THE IMPACT OF STRONG AND WEAK PROPERTY RIGHTS ON FOREST RESILIENCE Wenman Liu 1,2, Nathaniel W. Tindall 1, and Valerie Thomas 1 1. Georgia Institute of Technology, USA 2. Stockholm Environment Institute – World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty

Content  Introduction  Research Questions  Definitions and Boundaries  Research Methods  Results  Discussion 1

Global Forest Decentralization Trends  Increasing privatization and decentralization trend globally and in the study sites. 2 Data Source: CountrySTAT FAO Forestry, 2015

Forest Decentralization in Study Countries 3 Data Source: CountrySTAT FAO Forestry, 2015

Global Deforestation and Reforestation Although plantation has been increasing, primary forest is decreasing In all of the study sites, the areas of deforestation are much greater than the area of reforestation 4 Data Source: CountrySTAT FAO Forestry, 2015; Global Forest Change 2000–2013 (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA)

Segregation of Research Paradigms Forest Outcomes Geographic Institutional Analysis Socioeconomic 5

Research Question  Research Question 1: Does forest private property right have an impact on gross forest change?  Research Question 2: Do financial and technical support have an impact on gross forest change?  Research Question 3: Do property right factors play a relatively more important role than biophysical and socioeconomic variables on gross forest change? 6

Property Rights vs. Collective Action 7 Property Rights Ability to decide about the land use method. Provided with financial resources/technical support to maintain sustainable management of the forest Property Rights Ability to decide about the land use method. Provided with financial resources/technical support to maintain sustainable management of the forest Collective Action * Organize forest conservation activities. Create rules for management Undertake forest improvement activities. Maintain records of rule violations and sanctions. Enforce rules for achieving sustainable forest use. Collective Action * Organize forest conservation activities. Create rules for management Undertake forest improvement activities. Maintain records of rule violations and sanctions. Enforce rules for achieving sustainable forest use. *Extract from IFRI Data-set: ‘Inequalities, institutions and forest commons’

Approach  Integrate site-specific institutional data with GIS, Remote-sensing forest, biophysical and socio- economic data. Obtain coordinates of case study sites Link institution and forest/biophysical data Run model to assess forest’s response to multidimensional forces 8

Institutional Setting and Forest Change Limited data set: 15 peer-reviewed case studies in Asia, Africa and South America. 8 International Forestry Resources and Institution/IFRI sites on collective action in Asia and Africa. Dependent variable: total area of gross deforestation/reforestation Within 5, 10 km radiuses of case study sites (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA) 9

Model Framework 10

Community Property Rights and Deforestation Strong negative correlation between community property rights and gross deforestation at 10km scale Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Coefficients 1km5km10km EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|) (Intercept) Population Altitude Temperature Precipitation Soil Productivity Road Accessibility Property Right * Financial Resource Technical Support * Multi/Adjusted R-squared

Property Rights and Reforestation No significant correlation between community property right and gross reforestation Coefficients 1km5km10km EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|) (Intercept) Population Altitude Temperature Precipitation Soil Productivity Road Accessibility Property Right Financial Resource Technical Support Multi/Adjusted R-squared

Residual Analysis Residual normality assumptions confirmed 13 10km Deforestation Model

Collective Action and Deforestation No significant correlation between collective action and gross deforestation Coefficients 1km5km10km EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|) (Intercept) Collective action index-9.875E E E Topography3.701E E E Commercial forest value7.908E E Distance from town2.687E E E Elevation1.034E E E Number user groups5.411E E E Multi/Adjusted R-squared Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 14

Collective Action and Reforestation Collective action is positively correlated with reforestation (5km radius) at 0.05 significant level. Coefficients 1km5km10km EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|)EstimatePr(>|t|) (Intercept)2.236E E E Collective action index-6.180E E *6.372E Topography6.216E E E Commercial forest value-2.785E E * E Distance from town-5.435E E E Elevation2.619E E E Number user groups-4.736E E E Multi/Adjusted R-squared Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 15

Research Question 1: Does forest private property right have an impact on gross forest change? Property right factors played consistently significant role in constraining deforestation In 5-km radius, weak negative correlation between technical support and gross deforestation. In 10-km radius case, a strong negative correlation between tenure, technical support and gross deforestation Property right factors show no correlation with reforestation. May have an effect in preventing forests being eliminated from one and others’ own territory. Do not create additional motivation for the household to conduct reforestation activities. 16 Results

Research Question 2: Do financial and technical support have an impact on gross forest change? Technical support play an important role in building forest resilience o Significant in all deforestation models. o May lead to a more certain results in constraining deforestation. 17 Results

Research Question 3: Do property right factors play a relatively more important role than biophysical and socioeconomic variables on gross forest change?  In the 10-km deforestation model, land tenure and technical support both have greater magnitude of effects, compared to the biophysical and socioeconomic variables.  Local property right factors may play a more important role in constraining deforestation.  Property right variables may be a more feasible and cost-effective option to induce the desired effects at a greater scale due to feasibility and financial investment constraints. 18 Results

Collective Actions vs. Property Rights  Collective action and property rights both help forests, but in different ways:  CA increases reforestation Positive correlation at a 5km radius ( α =0.05).  PR constraints deforestation Negative correlation at 10-km radius ( α = 0.05). 19

Coordinated Cross-discipline Efforts  Interdisciplinary research is more feasible.  Availability of high-resolution remote sensing and geospatial data.  Social science studies should advance by providing location information and having globally uniform measurements. 20

Future Works Include interactive effects to assess human-nature interactions Measure both quantity (forest change) and quality (forest biodiversity) 21