0823-C1

From policies to practices: lessons from community forestry in Mozambique

E. Mansur and A. Zacarias ¹

Abstract

Community forestry and wildlife management (CFWM) is one of the strategies that the government of Mozambique has adopted to promote the sustainable use and conservation of the country's forest resources. Under new polices and legal framework, local communities are recognized as legal entities responsible for the use and conservation of forests and wildlife resources in their areas of influence. This enabling environment has promoted the creation of 61 community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) pilot initiatives in the ten provinces of the country, since the approval of the new Forests and Wildlife Policy in 1997. The approach is proving attractive and challenging for donors, government officials, technicians and local communities, which are now facing the question of how community forestry can be consolidated and further disseminated, if there is still a lack of clear mechanisms for benefit-sharing from people's participation in forest management.

Lessons from the ground testing of this new approach have shown that the lack of trained and experienced personnel in CBNRM in general, and the lack of simple and straightforward arrangements, including legal and regulatory instruments to facilitate community forestry, seriously hamper its effective implementation and dissemination.

This paper looks at the gaps between the policy and legal framework, and field implementation of participatory forestry in Mozambique. Methods, approaches, beliefs and myths concerning the involvement of local communities in the management of forests and wildlife resources are discussed. Conceptual models based on key arrangements for dissemination of CFWM are proposed.

Introduction

A country with 17 million inhabitants and 80 million ha, with 60% of its territory covered by natural forests and 70% of the population settled in rural areas, Mozambique has one of the most important sets of native forests in Southern Africa, where a strong linkage between people and forests prevails. Beyond their importance for local communities' subsistence, providing construction material, food, medicines, domestic fuel, recreation and other benefits; products from forests and trees can represent up to 93% of the annual cash income of the rural families (Pereira & Cossa, 2001).

Pressure on the forests comes in different forms: the low agriculture productivity (average of 500 kg of food crops per ha) forces farmers to clear more forests every year in search for fertile soils, and the fires associated with this practice can be seriously destructive. The export of hard wood logs is an incentive for selective exploitation of the better forest stands. The urban demand of fuelwood foments growing deforestation around the cities. Big game has been practically decimated during the decade long civil war that ended in 1992.

Moving from a central planning system into a decentralised, more efficient forestry service has been a challenge for the Mozambique government in the past 10 years. Presently, it is being recognised that people's participation in the management of the forests and wildlife resources is probably the only reasonable alternative to achieve an acceptable degree of sustainable resources use, for them to provide an effective contribution to poverty alleviation in a country where the per capita income of USD 134/year is amongst the 10 lowest in the world.

Policy trend

The issue of local people's participation in the management of natural resources gained momentum in Mozambique during the formulation of the National Forestry and Wildlife Programme (NFWP) that took place from 1991 to 1996. Participatory forestry and wildlife management became one of the four components of the Programme, which are:

Between 1997 and 1999 a national policy and strategy for forestry and wildlife development, as well as a new forestry and wildlife law were adopted. Both instruments are conducive to people's participation in natural resources management, decentralisation, delegation of authority, and officially recognize local communities' roles and rights over the use and conservation of forests and wildlife resources.

This framework is not dissociated from the other policies and legislation related to social benefits and natural resources conservation, such as the new land law - which automatically recognises local communities rights over the land they occupy, or the new environmental law - that call local communities for direct participation in law enforcement for nature conservation. The table below, adapted from Mansur and Nhantumbo (1998) summarises the legal and policy instruments recently developed in Mozambique that are supporting people's participation in natural resources management.

Table 1: Some policy and legal instruments relevant to the participatory development of the forestry and wildlife sector in Mozambique

Instruments	Approval
Policy and Strategy for Development of Forestry and Wildlife	April, 1997
Land law	October, 1997
Environmental law	October, 1997
National Forestry and Wildlife Programme (in the scope of PROAGRI)	April, 1998
Land law regulations	December, 1998
Forestry and wildlife law	March, 1999
Technical appendix to the land law	December 1999
Decree 15/2000 - Articulation of local government and traditional authorities	June 2000
Forestry and wildlife regulations	June 2002
Technical appendix to the forests and wildlife law for delegation of authority	in preparation
Ministerial Diploma for forests and wildlife tax sharing with local communities	in preparation

The practices

Mozambique's CFWM projects generally built from the pioneer initiative launched in 1995 in Tete province - the Tchuma Tchato project, inspired in the CAMPFIRE² programme developed in Zimbabwe (which in fact has been influencing various initiatives in the region³). Tchuma Tchato introduced in practical terms the concept of sharing benefits of the State with the local communities, when they are supporting wildlife management in their area of influence. This sharing occurs in form of cash, amounting to approximately 30% of the hunting fees collected yearly.

However, replicating Tchuma Tchato has been difficult for two main reasons: a) the model is based on the abundance of wildlife resources attractive for sports hunting (e.g. buffalos, elephants and lions), which are uncommon in post-war Mozambique; and b) because the government authorisation for sharing of hunting fees - a ministerial Diploma jointly issued by the Ministries of Justice, Finance, and Agriculture - is site specific, i.e. can only be applied in the designated Tchuma Tchato area. While the first cause refers to resources management, the second is purely related to a government policy, which is now likely to evolve with the issue of a new Diploma with countrywide coverage, delivering to local communities 20% of the tax revenues collected by the government in forestry and wildlife management activities.

Mozambique benefited from a major project in community forestry - "Support for Community Forestry and Wildlife Management", developed between 1997 and 2002, financed by the government of the Netherlands, implemented by the National Directorate of Forests and Wildlife (DNFFB) of the government of Mozambique with FAO technical assistance. As a project located inside the government forestry institution, and with pilot areas in five of the ten provinces, it was instrumental to open up the participatory forestry dialogue amongst the government and other forestry stakeholders, contributing to put CFWM in the national agenda.

Other initiatives started during the last five years, adding now to at least 61 pilot experiences distributed over the ten provinces of the country, ranging from coastal fisheries and participatory mangrove management to collaborative management of protected areas.

The challenge

Participatory management of natural resources is understood as a key strategy to address food security and poverty alleviation problems in rural Mozambique. However, and no matter how supportive the policy environment is at present, there is a concrete challenge for CBNRM to evolve from the pilot stage into a more consistent multiplication of initiatives, away from donor support and led by the stakeholders. The answer to this challenge seems to lie in the local communities themselves, who are eager to embrace participatory forestry and to engage in responsible management of natural resources whenever clear and tangible benefits can be envisaged from this activity. On the same way, these very communities would reject or abandon the initiatives that only give them the responsibility for nature conservation without concrete - even if small - benefits accrued from the management of natural resources. The examples below are illustrations:

Benefits for community scouts

The community of Senhote in Monapo district of Nampula province organized with the support of a project, a voluntary group of 14 community scouts, men and women, to assist in law enforcement and control of use of their 3,300 ha of natural forests, which have been neglected in the past. In their first intervention, around 12 logs of valuable tree species - Pterocarpus angolensis, Milletia stuhlmanni, and others, were confiscated from outsiders who have been exploiting these resources without license. The scouts immediately informed the local government authorities, who arranged the transfer of the apprehended products to the District Directorate of Agriculture (DDA), in Monapo. According to the regulations, confiscated products are property of the State and funds resulting from its auction must revert entirely to the State. The community scouts were left only in the possession of the hand tools taken from the illegal loggers. Knowing the value of the logs (estimated at a minimum of USD 1,000), but not benefiting from them, the community scouts lost their motivation to continue supporting law enforcement in that forest area (Mansur and Cuco, 2002).

Another example from Nampula:

Goats X wildlife

To revert the predatory hunting made by neighbouring communities in the Mecuburi Forest Reserve, a project decided to promote livestock raising and provided goats for some families in the villages. As the beneficiaries were not the hunters themselves, the goat production did not affect their activity and illegal hunting continued. In this case, the goat production did not contribute to the expected change of the attitude of the villagers towards the reserve.

Arrangements and models

As stated by Gilmour (2002), "the current policy focus for forest management generally translates as the dual goals of sustainable forest management and improved human well-being (even though the linkage between the two can be tenuous)". This is particularly true in Mozambique, where the use of the forest resources must contribute to poverty alleviation, hopefully without posing a threat to the resources for their use by the future generations.

As observed above, since 1995 the country is testing various approaches to promote CFWM. These experiences are undoubtedly needed in the goal-oriented action-learning process adopted. But sometimes this pluralistic, diverse approach is one of the reasons why the processes get stuck in the piloting phase, not reaching a regular and wider implementation scale.

An attempt is being made by the Community Management Unit (UMC) of the National Directorate of Forests and Wildlife of Mozambique (DNFFB) to address this issue: Based on the testing and learning of different methods, approaches and tools, UMC is trying to select the key arrangements - the ones that are fundamental to generate clear benefits for the local communities, and make them easy to apply.

A first list of CFWM arrangements being used in Mozambique has been systematized by Mansur and Cuco (2002) and includes: a) participatory and simplified management plans; b) guarantee of community access to the resources (e.g. through a land tenure certificate); c) assistance for the establishment and training of interest groups for forest management, including community scouts and small forestry based enterprises; d) provision of adequate incentives and credit, preferably through a community managed rotation fund; e) selection of appropriate, easy to introduce techniques for improved forestry and forest products; and f) strengthening of local cultural values, as the linkage between indigenous knowledge, nature conservation and cultural aspects are very strong in rural Mozambique.

Using the arrangements as the variables of a conceptual model, UMC is trying to define ways to disseminate "benefit oriented" CFWM initiatives. The models are not intended to be a recipe or a "blue print", but should provide sufficient guidance to short cut the long path of trial and errors that have been characterizing the interventions in the pilot areas, usually causing community fatigue and lack of motivation to proceed with the initiatives.

The expected output of the conceptual models is the generation of tangible benefits for the local communities involved. If really produced and shared with equity, this result would serve as the main motivator for community participation. The expected outcome of the models is the community voluntary engagement and long-term, self-reliant participation in forests and wildlife management.

Table 2 below illustrates the design of some of the conceptual models as they stand today, based on the lessons learned in the pilot areas of the Mozambique/FAO/Netherlands project "Support for community forestry and wildlife management". The models are not completed, and differ from each other on their degree of available information for dissemination. They are separated in three blocks: community led, government led, and private sector led processes, depending on which stakeholders can detain the major right of access to the forests.

It is the intention of UMC to follow up on the development and testing of the conceptual CFWM models, bringing to the debate the academic and research community interested in rural development in Mozambique, together with the direct beneficiaries. Hopefully the jump from donor funded pilot areas into self reliant community managed forests is not too distant in the future.

Table 2: Conceptual models for CFWM being developed in Mozambique

Resource type	Model type	Variables (or arrangements required)	Constraints (threats to the arrangements)	Expected results (direct benefits to local communities if arrangements undertaken)	Pilot cases in Mozambique
Community-led processes
Multiple-use forests with commercial timber	Community logging	Support local community organization for forest management Land tenure certificate in name of community Participatory management plan Logging permit for the "Community Forest" or "Community concession" Training of interest groups: logging charcoal making, NWFP, marketing, community scouts. Business plan and marketing strategy Credit for business development	. Lack of delegation of authority to local community . Lack of incentives (e.g. tax benefits or tax exemption) for communities . Lack of private investors interested in establishing equitable partnerships with local communities . No experience yet on community forest concessions . Communities need training and mid-to-long term support in business management.	. Income from timber harvesting . Income from fuel wood and charcoal . Strengthening local organizations . Bargaining power to trade forest products in larger quantities . Income from NWFP, such as bamboo and honey . Long term forest production capacity . Self supply of forest products guaranteed.	Pindanyanga (Manica) Senhote and Niviria (Nampula) Canda (Sofala)
Degraded forests	Community rehabilitation of secondary forests	Support local community organization for forest management Participatory zoning and resources assessment Training of interest groups: Afforestation, agroforestry and conservation agriculture Business initiatives with emphasis on NWFP and alternative income generating activities Credit for start up (mainly nursery)	. Waiting for long-term results may discourage community engagement in forest rehabilitation	. Income from nurseries and NWFP, such as medicinal plants, traditional drinks, grass (for thatching). . Improved agriculture plots, soil and water conservation. . Improved pastureland and fodder . Rebuild of local values and traditions related to forests . Recovery of forest stands, with gradual increase of local wood supply and eventual surplus for trade.	Goba (Maputo), Luelele (Niassa)
Sacred forests	Community protected area	. Declare "zone of use and historical-cultural value" (based on art. 13 of the Forest Law)	. Communities apparently unwilling to establish protected areas due to the restrictions to their own access.	. Conservation of forest areas used for religious and ritual purposes; . Preservation of local culture and traditions	Chirindzena (Gaza)
Savannah	Community based game ranching	Land title or at least land certificate Feasibility study for game ranching (technical and financial) Local capacity buildling for wildlife management: Strong community based control , law enforcement and anti-poaching system in place Partnership with private investor and/or project for joint implementation. Business plan / marketing	. Lack of knowledge on wildlife management . High initial costs (fencing and other infrastructure) makes partnership with private sector almost "compulsory" . Pre-conditions required: Existing wildlife stock or possibility for restocking; low human population in a large area with well preserved ecosystem; wide community acceptance and support	. Income from legal trade of wildlife resources (hunting fees, bush meet, trophies) . Increasing supply of meat and wildlife by-products to community . Ecotourism / safari (not always compatible with hunting) . Ecosystem and cultural conservation	Mahel

Resource type	Model type	Variables (or arrangements required)	Constraints (threats to arrangements)	Expected results (direct benefits to local communities if arrangements undertaken)	Pilot cases in Mozambique
Government-led processes
Urban and peri-urban forests	Collaborative management of urban and peri-urban forests	Collaborative agreement between communities and land and forest tenant(s) Join forest management plan, including recreation and plantation activities Agreement for income generation and benefit sharing	. No experiences as yet . Difficulty to promote genuine community organization in urban and peri-urban environments	. Income from services provided in the recreation area . Income from forest products for urban and peri-urban consumption . Income from selling seedlings and other plants	Wolf's reserve in Monapo, Matama forest in Lichinga, FO-4 in Dondo, FO-2 in Maputo
Forest reserves	Collaborative management of forest reserves	Agreement between government and local community organizations, for co-management Participatory resources assessment, zoning and management plan Support for community scouts Emphasis on NWFP production and trade	. Restrictions to access may discourage local community participation	. Incentives (clearly identified) to engage in co-management . Local traditional values recovered. . Strengthening local organizations . Self supply of some forest products and bush meat guaranteed. . Income from community based ecotourism and trade of forest products	Mecuburi and Matibane (Nampula), Derre (Zambézia), Moribane, Chimanimani (Manica)
Protected areas	Collaborative management of protected areas	Agreement between park management and local communities for collaborative management of the protected area and its buffer zone. Local community organization and training for protected area management. Participatory management plan	. Restrictions to access may discourage local community participation	No formal co-management agreements developed yet.	Bazaruto, Zinave (Inhambane), Limpopo(Gaza), Niassa Game reserve, other PA.

Resource type	Model type	Variables (or arrangements required)	Constraints (threats to arrangements)	Expected results (direct benefits to local communities if arrangements undertaken)	Pilot cases in Mozambique
Private sector-led processes
Commercial forests	Private forest concession	Land tenure certificate in the name of the community (if possible) Agreement between concessionaire and local community with explicit description of joint activities, rights and benefits of each party. Joint committee for conflict management	. Income from charcoal and fuel wood production . Job opportunity . Strengthening local organizations . Trade-offs obtained from negotiations with the concessionaries	. Mutually beneficial partnerships with private sector not frequently developed. . Restrictions to access may discourage local community participation.	No case studies yet.
Hunting areas	Private hunting concession ("Coutadas")	same as above	. Job opportunity . Strengthening local organizations . Some supply of bush meat . Trade-offs obtained from negotiations with the concessionaries	same as above	No case studies in "Coutadas"yet, but Tchuma Tchato (Tete) can provide valuable lessons

Bibliography

Gilmour, D. 2002 - The future of collaborative management of forests in Asia. Regional ACM strategy meeting. CIFOR/FAO. Bangkok, 26-27 September 2002.

Mansur, E. and Cuco, A. 2002 - Building a community forestry framework in Mozambique: Local communities in sustainable forest management. Regional Community Forestry Workshop. FAO/ Tanzania/GTZ. Arusha, February 2002.

Mansur, E. and Nhantumbo, I. 1998 - The experience of the project Mozambique/FAO/Netherlands in pilot areas of CBFWM in Mpauto and Nampula provinces. IASCP Conference on Common Property in Mozambique. Ford Foundation. Zongoene 1998

Pereira, C. and Cossa, A. 2001 - A trasnformação do licenciamento de corte de carvão dos transportadores para os productores. Paper of the 2nd National Conference on CBNRM. DNFFB/FAO/IUCN. Maputo, 29-May 1 June 2001.

¹ Forestry Officer, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. [email protected]

² Community Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

³ Admade in Zambia, LIFE in Namibia, and others.