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

D. Beams

K. Andersson

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?

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 FrameworkBiophysical

Context

Socio-Economic Context

Policy Context

Community Structure

Self-GovernanceArrangement

s

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)

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)

* significant at the 90-percent level**significant at the 95-percent level

*** significant at the 99-percent level

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 providerK. 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!

krister.andersson@colorado.edu

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