SANREM LTR #1 Cochabamba, Bolivia June 2007

1. Decentralization Reforms and Property Rights:Potentials and Puzzles for Forest Sustainability and Livelihoods SANREM LTR #1 Cochabamba, Bolivia June 2007

2. Overview • Three parts: • Project objectives, questions, strategy, activity snapshots (Krister) • Preliminary findings, Impacts, Obstacles, Lessons learned (Esther) • Spotlight on Bolivia (Rosario) • Discussion

3. 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

4. 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?

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Conceptual framework

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Spotlight on Bolivia