Formalizing land rights can reduce forest loss: Experimental evidence from Benin

Abstract

Many countries are formalizing customary land rights systems with the aim of improving agricultural productivity and facilitating community forest management. This paper evaluates the impact on tree cover loss of the first randomized control trial of such a program. Around 70,000 landholdings were demarcated and registered in randomly chosen villages in Benin, a country with a high rate of deforestation driven by demand for agricultural land. We estimate that the program reduced the area of forest loss in treated villages, with no evidence of anticipatory deforestation or negative spillovers to other areas. Surveys indicate that possible mechanisms include an increase in tenure security and an improvement in the effectiveness of community forest management. Overall, our results suggest that formalizing customary land rights in rural areas can be an effective way to reduce forest loss while improving agricultural investments.

A global analysis of the social and environmental outcomes of community forests

“…This suggests that even if development and conservation agents are mostly concerned with improving forest condition, or increasing local incomes, a rights-based approach can be an important predictor of positive outcomes for those goals. This is consistent with studies showing that formal recognition of indigenous rights to traditional lands has been associated with reduced deforestation relative to other ownership and management arrangements (for example, [61][62][63] ). While our analysis is unable to disentangle true causal links, the strong association between positive rights outcomes and other outcomes (but not the converse) warrants further study using research designs that can specifically isolate the effect of resource rights.…”

Land privatization and deforestation in a commodity production frontier

“…Where market forces and State policies favor forest conversion to agriculture, a strong spatial and temporal coupling between land privatization and deforestation as that found here in the Argentine Dry Chaco is likely observed. Even where land titling results from State action, landholders with property titles may deforest more as long as market forces promote conversion to agriculture, as observed in the Brazilian Amazon (Wren-Lewis et al, 2020). This outcome likely arises where land-use options requiring forest clearing (e.g., soybean cultivation) are more economically profitable than those compatible with forest conservation (e.g., sustainable forestry, ecotourism) (Robinson et al, 2014).…”

“…Insecure land tenure has long been associated with higher deforestation (Araujo et al, 2009). Conservation policies have promoted land privatization to increase land tenure security, and thus stimulate investment in land-use practices that raise land productivity and reduce the need to clear forests (Wren-Lewis et al, 2020). However, deforestation in private lands can be similar or even higher than in public or communal lands (e.g., Paneque-Gálvez et al, 2013), when more secure tenure encourages greater investment in agricultural expansion (Busch & Ferreti-Gallon, 2017).…”

Concentrating vs. spreading our footprint: how to meet humanity's needs at least cost to nature

“…In such situations, local communities should be partners and protagonists in conservation initiatives, with any promising approach to limiting the environmental impact of food production scrutinized for its likely social consequences. However, it is also important to note that sparing is not about endorsing industrial production, and that high yields can be achieved in many different ways (see below) – including land tenure reform and targeted agronomic and financial support for smallholders (Sankaran & Madhusudan, 2010; Khan et al ., 2014; Stabile et al ., 2020; Wren‐Lewis et al ., 2020). By prioritizing retention of natural habitats, sparing can also help support the livelihoods of indigenous communities who depend on them; the conservation values of such areas can provide additional arguments for communities asserting their territorial rights (Phalan, 2018).…”

“…The recent literature provides more (Table 1). For instance in Benin, analysis of a randomized rollout programme shows that formalizing land rights (a fine‐scale version of zoning) cut deforestation by one‐fifth, by stimulating greater smallholder investment and cross‐household cooperation (Wren‐Lewis et al ., 2020). Around Bandipur in southern India, conservation funding enabled farmers to install solar‐powered electric fences which greatly reduced crop‐raiding by wildlife and encouraged smallholders to invest in wells and hence achieve three harvests (rather than one) per year (Sankaran & Madhusudan, 2010); as a result, farmers no longer needed (or had time) to graze their cattle in the National Park.…”