View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

$500 million and lost governmental revenue of $100 million annually (World Bank2009).Since REDD will be partly based upon existing PFM schemes, how PFM has beenmanaged is thus of huge importance. Cost and benefit sharing under PFM forexample, differ significantly between its two tenure-based alternatives, CBFM andJFM. Under CBFM regimes communities are given the power to charge fines andconfiscate illegal harvest, and the choice of retaining 100% of the revenue from thesale of forest products. Cost and benefit sharing under the JFM land tenure regime ishowever not clearly laid out in legislation, but MNRT has proposed 34 to the treasurythat 60% of the harvest should be retained by FBD, and the remaining 40% willremain with participating communities (Bofin, du Preez et al. 2011). Given that JFMhas been promoted for Tanzania‟s catchment forests in particular, this is of specialrelevance to REDD. Its value for the country as a whole is quite clear, as a watersource, carbon sinks and the biodiversity it contains, but since most of Tanzania‟sforestland comes under District level jurisdiction, this is where an initial oversightwill come. This may be technical from the Ministry, administrative from the DistrictExecutive Director, or political from the Village and District Council and Parliament.The power of the Village and District councils are, however, limited in reality sincemost villages will not be able to take PFM initiatives due to the cost and bureaucraticinvolved. In addition the District Administration may be unwilling to give awaycontrol of forests to villages due to the disputed definitions of what is Village Landand what is General land (Ibid).At a national level the Parliament serves a limited role, but members of the parliamentmay be able to raise issues in a specific area of supportive voters. Issues of policyformulation and implementation are however hindered in two ways; firstly, by a splitbetween the District Natural Resource Office and the Local Authorities AccountCommittee where forest issues are not high on the agenda, and secondly, thedominance of the FBD and development partners have led to that PFM is seen as atechnical issue rather than of public interests (Local resource person 2010; Bofin, duPreez et al. 2011).34 This proposal has been with the Treasury since 2009 and has not yet been officially responded to.127