Outline

1. Decentralization Reforms and Property Rights: Potentials and Puzzles for Forest Sustainability and Livelihoods Indiana University, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), and University of Colorado April 2006

2. Outline • Problem and questions • Goal and objectives • Themes

3. Project basics • Target countries and in-country partner organizations: • Bolivia • Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality • Kenya • Kenya Forestry Research Institute • Mexico • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico • Uganda • Uganda Forestry Resources and Institutions Center

4. Project partners • Indiana University (Elinor Ostrom & Jacqui Bauer) • International Food Policy Research Institute (Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Esther Mwangi) • Center for International Forestry Research (Bruce Campbell & Marty Luckert) • U. of Colorado (Krister Andersson)

5. Problem statement: • National level decentralization and property rights reform policies often fail • Why? • Frequently do not account for the complexities involved in land use at the local level • Fall short of the goals of sustainable natural resource management (NRM) and improving local livelihoods

6. 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 more effectively improve both resource and livelihoods sustainability?

7. Key hypotheses • Decentralization of power & decision making is likely when central political actors see benefits • Successful decentralization reforms more likely when: (a) actors at multiple levels support them, and (b) the reforms reconcile a wide array of forest users and interests

8. Hypotheses continued • Institutional arrangements that involve multiple actors at multiple levels will fare better than those that operate within a single level • Institutional arrangements that exhibit a high degree of fit and congruence will have greater success at managing forests sustainably

9. Methodology • Build on the work of the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) Program at IU’s Workshop in Pol. Theory and Policy Analysis • IFRI basics • Created in 1992 • Network of collaborating research centers in a dozen countries

11. IFRI approach • Collects data over time on forests & communities at the same sites • All network collaborators trained in the same data collection protocol • All data is entered into a joint database • Enables researchers to draw conclusions about policy impacts • Current project will draw on existing IFRI data in 4 countries • Supplemented with household surveys

12. Project 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

13. Project objectives: Objective 1 • Develop capacity within resource user groups at selected forest sites to enable actors to identify, understand, and participate in forest governance, benefits, and policy processes • Collect data at eight previously researched forest sites in each country • Household- and community-level data • Diagram the flow of information, resources, etc. at each site • Disseminate findings to user groups

14. Project objectives: Objective 2 • Develop capacity within key organizations in the forestry sector to understand impacts of policies on differentiated local actors and to adopt strategies for inclusion • Disseminate findings to practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and others working with user groups

15. Project objectives: Objective 3 • Develop effective monitoring techniques at the community level to assess the impacts of decentralization and other property rights reforms • Develop action plans with interested user groups • Provide tools for user groups and policy-making organizations to work together over time

16. Framework

17. Key themes: Participation • Close coordination with project partners and stakeholder groups • Pre- and post-site visit workshops • Formation of National Advisory Councils in each country • Opportunities for greater user group involvement

18. Key themes: Training • Focus on synthesizing policy decisions with local resource governance arrangements • Information gathering: 4+ assistants trained in research techniques at each site • Evaluation of findings: post-site visit trainings & workshops for user groups • Research techniques: for user-group support organizations • Scaling up: Regional and international exchange meetings

19. Key themes: Gender issues • Data disaggregated by gender • Highlight gendered effects of reforms when sharing research findings • Tailor trainings, workshops, and other participation methods to constraints faced by women

20. Key themes: Knowledge dissemination • Synthesize findings across target countries and share globally • Tailor dissemination of site-specific findings to user groups & households • Policy roundtables and National Advisory Council meetings • Utilize websites of CGIAR’s Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi) program and CIFOR

21. Key themes: Governance • Working with other projects to evaluate objectives in the context of local, regional, and national institutions

22. Contact information • Direct inquiries to: • Jacqui Bauer, Assistant Director, Workshop in Political Theory & Policy Analysis, Indiana University jacmbaue@indiana.edu 812.855.0441