Joint Forest Management in Katanino, Zambia: Inappropriate Property Regime Change?

Abstract

This research study reports on a Joint Forest Management (JFM) program in Katanino Area, Zambia. Data was collected through a questionnaire survey, unstructured group interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and field observations. Results show that forest resources from Katanino Forest contributed only 3% to the total household incomes while 40% of respondents reported not obtaining any forest resources from Katanino Forest. Only 12 residents were involved in JFM activities while 60% of the respondents reported never having attended a meeting where JFM issues were discussed. Despite the weak institutional framework, we found the Katanino Forest to be in a good physical condition. This most likely reflects a situation of low rivalry in terms of consumption and medium costs of exclusion; normally not a situation where a rather costly common property regime would be a fitting institution. The good condition of the forest could be seen as an indication of the success, to some extent, of the previous property regime and the redundancy of a property regime change at the time, especially for an area where the local communities had alternative sources of forest resources. A main lesson to be learnt is to avoid costly and inappropriate property regime changes. One should design JFM policies to involve various actors, social institutions, and local organizations from the start; to provide and develop local ownership; and to take appropriate consideration of local resource conditions and social heterogeneity.

Household-Level Determinants of Participation in Forest Support Programmes in the Miombo Landscapes, Zambia

“…Since rural households are often suggested to engage in diversified livelihood strategies [60], the costs and benefits associated with different livelihood choices may influence household decisions to participate in FS programmes [8,35,65]. However, there is a weak understanding of the strength and the relationships between household-level factors, including livelihood choices, and participation in FS programmes in high-pressure areas such as the Miombo woodlands [45,57]. Using household data from the Miombo landscapes of Zambia, our study analyses household-level factors affecting participation in FS programmes.…”

“…Additionally, the cash gains from charcoal production and subsistence contribution of forest products appear to suggest a higher opportunity cost associated with FS programmes for forest livelihoods [101]. Accordingly, participation in FS programmes becomes a secondary activity with lesser gains [45,46].…”

“…Given the increasing pressure on forest resources in the dry forest areas and Miombo in particular [32,43,44], it becomes crucial to understand household-level factors associated with participation in FS programmes. Despite past interests in understanding the impacts of these contextual factors on forest programmes, there is still a weak understanding of how these factors affect participation in FS programmes in the Miombo area [45,46]. Moreover, in these areas, woodland management and forest uses are highly intertwined with households' livelihood strategies [32,34].…”

“…However, given differences in the rural economy and prevalent heterogeneity among rural households, it becomes essential to understand whether participation in FS programmes results from differences in household attributes or merely by nature of the rural economy [36,39,42]. Failure to understand the impact of these factors on FS programmes may lead to a low level of acceptance of forest programmes in some areas, resulting in a potential failure of the programmes to meet their objectives [45,49].…”

“…While some attempts have been made to introduce FS programmes in protected areas (i.e., areas with limited access to and use of forests) and non-protected sites [47,48,56], the majority of FS programmes in Zambia are characterised by deficiencies in design and implementation [49,53]. For example, in their study, Bwalya and Vedeld [45], and Phiri [46] highlights the mismatch between households' livelihood expectations and programme goals, leading to FS programmes' failure to deliver successful outcomes. Despite low acceptance rates and the failure of most forest programmes to achieve sustainable outcomes, previous studies in Zambia have not exhaustively examined how household-level attributes can influence participation in FS programmes [13,57].…”