1. Co-management of Forest Resources in Malawi

2. High incidence of poverty and food insecurity: – Increasing demand for land and forest resources – High dependence on fuel wood as a source of energy for cooking and heating. – Institutional weaknesses combined with poor application of the rule of law Main underlying drivers of forest loss in Malawi

3. Programme design 2003 Zomba – Malosa Forest Reserve

4. Co-management/Participatory forest management A governance partnership arrangement between community and government (+other external agents) who share responsibility and authority to manage and utilise a resource- (Berkes 2008). Why Co-management The rural poor (86%) use trees for subsistence fuel, food, construction, medicine and income generation. Forests contribute over 30% of rural income, To reduce the level of poverty of communities surrounding the reserves. To reduce levels of deforestation and biodiversity degradation mostly by the peripheral communities To reduce burden (financial/resource) of looking after the forest by the Forest Department

5. Involving local communities in decision- making about their surrounding natural resources Participatory forest management Provides for:  more effective local control over forest resources  more sustainable land management

6. Enabling Policy Framework The current Forest Policy (1996) and Forest Act (1997); Give local people full ownership of trees grown and managed by them on customary land. Authorise local people to extract wood and non-wood forest products without a license for subsistence use. Aim to provide an enabling framework for promoting the participation of communities and the private sector in forest conservation and management The Malawi Decentralisation Policy devolves administrative and political authority to the district level, closer to the communities in which CBFM takes place (Government of Malawi, 1998).

7. Evolution of Forest Co-management in Malawi Government started implementation co- management activities initially as research trials in Chimaliro and Liwonde Forest Reserves in the middle and late 1990s. The EU funded Improved Forestry Management for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme ( IFSMLP) introduced forest co-management in 17 out of 88 forest Reserves from 2005

8. IFMSL Programme impact areas

9. Impacts and Lessons Security of use and local decision making and control is key to local community participation in sustainable livelihood strategies and development activities. Co-management arrangements have shown that communities can: manage forest reserves; develop management plans and put in place control measures; collect revenue and operate funds for local development; as well as remit revenue to Government. Exchange visits are effective in raising awareness through direct observation and interaction between different groups of stakeholders.

10. Co-management works best in forests with multiple and tangible benefits (eg Nkalo in Machinga) Community assets within and outside forest reserves can be improved through co-management arrangements Livelihoods of participating communities can be greatly improved- eg Rumphi around Mughese Management agreements have improved access to natural resources by communities for example in Malosa, Zomba and Liwonde Forestry Reserves Extensive woodlots and woodlands have been planted and protected and some wild game such as duikers, rabbits, hyenas could be spotted in some woodlands areas where comanagement is taking place

11. Sustainability of initiatives = continued flow of benefits and revenues Will depend on: Secure property rights through legal agreement & benefit sharing system Local licensing system that is functional, equitable and transparent Community ownership of process (not committee driven) Awareness of key stakeholders of benefits of co-management (Chiefs and DCs)

12. Individual smallholder livelihoods improved.

13. Challenges Highly degraded reserves which could not bring any tangible benefits to communities Slow signing of co-management agreements by the Department of Forestry High cost of the whole process, could not be implemented with government funds alone Inadequate participation of NGOs and other stakeholders – as only one NGO participated- MMCT

14. -encroachment and charcoal production continued uncontrolled in adjacent forest reserves (leakage)

15. Challenges cont Elite capture, where certain members of communities tend to be the only ones involved in all activities and not the whole community at large Misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities by both forestry staff and community members resulting on both sides blaming each other Unclear benefit sharing mechanisms after sale of forest produce Alongside new institutional requirements such as the VNRMCs, there are many other village level institutions endorsed by different Ministries and policies

16. What Needs to Be Done

17. Continue supporting the co-management initiatives eg using FDF, PES, REDD+ and other initiatives. Explore PPP arrangements More systematic process of monitoring the implementation of management plans and the local licensing systems; Improve accessibility of information– rules, fees, language Greater awareness and involvement of all stakeholders