View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

The only real difference in the process between CBFM and JFM is in step 3 whenunder JFM a Joint Management Agreement (JMA) has to be made and agreed uponbetween the two involved parties. For whereas CBFM will leave the soleresponsibility of management on the village government and villagers, this is not thecase with JFM, and since two parties are jointly managing a forest reserve they thenhave to define and agree on how management costs, benefits and responsibilities areto be shared. Many JFM processes have been delayed or halted completely due to thisas in many instances the JMA has not been agreed. This is when it comes to forestreserves managed for timber production purposes. The result has often been whatBlomley (2009) calls a de facto management at the local level but where the benefitsto the local community is not given as the share is still not decided upon. As a result,it will in most cases not be sustainable as time passes and local villagers are still notpaid for their efforts. The MNRT has proposed several ways in which this issue mightbe solved: From the combined revenue, 40% goes to the village government and 60% tothe district or central government The revenue from fees paid for illegal activity is retained 100% by the villagegovernment The revenue from equipment or forest products confiscated under patrolswithin the forest reserve is retained 100% by the village government, or One Timber Royalty payment by those wishing to harvest timber made to theFBD/District Council while a Local Management Fee is paid to the villagewhere the forest under JFM is located, thus creating a benefit share of 60/40,respectively, of the current Timber Royalty rate (Blomley and Iddi 2009).However, to our knowledge the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs have as ofyet, not approved any of these proposals.96