Co-management of Forest Resources in Malawi

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

Programme design 2003

• Zomba – Malosa Forest Reserve

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

• 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

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 CBFMtakes place (Government of Malawi, 1998).

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

IFMSL Programme impact areasRegion District Forest Reserve Total (ha) SFAPNorth Mzimba Mtangatanga 9,199.07 1

Perekezi 15,308.54 1Karonga Kar South Escarp 10,836.69 1 Vinthukutu 2,157.14 1

Rumphi Uzumara 595.68 1 Chitipa Wilindi 892.99

Mughese 742.38 Matipa 1,046.00

Center Dedza Mua -Livulezi 13,497.60 1Ntcheu Dzonzi 5,716.57

Mvai 4,424.91Ntchisi Ntchisi FR 9,761.20 1Kasungu Chawa 523.20 1

South Machinga Liwonde 29,524.00 1Chikwawa Masenjere Esc 1) 52,167.00 1Zomba Zomba Malosa 9,777.40 1Nsanje Matandwe 26,467.80 1

Total 140,471.17 141) Masenjere Escarpment is Customary land

1

1

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.

• 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

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)

• Individual smallholder livelihoods improved.

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

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

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

What Needs to Be Done

• 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