Transcript Decentralization Reforms and Property Rights: Potentials

Decentralization Reforms
and Property Rights:
Potentials and Puzzles for Forest
Sustainability and Livelihoods
SANREM LTR #1
Cochabamba, Bolivia
June 2007
Overview

Three parts:
1.
2.
3.

Project objectives, questions, strategy,
activity snapshots (Krister)
Preliminary findings, Impacts, Obstacles,
Lessons learned (Esther)
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
Policy prescription
Outcomes
Institutional mediation
Patterns of
Interaction
Context
Biophysical
environment
Decentralization
reforms
Multi-tiered
institutional
arrangements
Socioeconomic
context
Institutional
Incentives
Social,
political,
financial
rewards and
penalties
Central
government
representatives
Local
politicians
NGOs
Resource users
Degree of
efficient and
equitable forest
governance
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