Assessing the capacity of local groups in forest management: a case study of Mabira Forest Reserve.

Abstract

Collaborative Forest Management is based on the assumption that local communities, through organized groups, can and need to participate in the management of natural resources in their localities. Such participation leads to effective and sustainable management of the resources, in partnership with other stakeholders. However, often the communities and local groups lack the capacity to achieve their resource management objectives. In this study, the capacity of two groups in Mabira forest reserve was assessed, focusing on the extent to which they achieve their objectives, their financial, organizational and human capacity, as well as how they are affected by the external environment. Data was collected from members of the groups, local leaders and leaders of relevant organisations. Focus groups and household interviews were conducted between June and August 2018. The main method of capacity assessment was through self-reporting by the members of the groups. Quantitative data analysis was carried out using STATA version 13, and Chi-Square tests were performed to determine the association of variables. Qualitative data from audio recordings was transcribed in word and themes and subthemes created based on the study objectives. Majority (85%) of the respondents assessed the achievement of their group objectives as only fair/not well, and the groups experienced many challenges in pursuing those objectives. The capacity for funds, funds mobilization and equipment was all assessed as only fair/weak by the majority of respondents. On organizational management, the groups were assessed to be strong only on leadership, but weak on other parameters such as holding meetings, communication and time management. The human capacity was assessed to be strong on members’ knowledge of forestry and knowledge of group aims, but weak on recruitment of new members, teamwork and involvement in activities. The number of members had actually dwindled to 30 per group over the years. The membership subscription was also not up-to-date for the majority of the group members. The data shows that the capacity of the groups is compromised by lack of authority to carry out their mandates, sabotage from the NFA officials as well as lack of tools and equipment. The external environment in which they operate is in some ways hostile, characterized by conflicts. The study concludes that groups have the potential to manage the forest, but their capacity to do so is compromised by many factors, and recommends that the promotion of CFM should take capacity building for the groups more seriously.