Trends in research on forestry decentralization policies

Lund, Jens Friis; Rutt, Rebecca Leigh; Ribot, Jesse

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.003

Cited by 57 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would be useful to explore the impact of these factors on the success of self-organisation of community natural resource management in other cases to move towards mid-range theory development. However, our study demonstrates the challenge identified by Ban and Cox (2017) that the SES framework lacks user guidance, which results in a plethora of individual research conducted with little coordination, generating problems with establishing causal inference or theory testing across cases (also identified by Lund et al 2018). Rather, the value of the framework may lie in deep analysis of individual cases studies, to break down the mechanisms of the complex phenomena observed (Ban and Cox 2017), which is certainly the value we found in using the SES framework in our case.…”

Section: Reflections On Multiple Methods and Different Ways Of Framinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the Soviet era, the Leskhoz managed the forests with no input from communities, which drastically changed under the new era of decentralised joint forest management advocated by non-governmental organisations. While decentralisation has been widely associated with more sustainable forest management, its success is dependent on the ability of forest users to actively participate in the decentralised governance process (Wright et al 2016;Lund et al 2018). Explicit attempts at this in Tajikistan include involvement of the communities in monitoring, for example, which only very recently (in 2013) was transferred to forest users.…”

Section: Enabling Conditions For Collective Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…if users are aware of penalties (Chhatre and Agrawal 2008;Cox et al 2010). Districts with longer history of communitybased forest management will have higher productivity (Lynch et al 1995;Brosius et al 1998). …”

Section: Hypothesis Governance System (Gs)-jfm Nongovernment Organisamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Berkes 1989;Leach et al 1999;Agrawal 2001;Agrawal and Gupta 2005) have proposed that decentralised community-based management can achieve both conservation and human well-being goals in common pool resources by enhancing a community's ability to self-organise. However, self-organisation is not always evident, especially in resource systems with a history of strong centralised governance (Barnes and Van Laerhoven 2013), which has led to non-governmental organisations taking a key role in the devolution of resource management (Shackleton et al 2002;Blaikie 2006;Wright et al 2016;Lund et al 2018). In such instances, a common intervention strategy of both governmental and non-governmental development programmes has been to invest in building participatory governance mechanisms to help develop community-based natural resource management (Kumar 2002;Robinson et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our study aims to address various aspects of the impacts of decentralisation on: forest quality, institutional empowerment, and the importance of historical and contextual factors that influence common pool resource management today (thereby addressing a gap in forestry decentralisation literature identified by Lund et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan

Haider

Neusel²,

Peterson

et al. 2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Pamir Mountains of Eastern Tajikistan, the clearance of mountain forests to provide fuelwood for an increasing population is a major source of environmental degradation. International development organisations have implemented joint forestry management institutions to help restore once-forested mountainous regions, but the success of these institutions has been highly variable. This study uses a multi-method approach, drawing on institutional analysis supported by Elinor Ostrom's design principles and socialecological system framework in combination with resilience thinking to help understand why some communities in Tajikistan manage their forests more sustainably than others. The application of the design principles provided helpful guidance for practitioners implementing joint forestry management. The social-ecological system analysis revealed both 'history of use' and 'tenant density' as positively associated with forest condition. However, we also identify limitations of snapshot social-ecological assessments. In particular, we illustrate the critical importance of considering historical legacy effects, such as externally imposed centralised governance regimes (that characterise many post-Soviet states) in attempts to understand current management practices. Our work shows how a more nuanced understanding of institutional change and inertia can be achieved by adopting a resilience approach to institutional analysis, focusing on the importance of reorganisation.Lessons learned from our analysis should be widely applicable to common pool resource management in other semi-arid forested landscapes as well as in regions with a strong centralised governance legacy.

show abstract

Section: Reflections On Multiple Methods and Different Ways Of Framinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Enabling Conditions For Collective Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypothesis Governance System (Gs)-jfm Nongovernment Organisamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan

Haider

Neusel²,

Peterson

et al. 2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Transforming land use governance: Global targets without equity miss the mark

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A confluence of concerns about tropical forest loss, global warming, and social inequality drive calls to transform land use governance. Yet there is widespread debate about what must be transformed, by whom, and how. The increasing equation of transformation with ambitious, quantitative global targets, such as "net zero emissions" or "zero deforestation" has gained widespread appeal as a means to inspire action and hold powerful actors to account. However presenting targets themselves as the end goals of transformation, obscures both the means of achieving them and the social and environmental values that legitimate them. The escalation of targets for land use, in particular, is disconnected from targeted geographies, lacks accountability to socially diverse knowledge and priorities, and is readily appropriated by powerful actors at multiple scales. This paper argues instead, for an equity-based approach to transformation that reveals how unequal power distorts both the ends and the means of global governance. We illustrate this argument with five case-study "vignettes" in Indonesia, Ghana, Peru, and Brazil that reveal how de-contextualized, target-based thinking has reinforced state and corporate control over resources at the expense of local access, while largely failing to deliver the promised environmental outcomes. We conclude that equity-focused, case study research is critical not only to unpack the local consequences of pursuing global targets, but also to make visible alternative efforts to achieve deeper socio-environmental transformations.

show abstract