Effects of decentralized forest management (DFM) on deforestation and poverty in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

Abstract

Decentralized forest management programs reduce deforestation rates, although the effects may be modest. More research is needed to assess whether such programs reduce the income of poor households. Proponents of decentralized forest management programs suggest that such programs can contribute to both environmental and poverty reduction outcomes. This review showed that little research has been conducted on the poverty reduction benefits of such programs, and no studies have jointly evaluated both conservation and poverty outcomes. Research is also lacking in the countries where decentralised forest management has the most potential, such as Indonesia and Brazil. Abstract We conducted a systematic review of studies on the impact of decentralized forest management (DFM) on deforestation and poverty in developing countries. The review is motivated by debates over whether the pursuits of conservation and poverty reduction in developing countries tend to conflict or whether they might be complementary. A search for rigorous evaluation studies identified eleven quantitative and nine associated qualitative evaluation studies on DFM. The methodological rigor of these studies varied widely, meaning that the evidence base for the impact of DFM policies is limited in both quantity and quality. Given the evidence available, we find little reason for optimism about the potential for current DFM approaches to achieve both conservation and poverty reduction benefits jointly. We call for the production of much better impact studies, employing randomized field experiments when possible, to assess whether the apparent incompatibility of conservation and poverty reduction might be overcome through programming innovations. Executive summary BACKGROUNDNatural forest preservation in the tropics, and thus in developing countries, must be an element of any effective effort to manage climate change. Forests serve as natural carbon sinks, which help to mitigate the effect of other carbon emissions. However, forest cover is being reduced and it is estimated that deforestation is responsible for 10–17 per cent of global carbon emissions. Since 2007, governments have coordinated conservation efforts under the Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative, which has led to the implementation of various programs designed to reduce the amount of forested land converted to other purposes. Decentralized forest management (DFM) is one approach to forest management which has been widely implemented to reduce deforestation in developing countries. DFM programs relocate decision‐making authority on forest use in the direction of forest communities, rather than central government actors.While the primary goal of reducing deforestation is clear, the policy and academic literature debates the extent to which DFM programs in developing countries should incorporate goals of poverty reduction. Some argue that the targeting of poverty goals will undermine conservation effectiveness (e.g. because behavioral change among...

A triple win? The impact of Tanzania’s Joint Forest Management programme on livelihoods, governance and forests

“…Despite these limitations, we briefly note that our result of no significant effect on broad deforestation rate appears to agree with the two existing studies (from India and Bolivia) that have also measured this outcome, where effects have ranged from negligible to small but significant (Samii et al 2014). However, given the small number of cases and widely variable country contexts, we do not suggest this constitutes a trend.…”

“…However, we caution that there are very few such existing studies to draw on, which have also used robust counterfactual approaches to establish the causal effects of forest sector decentralization (Miteva, Pattanayak et al 2012). In fact, a recent systematic review funded by 3ie could find only 12 such studies globally (Samii et al 2014), even though decentralized approaches have a history of implementation spanning more than three decades. Similarly, it must be noted that decentralized forest programs across different countries may not share the same policy construction or implementation process (although they are often relatively similar), and the outcomes assessed and ways that they are measured differ widely across existing quasi-experimental studies of decentralized forest management.…”

“…Few existing studies in the forest sector use rigorous counterfactual approaches to determine decentralization outcomes (Samii et al 2014), although these methods have been used to assess other forest-based interventions such as strict protected areas and payments for environmental services. Notable decentralization studies that do employ a counterfactual approach include Jumbe and Angelsen (2006) and Ameha et al (2014).…”

Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation

“…Despite these calls, conservation science still lags behind health, education, and development policy in adopting best practices in impact evaluation (Banerjee & Duflo 2009). Few studies meet even the basic standards of an impact evaluation such as considering before and after conditions, including control groups, accounting for confounding factors, or systematically ruling out rival hypotheses (Bowler et al 2012;Samii et al 2014).…”

Reconsidering the ‘idea’ of evidence in evidence-based policy and practice

“…A 2014 Campbell Collaboration systematic review 'The Impact of Land Property Rights Interventions on Investment and Agricultural Productivity in Developing Countries' is illustrative of how reviews can use such an inclusive, explanatory strategy (Lawry et al, 2014). This review included both a quantitative impact assessment as well as a qualitative review to assess context.…”