1 / 26

Evaluating Legal Frameworks for Community Managed Protected Areas in East African Forests

This study assesses the policy commitment to community management of protected areas in East African forests, analyzing forest laws and their implementation since the 1990s. It focuses on Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya, examining the extent to which these countries support community-based forest management. The research looks at indicators such as subsistence use assurance, benefit sharing, community participation, and community rights in forest management plans. The findings shed light on the level of legal provisions for community involvement in forest management and the barriers that exist in current laws.

nwitt
Download Presentation

Evaluating Legal Frameworks for Community Managed Protected Areas in East African Forests

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring Policy Commitment to Community Management of Protected AreasLooking at East African Forests Liz Alden Wily NRM Political Economist

  2. The Background • Forests a critical landscape for more than trees • Global wave of change in how forests protected and managed • Africa: 40+ of 56 states have new guiding forest policies &/or laws

  3. Laws as Source for Assessment • Precise • Binding • Refine new policy development But – No indicator of implementation

  4. Supporting current legal change since 1990 • Constitutions (c.20) • Land rights (c. 25) • Local government (c. 14) • Environmental management (c. 10)

  5. The East African Case … • Large forest/woodland area (47 million ha) • Diverse forest types: mainly multi-functional woodland (50-96%) • Longstanding government protection strategies (15-48% as Reserves)

  6. Ethiopia - Tanzania - Kenya - Uganda - 1994 + draft 1998 2000 2001 New National Forest Policies

  7. Ethiopia Tanzania Uganda Kenya 1994 + revisions 2002 2003 Bill 2003 New Forest Laws

  8. Estimated Number of Communities Involved? ========== TZ. 2,000 UG. 30+ KE: 20+ ETH: 200+ Estimated Number of Forests Involved? ============ TZ: 1,500+ UG: c.10 KE: c.10 ETH: c.20 CBFM &/Or PFM underway

  9. All four states claim they support community based forest management - But do they? Looking at the laws …

  10. Indicator #1: Does law assure subsistence use of Govt. FR? UGANDA: YES TANZANIA: YES KENYA: YES ETHIOPIA: YES

  11. Indicator #2: Does the law commit to benefit sharing of Govt. FR products/benefits? UGANDA: YES TANZANIA: YES KENYA: YES ETHIOPIA: YES

  12. Indicator #3: Are natural trees on farm now the private property of farmer? UGANDA: YES TANZANIA: YES KENYA: YES ETHIOPIA: YES

  13. Indicator #4: Is community participation promoted in the law? UGANDA: YES TANZANIA: YES KENYA: YES ETHIOPIA: YES

  14. Indicator #5: Does law require that communities help write forest management plans? UGANDA: CONSULTED ONLY TANZANIA: OBLIGATORY & views to be accounted for KENYA: CONSULTED ONLY ETHIOPIA: NO

  15. Indicator #6: If community asks, must Govt. permit community management/co-management? • UGANDA: NO • TANZANIA: YES • KENYA: NO • ETHIOPIA: NO

  16. Indicator #7:Are all protected area classes open to community management? UGANDA: NO TANZANIA: YES KENYA: NO ETHIOPIA: NO

  17. Indicator #8:May a community manage a national Forest Reserve? UGANDA: Co-manager only TANZANIA: YES: autonomously or as co-manager KENYA: YES, by contract ETHIOPIA: Co-manager only

  18. Indicator #9: May communities create, own & manage their own protected forest areas? UGANDA: YES TANZANIA: YES KENYA: NOT PROVIDED FOR ETHIOPIA: NOT PROVIDED FOR

  19. Indicator #10: Do community managers have the power to control who uses the Community Forest? UGANDA: NO TANZANIA: YES KENYA: NOT PROVIDED ETHIOPIA: NO

  20. Indicator #11:Do community managers have right to issue licences & collect fees? UGANDA: ONLY CF TANZANIA: YES, using own bylaws KENYA: NO ETHIOPIA: NO

  21. Indicator #12: Does the law enable a Government PA to be reclassified as a Community Forest? UGANDA: NO TANZANIA: YES KENYA: NO ETHIOPIA: NO

  22. Indicator #13: Are all community members to be considered in management arrangements? UGANDA: USER GROUPS only TANZANIA: YES, legally obliged KENYA: USER GROUPS only ETHIOPIA: UNCLEAR

  23. Indicator #14: Have limitations been placed upon the state taking more customary lands for Forest Reserves? UGANDA: only under Land Act TANZANIA: YES KENYA: NO ETHIOPIA: NO

  24. Indicator #15: Are institutions for CBFM easily put in place? UGANDA: NO (must form new legal TANZANIA: YES (existing Village Councils) KENYA: NO (must form legal body) ETHIOPIA: YES (potentially)

More Related