a review of progress challenges and opportunities …

October 2005

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management (COMPASS II) staff.

May 2005

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Alastair Anton, under contract to Development Alternatives, Inc and Nicholas Chimzukila, staff of Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resources Management (COMPASS).

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY A REVIEW OF PROGRESS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CBNRM IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR

OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 8 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (COMPASS II)

AUTHORITY Prepared for USAID/Malawi under Contract Number 690-C-00-04-00090-00 awarded 30 April 2004, entitled Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management in Malawi (COMPASS II)

The views expressed and opinions contained in this report are those of the COMPASS II field team and are not intended as statements of policy of either USAID or the contractor companies.

PREPARED BY:

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT IN MALAŴI

(COMPASS II)

AUTHORS: ALASTAIR ANTON, NICHOLAS CHIMZUKILA

CREDITS: Cover photos: Levi Manda Text editing and report layout & design by John Dickinson and Nobel Moyo

COMPASS II IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS:

Development Alternatives, Inc Private Bag 20, 1st floor Able House 7250 Woodmont Ave., Suite 200 #8 Hannover Ave at Chilembwe Road Bethesda, MD 20814 Blantyre USA Malawi Tel: +1-301-718-8699 Telephone: +265 (0)1-622-800 Fax: +1-301-718-7968 Fax: +265 (0)1 622 852 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] With: Wildlife & Environmental Society of Malawi (WESM) +265-1-643-502 Private Bag 578, Limbe, Malawi Kadale Consultants Limited +265-1-672-933 P.O. Box 2019, Blantyre, Malawi Spectrum Media +1-617-491-4300 271 Willow Ave., Somerville MA 02144 USA

i

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY A REVIEW OF PROGRESS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CBNRM IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR

DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................iii

Preface ....................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................1

1.1 Specific Purpose ....................................................................................................................1 2 Review of policy & legal framework in relation to CBNRM in the forest sector ...............................................................................................3

2.1 Background............................................................................................................................3 2.2 Key Sector Policies and Legislation......................................................................................3

2.2.1 National Forest Policy.......................................................................................................3 2.2.2 The Forestry Act ...............................................................................................................4 2.2.3 National Forestry Programme ...........................................................................................4 2.2.4 Community Based Forest Management – Policy Supplement ..........................................5 2.2.5 Associated Policies & Legislation.....................................................................................5

2.3 The Decentralisation Process and Forest Sector Devolution.................................................5 3 Situational Analysis On Forest Policy & Decentralisation ...............7

3.1 Approach - Conceptual Framework for the Situational Analysis..........................................7 3.2 Findings in Relation to Policy Awareness, Understanding and Implementation ..................8

3.2.1 Community- level..............................................................................................................8 Village Natural Resource Management Committees ....................................................8 Management Plans & Agreements ....................................................................................9 Village Forest Areas ..............................................................................................................9 Elections...................................................................................................................................9 Bylaws.......................................................................................................................................9 Constitutions......................................................................................................................... 10 Benefit sharing ..................................................................................................................... 10 Roles & Power....................................................................................................................... 10 The operational level of VNRMCs .................................................................................... 11 Registration ........................................................................................................................... 11 Capacity of VNRMCs ........................................................................................................... 11 Enterprise development ..................................................................................................... 11 Incentives ...............................................................................................................................11 Participatory forest management process support .................................................... 12

3.2.2 District Forest Staff ......................................................................................................... 12 Policy interpretation & implementation................................................................................ 12 Forest Reserves ..................................................................................................................... 12 Proposed Forest Reserves ................................................................................................... 13 Human resources ................................................................................................................... 13 NGO collaboration.................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.3 Traditional Authorities .................................................................................................... 13 Policy changes........................................................................................................................ 13 Devolved Powers ................................................................................................................... 13 Bylaws ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Protected area management ................................................................................................ 14

3.2.4 District Chief Executives/Directors of Planning & Development .................................. 14 Bylaws ...................................................................................................................................... 15 VFAS/VNRMCs ...................................................................................................................... 15 Co-management..................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Decentralisation & Sector Devolution................................................................................. 15 3.3.1 District Forest Staff ......................................................................................................... 15

Devolution circular.................................................................................................................. 15 Financial support .................................................................................................................... 15 Revenue................................................................................................................................... 16

ii

Assembly estimates ............................................................................................................... 16 Staff posting and allocation of assets.................................................................................. 16

3.3.2 District Chief Executives/ Directors of Planning & Development ................................. 16 Devolution circular.................................................................................................................. 16 Relationship............................................................................................................................. 16 Assembly estimates ............................................................................................................... 17 Accounts .................................................................................................................................. 17 Revenue................................................................................................................................... 17 Human resources ................................................................................................................... 17 District bylaws ......................................................................................................................... 17

3.3.3 Traditional Authorities .................................................................................................... 17 District planning ...................................................................................................................... 17 Relationships........................................................................................................................... 18

3.3.4 District Planning.............................................................................................................. 18 3.3.5 Community Relationships ............................................................................................... 18

VNRMC .................................................................................................................................... 18 Extension workers .................................................................................................................. 18 VDC/ADC................................................................................................................................. 18 District Assembly .................................................................................................................... 18 Political representatives ........................................................................................................ 19 Other extension services....................................................................................................... 19 NGOs ....................................................................................................................................... 19

4 Challenges and opportunities in the forest sector..........................21 4.1 Discussion............................................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Outline strategy for COMPASS II support to the forest sector ........................................... 21

4.2.1 Level of impact ............................................................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Quality of representation - Community/Village - VNRMC............................................ 24 4.2.3 Forest extension agents ................................................................................................... 25 4.2.4 District representation & service provision..................................................................... 27 4.2.5 Policy Review ................................................................................................................. 29

Annex 1: Persons consulted.................................................................................................... 33 Annex 2: Policy & Legal Framework: Suggested areas to review..................................... 35 Annex 3 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................... 37

iii

ACRONYMS ADC Area Development Committee AEC Area Executive Committee AfDB African Development Bank CBNRM Community-based Natural Resource Management CBO Community-based Organisation COMPASS Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management in Malawi DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DC District Commissioner DEC District Executive Committee DFO District Forestry Officer DPD Director of Planning and Development EPA Extension Planning Area EU European Union FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation GPS Global Positioning System GVH Group Village Headman MASAF Malawi Social Action Fund MP Member of Parliament NFP National Forestry Programme NGO Non-governmental Organisation NRM Natural Resources Management ORT Other recurrent expenditure PFM Participatory Forest Management RFO Regional Forestry Officer RUFA Rural Foundation for Afforestation TA Traditional Authority USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Committee VFA Village Forest Area VNRC Village Natural Resources Committee VNRMC Village Natural Resources Management Committee

iv

Preface Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) was contracted by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Malawi to implement the second phase of the Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management (COMPASS II) under Contract # 690-C-00-04-00090-00. USAID and DAI signed the contract on April 30, 2004 with effective dates of May 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009.

The contract engages DAI and its implementing partners1 to assist USAID/Malawi in achieving progress toward the Strategic Objective of sustainable increases in rural income, and specifically the Intermediate Result of household revenue from community-based natural resources management activities increased.

The purpose of COMPASS II is to enhance household revenue from participation in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives that generate income as well as provide incentives for sustainable resource use in Malawi. This is part of a strategy to mainstream community-based management of natural resources within a transformational development framework that progresses toward eventual graduation from developmental foreign aid, one of the USAID global operational goals for broad-based prosperity in stable, democratic countries such as Malawi. Building on solid foundations from previous investments by USAID and others of increased capacity among Malawian government and nongovernmental organizations to adopt strategies that ensure long-term economic and environmental sustainability, COMPASS II seek to accomplish three objectives:

1. To increase the decentralization of natural resource management, 2. To enhance rural communities' capacity to sustainably manage their natural resources, and 3. To increase sales of natural resource-based products by rural households.

Achievement of progress toward these objectives requires a multi-faceted approach toward devolving authority and responsibility to manage natural resources to field levels, facilitating the acquisition of skills and tools to dispatch that authority responsibly, and profiting from sustainable utilization of those natural resources as an incentive to manage the natural capital assets sustainably.

One way that the COMPASS II implementation team is working toward achieving these objectives is to build awareness among a wide range of CBNRM stakeholders about the opportunities that improved management of natural resources by communities could provide toward economic growth in Malawi. The CBNRM Occasional Paper series makes better information more widely available, highlighting some of the evolution in thinking among CBNRM practitioners in Malawi and throughout southern Africa. The series is intended to provide up-to-date information about various aspects of CBNRM, and promote wider discussions about the different approaches to field practice. It is hoped that by providing current information to audiences that may not otherwise have access to technical reports, and by stimulating discussions, practitioners in the region and beyond may be able to contribute to further improvements.

This document is the 8th in the Occasional Paper series. It reports an updated review of progress on the decentralisation of forest management in Malawi under the participatory forest management process as developed over the past several years. It cites what is working as well as where improvements are still needed, and was commissioned to guide COMPASS II field efforts toward lowering the impediments to increased decentralisation in this crucial natural resource sector, a core objective as noted above. The authors—Alastair Anton and Nicholas Chimzukila—have compiled this Paper based on their extensive field experience in the forestry sector in Malawi, and involvement with participatory forest management.

Please feel free to send comments on this title in the Occasional Paper series, or request additional copies, through the COMPASS II offices in Blantyre, or by email to [email protected].

Todd R. Johnson

Sr. CBNRM Specialist and

COMPASS II Chief of Party

Development Alternatives, Inc.

1 Wildlife & Environmental Society of Malawi, Kadale Consultants, Ltd., and Spectrum Media

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY MALAWI COMPASS INTRODUCTION 1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report relates to the achievement of the first component of the Scope of Work by Decentralisation and Policy Specialist – Forestry, Alastair Anton, assisted by Nicholas Chimzukila, to inform COMPASS II and its NRM Decentralisation Team in particular, with achieving progress ‘to increase the Decentralisation of natural resource management’.

1.1 Specific Purpose This report reflects the first component of the two-part assignment and aims:

To provide the COMPASS II Decentralisation NRM Team with detailed information regarding the current state of Decentralisation of the forestry sector in support of CBNRM, as well as an outline strategy that COMPASS II must follow in order to achieve its objectives.

The deliverable required from this component of the Scope of Work by the Decentralisation & Policy Specialist—Forestry is:

A detailed technical report on the state of decentralisation and devolution in the forest sector, including an analysis of the progress achieved and challenges remaining. The report shall include a discussion on popular perceptions—from the viewpoints of a variety of stakeholders—of opportunities and constraints provided by decentralisation; the discussion should focus on how these perceptions affect the strategies COMPASS II must take for promoting the decentralisation and devolution process in the forest sector, including specific targeted strategies for each sector, where appropriate.

This report will include a brief overview of the Policy and Legal framework that relates to CBNRM in the forest sector, a summary of the findings from the situational analysis undertaken through a series of key informant interviews and community meetings over six Districts, and finally a discussion of the challenges and opportunities to inform a series of targeted strategies to support CBNRM in the forest sector.

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY MALAWI COMPASS REVIEW 3

2 REVIEW OF POLICY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN RELATION TO CBNRM IN THE FOREST SECTOR

2.1 Background The 1990s, a period of political change and democratisation in Malawi, saw a radical change in policy and direction for forestry. A Forestry Sector Policy Review carried out by the Government of Malawi, the World Bank and FAO started a process which resulted in a revised National Forest Policy, 1996 and Forest Act, 1997. These recognised the importance of people as well as the welfare contribution of forests in Malawi, and therefore advocated a change away from the previous ‘policing’ style of forestry towards approaches that encourage greater community involvement and recognises other actors, including civil society and the private sector. These articles of forest policy and legislation were in effect decentralisation directives, recognising and giving powers to other resource users, rural communities in particular. Although widely recognised as progressive and enabling with an ambitious timeframe for action, wider roles and responsibilities for these various actors was less clear.

2.2 Key Sector Policies and Legislation In order to assess the awareness and understanding of these sector instruments with key stakeholders, a brief overview of these instruments as they affect CBNRM is provided below.

Key sector policies and legislation include: • National Forest Policy of Malawi, January 1996 • Forestry Act, 1997, • National Forestry Programme, January 2001 • Community Based Forest Management – A Supplement to the National Forest Policy, July 2003.

2.2.1 National Forest Policy This shift of control of forests and forest resources to other stakeholders, communities in particular is the core of the National Forest Policy. The first two specific objectives of the National Forest Policy, 1996, could be considered the main policy direction for promoting CBNRM in the forest sector:

“2.3.1 providing an enabling framework for promoting the participation of local communities and the private sector in forest conservation and management, eliminating restrictions on sustainable harvesting of essential forest products by local communities, and promoting planned harvesting and regeneration of the forest resources by Village Natural Resources Committees (VNRCs);”

The key strategies listed under this first objective include promoting the formation and training of VNRCs2; ensuring that VNRCs are entrusted with the responsibility to collect funds from the sale of produce from customary land; encouraging the co-management of forests and forest resources; and encourage the usufruct use of forestry resources by community and individual tree growers.

“2.3.2 empowering rural communities to manage the forest resources, fostering ownership or usufruct of trees, and ensuring that such trees are sustainably utilised for the benefit of both present and future generations;”

Although this second specific objective relates to empowering rural communities to manage forest resources few of the associated strategies directly refer to forest management and reference to local

2 The Forestry Act, 1997, refers to village natural resource management committees (VNRMCs) and this is the term that has been widely adopted.

REVIEW MALAWI COMPASS DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY 4

communities is inferred in ‘introduce regular local meetings to discuss and explain changes on and additions to forest policy issues’.

2.2.2 The Forestry Act The Forestry Act, 1997, provides for “participatory forestry, forest management, forestry research, forestry education, forest industries, protection and rehabilitation of environmentally fragile areas and international cooperation in forestry..” In terms of CBNRM, Part V of the Act sets out the formal procedures for “promotion of participatory forestry on customary land through protection, control and management of trees and forests by the people on customary land, the demarcation and management of village forest areas, ownership of indigenous forest trees, establishment of tree nurseries and regulation of forest produce.”

For management of customary land forests, the Act specifically mentions demarcation of “Village forest area which shall be protected and managed in the prescribed manner for the benefit of that village community.”(section 30), and for the proper management of these areas, “the Director of Forestry may enter into a forest management agreement with a management authority..”(section 31). This agreement provides for: the nature of the forestry and other practices to be followed (management); the use and disposition of the produce and revenue therefrom; allocation of land to individuals or families for afforestation; and the formation of village natural resource management committees for the purposes of “managing and utilising village forest areas”.

The right for communities to directly benefit from state forest reserves under a ‘Co-management’ arrangement is provided for through direct agreement with local communities under a mutually acceptable management plan.

2.2.3 National Forestry Programme From 1999 to 2001 the Malawi National Forestry Programme (NFP), was formulated as a mechanism to guide the implementation of the Policy, ‘to translate good intentions into real results’. Developed through a process of stakeholder collaboration and communication, consultative workshops and thematic working groups, the NFP provides a framework for implementing the 1996 policy through 12 strategies each with a set of prioritised actions, with the overall goal of “sustainable management of forest goods and services for improved and equitable livelihoods”. Adopted in 2001 as a sector-wide approach, the NFP provides the linkage with other policy instruments both national and international, highlights the key roles and responsibilities of the main players in the forest sector and provides a forum for continued dialogue among stakeholders and other interested parties including the donor community.

Although all the 12 strategies aim to contribute towards the overall goal, the main strategies considered directly in relation to CBNRM are:

3. Build local governance through decentralisation; 4. Support community based forest management; 5. Improve individual smallholder livelihoods; 6. Strengthen forest extension;

The NFP as a process was intended to articulate the priorities of the sector and provide a vehicle by which domestic and external support and financing under budgetary support or sector investment programmes could be coordinated. Lack of implementation is often attributed to lack of funding. Unfortunately, financial resources that are available are not articulated in terms of the NFP or linked to its priorities, which combined with poor monitoring makes assessment of implementation and progress difficult. Determining the current level of funding for the NFP through existing sources would help to assess the shortfall of support to the various strategies and priorities and make a fully-costed NFP appear less of a wish-list and recurrent funding would be explicit. Articulating funding priorities would support the decentralisation process currently underway, and assist district assemblies to determine both their local priorities and national responsibilities, however, this has not been the case to-date.

Although the Malawi NFP was developed through a consultative process involving key stakeholders in the sector, there are issues of ownership and understanding by those charged with implementing the NFP and therefore operationalising the Policy. More work is required to ensure that the NFP vision, strategies

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY MALAWI COMPASS REVIEW 5

and priorities are embedded in planning, reporting and monitoring systems, to make explicit the link between activities, action, agreed priorities, and ultimately impact.

2.2.4 Community Based Forest Management – Policy Supplement The 2003 Supplement to the National Forest Policy concerning community based forest management clarified the goal of the National Forest Policy that the purpose of forest management relates directly to the well-being of the people of Malawi. Following a consultative review process in 2001, it addressed gaps in interpretation and implementation of the 1996 Policy by adding detail on the intended mechanisms for the management of indigenous and planted forests and trees on customary land by landholders and for the shared management of forest reserves by government, surrounding communities and other partners.

The clarity provided by the Supplement should have left practitioners in no doubt as to what is intended by the Policy and the means to achieve greater participation and empowerment of rural communities in the management of trees and forests.

Given that the core of the Policy is a shift in forest tenure from government to rural populations, a test of the implementation of the forest policy and legal framework in relation to CBNRM could be stated in: (a) the number and combined area of village forest areas established within a district for the benefit of rural communities; (b) the number of village natural resources management committees (VNRMC - management authorities) actively managing village forest areas on behalf of the wider community; and (c) the number of communities empowered to engage in commercial processing and disposal of any wood or forest produce on sustained yield basis under a forest management agreement with the Director of Forestry.

2.2.5 Associated Policies & Legislation A comprehensive review of policy & legal framework in relation to CBNRM in the forest sector was undertaken by Tony Seymour in his November 2004 report. These included associated policies & legislation that impact on the interpretation and implementation of the key forest sector instruments detailed above. These include: • National Decentralisation Policy, 1998 • Local Government Act, 1998 • The Environmental Management Act, 1996 • National Environmental Policy, 2004

It is not proposed to examine or review these instruments in detail other than through issues arising from the findings of the consultation in the six sample districts.

2.3 The Decentralisation Process and Forest Sector Devolution

Malawi has adopted the devolution model of decentralisation which transfers power and authority to a separate legal entity to central government, the local authorities, which includes district assemblies. The aim is to: devolve administrative and political authority to the district level; integrate government agencies into one administrative unit; assign functions and responsibilities to various levels of government; promote popular participation.

A comprehensive overview of the decentralisation process was undertaken by Tony Seymour in his November 2004 report. The analysis of devolution in the forest sector covered by this report will specifically examine the situation at the field level at the interface between service planning, delivery and acceptance. In additional to specific decentralisation policy and legislation, key directives relating to devolution in the forest sector include: • Transfer of Functions to District Assemblies: Secretary to the President & Cabinet, 1st December

2003.

REVIEW MALAWI COMPASS DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY 6

• Transfer of Functions to District Assemblies: Secretary for Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs, 20th January, 2004.

• Devolving Forestry Responsibilities to District Assemblies: Director of Forestry, 21st March, 2004.

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY MALAWI COMPASS SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS 7

3 SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ON FOREST POLICY & DECENTRALISATION

A situational analysis was conducted during March and April 2005 with stakeholders regarding the status of forest decentralisation and devolution process in sample districts. These included district forest staff, members of the assemblies, traditional leaders, communities, involved in forestry activities, and other key partners involved in implementation of CBNRM in the field. Specifically the analysis aimed to investigate: • Levels of awareness and understanding of current forest legislation and policy; • Levels of awareness and understanding of decentralization and CBNRM; • Degree of decentralization and devolution experienced in practice by districts and communities; • Constraints faced by districts and communities in making use of devolved authority; • Degree of implementation of decentralised CBNRM-related activities, and constraints;

3.1 Approach - Conceptual Framework for the Situational Analysis

Recent revisions to the policy and legal framework affecting CBNRM place greater emphasis on decentralized management, with transfer of rights and responsibilities from Government to user institutions which require formalized legal agreements with such institutions. This was further strengthened with the Decentralisation Policy 1998 and Local Government Act 1998, which formalized the process to decentralize central government authority and services to local authorities (district assemblies).

A critical assumption is that the bodies envisaged both at community level and local government level are representative of their constituent groups, both immediate and the wider community and are therefore responsive to local needs and aspirations.

It is generally accepted that for true CBNRM to occur, there is need for rural communities to participate more meaningfully in planning and decision making processes that affect them and their environment. If rights and responsibilities and therefore access to benefits are being transferred to various institutional groupings, then it is critical that such groupings are both representative and accountable. It is therefore important that this key assumption in the policy and legal framework undergoes critical analysis based on the realities as they occur ‘out on the ground’.

An assessment of the key actors in NRM with regards to their mandate in terms of power and accountability was necessary. The investigation needed to ask the following questions: which individuals, groups and institutions possess the power and authority over NRM; who are these groups accountable to? How representative are these groups and are they responsive to their constituents? Does the situation allow for meaningful CBNRM?

The following areas would be explored through a process of institutional analysis and mapping covering the following: • Identification of the key stakeholders in NRM • Assessment of the relative importance of individual institutional groupings in NRM (the relationship

and level of representation to their relative constituency: - Assessment of their power in terms of:

Executive power (decision making) Legislative power (bylaws and rules) Judicial power (power of sanction) Resource availability (financial - revenue and human - capacity) Geographical & temporal influence (sustainability)

- Assessment of accountability both upward and downward (levels of participation, consultation, reporting, awareness, and sanction – elections, conflict resolution mechanisms)

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS MALAWI COMPASS DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY 8

This method of investigation along with semi-structured interviews with key informants would be used to assess the awareness and understanding of current policies, legislation and their role in implementing such instruments in support of CBNRM.

3.2 Findings in Relation to Policy Awareness, Understanding and Implementation

Six districts of Mulanje, Chikwawa, Mangochi, Ntcheu, Nhkata Bay and Chitipa were visited during March and April 2005. Consultations were held with key informants and selected rural communities in each district to assess the understanding and progress with policy implementation and devolution in the forest sector.

The meetings conducted with selected communities focussed on whether they had established a village forest area; whether they had formed a VNRMC; how the VNRMC was constituted and currently functioning in terms of the representation of this community institution to the wider constituency of the village.

In order to assess the responsiveness and therefore effectiveness of this institution, two aspects of power and accountability of the VNRMC was explored through semi-structured interviews at a community meeting which included the committee office bearers and membership, the traditional leadership (village head and group-village head where appropriate) and a spectrum of community members who could be mobilised to represent the wider community. A modified participatory appraisal tool of institutional mapping was used as a means to confirm issues highlighted by respondents from the semi-structured interview process, with the assembled group at the community meeting.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key district stakeholders including District Forest Officers (DFO), available District Commissioners (DC), directors of Planning and Development (DPD), Environmental District Officers, selected Traditional Authorities (TA), ward councillors and NGOs and agencies.

The following are the findings presented by key stakeholder grouping:

3.2.1 Community- level Village Natural Resource Management Committees

CBNRM in forestry is being implemented through the formation and support to VNRMCs. However, the quality and number of functional committees is in question. Although the DFO could state the number of VNRMCs reported within the district, they admitted that many were not functional. This it is believed reflects the way in which many were formed. Many respondents talked of a rushed, target driven exercise following the adoption of the new Forest Policy in 1996. TA Maseya in Chikwawa mentioned that 50 VNRMCs had been formed in his area in one year, but had received little or no follow-up support or capacity building since formation.

The number of stated functional VNRMCs within a district was disappointing. Lack of available resources (fuel and extension staff) was often cited as the reason. In many cases the number of functional VNRMCs was less that the total number of extension staff in a district. Given that there is at least one potential site/community within walking or bicycle distance of an extension worker within an Extension Planning Area (EPA), this raises issues of both capacity and direction of extension staff.

It appears that most VNRMCs are formed under projects, with few not established or linked to a project or other funding initiative at any time. Notable exceptions included Samu Village in Chikwawa, Mdalamganga in Mangochi, and Ifisa and Siyombe Villages, Chitipa. Unless committees have been formed internally through self-mobilisation, it is considered that the sustainability of the VNRMC is dependent on the quality of the formation process and importantly the subsequent motivation of the concerned community.


Management Plans & Agreements

Of the sites visited only two had prepared management plans for village forest areas (VFA) and none had plans for plantations either newly established or for those approaching harvesting age. No community visited were in possession of a Forest Management Agreement or Forest Plantation Agreement for their VFA or plantation. This included the two communities that had management plans, a failing of the Social Forestry Project. The DFOs confirmed that no agreements were in place within their districts. One community in Chikwawa (Matengambiri) who were in possession of a management plan for their VFA had issued licences and were receiving revenue from collection of fuelwood from their VFA. They were stopped by the Regional Forestry Officer (RFO) and TA as the receipts were not official and they had no legal protection if challenged. These are both valid points, however, one would have expected that the forestry staff would have assisted them by drafting a forest management agreement. Instead the community were frustrated and disempowered.

Chaola Village in Nkhata Bay formed their first VNRMC 1998/99 after being informed of the change in Policy. In 2001 there were conflicts between the Department of Forestry and the community/VNRMC when the department came to confiscate produce from the cutting on the customary land that had been sanctioned by their VNRMC. The RFO came to settle the dispute and dissolved the VNRMC. A new committee was formed in 2003 facilitated by the Rural Foundation for Afforestation (RUFA - a local NGO based in Mzuzu). It would appear that many people in the community still have a negative attitude towards the policy and the department. They feel that they have little powers to manage and utilise indigenous trees in their VFA, as they saw their resources being confiscated and the revenue going to government. They had not been informed that they required an agreement with the department, that is a Forest Management Agreement. Without such an agreement the conflict over utilisation will continue.

It would appear that forestry extension staff both government and non-government do not appreciate the need for such an agreement and the power and legal security that such an agreement would confer. The need for such legal agreements and other potential mechanisms for conferring economic and legal security to communities should be discussed during the review of the Policy and legal instruments.

Village Forest Areas

The Size of many VFAs were not known by the communities or extension staff, few had their boundaries marked and only 2 visited had been surveyed or mapped. As the VFA is the main tool of the Forest Act in terms of community protection and management of customary forests this should be of great concern. The District Forest Offices and the Department of Forestry should have up to date information on the proportion of customary land under active management and designated as VFAs as a monitoring tool for implementation of the policy and legal framework. Simple hand held GPS unit are available within the Department and staff in at least 10 Districts have received training in their use under the EU-funded Social Forestry Project and the Sustainable Forest Management Programme. This type of activity should be considered an integral part of forest extension. Data of this kind is considered by the authors as more meaningful than numbers of trees planted in a season that is currently collected by the department and many field projects.

Elections

Elections are considered the main approach in forming community level institutions such as the VNRMC. Many of the VNRMCs visited are relatively newly formed and therefore few have held re-elections. In places were committees have been established for longer than 5 years, many stated that they would only conduct fresh elections when an office bearer left office or was felt to be not performing.

Bylaws

Although many communities visited had drafted bylaws for the protection and management of their resources, few had been implemented. In many cases this was due to being informed by their extension


worker that they could not be operational until such time as the bylaws are signed by the Minister. In one community, Matengambiri in Chikwawa, the VNRMC had prepared bylaws and displayed these on a flipchart, however, they were not known by the wider community. District level bylaws have been proposed under the devolution to assemblies, however there needs to be some element of local ownership. If resource protection is to be undertaken by communities they require resource use rules which are locally relevant, widely understood and endorsed by the community and the Traditional Leadership and importantly are locally enforceable.

Constitutions

Few communities visited have complete constitutions that set out the agreed norms for the functioning of the VNRMC as a village level institution. Most have at least some elements of a constitution, usually responsibilities of office bearers, however few were in written form. There also appears to be a general confusion among extension workers between constitutions and bylaws. As many have been informed that their bylaws require approval of the Minister, this has an impact on the functioning of the institution. This is an area that urgently requires attention, particularly in communities where tangible benefits will be realised and shared, and could be a potential source of conflict.

Benefit sharing

This aspect appears to be the defining criteria to assess whether a VNRMC is a representative committee of their community or operating as a club, representing only a proportion or select few within the community. When asked how benefits are shared some VNRMCs (Matengambiri, Chikwawa and Mdalamganga, Mangochi) indicated that sharing of any revenues and benefits (such as honey, fuelwood and poles) is only amongst their membership. Others were looking for direct economic benefits from their VFAs to support community development projects, with individual needs to be met from individual woodlots/homestead planting.

Communities visited could be grouped into 2 categories: • The VNRMC ‘forestry club’: Those who started working through communal tree planting on land

specifically allocated to them and after some years the direct benefits (poles and fuelwood) are only now being realised. These groups state that no new members can join their ‘VNRMC’.

• The VNRMC formed to coordinate forestry activities of the community, particularly communal activities on existing customary forestry land, usually degraded.

From the above, it is considered that tenure appears to set the scene for the institutional arrangements for management and benefit sharing. The tenure and therefore ownership of the land and trees needs to be clarified and agreed from the outset of any forestry initiative. Forest extension staff should be fully aware of the need to facilitate this discussion with the whole community and not just the elected group.

It is felt that the ‘club’ approach, working with specific forest users or interest group is a legitimate way to encourage tree planting and other forestry activities within a community. However, these groups should not be considered a VNRMC with the powers and responsibilities conferred on them by the policy and legal framework.

Roles & Power

Many communities fail to fully understand the role and powers of the VNRMC as their representatives under the policy and legal framework. This was particularly evident in communities where committees had been formed to coordinate the implementation of an externally driven project. Sensitisation is required to assist them to understand, expect and demand accountability and transparency from their elected committee;


The operational level of VNRMCs

This varies from area to area. Some, most notably in Mangochi, are formed at the group village headman (GVH) level and comprise a number of communities. Most of the other committees visited were formed at the village level. Both models have their advantages and disadvantages, but can affect the power and influence the institution has to access services and other support. This aspect also has an influence on the access to households, impact and therefore efficiency of service provision. If the VNRMC (and therefore most forestry development issues) are to be embedded within the district planning system, the link between the VNRMC and the village development committee (VDC) needs to be clarified and made explicit. Extension staff need to be aware of this issue and be able to discuss and facilitate the linkages.

Registration

None of the committees visited had been legally registered and few of the field staff were aware of any VNRMCs registered in their Districts. There appears to be some confusion whether committees need to be registered or not in order to enter into a formal agreement with the Director and have legal protection for their activities. There needs to be a clear policy statement made on this issue and the field extension staff and communities informed accordingly.

Capacity of VNRMCs

From the committees visited it would appear that most have only received technical forestry training such as tree nursery establishment and tree planting. Few had received organisational training beyond leadership – roles and responsibilities of a forest committee. This reflects the capacity of the forest extension staff, many of whom are front-line staff level (forest guards and patrolmen level) of whom few have received training beyond the technical level and then only relating to afforestation and not management of indigenous forests. If the VNRMCs are to be functional and responsive to the communities they represent and capable to fulfil the mandate passed to them within the policy and legal framework including the protection and management of indigenous forests, then further capacity building is essential;

Enterprise development

The promotion of forestry related ‘income generating activities’ appears to have concentrated mainly on the production side, with little attention to the process and marketing aspects where ‘income’ can be generated. This is particularly apparent in beekeeping where only hives and limited training has been provided. There are also communities which started tree planting some years back and are now in possession of a significant asset (Mandawala Village, Mulanje), yet few have developed harvesting plans or considered managing their resource as a business. Many are not aware of the financial value of their asset or possible marketing strategies in order to realise the full potential. More emphasis is required with supporting community enterprise development to manage VFAs and community plantations as an economic activity including management & business planning;

Incentives

Incentives to engage communities in forestry activity are an important issue raised by communities, traditional leaders and district forestry staff. Some staff complained that cash incentives raised issues of motivation, problems with ownership and post-planting protection of the trees planted, and restricted their ability to engage communities where such incentives were not available. Yet it would appear that the same staff are fully involved in applying such incentives through initiatives such as the Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF). These problems appeared to be minimised where such incentives were applied to already motivated communities with functional institutions. Examples of these included Balakasi in Mangochi and Moyo-Mauni, Ntcheu.


It was found that the AfDB Lake Malawi Artisinal Fisheries Development Project is supporting centralised training of communities with allowance payments to committee members. This is contrary to the Department of Forestry Forest Extension Services guides (July 1999), which directs “Training of VNRMCs should be conducted in the village,…and taught together with their communities”. Past experience has shown that payment of allowances to committee members can be divisive. Rather than promoting collective responsibility and action, the activity can create conflict within the community.

Care should also be taken in this project with the application of loans. There is already questionable motivation and underlying conflicts with potential loans within some of their target communities as found in Munkokwe Village, Nkhata Bay.

Participatory forest management process support

Based on the field visits and discussion with local staff, it would appear that communities are not being assisted in taking their forestry interventions to a logical point. Many interventions are seen as individual activities and not part of a process to empower communities fully to both contribute and benefit through forest resource management as envisaged under the Policy and legal framework. Establishment of tree nurseries, woodlots or demarcation of a VFA are considered ‘job accomplished’. This is particularly evident with the lack of management plans, constitutions, and legal agreements such as forest management and plantation agreements with communities. This is considered in most part to the limited awareness, understanding, capacity and direction of the field extension staff both Government and non-government. In turn, this poor direction relates to the way activities are planned and targets determined in projects. More attention is required to strategic and project level planning and implementation to ensure that a process approach is adopted and a range of activities allowed for. The development of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Standards & Guidelines should help address this in part.

3.2.2 District Forest Staff

Policy interpretation & implementation

Through discussion with the various DFOs it would appear that policy interpretation and implementation is restricted and dictated by funding conditionalities. The forestry activities that they are engaged in are mainly through collaboration with projects and programmes operating within their districts, such as MASAF through the assemblies, or through collaboration with NGOs. Some of these funding approaches are creating conflicts within and between communities and between service providers. They state they have limited operational funds to promote other approaches provided for in the various policy documents. Most of the “other recurrent expenditure” funding received from the Department is used for utilities, leave grants, funerals and other recurrent expenditure. This results in mainly afforestation related forestry activities with limited promotion of indigenous forest management on customary land or within forest reserves.

Forest Reserves

Although most DFOs and DCs highlighted that the forest reserves within their districts were in a precarious position, with the exception of Mulanje District, few of the districts visited were actively promoting or engaged in co-management as a participatory forestry approach. Co-management had been supported in Nkhata Bay District under previous World Bank support, but no further activities had been planned or supported since that project closed. DFOs stated they have no funds allocated to this activity and have received no guidance or examples of best practice, although guidelines were issued by Forestry Extension Services in July 1999. It would appear that co-management is not actively encouraged by the Department headquarters or regional offices. In fact, instances of locally driven co-management initiatives have been frustrated by RFOs in the past, most notably in Mwanza District.


Proposed Forest Reserves

The areas identified as proposed forest reserves are particularly vulnerable and in some places, have little forest left. The status of these areas requires urgent attention and their future management determined through local consultation as highlighted in the NFP: Strategy to manage forest reserves; priority action (d). The importance of this activity should be changed to ‘very high’. The initiative promoted by DFO Chitipa should be commended where a task force including the DC and relevant chiefs have visited some sites and agreed actions to stem encroachment and deforestation. However, the department, assembly and chiefs should discuss and agree the future management arrangements and designation of these areas. Local authority forest reserve status is possible as highlighted in the forest devolution circular from the Department. These it is assumed would be covered by district bylaws when these are developed.

Human resources

All districts have human resource limitations to varying degrees both in terms of filled posts and personnel equipped with the appropriate skills and understanding of participatory forestry approaches. Mangochi District was considered the worst with only 2 Forestry Assistants for 11 EPAs and Mulanje District with only one out of eight established extension posts being filled.

There is urgent need to strengthen extension services through extension skills upgrading for immediate front-line extension staff, currently titled forest guards & patrolmen/ladies. With transport and fuel limitations, it is this level of staff who are providing the day to day contact and extension services to rural communities. The training at this level has involved mainly technical tree nursery management skills.

NGO collaboration

Most of the DFOs stated that they have a good relationship with local NGOs and there is good collaboration with technical services being provided by Government forest staff using resources provided by the NGOs. Some DFOs expressed concern that as the NGOs have preferential access to resources (COMPASS II included) the NGOs were therefore better placed to deliver services undermining the district forest office. It is felt that there is need to strengthen relationship with environmental NGOs and extension service providers operating within the district at the activity identification and planning stage than just at the point of service delivery;

3.2.3 Traditional Authorities

Policy changes

Almost all of the traditional leaders, chiefs and senior chiefs consulted felt that the changes that the new policy environment has brought were positive, empowering people to manage their own surrounding resources. Most talked of encouraging and promoting tree planting through individual and communal woodlots within their areas, although all highlighted concern over the protection and management of existing forest areas. Most were aware of VNRMCs functioning within their areas and that these were reported on through the meetings of village heads and group heads. Few were aware of their VNRMCs having constitutions or sanctioned bylaws, although most confirmed that the committees had been formed through village elections. However, TA Mlandi in Nkhata Bay felt that the changes had not been to the good of the environment and wished for return of greater enforcement through forest guards.

Devolved Powers

All stated that although powers had been devolved, the knowledge and capacity to manage resources sustainably had not, and therefore the impact of the Policy was limited. Although many VNRMCs had been formed, subsequent training was poor unless these were attached to a specific project. They felt that communities need guidance if resources are to be protected and managed and therefore considered extension services to be important.


All expressed frustration at the continued erosion of their powers in regard to environmental protection and management and that their position as custodians of natural resources has been progressively undermined. This included cases brought by TAs to the police and local magistrates which had not been subsequently supported. Defendants had been released on bail without subsequent trial or if cases were heard, the level of penalties awarded was not considered as a deterrent to others. They therefore felt that although powers had been given to the people under the new Policy, these had not been backed up by the appropriate rules and bylaws to protect both themselves, the VNRMCs and the natural resources. Many had local natural resource/customary rules, however enforcement was becoming more difficult and they were being challenged.

Bylaws

Many chiefs feel that there should be bylaws at various levels from community to TA to district, however the critical area for enforcement is at the VNRMC/community level. Senior Chief Mwaulambia in Chitipa, mentioned that under earlier DANIDA support they had developed local environmental bylaws at the sub TA level through the District State of the Environment Report and District Environmental Action Plans, but this process stopped with the withdrawal of DANIDA support. These bylaws have yet to be considered and approved by the Assembly, but he felt that it was worthwhile to rejuvenate this process.

Senior Chief Mwaulambia considers that existing civil laws do not provide the type of flexibility that is required when dealing with local cases of natural resource infringements. He stated that in the past there had been regular meetings between the chiefs, DCs and local magistrates, however, this was not currently the case. He felt that people involved in cutting trees illegally are those which are not involved in forestry management activities, therefore there needs to be better sensitisation to complement enforcement.

Protected area management

Many of the chiefs supported the protection of areas of forest as forest reserves, however, most were concerned at the status of the proposed reserves and were concerned for their future if these were not already deforested. Most were not aware of co-management as an approach or what it entailed in terms of rights and responsibilities.

3.2.4 District Chief Executives/Directors of Planning & Development

Policy

All of the DCs consulted were aware of the key themes of the National Forest Policy and the role of forests in development and poverty alleviation, however, most were concerned at the problem of food insecurity in their districts and the need for alternative sources of income for rural communities to reduce their dependency on utilisation of natural resources.

All stated that they depend on the DFO staff for advice on technical forestry issues and that they are involved in forestry events such as National Forestry Month.

Assembly supported activities

The main forestry activities funded and implemented by the assembly are through the public works component of MASAF. This covers supporting communities with raising seedlings, paying for the seedlings and paying for the planting of the trees. These projects are generated through the VDCs and Area Development Committees (ADC). Technical advice is provided by the forest extension workers, but the only capacity building for the communities in terms of institutional strengthening are in project management. Most agreed that there was need for more capacity building in leadership at community level.


Bylaws Many are aware that the assemblies are empowered under the Local Government Act 1998 to make Bylaws, however consider the process too protracted. The DPD Mangochi mentioned that MASAF are investigating engaging a lawyer to prepare a generic set of bylaws for community-based organisations (CBO) including VNRMCs that could be adapted by each assembly to their local situation. Mulanje District had already drafted a set of environmental bylaws and these were with the Minister for consideration.

VFAS/VNRMCs

Many know that there are VFAs and VNRMCs established in their districts, but not how many there are or how many have plans or agreements.

Co-management

With regards to co-management, most are aware of the term, but not what is fully involved and how this can be facilitated.

3.3 Decentralisation & Sector Devolution The analysis of the understanding and status of devolution in the forest sector as it affects the promotion of CBNRM at the district and sub-district level was undertaken in reference to the circular, “Devolving Forestry Responsibilities to District Assemblies”: Director of Forestry, 21st March, 2004. This sets out the functions and activities devolved to assemblies and the interim arrangements for funding, revenue collection and transfer of human resources and physical assets. These aspects are important as they have a bearing on the way forest services are planned and delivered to rural communities in particular.

3.3.1 District Forest Staff

Devolution circular

All DFOs consulted were aware of the March 21st Circular regarding devolving forestry responsibilities to district assemblies. All say they report to their respective DCs as one of the sectors within the assembly, with periodic reports sent to the DC and copied to the Director. As head of sector, all are incorporated within the functioning of their assemblies as members of the District Executive Committee (DEC).

Financial support

DFOs are still financially dependent on the Department of Forestry although actual amounts received vary greatly from district to district. Those in the Northern Region have been receiving regular amounts compared to districts in the South where funding is at best erratic. Chikwawa received direct funding only once in 12 months. Funds from the department disbursed through the regional forest offices are considered by necessity to cover administrative costs and not sufficient to fund operational/extension service provision. Allocations to the districts do not differentiate between extension service provision and reserve management where relevant. Some districts are receiving funds from the assembly for EU/GoM Public Works Programme/MASAF projects, but the number of sites is relatively small. Others receive support, usually in fuel and limited allowances, through collaboration with local NGOs.

All DFOs mentioned that they have approached their assemblies for financial assistance at various times, but in most cases have been turned down as there are no allocations for forestry within the current Assemblies approved budgets, unless under the assembly public works activities. Some Assemblies have assisted with transport for particular events such as National Forestry Month. This has an implication for the cost-sharing approach for supporting forestry related activities that COMPASS II is encouraging with assemblies during the current financial year.


Revenue

All districts visited still remit revenue to the Treasury Account No1. This includes revenue realised from customary land forest areas which under the spirit of devolution should accrue to the assemblies. No district had developed a district licensing system as required by the circular although both Chitipa and Mangochi Districts had approached their assemblies for fixed fee receipt books. These had not been used as there is a lack of direction as to whether this revenue should be paid into a sector specific account or into the assembly consolidated account.

Assembly estimates

Preparation of estimates for the 2005/06 financial year is currently underway although only in some districts (Mangochi, Nkhata Bay and Chitipa) have these been incorporated into the assemblies’ overall estimate.

Staff posting and allocation of assets

Although the March 2004 circular differentiated between staff responsible for reserve and plantation management with those implementing extension activities, the DFOs and their immediate support staff are still expected to have dual responsibilities. This leaves the DFO in the position of reporting to two ‘masters’. When pressed, most DFOs and Assistant District Forestry Officers (ADFO) asked whether they would wish to stay with the Department or move to the assemblies would prefer to stay with the Department. For some this was due to uncertainty or lack of clarification with terminal benefits and opportunities for promotion. This it is felt indirectly influences the devolution process in the sector and their relationship with the assemblies.

The number of staff and the management of human resources post decentralisation has not been discussed with the assemblies in any detail by the Department. This has created a feeling of alienation particularly among the district forestry support staff.

None of the DFOs had assessed the staffing required in order to deliver on the new division responsibilities and functions between assembly and central government. The staffing situation is only known in relation to the establishment for posts already in place under central government system determined well before decentralisation. Most districts are waiting to be informed of the new position, when in reality they are best placed to assess the optimum numbers and capacity of staff required based on the individual district situation. There is urgent need for district level human resource exercise coordinated with the assemblies.

3.3.2 District Chief Executives/ Directors of Planning & Development

Devolution circular

Although all DCs consulted were aware of the March 2004 forestry devolution circular, all essentially consider forestry not to be decentralised as no funding has been received through the local authority financing system. Secondly, it was made clear that there has been no dialogue with the Department of Forestry central government representatives to discuss the implications, mechanisms, human resource and asset transfer arrangements to meet their new obligations.

Most DCs/DPDs were not fully aware of the levels of funding received by the DFOs, but were sure it was not sufficient to deliver a fraction of the devolved functions.

Relationship

All DCs mentioned that at a local level they have a good relationship with the DFOs as individual officers, rely on them for technical advice for district level forestry activities and through their participation in DEC meetings. However, they felt the relationship with forestry as a sector was not good;


Assembly estimates

Although forestry extension services have been devolved on paper, only Mangochi, Nkhata Bay and Chitipa Districts have already made provision for forestry services in the assembly financial planning exercise for the forthcoming fiscal year.

Accounts

As yet no sector specific account had been created or a ledger opened in any of the assemblies consolidated accounts for forestry funding in the districts visited.

Revenue

Most are aware of the potential of forestry to raise revenue for the assemblies, but awareness of the current sums involved was not really known;

Human resources

Most DCs/DPDs are concerned with the human resource capacity within forestry both in terms of posts not filled, but also the technical ability and qualifications of forestry staff. Many are aware that forest guards are fulfilling the functions of forest assistants, but do not posses the required skills. As this is the level where policy is translated into action, there are concerns over the ability to provide adequate forestry extension services.

Only the Mangochi District Assembly has initiated a process to review the human resources and physical assets required to deliver the necessary services in order to fulfil the devolved functions. This includes the heads of sectors within the district which therefore covers forestry. Ntcheu has started a similar process, but it would appear that forestry has not yet been included. All districts stated that they not been informed of which staff will come to the assembly and those who will remain with central government.

District bylaws

Only Mulanje District mentioned that they had already drafted environmental bylaws which included forestry and that these had been sent to the Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment over 12 months ago.

3.3.3 Traditional Authorities

District planning

Most of the chiefs consulted stated that forestry issues are seldom discussed at the district assembly, but have little influence as they only possess observer status. With lack of funds few meetings of the full assembly or sub-committees are held. Many express concern at the capacity and workload of the assemblies. Only in Nkhata Bay had the assembly formed a task force to look at forestry issues, charcoal, deforestation and encroachment.

In some areas the ADC and VDC is being used as a mechanism to disseminate information to the people regarding forestry issues, in others forestry is not discussed. Most stated that planning for community level forestry projects are currently outside this district grassroot planning system. There is need for strengthening the link between the VNRMC and the VDC, although there are capacity issues to consider. Some TAs are working with NGOs with training and civic education.

The implementation of the new arrangements for VDCs and ADCs whereby the traditional leaders become ex-officio members or advisers to the committees was variable across the districts. Many were aware of the new arrangements, but were opposed to the changes and stated that this was a further example of the continued erosion of their powers. Although known, it was only in Nkhata Bay that this new arrangement has been implemented.


Relationships

Some Chiefs mentioned that they have a good relationship with the District Forest Office while in others there is limited dialogue and support in resource protection activities. The relationship with local extension staff appears to according to the individual rather than through any formal arrangement such as area executive committee (AEC) meetings.

3.3.4 District Planning The existence and functioning of the VDCs and ADCs was found to be variable. Some are still chaired by the traditional leaders will others now only have traditional leaders as advisers. Some of these structures have yet to find their new role in contributing fully to the District Development Plan.

With regards to the District planning system, it would appear that VDCs, ADCs, and AECs are only functional where there has been capacity building support, many through projects.

A new Local Government Village Action Planning process is being used to develop the socio-economic profile for the district and will be used as a basis to prioritise projects under the assembly. This process appears to favour infrastructure projects and not environmental issues as a development planning activity. There is need to build and strengthen the relationship between the VNRMC and the district planning system (VDC).

3.3.5 Community Relationships The following is a brief summary from the institutional and relationship mapping exercise with each of the communities visited:

VNRMC

Most communities visited have a strong relationship with their elected committees, however this should be cautioned with range of community members actually consulted through the meetings, as those generally interested in forestry. Many expressed concern with the lack the knowledge and skills of their office bearers to fully coordinate and support forestry activities within the community. This covers both technical and organisational skills.

Extension workers

The relationship of the extension workers with the committee was generally stronger than that to the community. This reflects in many instances that the extension workers tend to work with the committee, sometimes to the exclusion of the community. Lack of frequent support and visits were usually cited. Immediate agents such as the guards and patrolmen were generally well regarded, but were limited in the type of support that they could provide.

VDC/ADC

Surprisingly most communities appeared to have a stronger link to the ADC than the VDC even in communities whose village head was also the group head and therefore directly associated with the VDC. This was thought to be due to their affinity and regular contact with the TA/Chiefs. None were aware of importance of the link with their VDC for development issues relating to forestry.

District Assembly

Few communities were aware of the devolution of power to assemblies and the bearing this had in the support that would be provided through forestry extensions services and the need to articulate their demand for forestry services through the VDC.


Political representatives

Communities have a poor opinion and relationship with both ward councillors and their MPs. Many talked of promises being made and not delivered or the total lack of contact. The exception to this were the communities in Mangochi District. The fact that the councillors were not thought of highly means that they are generally not engaged in forestry issues, and this is a reflection of forestry decentralisation in the fact that most assemblies have not taken up their new role and mandate.

Other extension services

Services provided by health and agriculture were generally highly regarded by the communities and usually better than those services through forestry.

NGOs

Relationships were generally good, but related to the type of support being provided. The positive view appeared to continue well after the support is finished.

Figure 1: Institutional mapping Chaola Village, Nkhata Bay: Dark grey arrow = Power, Light grey arrow

= Accountability

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY MALAWI COMPASS CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 21

4 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FOREST SECTOR

4.1 Discussion Decentralisation in the natural resources sector in Malawi concerns devolving power and authority to manage natural resources away from central government. Under the National Decentralisation Policy, 1998, this represents government intention to transfer power and authority to locally elected representatives of the people under the assemblies, while the Forest Policy and Legislation concerns transferring powers and authority to local management authorities, primarily at the community level, represented by VNRMCs. This devolution direction is also reflected in the national strategy for fighting poverty “In natural resources, community-based management will be promoted in order to ensure conservation and sustainable utilisation of natural resources as an additional off-farm source of income”. Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, 2002.

The Forest Policy and Act provide the opportunities for rural communities to gain full rights to forests on customary land and limited sharing of costs and benefits arising from state forest reserves. However, in order to attain these rights and bear the associated responsibilities, a legally binding resource management agreement is required. These legal agreements are a crucial element of the policy and legislation, without which, there is limited devolution from central government, and in effect rural communities are no more involved in decision making or empowered than they were previously.

The 2003 Supplement to the National Forest Policy concerning community based forest management clearly stated that in order to achieve the objectives of the policy for community management of customary forests, the key strategy is to remove the current situation of open access to customary forests resources by clearly assigning forest ownership or user rights to the landholders, and by giving them the legal power to protect and sustain them. The area of land that would be actively managed by the community for its forest resources would be termed the village forest area. The VNRMC being utilised as the community level institution mandated by the community to manage village forest areas for the benefit of the particular village community.

From analysis and discussion in the six districts, it would appear that primarily formation of VNRMCs and secondly the establishment of VFAs areas are the main tools applied in implementing the forestry policy and legislation. The way in which these approaches are being promoted and the impact on both the environment and the livelihoods of the intended beneficiaries of the Policy requires closer examination.

4.2 Outline strategy for COMPASS II support to the forest sector

The purpose of COMPASS II (USAID/Malawi; 2004—2008) is to enhance household revenue from participation in CBNRM initiatives that generate income as well as provide incentives for sustainable resource use in Malawi. COMPASS II seeks to accomplish three objectives: • to increase the Decentralisation of natural resource management, • to enhance rural communities' capacity to sustainably manage their natural resources, and • to increase sales of natural resource-based products by rural households.

In order to achieve the above objectives, COMPASS II will specifically address constraints related to Policy implementation, community tenure and rights of access, local institutional capacity and natural resource based enterprise development.

The situational analysis in the six districts has highlighted that the constraints identified in the project document are valid. Policy understanding, interpretation, implementation and impact is limited. This combined with poor local institutional capacity and service provision, gives rise to imperfect conditions to promote sustainable community based natural resource management. Although the policy and legal

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES MALAWI COMPASS DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY 22

framework promote a transfer of rights and of access for natural resources management from government to local communities this in effect is not being achieved on the ground. Increasing household revenue from natural resource based enterprise development through forestry depends on the most part from access to and development of common pool resources. Promoting a shift from subsistence based use to an entrepreneurial focus and investment in natural resources requires security of tenure/usufruct rights which currently necessitates legal agreements with the Director of Forestry under the current policy and legal framework in forestry.

Based on the situational analysis in the six districts, the following are considered the key thematic areas that COMPASS II need to address in their support to the forest sector: • Tenure and usufruct arrangements to promote the necessary security to protect and sustain trees and

forests under CBNRM; • Institutional arrangements and associated capacity to promote effective and equitable management,

responsibility and benefit sharing under CBNRM; • Bylaws: the rules, norms, sanctions and enforcement mechanisms to promote CBNRM; • The licensing of forest resources and products to promote the sustainable management and

economic development through CBNRM; • Improved service provision to ensure the necessary support and direction to rural communities who

wish to engage in CBNRM.

The following sub-sections provide more detail to the above thematic areas and set out recommended targeted strategies to promote greater devolution, community-based sustainable management and enterprise development in the forest sector.

4.2.1 Level of impact Given that the VFA represents the area of customary land forest under some form of management then it should raise concern that there is an absence of data on the numbers and the extent of VFAs within the districts. Allowing for uncertainty for exact figures, it is certain that the total percentage of customary land forest within any given district designated as a VFA is very small. This collection of data should be a priority to inform assessment of the impact of the policy and legislation.

The ecosystem management approach is becoming more prominent in recent policy directions and is stated as the overarching policy goal of the new National Environmental Policy 2004. This places greater emphasis on following an integrated approach taking social, institutional economic as well as ecological factors into consideration. It also encourages a longer term perspective of the landscape, the communities within, and recognises multiple land use systems and livelihoods strategies. These along with the essence of scale both time and spatial, are considered essential if forest dependent communities are to be empowered to take control of resource management decisions which affect their well-being.

Taking the ecosystem approach into consideration, the scale of operation and the size of individual and combined areas to be protected as VFAs, the approach promoted needs to be rethought. Is the village the appropriate level as forest boundaries can stretch across village political boundaries? Area level planning and formation of area natural resource institutions should be considered. These could be based at the VDC/GVH level and further investigation of existing management arrangements as observed in Mangochi should be undertaken.

Questions relating to the implication of the new Land Policy in terms of CBNRM in forestry were addressed to stakeholders, however, their awareness of the policy was extremely limited. There should be a specific study undertaken to assess the implications of this and the appropriate guidance provided to forest extension agents and others.

Poor consideration of tenure arrangements and usufruct issues were a recurrent theme. More information and guidance on appropriate approaches to regulate the use and management of customary forests as common pool resources and the appropriate institutional arrangements to set rules and govern use and access to these areas. These should recognise and incorporate the role of individuals, families (clans) and group control, management and enforcement.


Groups of forest users and interested parties have in many cases come together and established woodlots or plantations on land allocated by the traditional leadership. However, the conflict will arise if these areas are called village forest areas with the inferred right of access of the whole community, when the original group feel that the control and ownership of the trees are with them.

Aim of potential COMPASS II intervention To increase the area of customary land forests under effective management moving from unregulated open access to common property regimes.

TARGETED STRATEGIES: 1. Prepare and disseminate information and direction (guidelines) to forest extension agents,

planners, traditional leaders, district assemblies and communities, to place greater emphasis on the establishment and management of VFAs in areas where there is available unallocated forest land. This will partly be addressed within the PFM Standards & Guidelines, however, specific material should be prepared targeted at the various players highlighted above;

2. Highlight linkage of effective management of common pool resources to the Land Policy – encourage land registration in name of community in order to protect the flow of resources for future community benefit, recognising the needs and rights of disadvantaged groups within communities;

3. Provide guidance and appropriate training on simple survey, mapping and data collection techniques, to promote designation and registration of protected management areas;

4. Investigate and disseminate the appropriate institutional structures required to promote improved and coordinated management of common pool resources. The effectiveness and utility of operational area level committees and umbrella associations should be investigated further and case studies and practical guidance disseminated. This is an opportunity to address issues of scale and representation by ‘clubs’ or committees;

5. Investigate and promote multi-stakeholder collaboration and roles in forest resource protection and management. This should include roles and responsibilities in development and enforcement of local resource use rules, bylaws, by communities, with traditional leaders, supported by district assemblies and local magistrates.

The above strategies would contribute to the achievement of the targeted results – activities 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 & 2.4, in the COMPASS II statement of work.


4.2.2 Quality of representation - Community/Village - VNRMC As highlighted earlier, formation and support to VNRMCs is one of the main tools used in implementing the Forest Policy. However, the quality of this institution was variable over the sites and communities visited. For participatory forest management to take place, local institutions should both represent and be accountable to the local community in question. This includes decision-making, rule making, implementation of activities, resource access and allocation (benefit sharing), enforcement of rules and dispute resolution, all in a transparent and equitable manner. To be responsive to the needs of their community, the institution requires the appropriate discretionary powers, the capacity to address their needs and take on the challenges and responsibilities of stewardship. These are heavy responsibilities asked of any institution, however, without these aspects being addressed, the collective expectation of the community will not be met and the intended impact will not be achieved.

If the VNRMC is to represent the natural resource interests of all with a legitimate right to common pool resources then it must be responsive to the collective need. Where local institutions were not responsive or representative of these wider interests, evidence of non cooperation; withdrawal of labour for communal activities, theft of resources, and deliberate vandalism can occur. These were observed through probing at Mdalamganga, Mangochi. Extension workers need to be aware that they are not promoting a new class of winners at the detriment of others within the communities. The measure of a responsive institution could be assessed in the level of: cohesion in a community, appreciation of the benefits, use of income arising from common pool resources, consideration of gender and poverty.

There is no blueprint approach to community mobilisation, however, aspects of tenure need to be investigated and widely discussed. Whose land, whose trees, who contributes labour, what benefits, who receives those benefits, who decides? These are simple questions of inquiry which can set the requirements for the appropriate institution to be involved in taking responsibilities for resource management. These need to be clarified from the outset facilitated by the extension agent.

Aim of potential COMPASS II intervention To ensure that rural communities who wish to engage in participatory forest management are represented by functional, responsive and accountable institutions.

TARGETED STRATEGIES – COMMUNITIES: 1. Promote strengthening of VNRMCs: create awareness and guidance to extension agents on

ensuring that these village level institutions are functional and responsive to the communities they represent and capable to fulfil the mandate passed to them within the policy and legal framework. This should include guidance on assessments relating to tenure, membership, elections, benefit sharing and constitutions;

2. Promote greater community sensitisation to understand the role of the VNRMC as their representatives under the policy and legal framework and to expect and demand accountability and transparency from their elected committee. Appropriate guidance is needed for extension agents and communities and disseminated through information notes and radio;

3. Promote awareness of the need to build the relationship between the VNRMC and the VDC through guidance material to forestry extension agents. Existing lines of communication should be used to full advantage;

4. Promote a flexible approach to VNRMC formation and operation: The structure of the VNRMC should be appropriate to the local situation. The aim is to have a functional body that represents the interests of the community as well as the interests of its composite groups. Different structures to different situations should be investigated and case studies of best practice sites and appropriate guidance disseminated to extension agents and planners;

5. Develop and disseminate information on the rights, opportunities and approaches to promote CBNRM through forestry under the policy and legal framework. Work with other partners and service providers to assist development and dissemination. Provide information on the importance and need for forest management agreements and the discretionary powers and the security and potential economic benefits that these confer.

The above strategies would contribute to the achievement of the targeted results – activities 2.1, & 2.3, in the COMPASS II statement of work.


4.2.3 Forest extension agents Forest extension agents are those who directly interact with rural communities and provide the necessary support and direction to such communities, forest users and other interest groups who wish to actively engage in forestry activities. These agents are the main source of advice, technical support, direction on available rights, powers and responsibilities considered important to empower rural communities to manage their natural resources. This is the interface of policy interpretation and delivery. If the policy is to achieve the intended impact and rural communities are to benefit in a meaningful manner, then the quality of the extension service provision is critical.

The consultation highlighted concerns over the human resource capacity of forestry extension services, both in terms of posts filled, but also the skills, knowledge and understanding of both technical and institutional aspects of participatory forestry. It appears that many front-line staff (forest guards and patrolmen level) are fulfilling the functions of forest assistants, but do not posses the necessary skill sets. This raises questions whether forestry services are being adequately provided in the district.

Many projects have invested in building the capacity of the district forest managers and the Forest Assistants in particular, however, this capacity building does not appear to have filtered down to front-line staff who engage with the communities on a daily basis. Front-line forest staff possess technical forestry skills such as nursery management, but lack the organisational and institutional knowledge to assist communities beyond raising seedlings and planting trees.

If protection and management of indigenous forests be it on customary land or in forest reserves is considered a priority then forestry extension staff need more information on indigenous forest management, resource regeneration and protection and be made aware that afforestation is only one of many forestry activities that can be promoted. Assessing sustainable rates of forest produce extraction is not known by extension staff who therefore in turn are unable to ably advise communities and forest users on the sustainable management of their forest resources. These are essential if management plans are to be prepared for VFAs and these in turn used as a basis for entering into a forest management agreement.

This limited capacity of the front-line extension agents combined with poor guidance on policy direction and approaches, results in many of the communities and their VNRMCs only being taken part of the way down the path to empowerment. Seedlings are being raised and trees planted, with little consideration of the institutional issues of future benefit sharing and strengthening of the VNRMC to plan and function effectively. VFAs have been demarcated and protected, but with limited advice on sustainable utilisation and legal protection for commercial harvesting. IGAs have been promoted and concentrated on production with little attention to the processing and marketing aspects where the ‘income’ is generated.

More guidance and direction is required on taking activities to a logical stage and where individual activities fit in the overall picture of participatory forestry and community empowerment. In terms of economic and legal empowerment, key stakeholders are not aware of the requirements of the policy and legislation, eg need for Forest Management Agreements and Management plans

It is hoped that the process of assisting the sector with developing, field testing and adoption of Standards & Guidelines for PFM will address many of these weaknesses in terms of supporting practical actions for promoting sustainable forestry and rural livelihoods.


Aim of potential COMPASS II intervention To promote awareness, understanding and capacity along with relevant skills among service providers/forest extension agents in order to facilitate participatory forestry in line with the policy and legal framework.

TARGETED STRATEGIES - CAPACITY BUILDING 1. Develop and disseminate guidance material to promote policy awareness & the practical role

communities and other key stakeholders play in implementation. These should be based around the CBFM Policy Supplement, 2003 and provide case studies of best practice sites. PFM should be considered as a process not individual activities.

2. Promote sharing of information among training service providers and institutions of the quality and content of training curricula and modules necessary to reorientate and retrain frontline staff in organisational development (constitutions), participatory forest management planning & indigenous forest management. Such curricula should promote PFM as a process and include:

2.1. Simple survey, mapping and data collection techniques;

2.2. Registration of community level institutions;

2.3. Land tenure in relation to institutional arrangements to promote management of common pool forest resources;

2.4. Facilitation of the formulation of constitutions and local bylaws for community level institutions;

2.5. Use of incentives to promote participatory forestry;

2.6. Sustainable utilisation assessments.

2.7. Importance of and process to develop legal agreements and the discretionary powers, security and potential economic benefits that these confer.

3. Provide guidance on the appropriateness of promoting forestry through either a ‘club’ approach with forest user/interest groups or through forming representative committees (VNRMCs). This should be related to resource/land tenure/benefit sharing;

4. Provide guidance with assessing the level of representation and functionality of VNRMCs to assist the process of re-vitalising institutions to fulfil their role as inferred by the Forest Policy. This aspect should be incorporated within participatory monitoring and evaluation activities being supported or promoted.

The above strategies would contribute to the achievement of the targeted results – activities 1.2 & 2.2, in the COMPASS II statement of work.


4.2.4 District representation & service provision The aim of the decentralisation process as envisaged under the Decentralisation Policy, 1998, is to devolve administrative and political authority to the district level; integrate government agencies into one administrative unit; assign functions and responsibilities to various levels of government; promote popular participation. Forestry extension services should be planned and provided at this level following the devolved functions and responsibilities under the sector devolution plan.

The consultation has highlighted that progress with forest sector devolution and the development of a closer working partnership with the district assemblies is limited by the slow pace of decentralisation by the Department of Forestry and absence of sufficient and direct funding through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development financing system. This is also related to the lack of clarity with transfer of human resources and physical assets required to deliver extension services.

These are clearly aspects that can only be resolved between the two ministries involved. However, COMPASS II may have a role to play in providing direction where there are obstacles to communities and community based organisations in accessing information and other services to assist them in their sustainable resource management activities. These could include: • Improve awareness of appropriate approaches and guidelines for devolving authority to manage

natural resources, restructuring the relationships within and between communities, public, private and non-government groups. This should be targeted at district level stakeholders, particularly the Assemblies who have been given the new mandate to promote forest management, conservation and forest extension. Many district stakeholders such as the chiefs, DCs and EDOs are not aware of co-management as a participatory forest management approach and therefore the policy is not being fully implemented. With greater awareness and understanding, the planning of district level forest extension services and the linkage to the National Policy Framework could be more explicit.

• Management agreements: There is need for greater awareness and support to the preparation of agreements which devolve powers and security of tenure to community institutions. These include forest management agreements for customary land forests, co-management agreements for partnership arrangements within state forest reserves and forest plantation agreements for areas of afforestation.

• Although the responsibilities for the preparation of forest management agreements have been devolved, the authority to sign such agreements at the district level has not. Currently this is not an issue as few agreements have been drafted and are awaiting signature, however, the devolution of this procedure should be supported as a means to raise awareness and ownership of the issue by the assemblies and their forest staff. As long as the district forest offices and staff have not fully devolved this will not be seen as a priority.

• Under the Local Government Act, assemblies may make bylaws for “the good rule and government of the whole or any part of the local government area, or as the case may be for the prevention and suppression of nuisance therein and for any other purpose.” Section 103. The responsibility to develop district level forest bylaws has been devolved to assemblies, however, these still require to be approved by the Minister of Mines, Natural Resources & Environment. Support to the development of district-level bylaws could be a good entry point for COMPASS II to promote and influence the devolution process. Firstly to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders are involved and have a say in the process, secondly to ensure that sufficient powers are devolved to appropriate levels to support CBNRM and meaningful economic development. Some Districts have draft environmental bylaws prepared under earlier DANIDA support to District State of the Environment reports and District Environmental Action Plans. These should be used as a basis for developing district level bylaws in collaboration with district forestry staff, assembly, local magistrates, police, traditional leadership and community based organisations (VNRMCs) and the Department of Forestry as advisers. District-level bylaws should be viewed as ‘umbrella’ in nature and recognise various levels from community to Sub-TA and TA to district to ensure an impact on acceptance, ownership and enforcement. Developing bylaws is a good vehicle to get these various


Aim of potential COMPASS II intervention To promote stakeholder awareness and facilitate improved coordination, collaboration and service provision in a devolved environment. TARGETED STRATEGIES:

1. Support the ongoing process of development, testing and dissemination of PFM Standards & Guidelines. Support the preparation of supplementary information notes to inform specific stakeholders as to procedures and requirements of the standards. Support the incorporation of PFM Standards & Guidelines into training curricula and capacity building programmes, particularly in regards to extension agents and front-line staff of the department and assemblies. Assist and support the monitoring and further refinement of standards as awareness and experience develops.

2. Support the development of district forestry bylaws: Use the development of district level bylaws as an opportunity to bring together key stakeholders to promote devolution in support of CBNRM, rights, roles, responsibilities and tenure, and to inform a review of the policy and legal framework with regards to forestry. Opportunities are available in Chitipa, Mangochi and Mulanje Districts.

3. Support the development of district forest licensing system as an incentive to promote sustainable management of natural resources in support of revenue generating activities. This could be combined with the support to preparation of district bylaws in identified districts;

4. Provide information and guidance on promoting shared management of protected areas (co-management). The co-management process will be covered by the PFM Standards & Guidelines, however, specific targeted information and case studies should be prepared for district forestry staff, assemblies and traditional leaders;

5. Support a multi-stakeholder district-level process to review the status of proposed forest reserves to secure the services and benefits that these areas offer with the appropriate control, protection and designation. This should be a priority for all districts;

6. Promote the need to review forest extension service provision under the district assemblies within the new devolved environment. This should include the review of the point of service delivery – the position of ‘forest guard & patrolman’. Following such a review, support the strengthening of extension services capacity through building awareness, understanding and enhanced skills to promote CBNRM;

7. Promote improved collaboration between district forest offices and other forest extension service providers with the National Initiative for Civic Education with institutional and organisation strengthening of VNRMCs and their communities. Potential collaboration includes assessing and revitalising non-functional VNRMCs and their communities where appropriate and supporting the awareness and conduct of local election of office bearers;

8. Provide guidance with forest resource based enterprise development: Communities and extension workers need information and extension materials on where to seek assistance with processing and marketing in activities such as beekeeping/honey production, mushrooms and medicinal plant collection. Simple information notes could be prepared and disseminated through existing channels of communication. This also applies to support to preparing harvesting and business plans for areas of mature community plantations and woodlots as well as providing market intelligence;

9. Facilitate the awareness for agreed common approach and application of incentives between service providers and projects operating in common areas. These should be agreed both nationally and locally within the Assembly structures (DEC);

10. Promote awareness of the need and guidance for forestry to be embedded within the District planning system to ensure that CBNRM through forestry is articulated in development plans and supported accordingly.

The above strategies would contribute to the achievement of the targeted results – activities 1.1, 1.2 1.3, 2.4, 3.2 & 3.3, in the COMPASS II statement of work.

district level stakeholders together and collaborating over other resource management and protection issues within the district. District level bylaw development could be viewed as an alternative to formal agreements if the necessary conditions of an agreement are already covered by local bylaws.

• Licensing: District assemblies have been given the mandate to ‘develop and implement a forest licensing system for the district’ under the forest devolution circular. Licensing of forest produce can be considered as either an incentive or a disincentive to sustainable management and economic development depending on the manner and emphasis provided for in a licensing system. As none of the districts visited had taken meaningful steps to fulfil this responsibility, this provides an opportunity for COMPASS II to influence and support a licensing development process in favour of sustainable CBNRM.

•


4.2.5 Policy Review The policy and legal framework relating to forestry and CBNRM is considered to be enabling. The Policy Supplement relating to Community Based Forest Management clarified and addressed many of the weaknesses in the 1996 Policy. However, the Forest Act has not been revised to reflect both the strengthening of the policy and the changes occurring through the decentralisation process and the devolution of powers to the district assemblies in particular.

The level of approval for agreements and bylaws, and rules need to be reviewed and revised. The issue of tenure rights and benefits, management responsibilities over areas of forest needs further clarification and wide discussion as to practical ways to promote the transfer of tenure and responsibilities from government to rural communities as custodians of their surrounding lands. The consultation also highlighted the demand for individual and group management of areas, not necessarily for the benefit of others. This needs to be catered for and reflected in the revision of the legislation.

As they are currently very few legal agreements in place and one could question the practicality of having legal agreements prepared, checked and signed for all areas of customary land forest, then a more feasible approach should be considered. Does the process and procedure in effect limit the effective management of these areas? These issues should be considered in depth during a policy and legislation review process. The development of district level bylaws offers and opportunity to assign clear resource use bylaws and responsibilities that could replace the need for legal agreements for customary land forests. User rights and landholding could be directly passed to the communities already living in proximity to the resource based on existing TA areas. These aspects need to be explored and discussed further.

Some suggested areas to be considered during a review process are set out in Annex II.

Aim of potential COMPASS II intervention To support a legislative review process to ensure an enabling policy and legal framework in the forest sector

TARGETED STRATEGIES: 1. Support the Department of Forestry with conducting wider consultation with the review of the

Forest Act in line with other policy and legal instruments. Collect and disseminate practical solutions and commentary to revise the forestry legislation to support the promotion of CBNRM through forestry. This could be achieved through inviting papers from key practitioners and supporting a forum to review and discuss issues raised in relation to revising the legislation. Key thematic areas could include review of tenure and right of access and appropriate institutional arrangements with powers to protect and sustain forests;

2. Provide support and direction to assist the core group on devolution that was formed in October 2004.

The above strategies would contribute to the achievement of the targeted results – activities 1.1, in the COMPASS II statement of work.

ANNEXES

ANNEXES MALAWI COMPASS DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY 32

DECENTRALISATION AND FORESTRY MALAWI COMPASS ANNEXES 33

Annex 1: Persons consulted Name: Position / organisation

Mr A.G. Mnelemba DFO Ntcheu

Mr Davie Chigwenembe Director of PWP Ntcheu District Assembly

Mr K Mandala PWP Ntcheu

Mighty Felemu PWP Ntcheu

William Chadza WESM

T.A. Mpando Ntcheu

Mrs Chaluaka RFO South

Carl Brussow Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust

Moffat Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust

Mr N. Nthala DFO Mulanje

Mr Moyo D.C. Mulanje

Mr D.W. Mfunya ADFO Mulanje

Mr W.S. Hamis F/A Mulanje

Mr J.T. Jowawo F/A Mulanje

Mr Segenet Yessema Volunteer Mulanje

Moyo Mauni Community Ntcheu

Muriya Village Community Mulanje

T.A. Mkanda Mulanje

Mandawala Village Community Mulanje

Mr Chimbalanga DPD Mulanje

Mr Lawrence Makonohaya D.C. Chikwawa

Mr G Kanyerere DFO Chikwawa

T.A. Ngabu Chikwawa

Matengambili Village Community Chikwawa

T.A. Maseya Chikwawa

Samu Village Community Chikwawa

Mr M. Gondwe DFO Nkhatabay

Mr S.N.D. Phiri ADFO Nkhatabay

Mrs Chimphepo EDO Nkhatabay

T.A. Malanda Nkhatabay

Munkhokwe VNRMC (under GVH Kaimika, VH Mphera, VH Kadaku and VH Peter)

Nkhatabay

T.A. Timbiri Nkhatabay

Mr W.T. Kaluba F/A Nkhatabay

Mr Kumwenda Senior Forest Guard Nkhatabay


Chawola Community Nkhatabay

Mr Chiono DPD Mangochi

Mr W. Mtungila DFO Mangochi

Mr C. Kamwendo ADFO Mangochi

T.A. Jalasi Mangochi

GVH Balakasi and Community Mangochi

Mr Paul Dinesi P/M Mangochi

Mr Charles R. Kambuleki P/M Mangochi

Nyambi Community Mangochi

Mdalamganga Community Mangochi

Mr Nyrongo DFO Chitipa

Mr J Kanyangalazi DC Chitipa

Mr Chipeta EDO Chitipa

Senior Chief Kameme Chitipa

Senior Chief Mwaulambia Chitipa

Ifisa Community Chitipa

Siyombwe Community Chitipa


Annex 2: Policy & Legal Framework: Suggested areas to review Governance of Customary Land Forests

Management authorities need to be clarified: Greater recognition of individual and group ownership of forest resources than collective common pool resource management.

VNRMC should be explicitly linked to the district planning structures and be situated at the VDC level as a sub-committee with the role of a coordinating body rather than a management body. Individual communities could have their own village level committees or clubs with a direct management mandate.

Clarify role of VFA, title, benefit sharing and alternative arrangements for group management. Clarify the rights of individual owners and others regarding disposal of forest produce for

commercial purposes. Need for constitutions and explicit benefit sharing arrangements. Need for explicit roles, authority, responsibilities, powers, sanctions and enforcement at various

levels. Includes powers of search, seizure, erect barriers, detention, disposal of seized goods/revenue arising.

Clarify need for legal registration to be an ‘entity’ for entering into legal agreements. Devolution of authority to sign forest management agreements, local forest rules or bylaws to

District Assemblies. Recognition of customary law (powers of traditional leaders) and local resource use rules/local

bylaws (powers of local management authorities).

Governance of Forest Reserves and protected forest areas

Clarify district assemblies/local authorities as a group who can enter into co-management agreements for shared management of State resources.

Clarify legal and protection arrangements and timescale for areas proposed as ‘proposed forest reserves’.

Afforestation

Clarify need for forest plantation agreements and minimum size of areas where this would apply if appropriate.

Utilisation of forest produce in Forest Reserves and customary land

Domestic versus commercial use of forest produce. District licensing system and issuing of permits. Local licensing system within forest management agreement.

Arbitration & conflict resolution

Recognition of other ministers (local government under decentralisation) and role of other bodies in conflict resolution and arbitration.

Administration

Review role and function of Forest Management Board and Forest Development and Management Fund to reflect the needs of the sector as a whole.


Annex 3 Scope of Work

Position: Decentralization and Policy Specialist–Forestry Expected Duration: Approximately 90 days LOE Candidate: Alastair Anton Anticipated Start Date: 15 January 2005 or as soon thereafter as practical Purpose of Assignment: To conduct and report on in-depth analysis of the forestry

sector progress and challenges on decentralization and/or devolution of rights and responsibilities; and

To conclude development of the Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forestry begun by the Department of Forestry.

Deliverable(s): A technical report summarizing analysis of the forestry sector, including detailed recommendation of COMPASS II interventions to promote devolution for CBNRM.

National Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forest Management.

Background and Program Context

The purpose of COMPASS II (USAID/Malawi; 2004—2008) is to enhance household revenue from participation in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives that generate income as well as provide incentives for sustainable resource use in Malawi. Building on the solid foundation established under NATURE, MAFE, and COMPASS I towards building capacity of the Malawian government and nongovernmental organizations to adopt strategies that ensure long-term economic and environmental sustainability, COMPASS II seek to accomplish three objectives:

1. to increase the decentralization of natural resource management,

2. to enhance rural communities' capacity to sustainably manage their natural resources, and

3. to increase sales of natural resource-based products by rural households.

Achievement of progress toward these objectives requires a multi-faceted approach toward devolving authority to manage natural resources to field levels, facilitating the acquisition of skills to dispatch that authority responsibly, and profiting from sustainable utilization of those natural resources. The NRM Decentralization team is responsible for achieving progress toward the first of these objectives: increasing the decentralization of natural resource management.

One of the foundations required for CBNRM to take hold as a widespread, grass-roots development strategy is the devolution of authority for natural resources management closer to the communities that are managing resources daily. The decentralization and devolution process in Malawi currently is in a state of flux; although much of the policy and legislative framework is in place for genuine devolution of specific managerial responsibilities, the situation on the ground is frequently confused. In addition, significant variation occurs not only in the practical degree of decentralization achieved, but also in the levels of understanding of the decentralization and devolution process among politicians, district staff, traditional leaders, and communities.

In order for COMPASS II interventions in the key resource sectors to be able to address the most relevant and most current challenges facing each sector in each district, an updated analysis is needed to guide the fieldwork toward customized activities on the ground that reduce or remove the highest particular hurdles in each context. This nuanced approach avoids the “cookie cutter” actions of some agencies that have assumed homogeneity of needs and therefore homogeneity of interventions.


Another foundation of achieving decentralized natural resources management is dissemination of appropriate information on NRM among district authorities and communities. It has been widely recognized that for decentralization and devolution of authority for CBNRM to be widely appreciated, more information needs to be disseminated about the opportunities and rights that decentralization provides, in a form that is understandable by communities. Guidelines, technical and policy briefs are required to provide information to those whose responsibility it is to implement the decentralization policy and devolution plans of government. Success in this is measured by publication, distribution, and field application of Guidelines on community-based management of natural resources in each of the key sectors. Production of these Guidelines is Task 1.1.1 in the COMPASS II Annual Work Plan.

Some documents of this type have been produced by various agencies, including the Department of Forestry. Building on the supplement to the National Forest Policy titled “Community-Based Forest Management” (dated July 2003), the Department commenced a process in May 2004 that has already led to the production of draft Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forestry. The process of developing these Standards & Guidelines has involved representatives of central Government, nongovernmental organizations, and training and research institutions.

The next steps in the process of developing Standards & Guidelines are field validation and testing to ensure appropriateness of the materials to the needs of their intended end users. Following that, the Standards & Guidelines must be disseminated as widely as possible, particularly to field extension staff and communities involved in CBNRM.

It is also essential to gauge the current level of awareness and understanding of the decentralization process as it impinges on CBNRM at district, area and village level, in order for COMPASS II to design its detailed strategies for assisting decentralization.

The purpose of this assignment is (1) to provide the COMPASS II Decentralized NRM Team with detailed information regarding the current state of decentralization of the forestry sector in support of CBNRM, as well as an outline strategy that COMPASS II must follow in order to achieve its objectives and (2) to finalize the Standards & Guidelines documentation required to enhance awareness of opportunities, rights and obligations that it brings.

Related assignments by sector specialists in Fisheries and Environment will implement these purposes in those respective sectors.

Position Overview and Deliverables

The Decentralization & Policy Specialist—Forestry will work with the NRM Decentralization Specialist, the Assistant NRM Decentralization Specialist, and other staff to develop a strategy for decentralization engagement with the forest sector in target districts. The Specialist’s work with the Department and other stakeholders in the forest sector will also result in a finalized, published set of Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forest Management.

The position requires short-term, full-time service for a period of approximately 90 person-days LOE, including travel time, beginning on or about 15 January 2005 and concluding on or about 31 May 2005. The position is based in Lilongwe, although a substantial portion of the LOE time will be spent in the COMPASS II project office in Blantyre and in travel to the target districts and various field locations. The Decentralization & Policy Specialist—Forestry will coordinate all work with, report to, the NRM Decentralization Specialist for technical guidance, decisions on the design framework to be implemented, and identification of priorities within this Scope of Work. Day-to-day operational matters, including travel logistics will be coordinated though the Office Manager and her staff, upon COP approval of all actions requiring the commitment of COMPASS II funds.

Deliverables required from the Decentralization & Policy Specialist—Forestry are:

1. A detailed technical report on the state of decentralization and devolution in the forest sector, including an analysis of the progress achieved and challenges remaining. The report shall include a discussion on popular perceptions—from the viewpoints of a variety of stakeholders—of opportunities and constraints provided by decentralization; the discussion should focus on how these perceptions affect the strategies COMPASS II must take for


promoting the decentralization and devolution process in the forest sector, including specific targeted strategies for each sector, where appropriate. Final Report due not later than 31 March 2005.

2. A final, field-validated set of Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forest Management based on the draft currently being circulated by the Department of Forestry, and completed in consultation with the Department. Final Guidelines due not later than 31 May 2005.

Specific Tasks

As described above, the Decentralization & Policy Specialist—Forestry will develop a strategy for the forest sector that will provide guidance to field operations of COMPASS II, and conclude previous work on Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forest Management. The Specialist will perform the following specific tasks required to achieve these objectives:

1. Review current policies and legislation for or affecting the forestry sector, especially as it relates to implementation of the Government of Malawi decentralization policy, CBNRM Strategy, and implementing regulations guiding the forest sector in decentralization / devolution & community-based management.

2. Conduct a situational analysis in sample districts to assess progress and challenges in the forest sector as they relate to the following parameters, inter alia:

a. Levels of awareness and understanding of current forest legislation and policy among district staff, traditional leaders and others at TA/ADC level, village headmen and other community leaders at VDC/CBO level, and other key partners involved in implementation of CBNRM in the field;

b. Levels of awareness and understanding of decentralization and CBNRM among district staff, traditional leaders and others at TA/ADC level, village headmen and other community leaders at VDC/CBO level, and other key partners involved in implementation of CBNRM in the field;

c. Degree of decentralization and devolution experienced in practice by districts and communities;

d. Constraints faced by districts and communities in making use of devolved authority;

e. Degree of implementation of decentralized CBNRM-related activities, and constraints

3. Based on the above analysis of the forestry sector, formulate recommendations for revisions in format and content for Guidelines, Policy Briefs, and other CBNRM extension materials, with particular emphasis on the appropriateness of the materials to their intended audiences.

4. Develop strategies for COMPASS II to use in guiding the preparation, dissemination and (especially) training of district staff on how to use the materials resulting for this work.

5. Draft, submit to the Chief of Party and USAID for review, and revise as necessary the Technical Report described above (item #1 under Position Overview and Deliverables).

6. Provide technical leadership, in close collaboration with relevant personnel designated by the Department of Forestry, to a process of validating the draft PFM Standards & Guidelines so that the contents have benefited from input by a broad range of stakeholders, with particular emphasis on input by the intended end users of the Guidelines or other extension materials.

7. Upon completing the field validation, effect appropriate revisions to the draft PFM Standards & Guidelines so that the contents, format, layout & design, and other production aspects may be finalized.

8. Liaise with relevant personnel from the Department of Forestry and the COMPASS II Public Awareness unit to provide technical support and quality assurance to the production of the final National Standards & Guidelines for Participatory Forest Management in agreed format (item #2 under Position Overview and Deliverables).


9. Develop, in collaboration with COMPASS II staff and Department of Forestry personnel, a process for the effective dissemination of the Guidelines and any other extension materials resulting from the Standards & Guidelines, including training of front-line staff on use of the materials.

10. Adhere to all USAID and DAI policies, procedures, and regulations that apply to the specific circumstances of the Specialist’s engagement under the COMPASS II contract.

Qualifications Required

The Decentralization & Policy Specialist—Forestry must hold an advanced degree in forestry, forest ecology, or similar field, and be thoroughly familiar with the policies, legislation, and field-level realities of the forestry sector in Malawi. He should also be familiar with the main features of decentralization in the natural resources sectors, especially in forestry, including the relative ability of the forestry agency staff to implement decentralization and/or CBNRM. Knowledge of the various NRM extension materials produced by various entities within the past several years is desirable. The ability to write clear, concise technical reports suitable for presentation to USAID is required.

a review of progress challenges and opportunities …

Documents