Community self governance of forests in Bolivia the role of external actors
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Community self governance of forests in Bolivia the role of external actors

on

  • 664 views

Krister Andersson...

Krister Andersson
University of Colorado at Boulder, USA

krister.andersson@colorado.edu
Presentation for the conference on
Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry
Montpellier France
March 24-26, 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
664
Views on SlideShare
658
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 6

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Community self governance of forests in Bolivia the role of external actors Community self governance of forests in Bolivia the role of external actors Presentation Transcript

  • Community Self-Governance of Forests in Bolivia: The Role of External Actors Krister Andersson University of Colorado at Boulder, USA krister.andersson@colorado.edu March 25, 2010
  • Motivation
      • Self-governance of forest benefits from
        • An enabling policy environment (Ostrom, 1990; Gibson et al, 2000, 2005; Bray, 2010)
        • Supportive relationships with external actors (Sunderlin et al 2005; Andersson and Ostrom, 2008).
      •  Which relationships are most important?
    D. Beams K. Andersson
  • What is Self-Governance?
    • A group of people able to exercise all of the necessary functions of power without intervention from any authority which they cannot themselves alter
    Self-governance of forests : individuals agree to organize themselves to create , monitor and enforce their own rules that constrain their own choices of resource access and use
  • Why is it Important?
    • Self-governance of CPRs often perform better than alternative policy interventions (Ostrom, 1990; Baland & Platteau, 1992; Wade, 1986)
    • Strength of self-organized institutions is positively correlated with forest CPR stability (Gibson et al, 2005; Coleman, 2008; Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008)
    •  When does it occur??
  • Previous Research
    • Emergence of self-governance depends on
      • Resource attributes (sufficient scarcity, potential gains)
      • User Attributes (salience of resource, trust)
      • Broad institutional support
    Daniel Beams
  • Institutional Support
    • External actors’ potential support functions:
      • Forums for conflict resolution
      • Facility for information exchange
      • Resource for problem solving
      • Back-up for law enforcement
    • Who can best deliver such functions?
      • Governments often not prioritizing CBNRM
      • NGOs seem to have a better track record (Suich et al 2008; Child, 2008; Redvers, 2008)
      • Polycentric governance theory: Context-dependent
    • Little systematic evidence (any?)
  • Conceptual Framework Biophysical Context Socio-Economic Context Policy Context Community Structure Self-Governance Arrangements
  • Empirical Context
    • Bolivia
      • History of centralized forest governance
      • Substantial transfers of resources, and responsibilities to municipalities (1996)
      • Recent focus on community forestry (2008)
      • But not clear how new program will be designed
    Photo by Daniel Beams
  • Hypothesis for Bolivian Context
    • Communities that are more closely associated with municipal governments:
    • - enjoy more favorable institutional conditions
    • - are more likely to self-organize institutions
  • Data
    • Random sample (n=200)
    • One-day workshops discussing forest use
      • Mapping of usage
      • Local institutions
      • Relationships with external actors
  • Taking Stock of Self-Governance in Bolivian Forestry
    • How common is it that communities decide to self-organize forest governance?
    • Which are the most common external organizations that work with them?
      • Which have the most positive influence on self-governance?
  • How common is community governance of forests in Bolivia?
  • Open question: “Which are the three most important organizations to support your forestry activities?”
  • Which external actors most affect community governance?
    • Multivariate regression to test relationship effects
    • Binary logit
  • Binary Logit Regression Results (excerpt) * significant at the 90-percent level **significant at the 95-percent level *** significant at the 99-percent level Independent Variables Own rules Own M&E Own Sanctions NGO interactions 0.094 (0.193) -0.129 (0.225) 0.234 (0.214) Municipal Interactions 0.331 (0.160)** 0.531 (0.189)*** 0.423 (0.179)** Centr Gov Interactions 0.218 (0.349) 0.319 (0.348) -0.721 (0.412) Own rules --- 0.944 (0.411)** 0.987 (0.419)** Forested land (%) 0.013 (0.074)* 0.027 (0.009)*** 0.016 (0.009)* Wealth difference 0.047 (0.066) -0.262 (0.090)*** 0.099 (0.083) Dist. Health center 0.046 (0.019)** 0.024 (0.018) -0.056 (0.026)** # NGOs in municipality 0.014 (0.023) 0.026 (0.026) -0.013 (0.028) Ind / ha of forest 0.003 (0.009) -0.000 (0.001) -0.002 (0.002)
  • Findings
    • Surprise 1:
    • No discernible effect of relationships with NGOs
    • Surprise 2:
    • Municipalities play an important role in self-governance support
    • Less surprising:
    • Own rulemaking increases likelihood of self-organized M&E, sanctions
  • Why?
    • Volatile policy environment: e.g. Land and tree tenure uncertain
    • Communities selective in partnerships
    • Municipal governments perceived as legitimate “supporter” of self-governance
      • Formal accountability (recourse, resource),
      • Mandate to serve all: Main service provider
    K. Andersson Daniel Beams
  • NGO incentives are different
    • Few are membership-based
    • Depend on and accountable to international donors
    • Need to show short-term impact ,minimize risk,
    • select partners carefully
    • Mobile, opportunistic
    •  May not represent trustworthy supporter of forest self-governance
  • Conclusion
    • Bolivian municipalities are uniquely positioned to provide self-governance support functions
    • Community Forestry may be possible without substantial NGO support
    • Future Community Forestry policy in Bolivia: consider municipalities!
    Daniel Beams
  • Thank you! [email_address] Photo by Daniel Beams
  • Comparison Possible drivers Regional NGO activities Narrow (Corn, Coffee) NGO funding USAID, PI, TF Municipal programs Ag, forestry extension Source of technical know-how municipal fora