Wilfred 2008 Corruption, Reform


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wilfred 2008 Corruption, Reform

  1. 1. Corruption, Reform and Environmental Policy in the Forest Sector in Kenya Wilfred Nyangena, Mahmud Yesuf, Paul Guthiga Environment for Development,(EfD-Kenya)
  2. 2. Introduction and motivation <ul><li>A growing body of evidence suggests that corruption is one of the major causes of environmental degradation in developing countries. </li></ul><ul><li>The huge rents associated with resource extraction can be used to evade environmental regulations in two ways with significant environmental and economic costs (World Bank 1997). </li></ul><ul><li>First the surpluses can be used to influence policies through the payment of political contributions to politicians and policy makers (Ascher, 1999). </li></ul><ul><li>Second, enforcement of environmental rules can be evaded by paying bribes to civil servants that are responsible for implementing and administering policies, (Desai, 1998). </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introd, cont’d <ul><li>The forestry sector in many developing countries, documents evidence of politicians granting harvesting concessions in return for payments from logging companies, (Callister 1999). </li></ul><ul><li>Examples of bureaucratic corruption in the forestry sector in Kenya involve logging, charcoal burning and fencing posts. </li></ul><ul><li>One can not fail to see them abundantly and openly sold in markets. One can not even fail to see illegal transportation of these products passing police road blocks </li></ul>
  4. 4. Problem <ul><li>Despite the economic and environmental significance of this problem, the existing environmental policy has neglected the implications of corruption in the forestry sector in Kenya. </li></ul><ul><li>In 2005 govt. embarked on forestry reform in which management of forests was devolved and is now in the hands of communities living around the forest. </li></ul><ul><li>The efficacy of the new forest administration regime is not known nor has it been tested. </li></ul><ul><li>How should societies design policies to encourage prosperity while at the same time protect their natural resources? </li></ul>
  5. 5. Proposed approach <ul><li>To address this question we require insight into people’s behaviour within institutions and natural environments. </li></ul><ul><li>We propose to augment the literature by examining corruption in these new forestry administrative structures that involve community management of forests. </li></ul><ul><li>We compare the levels and outcomes in three forest administrative structures. </li></ul><ul><li>Kenya Wildlife Service, </li></ul><ul><li>Local forest user groups and </li></ul><ul><li>Forest Department </li></ul>
  6. 6. Setting <ul><li>Kakamega Forest, presents a unique opportunity to make this comparison. </li></ul><ul><li>We study in particular the levels of compliance with forest regulation among the different administrative structures. </li></ul><ul><li>The forest is currently sub-divided into three parts each managed by a distinct authority. </li></ul><ul><li>Approximately 44 km2 of the forest is managed as a national reserve, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). </li></ul><ul><li>About 200 km2 is managed by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS). </li></ul><ul><li>About 130 ha has been under quasi-private management of a Quakers Church Mission (QCM) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Overall Objective <ul><li>Overall goal of the study is to compare the levels and outcomes of corruption in the three forest administrative structures that manage Kakamega forest. </li></ul><ul><li>Specific objectives : </li></ul><ul><li>Estimate the value households receive from common forests under varying management regimes. </li></ul><ul><li>Understand the degree and outcome of corruption on forest management under varying management regimes. </li></ul><ul><li>Understand the impact of the new forest reform program on forest management and corruption. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Study Approach <ul><li>We plan to collect household and community survey data from rural households around Kakamega forest to achieve objective 1. </li></ul><ul><li>We will conduct a field experiment to evaluate the degree and outcome of corruption in forest management. (2) </li></ul><ul><li>A stakeholder analysis to achieve objective (3) and compliment arguments in other three objectives. </li></ul><ul><li>Focus group discussions mainly to obtain qualitative information for the stakeholder analysis and to complement as well as reinforce survey and field experiment data. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Approach cont’d <ul><li>Descriptive and econometric analysis will be used in the analysis. </li></ul><ul><li>A field experiment data will be collected on 250 households. </li></ul><ul><li>A household data will also be collected on 500 households. </li></ul><ul><li>A community and focus group qualitative data will also be collected for each community. </li></ul><ul><li>We plan to hold a policy workshop where papers from this project will be presented. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Justification and relevance <ul><li>Findings are of considerable policy relevance, particularly in understanding whether the newly created Kenya Forest Service (KFS) works. </li></ul><ul><li>Results may be instructive for the formulation of anti corruption policies in the sector and neighbouring countries beset by corruption in the forest sector . </li></ul>
  11. 11. Relevance cont’d <ul><li>Experimental methods can help guide policy by provision of insight into how a policy change in a developing country setting could affect behaviour. </li></ul><ul><li>Information on the behavioural link incentives and choice experiments may help us understand how intended policy shifts might work. </li></ul><ul><li>Through dissemination of the results of the studies in the project and interactions in workshops we will draw to the attention of Kenyan policy makers some of the problems and policy issues relevant for the common forestry management. </li></ul>
  12. 12. International collaborators and their academic affiliation. <ul><li>Gunnar Kohlin, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg (TBC)- on paper 1 (forestry & livelihoods) </li></ul><ul><li>Fredrik Carlsson, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg (TBC)- On paper 2, i.e. the field experiment </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas Sterner, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg (TBC)- for modelling and policy instruments </li></ul><ul><li>Randy Bluffstone, Portland State University ? </li></ul><ul><li>Others? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Potential outlets <ul><li>Three papers will be written corresponding to each objective. </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Development Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Forest Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Land Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Environment and Development Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental and Resource Economics. </li></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>AhSante Sana! </li></ul>