forest Arc Mountains Conservation Endowment managers to carbon revenues in JFM forests; Fund, which now disburses funds directly to and community based organizations and NGOs as a means to support effective biodiversity • the beneficiaries of carbon sales in areas conservation. While establishing an independent under wildlife management areas (WMAs), organization offers a number of benefits in terms where agreements have already been reached of transparency and effectiveness, it will be regarding the sharing of wildlife hunting important to ensure that transaction costs do not revenues between village, district and become prohibitive, thereby limiting potential central governments revenues to community and household levels. Furthermore, it will be important to clarify the basis and rationale by which REDD+ payments Benefit sharing will be made. Will they be based simply on Key decisions have to be made regarding verified emission reductions due to reduced the nature and identity of a national REDD+ deforestation, or will other factors such as social fund, and in particular, how the demands for safeguards, good governance, biodiversity and accountability, vertical reach and national pro-poor approaches also be used to direct coverage can be reconciled at reasonable payments? cost. Government is increasingly emphasizing Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania 5 6 Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania Without the introduction of specific safeguards awareness, consultation and consent and mitigation strategies, there is a high risk that the benefits of local forest management Creating opportunities for communication will be captured by more affluent, literate and between national government agencies socially mobile members of the community, at responsible for REDD+ and other actors at local the expense of poorer and more marginalized level is a central aspect of a successful outreach households. Much of the debate surrounding the strategy. This involves managing expectations, issue of benefit sharing in REDD+ concerns how clarifying misconceptions and securing consent. future REDD+ payments will be shared between Furthermore, providing opportunities for stakeholders at the national level and those learning from field pilots ensures that policies operating at the field, or sub-national level and are developed based on local realities. As a involved directly in the management of forests. new, and rapidly evolving approach, with However, experience from Tanzanian PFM has the potential to inject significant amounts of shown that it is equally important to consider additional financing into Tanzania, REDD+ has how benefits are shared within communities the potential to create unrealistic expectations to avoid the risk of poorer members of a given as well as misconceptions relating to forest community losing out from the direct benefits exclusion and foregone use. As government of PFM. Particular risks within ongoing PFM together with NGOs and other projects move processes have been identified that either towards the implementation of REDD+, ensuring consolidate the position of richer and more effective communication at all levels of society influential members of the community, or will be of utmost importance. Perhaps most conversely result in increased marginalization importantly, community members must clearly of poorer members. If these risks are to be understand the costs, benefits and potential risks avoided, it will be important to develop and of REDD+ projects and have the opportunity to introduce specific safeguards. They might discuss it internally before taking any kind of include measures designed to ensure that forest decision. PFM experience has highlighted the management committees provide formal and risks of focusing exclusively on communicating regular opportunities for members to review and and negotiating with village leaders, in the question how decisions are taken and how any absence of a more widespread agreement at funds have been distributed. It may also include community levels. measures to ensure that poor households, It will be important to strengthen the dialogue dependent on forests and woodlands, for their between government and REDD+ pilot projects livelihoods are not negatively impacted by the across the country (as well as between projects introduction of PFM or REDD+, which may working on similar problems in different introduce rules restricting access and use–– areas) as a means to strengthen the transfer of rules which may hit poorer, forest dependent experiences, but also as a means to inform and households disproportionately hard. influence policy development processes in an Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania 7 Photo by Tom Blomley iterative and practical manner. A strong and and dispersed, rather than in large, continuous open engagement between PFM pilot projects blocks. This presents significant challenges and the government in the 1990s helped create for MRV processes within community-level a vibrant and supportive legal and policy projects and raises questions regarding the framework that forms the foundation for much economic viability of REDD+ processes in these of the positive progress witnessed across areas due to potentially high transaction costs. Tanzania to date. Pilot REDD+ projects currently being funded by the Norwegian government have recognised this constraint and are experimenting with Monitoring, reporting various models that allow for transaction costs and verification to be reduced through economies of scale. The Tanzania Community Forest Conservation Local forest managers have a demonstrated Network (known more commonly by its track record in the monitoring of forest Kiswahili acronym––MJUMITA) is proposing to condition, biomass and disturbance to a level establish a “carbon co-operative� which would of accuracy comparable to that achieved offer participating community forest managers by experts and at considerably lower cost. the opportunity to market REDD+ credits to the Experiences from a number of PFM sites in voluntary market, through the adoption of agreed Tanzania, particularly in Iringa district, have common standards and criteria. This would pointed to the important role played by local build upon Tanzania’s long history of supporting forest managers in monitoring of forest condition agricultural marketing co-operatives. and disturbance. Furthermore, as managers of the resource itself, they are perhaps best placed Leakage, particularly within sites managed to oversee monitoring, so that it can feedback under JFM, remains a concern. Recent into management decision-making. research has highlighted the risks of leakage, As the highly-technical debate on MRV particularly within JFM sites. Consequently, evolves in Tanzania, it will be important not it will be important to invest resources in to lose sight of the very real and effective understanding when, how and where leakage contribution community-level forest managers occurs and how mitigating actions may be can make to this process. taken to avoid it. This may involve working at a broader, landscape level, and applying similar There is a need to explore options for the management approaches (and bylaws) across aggregation of carbon accounting and forest management areas under various forms of payments at project level. Forests managed control. and owned by village governments, community groups and individuals tend to be fragmented 8 Participatory Forest Management and redd+ in tanzania THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Telephone: (202) 473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/sdcc Email: socialdevelopment@worldbank.org.