Formalization as Development in Land and Natural Resource Policy

Putzel, L.; Kelly, Alice B.; Cerutti, P.O.; Artati, Yustina

doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1014608

Cited by 78 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, the term 'formalisation' has referred to the codification of informal or customary rules concerning natural resource rights, including ownership, access, use and trade, usually for recognition by the state. However, with the growth of illegal logging initiatives in the 2000s, the term has increasingly been used to refer more generically to the eradication of all activities not sanctioned by the state (Putzel et al, 2015;Weng, 2015). We argue that under both understandings, assessing the impacts of formalisation requires distinguishing between informal activities that are governed locally, from the complete absence of social order.…”

Section: Assessing the Impact Of Formalisation On Access To On-farm Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, formalisation has been promoted as a means to support productive investments and sustainable land management practices, protect fragile rights, enable economic engagement and prevent over-exploitation of resources (De Soto, 2000;Hansen et al, 2015;Kishor and Lescuyer, 2012;Soule et al, 2000). On the other hand there are significant concerns regarding the increasingly intense pursuit of formalisation in a natural resources context, particularly regarding the ability of local users to control and benefit from those resources (McBarnet and Whelan, 1991;Putzel et al, 2015). For example, concerns have been raised about the criminalisation of legitimate but informal livelihood activities (Cerutti et al, 2013;Hauck, 2008;Marfo, 2010;Tschakert and Singha, 2007), the marginalisation of poor resource users who are unable to meet the financial and bureaucratic costs associated with formalised systems (Hilson and Potter, 2005;Lagos, 1995;Maldonado, 1995), and issues of elite capture at different levels (Meinzen-Dick and Mwangi, 2009;Platteau, 2004;Pritchard, 2013;Sjaastad and Cousins, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape: How formalization can undermine farmers control and benefits from trees on their farms

Hirons

McDermott

Asare³

et al. 2018

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schemes to promote sustainable forest management have increasingly focused on addressing widespread informalities in timber production, based on the presumed links between formalisation, the maintenance of forest cover and local welfare. This trend is typified by the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative and associated Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) aimed at eradicating the trade of illegal wood between partner countries and the EU. Yet there is concern that such initiatives might have detrimental impacts on the largely informal rights of local resource users. In order to inform the formalisation agenda, more detailed analysis of the operation of local rights, and how they might be affected by particular schemes is required. This paper focuses on Ghana as a country with a largely informal wood sector that has signed a VPA with the EU for the express purpose of rapid formalisation. Our analysis is guided by a framework for assessing which types of rights might be transformed by particular approaches to formalisation and the subsequent effect this might have on forests and people in particular local contexts. We then apply this framework to an in-depth local case study of on-farm timber governance within a cocoaforest landscape in Ghana's Central Region to examine how the operation of formal and informal and substantive and procedural rights shape who controls, and benefits from, on-farm timber production. We then analyse the content of the VPA in light of these local realities and assess its potential impacts. Our findings highlight how the substantive rights the state grants to companies are presumed to be balanced with the granting of procedural rights to farmers via the mechanisms of right of refusal to harvest on-farm timber, compensation for damage to cocoa crops and the negotiation of community-level Social Responsibility Agreements with private companies. Yet a comparison of these formal rights with farmers' existing informal rights reveals that farmers' control and access to benefits from trees on their farms are notably higher in the 'illegal' chainsaw dominated informal sector than in the 'legal' state-based system. Farmers choose to maintain trees on farms both to shade cocoa and in anticipation of benefits from their informal sale. The VPA, however, aims to eradicate all informal on-farm timber production and thus threatens existing local rights and benefit capture while diminishing incentives to maintain trees on farm. Rather than further criminalising local systems of timber governance, the maintenance of tree cover and local benefit-sharing would be better served by 1) phasing out timber concessions on farmland, 2) abandoning the distinction between planted and native trees on farms and, 3) understanding, recognizing and respecting the existing informal rights of farmers, traditional authorities and chainsaw loggers to negotiate among themselves patterns of access and control of on-farm trees and timber. In general, the case study challenges the assertion that fo...

show abstract

Section: Assessing the Impact Of Formalisation On Access To On-farm Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape: How formalization can undermine farmers control and benefits from trees on their farms

Hirons

McDermott

Asare³

et al. 2018

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is some insightful literature on the barriers or constraints to commercialization of NTFPs (Welford and le Breton, 2008;Heinen and Shrestha-Acharya, 2011;Putzel et al, 2015), most often those in higher-scale markets, as well as at specific stages along the market chain. Analysis along the market chain may also reveal bottlenecks or inequities at specific points or nodes (Marshall et al, 2006a;Bolwig et al, 2011;Ingram et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-timber Forest Product Use and Market Chains Along a Deforestation Gradient in Southwest Malawi

Mahonya

Shackleton

Schreckenberg

2019

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) to rural livelihoods is widely acknowledged globally, as is the income generated from casual or fulltime trade on village and urban markets. However, there is less understanding of how the condition or status of the neighboring landscapes influence the use of and trade in NTFPs. Here we report on the use and trade in NTFPs in four villages situated along a gradient of decreasing forest cover in southwest Malawi using a mixed-methods approach. Data were sourced via a survey of 286 households, value chain analysis of the four most commonly traded NTFPs (thatch grass, edible orchids, mushrooms, and wild fruits), key informant interviews with NTFP traders and direct observations. All households used at least one NTFP, with the most widely used being firewood (100% of households), bamboo (96%), thatch grass (94%), and timber for construction (92%). Overall, 15% of households sold at least one NTFP and the prevalence of selling within a village was correlated with forest cover, whereas buying of NTFPs was inversely correlated with forest cover. There was a wide range in mean annual income (US$20-456) from selling NTFPs based on the product, whether the trader sold on a casual or full-time basis and the market. Of those households selling NTFPs, approximately two-thirds sold more than one NTFP product, which is rarely recognized in income studies of individual market chains. The returns to labor were variable between villages and products, but were generally double or more than the national minimum hourly wage. The NTFP value chains were short, dominated by traders and some intermediaries. Most of the products were sold in local markets with little value addition. Overall, NTFPs were an integral part of the household economy, with multiple participants and users, partly shaped by the forest cover of the surrounding landscapes.

show abstract

“…It is likely that rates of noncompliance within the broader cannabis grower population are even higher than reported in our data, as our survey reached only growers registered on industry listservs; and, even though it was anonymous, it covered illegal livelihood activities, creating potential disincentives to accurately declare practices. Respondents' accounts of small growers' exclusion from newly regulated cannabis market opportunities -due to the misalignment of the regulations with existing practices and the costs of compliance -echo the literature on governmental and nongovernmental regulation and certification of production practices in other sectors, in which codification of regulations or standards has led to formal and informal exclusion of some growers from commodity markets (Bodwitch 2017;Côte and Korf 2018;Dwyer 2015;Getz and Shreck 2006;Lund 2011;Milgroom 2015;Putzel et al 2015).…”

Section: Legal and Black Market Accessmentioning

confidence: 94%

Growers say cannabis legalization excludes small growers, supports illicit markets, undermines local economies

Bodwitch¹,

Carah²,

Daane³

et al. 2019

Calif Agr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ith the legalization of cannabis for recreational use in 2017 (State of California 2016a), the Government of California embarked on an unprecedented, multi-agency initiative to regulate the production of an agricultural crop worth up to $20 billion per annum (Arcview Market Research 2014), the largest cash crop in California (Carah et al. 2015). The state initially projected $1 billion in tax revenue from cannabis sales following legalization for recreational use (McGreevy 2018). Building off recent regulations for medical cannabis production (State of California 2016b), the state created a new licensing system for growers producing cannabis for recreational use, which like medical cannabis, would be distributed legally to the public through state-licensed dispensaries. The CalCannabis Division of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) issues cannabis cultivation licenses. To cultivate for legal markets for recreational (or medical) use, cannabis RESEARCH ARTICLE Growers say cannabis legalization excludes small growers, supports illicit markets, undermines local economies The survey sample was small, but results suggest regulations may need to be modified to incentivize grower participation in state licensing programs.

show abstract

Formalization as Development in Land and Natural Resource Policy

Cited by 78 publications

References 52 publications

Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape: How formalization can undermine farmers control and benefits from trees on their farms

Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape: How formalization can undermine farmers control and benefits from trees on their farms

Non-timber Forest Product Use and Market Chains Along a Deforestation Gradient in Southwest Malawi

Growers say cannabis legalization excludes small growers, supports illicit markets, undermines local economies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About