Decentralization, market integration and efficiency-equity trade-offs: Evidence from Joint Forest Management in Ethiopian villages

Abstract

Extant literature on Joint Forest Management (JFM) impact evaluation has concluded that it generally does not provide sufficient incentives to justify the costs that forest use restrictions impose on local people. However, there is a dearth of evidence concerning whether alternative JFM intervention with improved market linkages for non-timber forest products has similar implications. In this study, we evaluated the income and distributive effects of a JFM program in Ethiopia in which additional support was provided for improved market linkages for non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Exploiting exogenous variation in customary rights across eligible groups of communities that participate in JFM programs, as well as using heteroskedasticitybased instrumentations, we identified the income and distributive effects of the program. Our analysis shows that the program has raised the income of the households who chose to participate by approximately 400 Ethiopian Birr or 26% of per capita expenditure; that result was robust to various specifications. We also found that this effect is largely driven by marketing incentives to use non-timber forest products. However, we found that the program's benefit is * We thank associate editor, Professor Arild Angelsen, and the reviewer for their comments. We are grateful to Volkswagen Foundation and University of Johannesburg for funding postdoc fellowships of the first author and Economic Research Southern Africa for its support of this research. We also gratefully acknowledge generous financial support of EfD (EDRI/ EEPFE) SIDA for collection of the data used for analysis of this paper. 1 biased toward the upper end of the income distribution, a result that points to the inequalityreinforcing effects of the program.

Analyzing procedural equity in government-led community-based forest management

“…For instance, individuals who support conservation may be more inclined to participate in decision-making processes and have higher expectations for what qualifies as meaningful participation. Previous studies that have implied factors such as proximity to forests and the benefits households obtain from forest resources can also influence level of participation in CFM programs (e.g., Maskey et al 2006, Gelo et al 2016. Because participation would enable individuals to shape management programs to improve their use of forest resources, it stands to reason that those with a vested interest in forests would be inclined to participate.…”

Community forestry frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa and the impact on sustainable development

“…Reports of CBFM schemes largely benefiting the rich more than the poor are very frequent in the case study countries. Gelo et al (2016) specifically stated that market linkage is fundamental to enhance CBFM's contributions to poverty alleviation, food security, and community well-being. In all the study countries, product management was observed to be one of the weakest and less explicitly stated CBFM framework attributes.…”

“…For instance, in Ethiopia, after the introduction of PFM in the Bonga forest, the mean annual household income of member households increased from ETB 1589 (Ethiopian Birr; equivalent to US$71 at current rate) to ETB 2433 (Gobeze et al 2009). A similar report from the same country showed that annual income grew by about ETB 400 (Gelo et al 2016). Community based forest managements were also proven to improve welfare (Kellert et al 2000, Gelo et al 2013).…”

“…In all the studied countries, there is a strong emphasis on the need for public consultation and participation during the design and implementation of CBFM schemes. In Ethiopia, for example, there is evidence that most PFM schemes favor the rich households therefore introducing inequality in how they benefit the participants (Gelo et al 2016). In all the case study countries, there is a clearly articulated management agreement protocol for engaging in CBFM schemes.…”

“…There was no explicit marketing and value addition strategy described by any of the countries. However, there are growing arguments that the benefit communities generate from NTFPs could increase if market access is granted (Gelo et al 2016) and if value addition opportunities are designed and supported properly. There is also a wide disparity between what the community expects to exploit from the forest under CBFM schemes and what they actually get (Koech et al 2009).…”