Decentralization Reforms and Property Rights: Potentials and Puzzles for Forest Sustainability and...

Decentralization Reforms

and Property Rights: Potentials and Puzzles for Forest

Sustainability and Livelihoods

SANREM LTR #1

Cochabamba, BoliviaJune 2007

Overview Three parts:

1. Project objectives, questions, strategy, activity snapshots (Krister)

2. Preliminary findings, Impacts, Obstacles, Lessons learned (Esther)

3. Spotlight on Bolivia (Rosario) Discussion

Project concept National level decentralization and property

rights reform policies often fall short of goals of sustainable NRM and improved livelihoods.

Why?Frequently do not account for the complexities involved in land use and institutions at the local level

Goal: To improve natural resource policy by developing & disseminating knowledge about institutional arrangements that will deliver benefits equitably to local people while sustaining natural resources

Research Questions What motivates the

implementation of decentralization policies in the forestry sector?

What are the implications of forest decentralization policies for different groups?

What are the implications of forest decentralization policies for resource sustainability?

How may public policies be modified to improve both resource and livelihoods sustainability?

Partners Indiana University

(lead) CIFOR IFPRI U. of Colorado CERES (Bolivia) KEFRI (Kenya) UNAM (Mexico) UFRIC (Uganda)

Project Strategy: Knowledge extensions

Integrative framework for characterizing forest decentralization

Common language: Facilitate cross-comparisons, learning, and debate

Holistic understanding: Link decentralization to property rights and their impacts on household livelihoods and forest sustainability

Multi-level analysis: Tracing flows of resources, information, authority and accountability

Forest decentralization impacts over time Panel data from IFRI sites started before decentralization Before and after comparisons possible

Knowledge extensions (contd)

Extending community (IFRI) data collection and analyses to household level

Use community- and household-level studies to characterize de jure and de facto decentralization in each study site

Linking household level data to the IFRI (community level) data

PEN studies to assess livelihood impacts

Conduct national level surveys in Bolivia and Mexico situate selected case study sites in national policy context assess the representativeness of case study sites

Conceptual framework

Context

De-centralization

reforms

Multi-tiered institutional

arrangements

Biophysical environment

Socio-economic context

Degree of efficient and

equitable forest governance

Institutional Incentives

Social, political, financial

rewards and penalties

Patterns of Interaction

Resource users

Local politicians

Central government representatives

NGOs

Institutional mediation

Adapted from Ostrom et al., 1994

Outcomes Policy prescription

Action Strategies Links to policy through involvement of a national

advisory committee in guiding research, identification of sites, and reporting

National advisory committees comprised of government officials, NGOs, CBOs, research organizations operating at multiple levels

Participatory research with key actors Policy roundtables—including community

representatives Training and capacity building at multiple levels

Partner country activities: Bolivia First ever national

survey of forest communities initiated

Extra support from NSF, FAO-AID

IFRI data collection completed in 3 communities

Sites 4,5,6 selected with survey results

PEN (Poverty Environment Network) data collection completed in 2 regions

Partner country activities: Mexico Mexico’s first ever national

survey of temperate forest communities

Extra support fr CONACYT National survey completed:

146 communities surveyed One case study completed,

another underway Prel. survey results

presented at a full-day seminar with forest service in May.

National survey results will be used to select remaining four study sites

Partner country activities: Kenya Eight sites selected with

NAC (+14) Household/community

data collection completed in 2 communities; 1 site report completed

Household/community data collection in progress in community #3

Joint grant proposal submitted with Uganda for money to support national forest community survey

Partner country activities: Uganda Eight sites selected with

NAC (+30) Household/community

data collection completed in 2 communities

Joint grant proposal submitted with Kenya for money to support national forest community survey

Joint grant proposal submitted on property rights and value chain analysis

Crosscutting activities: Gender Assessing user group performance in

forest management with regard to variation in proportions of men and women in user groups (all four countries)

Comparative analysis of effects of decentralization reforms on gendered access to resources (Kenya and Uganda)

Crosscutting activities: Partnerships with other organizations Joint research, data sharing and

dissemination Knowledge for policy debate, change Examples:

Bolivia (FAO/USAID alternative development project)

Mexico (WWF and TNC protected areas) Uganda (Household livelihood and Health,

CIHR)

Crosscutting activities: Learning nodes at multiple levels Within, Between and Across Levels

Communities Regions Countries

Information dialogue and discovery Cooperative influence Scaling up and out National advisory committees Policy Round Tables

Preliminary findings Integrative Framework

Difficulties in matching theoretical concepts of property rights with empirical observations

Variability of decentralization within individual countries

Community perspective is very different from policy

Importance of institutional “fit” and “congruence” at multiple levels of governance in determining the decentralization outcomes

Preliminary Findings (cntd) Decentralization impacts over time

Quantitative Changes TBA Qualitative Impressions

High variability of local institutional response Human and financial resources alone don’t explain

outcomes Reforms have both empowered and marginalized different

local/indigenous groups Implementation split between agencies creates variation in

effects (Uganda) Success of forest monitoring and sanctioning activities

dependent on the involvement of local governments and the cooperation of local communities (Mexico)

Lack of information at local level about rights, benefit structures, responsibilities and processes under current reforms

Preliminary Findings (cntd) National-level surveys (Mexico)

Policies are mismatched with local level problem definitions (illegal logging and FMPs)

Huge variability in the role of forests in communities

Findings on decentralization impacts are not easily transferred across forest communities

Blanket policy prescriptions should be avoided

Obstacles and constraints encountered Saying no to high

demand Political change and

high turnover of collaborators

Land conflict (Mt. Elgon, Kenya)

Threat of forest conversion (Mabira, Uganda)

Rising field costs Extreme weather

Examples of Impacts Multi-stakeholder dialogues—information,

dialogue (Kakindo County, Uganda; Mexico) Information—strengthening community capacity

to negotiate (Yuracare territory, Bolivia) Agreements—strengthening community rights

and making authorities more accountable (Kakamega, Kenya)

Training-capacity to monitor own resources Community training: 368 individuals trained (41%

women) Degree training: 6 PhD students (4 women), with

complementary funds from numerous organizations

Future activities Data collection in

remaining sites Analyzing forest

biodiversity outcomes Comparative research on

gender Regional comparisons Continued involvement of

resource users Continued involvement of

policy makers NAC: Link to policy; inform

practice Continued interaction with

politicians

What we hope to learn Whether and how PR and resource access

varies by gender, wealth under decentralization reforms

Whether and how forest resource status changes under decentralization reforms

How authority, information, resources, are partitioned among relevant actors, with what consequences

What can be done to improve policy and practice e.g. increase participation and support local level efforts at forest governance

Spotlight on Bolivia