Transaction costs of community‐based forest management: empirical evidence from Tanzania

Abstract

Levels of transaction costs in community-based forest management (CBFM) in four communities adjacent to the Ambangulu mountain forests of the north-east of Tanzania were assessed through questionnaire responses from 120 households. Costs and benefits of CBFM to the rich, medium and poor groups of forest users were estimated. Costs of CBFM were participation in forest monitoring and time spent in meetings. Benefits included forest products consumed at household level. Transaction costs relative to benefits for CBFM were found to be higher for poorer households compared with medium income and richer households. Higher income groups obtained the most net benefits followed by medium and poorer households. Community involvement in forest management may lower the transaction costs incurred by government, but a large proportion of these costs are borne by poorer members of the community. Transaction costs are critical factors in the success or failure of CBFM and need to be incorporated into policies and legislation related to community-based natural resource management. RésuméOn a évalué les frais de transactions dans la gestion communautaire de la forêt (community-based forest management -CBFM) au moyen de questionnaires distribués dans 120 foyers de quatre communautés voisines des forêts des monts Ambangulu, au nord-est de la Tanzanie. Les coû ts et bénéfices de la CBFM ont été évalués pour les groupes riches, moyens et pauvres d'utilisateurs de la forêt.Les coû ts de la CBFM concernaient la participation au monitoring de la forêt et le temps consacré aux réunions. Les bénéfices incluaient les produits forestiers consommés au niveau de chaque famille. Le rapport entre le coû t des transactions et les bénéfices de la CBFM s'est révélé plus élevé pour les foyers pauvres que pour les moyens et les riches. Les groupes aux revenus les plus élevés tiraient le bénéfice net le plus haut, suivis par les groupes aux revenus moyens, puis les pauvres. L'implication communautaire dans la gestion forestière peut faire baisser les frais de transactions couverts par le gouvernement, mais une grande partie de ces coû ts sont supportés par les plus pauvres membres de la communauté. Or ces frais sont des facteurs critiques de la réussite ou de l'échec de la CBFM, et il faut les intégrer dans des politiques et une législation liées à la gestion communautaire des ressources naturelles.

Contribution of Joint Forest Management in Improving Conservation and Local Livelihood in Rufiji District, Tanzania

“…However, studies on the impact of the Ngumburuni JFM show an increase in illegal overharvesting of timber, grazing, bushfires, debarking of tress, illegal farming, and charcoal burning in the forest due to unclear livelihoods options to the surrounding communities (Blomley & Ramadhani, 2006;Lund & Nielsen, 2006;Meshack & Raben, 2007;Meshack et al, 2006). Meanwhile, there is insufficient information documented on the contribution of the JFM in conservation of the forest resources and improving the local people's livelihood.…”

“…Presence of many males than females could be associated with the fact that most households were male headed. Traditionally, males are decision makers on many issues including natural resources in many African societies (Meshack et al, 2006). Dominance of the male headed households in Tanzania influences decisions at the family level.…”

Dry forests, livelihoods and poverty alleviation: understanding current trends

“…But even here there are critics. For example, Petersen and Sandhövel (2001) point to lack of clear rights and adverse incentives, while Meshack et al (2006) have recorded the high transaction costs of local control, and suggest that these are highest for the poorest of the poor. They conclude that policies and legislation need to be simplified in order to reduce transaction costs.…”

Is the contribution of community forest users financially efficient? A household level benefit-cost analysis of community forest management in Nepal

“…These costs arise during the course of development and implementation of the community forest operational plan when forest users exercise their exclusive rights over common property resources (Adhikari and Lovett 2006). The inclusion of transaction costs into policy formulation is necessary to determine the failure and success of community forest management (Meshack et al 2006). Hence, this study attempts to analyse the transaction costs separately.…”