2. Measuring Policy Commitment to Community Management of Protected Areas L ooking at East African Forests Liz Alden Wily NRM Political Economist

3. 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

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

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

6. 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)

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

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

9. CBFM &/Or PFM underway 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

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

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

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

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

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

15. 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

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

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

18. 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

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

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

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

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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)