Forest property rights under nationalized forest management in Bhutan

Abstract

Forest nationalization policies in Asia have often resulted in decreased local property rights over forests and users' short-term exploitative behaviour, leading to degradation of forests. Bhutan's centralized forest management structure was initiated with the Forest Act of 1969. This paper evaluates how nationalization of forests in Bhutan changed forest property rights and associated incentives and disincentives and management outcomes for leaf-litter forests (sokshing) and non-sokshing forests. Using the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IRFI) research protocols, 12 sites across Bhutan's broadleaf zones were surveyed. Changes in forest property rights were analysed using Ostrom and Schlager's ‘bundles of rights’ framework. The forest nationalization policy changed the array of de jure rights that local people had over both traditionally community-used forests (the majority of forests) and small blocks of sokshings that were usually owned by a household and managed to produce valuable leaf litter for their agriculture livelihoods. There was more compliance with regulations in sokshing than in non-sokshing forests. Non-compliance of local people with forest conservation occurred in areas where the chance of being caught for rule breaking was perceived to be low or the costs of compliance were high. This was almost exclusively the case in non-sokshing forest in the form of widespread but low-intensity illegal tree cutting. The continuing significance of sokshing for agricultural livelihoods serves as a strong incentive for conservation of sokshings by rural people, even though the sokshings are under ultimate state control. The successful management of forests requires minimal difference between de jure policies and de facto practices for which rules that allocate property rights and the way those rules are enforced are important elements. Conservation and management rights of non-sokshing for communities would not only promote local stewardship, but also put the limited capacity of the Department of Forest to best use. Increased deforestation around villages may result, because modern development alternatives may make leaf litter insignificant for agriculture.

Effects of national forest‐management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya

“…The nationalization of forests eliminated legal status for traditional forest management, although such practices remain (Dorji et al. ; Buffum ).…”

“…However, Bhutan and Sikkim's low rates of deforestation indicate that, despite a lack of formally recognized community management, they have functioning systems of monitoring and enforcement that protect forests, or at least timber, outside protected areas. The traditional management systems that the government informally recognizes and supports may also play a role in protecting forests (Thakur et al 2005;Dorji et al 2006;Buffum 2012).…”

“…Of Bhutan's forests 46% are protected, 52% are reserve forests, and 2% are managed by communities (Dorji & Schmidt 2014). The nationalization of forests eliminated legal status for traditional forest management, although such practices remain (Dorji et al 2006;Buffum 2012).…”

Another vision of sound tree and forest management: Insights from traditional ash shaping in the Moroccan Berber mountains

“…Singh et al (2015) described how the bear oak is the pillard of the functioning of a sustainable traditional social ecological system based on pollarding and TEK. Other examples in the Himalayan chain include tree species management (Rawat et al 2010) or management systems such as sokshing, which are plots of forest land collectively managed where leaf litter is collected for cattle bedding and soil fertility management (Dorji et al 2006, Siebert & Belski 2015. In the arid Red Sea Hills, Andersen et al (2014) described how pastoral societies tend the rare available trees (mainly Acacia species) for pastoral exploitation and conservation because they are crucial for their livelihoods.…”

Why is There No Tragedy in These Commons? An Analysis of Forest User Groups and Forest Policy in Bhutan

“…In 1969 the government attempted to strengthen the management of Bhutan's forests by nationalizing all forests and introducing a system of issuing permits for the harvesting of timber and other forest products. The new forest policy retained some traditional rights in national forests, such individual or community rights to graze livestock in designated blocks of forest [45,46] or collect leaf litter in designated blocks of forest [47][48][49], but eliminated the legal basis for many traditional practices of forest management related to timber and firewood production, including the exclusion of outsiders [50].…”