Forest Governance Hearing

Second Round of Plenary Discussions

Merja Makela – Embassy of Finland: Ms. Makela wondered who is looking after 19 million ha of general land forests, since only 12.5 million ha of Tanzania’s more than 30 million ha of forest are managed by TFS. She wondered how PFM was being promoted in order to better manage the majority of forests not under government management. Pily Kondo Chamguhi – Masaki Ward, Kisarawe: Ms. Chamguhi claimed that collusion between traders and Forest Officers was widespread. She asked what Tanzania would do without the Development Partners and the NGOs, especially with regards to forestry. She felt that the government is not seriously monitoring challenging issues in lands and forestry. Shafia Amiri – MJUMITA: Mr. Amiri stated that good information flow was needed in the sector. He informed the plenary that although TFS had distributed beehives to staff in many districts, 100 of those beehives in Same District had not been provided to target communities. He also stated that beehives provided free of charge were not valued by villagers, as he was aware that beehives were being used as “chairs” in Msoga Village. Issa Rwabusimbi – Mingoyo Sawmills: Mr. Rwabusimbi proposed that, instead of the current fragmented timber trade, consolidated timber markets should be established in every major town in Tanzania. Yahaya Mtonda – Tanzania Forests Conservation Group (TFCG): TFS should continue to support Ruvu South Forest Reserve, including support to the Eastern Zone Forest Manager. He urged that more forestry information be provided to communities. Evarist Moshi – Farm Africa: Mr. Mushi said there was an urgent need to provide capacity building support to Village Executive Officers, who otherwise are leading in corrupt practices. Geoffrey Mwanjela – Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF): Mr. Mwanjela encouraged the use of study tours and exchange visits as valuable learning experiences. Valentine Msusa – TFS: The Forest Act of 2002 directs that general lands forest are to be managed by TFS. PFM will be financed through cost/benefits sharing agreements entered into between TFS and districts. Mr. Msusa accepted that TFS had learnt much from NGOs and from fora such as the Forest Governance Hearing event that was taking place. He mentioned that the Forest Policy and Forest Act were being reviewed in order to incorporate elements of REDD. Mr. Msusa informed participants that of TSh 67 billion that was collected by the agency, TFS were given only TSh 30 billion. TFS would like to have its own budget code within the Ministry of Finance, so that they can retain 100% of the revenues they collect. TFS would like to pay their own salaries and have full control over staff and equipment. Participants were informed that the former DNRO and DFOs in Same and Kigoma Districts had been stripped of their Forest Officer status. The Tanzania Association of Foresters (TAF) is currently developing a forester’s code of ethics. The harvesting guidelines of 2007 were also being reviewed and all policies, laws and guidelines were being reviewed for subsequent dissemination to stakeholders. Simon Milledge – IIED: Mr. Milledge stressed the importance of good governance in forestry. He also stressed that benefits need to be prioritized more, by asking which forest based enterprises can lift the livelihoods of communities (e.g. woodlots, beekeeping or even sustainable charcoal). Mr. Milledge explained that 4 conditions were necessary for sustainable forest enterprises to occur, namely 1) Tenure – by streamlining the process to make it cheaper, faster; 2) Markets – making exchange of goods and services possible; 3) Extension – by making information readily accessible; and 4) Representation – stakeholder voice in decision making fora.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The main governance issues raised by the testifiers included the need for:

• 
  Communication and education on community rights and responsibilities increased
  
• 
  Benefit sharing arrangements implemented
  
• 
  Implementation of exiting legal frameworks including prosecutions
  
• 
  Preventing corruption, illegal forest trade and collusion between authorities and unscrupulous actors
  
• 
  Community and Private Sector engagement
  
• 
  Improvements and Simplification of guidelines
  
• 
  Alternative income-generation and Forest Enterprises promoted
  

 

A rather artificial distinction is often made between government, private sector and community when it comes to village level. This results in a polarised, accusatory debate.  For example, it is apparent that many community members engaged in forest initiatives hold a position of responsibility at village or ward level, and are involved in some form of small-scale, mostly informal forestry related business.  The need to encourage collective responsibility was highlighted by the fact that some testifiers are themselves local government leaders and are therefore obliged to contribute to solving governance shortfalls.

Private sector representatives were not very vocal, apparently fearful of reprisal from government officials present.  The SHIVIMITA spokesman on the panel of experts mentioned the need to improve by simplifying the existing timber harvesting guidelines, the need for improved organisation of communities and the private sector, and the need for private sector self-regulation through a code of conduct. Useful piece of information was an initiative by the Tanzania Association of Foresters to develop a code of best practice for foresters although, it has apparently been ongoing for several years. 

 

Numerous remarks regarding government commitments to improving community participation and governance were made by the TFS representative including, the imminent finalisation of benefit-sharing regulations, TFS mechanisms to return revenue to communities, increases in manpower to one manager per government forest, log tracking, district nurseries, and planned employment on contract basis all graduates from three training institutions using TFS resources.  In addition the Tanzania Forest Fund is providing grants to community forestry projects worth between TSh. 5 million and 50 million.

 

Kilwa’s District Commissioner mentioned buy-in of communities in Nanjirinji Village as a result of owning their own forest and earning direct income from regulated sales of African Blackwood. The Kilwa DC mentioned a ban on sawnwood plank transport in Kilwa in order to encourage the transportation of logs, thereby reverting to a lower value-adding activity whilst arguably facilitating law enforcement.

 

The need for greater collaboration in land use planning and forest management plans, addressing drivers of deforestation and benefit sharing to pay for PFM in forests outside forest reserves was highlighted by development partners.  Sustainable financing mechanisms for community and individually-owned forests is an area that would benefit from more focus, given the TFS mandate to manage government forest reserves, the realities of limited REDD financing, changing donor priorities and the nature of existing private sector investment. The need to diversify thinking beyond PFM arrangements, which are more likely to secure village-level benefits if and when benefit sharing arrangements are agreed and implemented, to forest-based enterprises that may better secure income generation at the household level was also discussed. 

In terms of follow up a future event of a similar nature should encourage greater geographic spread of testifiers, as in the 26yh February meeting all the witnesses were from eastern Tanzania, from districts close to Dar-es-Salaam.  The potential of harnessing the gathering of many community-based forest practitioners during annual MJUMITA meetings needs investigating. The idea of undertaking some form of follow-up, post TRAFFIC report, assessment of forest governance is valid. However, some background information, the proposed meeting with private sector and dialogue with government is needed first before determining the nature of the assessment.  It will be useful to have a timeline for this process and inclusion within a work plan.

7.