Presented by Baruani Mshale, from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the XVI Biennial IASC Conference ‘Practicing the commons: self-governance, cooperation, and institutional change’, in Utrecht, the Netherlands, on July 11, 2017.

1. Outcomes of land and forest
tenure reform implementation: A
Global Comparative Study
XVI Biennial IASC Conference ‘Practicing the Commons: Self-Governance,
Cooperation, and Institutional Change, July 10-14, 2017
Baruani Mshale
Iliana Monterroso
Mani Ram Banjade
Tuti Herawati
Nining Liswanti
Esther Mwangi
Anne Larson

2. • Context
• Research Questions and
Methods
• Key Findings on Outcomes
of Forest Tenure Reform
• Conclusion
OUTLINE

3. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
• Forest tenure reforms in the tropics goes back to the 1970s,
80s and recently
• Broadly aimed at halting and reversing deforestation and forest
degradation trends
• Expanded forest management approaches to:
– combine both conservation and livelihood goals
– include both state and non-state actors particularly local
communities
• However, implementation has been uneven and results are
mixed
• Hence this CIFOR led GCS Tenure project

4. GCS TENURE PROJECT, 7 COUNTRIES

5. FOREST TENURE REGIME TYPES
No Regime Type Definition
1. Community
Forestry
Forest rights granted by government to and held collectively by a
community
2. Customary Forestry Similar to community forestry but customary institutions apply in
administering rights
3. Private Forestry Forest rights granted by government to and held by private
individuals
4. Collaborative
Forestry
Ownership rights retained by the state but other rights are shared
between the state and adjacent communities
5. Partnership
Forestry
Ownership rights retained by a private company but some rights
are shared between the company and adjacent communities

6. RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT METHODS
• At the community level
– FGDs: over 160 with separate groups of 8-12 men and women
– KII: over 120 in 3 countries
– Intra household surveys: over 2600 interviewing both male and female
adults of the same household
• Other methods
– Participatory prospective analysis
– Legal framework analysis
– Interview with government implementers and FGDs with NGOs. Review
of documents
• Started in early 2014 and currently at data analysis stage

7. KEY QUESTIONS: TENURE SECURITY, LIVELIHOODS & FOREST CONDITION
Tenure Security Livelihoods Forest Condition
What are the main sources
of land/forest tenure
insecurity?
Any improvement have you
undertaken on land you use since
the reform? Any investment made
on land improvement or
sustainable land/forest
management ?
How do you
compare the forest
condition now and
before reform?
What are the main sources
of land/forest tenure
security?
How often in the last year did you
have problems satisfying the food
needs of the household ?
Compared to when
you first joined the
[scheme/program],
has the condition of
forests been
changed?
In your view has your
tenure security to
land/forest resources
changed because of the
reform ?
How does the situation with
regard to household food needs
compare with before reform?
Reasons of change in food needs
over time.

8. COMPARATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
Comparisons made between
 COUNTRIES: To understand how national and local level
contexts affects forest tenure reforms
 REGIME TYPES: Whether/how different extent of rights
devolution yield different experiences and outcomes
 DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES: gender, age, wealth,
etc
 WITH AND WITHOUT and BEFORE AND AFTER
REFORMS: Question of attribution

9. TENURE SECURITY PERCEPTION BEFORE AND AFTER
REFORMS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Male Grand Total Female Male Grand Total Female Male Grand Total
Uganda Indonesia Peru
Grand Total
Dont know
Do not apply
Worsened
Same as before
Prefers not to respond
Improved

10. TOP REASONS FOR TENURE SECURITY
• Having an ownership title
• Clarity of forest land boundaries
• Absence of land and forest related conflicts
especially within the community
• Duration of rights: permanence of rights holding
guarantees security of tenure rights
• Predictability of laws: rights cannot change or be
revoked easily
• Communal authorities are autonomous and
customary rights are respected

11. • Large differences between men
and women in Indonesia and
Peru
• Also between poor and non-
poor: Among poor people, only
20% in Indonesia and 49% in
Peru perceived that their rights
are secure
• Differences across reform
type/tenure regime:75.3%
positive net response in titled
communities in Peru; 41,9%
positive net response in land
designated for the use of
communities in Indonesia
RESULTS 1. DOES FORMALIZATION RESULT
IN TENURE SECURITY? (A)
46%
58%
19% 24%
73% 76%
4%
2%
5%
5%
5% 1%
12%
10%
5%
9%
2%
37% 29%
72% 63%
20% 21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Indonesia Peru Uganda
No opinion Disagree Neutral Agree
Source: Preliminary survey results
“Since I joined the [scheme/program] I feel that my
rights and access to land and forests are strong and
secure”

12. RESULTS 1. DOES FORMALIZATION RESULTS
IN TENURE SECURITY? (B)
18%
31%
19% 23%
73% 75%
6%
4%
7%
5%
5% 2%
65%
51%
67%
62%
20% 20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Men Women Men Women Men Women
Indonesia Peru Uganda
“If I have a dispute about forest use and access, I feel confident that
my rights will be protected and enforced”
No opinion Disagree Neutral Agree
Source: Preliminary survey results

13. LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES: FOOD SECURITY
97%
78% 79%
83%
72%
82%
3%
22% 21%
17%
28%
18%
NO RE F ORM RE F ORM NO RE F ORM RE F ORM NO RE F ORM RE F ORM
INDONE S IA P E RU UGA NDA
Food insecure for less than 6 months Food insecure for more than 6 months

14. LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES; OTHER FINDINGS
• More respondents reported improved livelihoods
after joining particular schemes in each country
compared to those who reported worsened
situation: However, most reported no change
• Peru reports the highest level of livelihood
improvements followed by Indonesia then
Uganda

15. • Devolving forest rights to local communities
upheld strong tenure security.
• Livelihood seems to have improved in the sites
having advanced stages of forest tenure
reform implementation.
• The poor claim improved income and
livelihoods after the reform than non-poor.
• Improved forest condition in the sites under
forest tenure reform as compared to the sites
without a tenure reform.
CONCLUSION

16. Thank you!