Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AEA Presentation: Impact Evaluation of CFP - Zambia

979 views

Published on

Key baseline findings for USAID's Community-Based Forest Management Program (CFP) impact evaluation in Zambia. Presented at the American Evaluation Association's Evaluation 2015 Conference. Credit:

- Heather Huntington, PhD, The Cloudburst Group
- M. Mercedes Stickler, USAID
- Stephanie Fenner, The Cloudburst Group
- Aleta Haflett, The Cloudburst Group

Learn more: http://bit.ly/TCGcbfp

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • Be the first to comment

AEA Presentation: Impact Evaluation of CFP - Zambia

  1. 1. Land Tenure & Resource Management IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY- BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CFP) Lead researchers—Heather Huntington, PhD (The Cloudburst Group), M. Mercedes Stickler (USAID), Stephanie Fenner (The Cloudburst Group), Aleta Haflett (The Cloudburst Group) November 2015
  2. 2. OUTLINE • Context: • Background on REDD+ in Zambia • Program Overview of USAID-funded Community-Based Forest Management Program (CFP) • Objectives and methodology of the impact evaluation • Key baseline findings • Access to Forests and Forest Resources • Perceptions of governance • Conclusions and closing considerations, including lessons learned from baseline survey
  3. 3. CONTEXT
  4. 4. Climate Change and the Importance of Protecting Forests • Climate change is a significant obstacle to ending extreme poverty as it threatens to profoundly impact the livelihoods of millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. • Deforestation and forest degradation are long recognized as significant sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, account for an estimated 10-25% of anthropogenic GHG (http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/). Preserving forest cover is an important aspect of any development program designed to improve livelihoods, reduce emissions, and mitigate climate change.
  5. 5. Deforestation and Degradation in Zambia • Zambia is one of the top 10 GHG emitting countries in the world as a result of deforestation and degradation. Deforestation rate is among the top-5 in the world (EIA, 2008). • Main drivers of deforestation in Zambia include: charcoal and wood fuel production, logging for timber, expansion of small scale agriculture and unsustainable agricultural practices (GRZ & UN-REDD, 2010). • Zambia is at risk of depleting its forest resources in fifteen years if the deforestation rate does not decrease (USAID/Zambia, 2013).
  6. 6. Zambia and REDD+ • The United Nations and the United States Government are supporting the development of a national Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) strategy in Zambia (UN-REDD, 2008). • REDD+ is a mechanism developed by the UNFCCC to reward developing countries for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. • REDD+ creates an incentive for developing countries to protect, better manage and wisely use their forest resources, programs also offer social and economic benefits (UN-REDD, 2013).
  7. 7. The USAID-funded Community-Based Forest Management Program (CFP) • CFP, designed to reduce deforestation on customary and reserved lands, aims to establish the largest REDD+ program in Zambia. • Four primary objectives: 1. Empower and equip communities to lessen the drivers of deforestation; 2. Establish and improve forest and natural resource management plans; 3. Promote alternative livelihoods to unsustainable charcoal and timber production; and 4. Implement pay-for-performance and/or revenue-sharing programs for forest conservation and carbon sequestration.
  8. 8. Community-Based Forest Management Program (CFP) Intervention Six main project components: 1. Stakeholder Consultation 2. Livelihood Improvement 3. Forest Management 4. Forest Carbon Science 5. Carbon Market Creation 6. Policy and Engagement with the Government of Zambia
  9. 9. CFP Impact Evaluation Purpose USAID’s primary learning objectives for the CFP IE are: 1. To understand how REDD+ programs impact land tenure and property rights (LTPR) and related livelihoods, either positively or negatively. 2. To learn about what aspects of REDD+ programming are most effective in incentivizing long-term carbon sequestration and reduced GHG emissions from forests and landscapes.
  10. 10. Research Questions: LTPR 1. How do REDD+ programs affect LTPR in forested areas? 2. In what ways were tenure arrangements taken into consideration in the design and implementation of the REDD+ project? 3. How does tenure affect the distribution of benefits (including co-benefits) from REDD+ projects? 4. How do any changes in tenure as a result of the REDD+ program affect livelihood outcomes within communities and within households? 5. How have any changes in tenure arrangements affected the participation of stakeholders in REDD+ processes/activities within communities and within households?
  11. 11. Background: LTPR • LTPR: The rights, rules, and institutions that define individual or community access to land and related natural resources, including in forested areas. • Critical rights: Rights of access; Rights of withdrawal of resources; Rights of management; Rights of exclusion; Rights of alienation (to sell property); Authority to sanction (Ostrom and Schlager 1996, USAID 2011). • In many developing countries, forest property rights tend to be contested, overlapping, and insecure (Sunderlin et al. 2013). Lack of secure LTPR for local populations is recognized as a principal driver of deforestation in many developing countries (Angelsen 2008).
  12. 12. REDD+ and LTPR “Good and efficient governance of forest resources and the distribution of benefits will be central to the success of REDD+ policies and measures.”-The UN-REDD Programme • If REDD+ projects do not address complex LTPR systems, project activities may have an adverse effect on the rights and livelihoods of certain individuals or groups (Larson et al. 2013). • Processes through which REDD+ projects may effectively clarify and strengthen forest tenure and safeguard local communities’ de facto rights and livelihoods remain unclear (Naughton-Treves & Wendland 2014; Sommerville 2015)
  13. 13. LTPR in Zambia • The Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) recognizes private property rights in two tenure categories: statutory (leasehold) and customary. • Statutory lands, cover as little as 6% of all land in the country, • Customary land covers the remainder of land and is governed by customary chiefs and their representatives, such as village headman, through largely informal systems. • GRZ retains rights to all trees (and wildlife) in Zambia, even those located on customarily administered lands (GRZ 2015a, b).
  14. 14. METHODOLOGY
  15. 15. Evaluation Design • Quasi-experimental Difference-in-Differences (DD) design: Used to compare the changes in outcomes over time between treatment and control groups. • Qualitative component: Designed to add a social context within which to situate the statistics, add depth to overall evaluation. • Survey Instruments: 4395 household surveys, 820 wives surveys, 282 headperson surveys, 258 key informant interviews, 80 focus group discussions, and 40 participatory mapping exercises. • Quantitative and qualitative data collected at baseline, midline, and end line
  16. 16. Study Area: Eastern Province and Program Districts in Zambia.
  17. 17. KEY BASELINE FINDINGS: ACCESS TO FORESTS AND FOREST RESOURCES
  18. 18. Overview: Access to Forests and Forest Resources • Most households (HHs) in the study sample (76%, 3305) have access to only one forest; • 17% (762) of the HHs report not having access to any forest. • Among those with forest access, the majority has access to communal land that is either located on their village’s land (69%, 2732) or on communal land in another village (17%, 663). • Majority of forests (62%, 2482) are reported to be in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition (62%, 2482).
  19. 19. Key Finding: Decreased Access to Forest Land and Forest Resources Baseline findings suggest that access to forest land and forest resources in the study area is decreasing. Reasons for lost access: 1. Forest degradation and deteriorating forest conditions 2. Restrictions on access to forests and resources 3. Outsider use of forest land and resources
  20. 20. Reason 1: Forest degradation and deteriorating forest conditions • Overall condition of forests: Condition of most forests (42%, 1688) was noted to have worsened in the past 3 years; 33% (1305) were reported to have remained the same and 12% (482) have improved. • Changes in area and thickness of forest cover: Most forests are perceived to have stayed the same in area (45%, 1788), 35% (1405) are reported to have decreased slightly in area. This trend is also evident in questions about changes in the thickness of the forest where 35% (1404) are reported to have remained the same, 38% (1540) reported as slightly thinning.
  21. 21. Reason 1: Forest degradation and deteriorating forest conditions • Changes in availability of forest resources: Availability of wood and non-wood forest products in forests was reported as either ‘A little less’ or ‘Much less available’ than it was 3 years ago by 44% (1599) of HHs. 37% (1342) of HHs reported the availability had remained the same, and 18% (650) noted an increase in availability. • On forest resources: “ Trees are few in the areas which are closer to our homes because we use them for a lot of activities, but there a lot of trees in the wooded areas which are far from the villages.”
  22. 22. Reason 2: Restrictions on access to forests and resources • 16% (590) of HHs with access to forests reported new restrictions within the past year that had effected their ability/ease of accessing or collecting resources from forests. 84% (2994) noted no new restrictions. • 88% (3138) of HHs with access to forests said they did not need a permit to collect forest products, 11% (410) reported a permit as necessary. • On restrictions to forest resources: “Accessibility of the forest has reduced because the other side is ran by the forest department and you cannot collect even firewood, no cutting trees, no hunting from there. We wanted to kill rats from there…but accessibility has reduced, it has reduced because we are not allowed to go in and cut trees.”
  23. 23. Reason 2: Restrictions on access to forests and resources • FGDs reveal widespread and increased presence of Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) in forests. • Fear and perceptions of violence of ZAWA has had negative impacts on access to forest resources • On fear and violence of ZAWA: “(R): Men can get up to say, oh let me go and look for rattan from the forest. When he is found he is apprehended to say he is a poacher hunting for animals, yes. They are arrested sometimes… if they are not lucky when they go there they are killed right there in the forest…even when that person did not go there to kill for animals, he just went there to look for rattan or to collect bamboos. So even going there, they do not have full rights, they go with fear.”
  24. 24. Reason 3: Outsider use of forest land and resources • 11% (196) of forests reported to have decreased in forest area were noted as having decreased due to large-scale projects (plantations, new settlements, mining, etc.). 36% (642) noted as having decreased due to ongoing or increased charcoal production. • 13% (211) of forests reported to have decreased in forest thickness were noted as decreased due to large-scale projects. 30% (499) noted as decreased due to ongoing or increased charcoal production.
  25. 25. Reason 3: Outsider use of forest land and resources • Qualitative findings suggest the reallocation of forest land to lodge owners as common reason for lost access. • On access to forests: “It has reduced, because part of the forest had been sold to some investors to develop the area. We don’t move anyhow to get what you need. An investor has built a lodge in the same area and we don’t trespass. Once found you will be charged.…Access to the forest has reduced, because of a lodge you may need some medicine from the forest but you could find that the tree that contain the value of medicine is between the boundaries of that area which was sold, and it’s difficult to pass through and get the medicine.”
  26. 26. BASELINE FINDINGS: PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNANCE
  27. 27. Key Findings : Perceptions of Governance • Among HHs that access a forest, satisfaction with how village leaders manage the forest is high. 87% (3882) noted they were satisfied with how village leaders manage the forest. • Approximately the same number of HHs (87%, 3800) reported that village leaders in charge of forest management are trusted and honest. • Trend continued when HH were asked if land related decision making by village leaders is open and transparent (86%, 3773).
  28. 28. Key Findings: Perceptions of Governance HH survey and FGD suggest limited local participation in forest management and decision- making: • An overwhelming 81% (2916) of HHs said that no meetings on forest issues have been held in their village in the past 12 months. • One group noted: “Perhaps we don’t understand what is implied by decision making the decisions we can make are in cases where the headman brings us a report from the chief telling us what the chief has said and asking us to collectively act on that that is how it is done there is no other way we can make decisions
  29. 29. Key Findings: Perceptions of Governance • Ladder of Power: Chief overwhelmingly noted by 79% of all HHs (3454) as the most powerful person in the village in terms of making decisions about forest use and management. • Qualitative findings further reveal a perceived lack of ability/capacity to hold the chief and government accountable. • FGD participants often expressed feelings of powerlessness and fear to go against decisions from the chief and/or the government that they were not happy with.
  30. 30. Key Findings: Perceptions of Governance • On lack of power to go against the decisions of the chief: “…chiefs are corrupt, they love money and so he can be bribed by those people...This matter will depend on the owner of this community. There is nothing the village members will do about it. The chief is the one that will decide. We do not have any rights, whatever will be decided by the chief is what will be respected.” • On lack of power to go against the decisions of the government: “The problem is that these rules come from the government. People in the government have money and whatever they say they want it to be obeyed, us here we don’t have any powers to control them or to start claiming our benefits… nothing can happen.”
  31. 31. Key Findings: Perceptions of Governance • 26% (1091) of HHs surveyed noted it was either ‘Likely’ or ‘Highly Likely’ that the chief would sell or give away the customary forestland used by their village for investment purposes without authorization from the village in the next 3 years. • A similar amount (25%, 1065) noted it was either ‘Likely’ or ‘Highly Likely’ that the government would sell or give away the customary forestland used by their village for investment purposes without authorization from the village in the next 3 years.
  32. 32. CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSING CONSIDERATIONS
  33. 33. Conclusions: • The UN-REDD Programme: “If the allocation of forest or carbon rights is opaque and uncertain, if the distribution of benefits is unpredictable, untimely or captured by a few, if lack of enforcement allows free riders to exploit the system, or if corruption is perceived as high, stakeholders will not take the risk of forgoing the income they derive from their current uses of forest resources.” • FGD, Men in Mwambe: “(I): Are there charcoal burners nearby? (R:) Yes they are there, those from the mountains. (I): But for you there are no charcoal burners? (R:) No, no one (M:) Oh, but these are your mountains? (R:) Yes (M:) But other people come to get? (R:) They burn charcoal, destroying our trees. (I): But it is your land? (R:) It is our land but then it was sold (I): But can’t you protect it? (R:) How can we protect it when it the chief who has sold?”
  34. 34. Conclusions: • LTPR: Reported loss of forest access and loss of local user rights to forest resources has important implications for perceived tenure security, and therefore the success of CFP. While HH survey statistics among HHs with access to forests may suggest that tenure is perceived as tenure, qualitative findings highlight weak exclusion rights and multiple instances of lost forest access and local user rights. • Governance and accountability: Findings highlight the need for CFP to address accountability and inequality in existing power structures, particularly the power of the chief when designing benefit sharing mechanisms
  35. 35. Closing Considerations: Challenges and Lessons Learned • Importance of training qualitative field team to produce valuable/useful qualitative data • Coordination with project implementer and IE team, difficulties in terms of site selection • Community Listing and sampling
  36. 36. Thank You

×