1. Understanding Decentralization: Findings from East Africa and Latin America Funded by: USAID, Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Program

2. Purpose of the study  Study impact of decentralization reforms on forest sustainability and livelihoods in Uganda, Mexico, Kenya, and Bolivia All forests studied have elements of common ownership or management  Lots of policy advice to “de” centralize to gain the benefits shown to occur in many “self-governed” forests  What we call “decentralization” in fact includes a huge range of different policies  Need to ask what is being decentralized and to whom?

3. Partners  Indiana University (lead)  CIFOR  IFPRI  U. of Colorado  CERES (Bolivia)  KEFRI (Kenya)  UNAM (Mexico)  UFRIC (Uganda)

4. Methods  IFRI method Study commonly managed forests at household and user- group levels  6-8 forests in each country  Community-level rules and incentives  Socio-economic  Demographic  Behavior  Forest ecology

5. Comparing Local Government Mandates and Attributes: Bolivia  1996 – Major forestry decentralization reforms, but national government continued formal ownership  Small holders allowed to acquire formal rights, but the process is difficult  By 2005, 10% of Bolivia’s managed forests controlled by rural smallholder & indigenous communities – other 90% government & private ownership  Municipalities linked to smaller villages & NGOs AND to larger government bureaus, among the few to adopt effective forest policies

6. Comparing Local Government Mandates and Attributes: Uganda  Some National Forest Reserves were in long-term stable conditions before multiple policy changes 1993 decentralization: forest management decentralized to district governments, with new authority but little money 1995 recentralization: authority recentralized to the Forest Department 2003 decentralization: abolished centralized Forest Department to create the National Forest Authority and the District Forest Service

7. Uganda continued…  Analysis of over-time data shows considerable forest loss in areas affected by decentralization  Comparison of forest mensuration data also show steady decline in these forests  In contrast, condition of forests unaffected by decentralization has improved due to new rules Collaborative resource management committee helps make harvesting rules and monitors them

8. Comparing Local Government Mandates and Attributes: Mexico  Since 1910 agricultural communities have formal common-property rights  60-80% of Mexican forested area is community owned  National & state governments have policies related to commercial sale from communal lands  System that has evolved – more one of co- management even though communities have formal rights

9. Differences:  In Mexico the early property rights reforms were the result of a revolution Over time, states and communities have acquired more authority – some pressure from World Bank but lots of bottom-up demands  In Bolivia, 1996 reform was top down & after much donor pressure and short-term funding Bolivian municipalities have limited powers  In Uganda, reforms were also top down Revenue sharing is required but does not reach lowest levels of local government

10. What can we conclude?  When looking at rural people’s formal rights to benefit from forest use, Bolivia, Uganda, & Mexico are very different even though all policies are “decentralized”  Existing governance arrangements, behavior, and many other factors make a difference!

12. A look at user groups: Gender analysis  Split group data into male dominated (female n<=0.33) gender balanced (0.33<proportion<=0.66) female dominated (>0.66)  Assessed relationships between group type and behavior  User groups from 56 different sites analyzed

13. Country All Male Group Male Dominate d Female Dominate d All Female Group Uganda35%15%34%16% Bolivia35%37%22%6% Kenya9%47%44%0% Mexico10%37%53%0% Gender Composition of User Group (unit is % of # of User Groups) Kenya Bolivia

15. Can reforms ever make a positive difference?  YES!  But not simple panaceas imposed by government and/or donors based on presumed “optimal” models  What kind of policy analysis do we need?  First, a respect for complexity and redundancy

16. The challenge of complexity  Biological Sciences have accepted the study of complex, nested systems ranging from within a single organism, to a niche, to an ecological system, to a ecological zone, to the globe  Social Sciences & public officials have tended to reject complexity rather than developing scientific language & theories to cope with it.

17. Future directions  Need better analytical and diagnostic tools of complex, multi-tier systems that need to adapt to change over time  Ask core questions about existing governance structure, property rights, incentives, and behavior before making ANY reform recommendations Need to consider indigenous forms of ownership and management, including common ownership

18. Thank you!  Your thoughts and questions are welcome.  Contact information: Jacqui Bauer Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis Indiana University jacmbaue@indiana.edu

19. Some results  Property rights East Africa:  Mixed and predominantly female more likely to have harvest rights to trees, bushes, ground leaves  No difference in rights to other products for all three groups Latin America  No difference among mixed and predominantly males groups for rights to all products  High levels of reporting by user groups for all products

20. Governance  East Africa Mixed groups and predominantly male groups seem more likely to undertake monitoring than predominantly female (Labor/time constraint?) Generally low levels for most management activities, but seems even lower for predominantly female groups (Labor, access to tech) Conflict seems generally lower among predominantly female than mixed and predominantly male groups (okay)

21. Governance (2)  Latin America Predominantly male groups, who seem more likely to engage in rule making and management than mixed groups. They seem more likely to have conflicts. No female groups  B/w EA & LA Predominantly female groups: none in LA, some in EA Rule making: higher in LA (central govt vs local vs community)

22. About user groups  Duration: 1400, 2000  35%: 0-1Km  55%: 1-5Km  5%: 5-10Km  5%>10  Size: 10 or less (in Uganda, Kenya or Bolivia) to more than 200 individuals (in both Kenya and Mexico).

23. CountrySitesForestsYearsrevisits Uganda22241993-200210 Kenya12 1997-20033 Bolivia18241994-2001 Mexico471997-2000 5667 The data

24. Country National Govt. Local Govt. Settleme nt(s) or Village(s ) Other Multiple Types of Ownershi p Private Individua l(s) or Family Uganda87%0% 13% Kenya100%0% Bolivia30%12%31%27%0% Mexico0%43%14%43%0% Average of Four Countries69%8%7%11%5% Legal status

25. CountryMin. (ha)Max (ha) Mean (ha)Std. Dev. Uganda40907319502632 Kenya20.81489542095011 Bolivia4644900875611600 Mexico155.81500515516 Statistics for all countries20.84490038486576 Forests

26. If Harvested or ObtainedIf Not Harvested or Obtained Produc t Has right to harvest this product Does not have right to harvest this product Has right to harvest this product Does not have right to harvest this product Trees59%33%0%8% Bushes45%28%18%9% Grasses53%27%9%11% On ground leaves27%18%41%14% Climbin g leaves28%20%38%14% Water86%1%10%3% Wildlife30%34%6%30% User Rights for Forest Products (% of user-groups)

27. Rights to harvest Predominantly Male MixedPredominantly Female Total Trees37.5050.00*64.29*47.06 Bushes39.5870.59*64.00*52.22 Grass47.9261.1152.1751.69 Ground leaves48.8475.00*76.19*61.25 Climbing leaves 52.1762.5069.5758.82 Water98.08100.0095.6597.73 Wildlife23.0833.330.0019.54 Property rights—East Africa (percentage of groups in each category reporting they have a right to harvest) *=significantly higher than other group(s)

28. Right to harvestPredominantly Male MixedTotal Trees85.7192.5991.18 Bushes100.0095.4596.30 Grass100.0088.0090.32 Ground leaves100.0094.1296.45 Climbing leaves100.0094.4495.65 Water100.0091.6793.33 Wildlife83.3387.5086.67 Property rights—Latin America (percentage of groups in each category reporting they have a right to harvest)

29. Predominantl y Male MixedPredominantl y Female Total Rule making12.0719.056.6711.93 Monitoring & Sanctioning 15.52*28.57*0.0013.89 Leadership16.959.5217.8615.74 Management13.339.5213.3312.61 Other improvement s 25.0028.5810.0021.62 Technologies23.3323.816.6718.92 Conflicts37.9330.0017.2430.84 Governance--Africa (percentage of groups in each category reporting they have certain practices)

30. Predominantly Male MixedTotal Rule making100.00*60.0070.83 Monitoring & Sanctioning 53.8534.2939.58 Leadership38.4625.0028.57 Management84.62*52.6360.78 Other improvements 23.0828.9527.45 Technologies38.4631.5833.33 Conflicts70.00*37.8444.68 Governance—Latin America (percentage of groups in each category reporting they have certain practices)