Decentralization Reforms and Property Rights: Potentials and Puzzles for Forest Sustainability and Livelihoods SANREM LTR #1 Cochabamba, Bolivia June 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

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