Seeing Green in Mali’s Woods: Colonial Legacy, Forest Use, and Local Control

Abstract

Political decentralization and local, participatory control of natural resources number among the development trends of the 1990s and the early 2000s. Where they have initially assumed an undifferentiated local community and a free flow of commonly understood information about environments and resources, they are potentially flawed. The devolution of natural-resource management authority to local communities raises questions about who participates in decision making and how state and local institutions work together. This article provides a historical perspective based on archival records that show how state forestry management in colonial Mali reflected the interests of the French administration, in contrast to those of the peasantry. The precolonial peasantry was internally differentiated, and change in the colonial political economy favored certain social groups. In the 1990s, Mali began to reform forestry policy so that forest resource user-groups could have a greater role in management. Data on income and expenditures from a periurban fuelwood-producing village show differential access to and dependence on forest resources for livelihood. Current natural-resource management reforms will do well to consider the role in local society of chiefs and representation of excluded groups.

Determinants of access to forest products in southern Burkina Faso

“…These uses of forest products allow livelihood diversification (Belem et al, 2007;Kristensen and Balslev, 2003;Kristensen and Lykke, 2003;Mamo et al, 2007;Shackleton et al, 2007;Taïta, 2003). Although the importance of common property resources to rural West Africans is understood (Dei, 1992;Williams, 1998;Becker, 2001;Beck and Nesmith, 2001), issues of equity among various forest users is becoming a major challenge to environmental development, forest management and poverty reduction (Adhikari et al, 2004;Byron and Arnold, 1999;Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997;Anderson et al, 2006). Thus, an understanding of factors influencing access to common property resources, such as forests, is paramount for identifying the most vulnerable groups and for adapting natural resource management practices towards a more holistic and equitable system.…”

Bosques y derechos comunitarios: las reformas en la tenencia forestal

“…Las políticas francesas en África occidental, por ejemplo, establecieron la propiedad estatal de los bosques bajo dos categorías: bosques clasificados, bajo control directo del Estado, y bosques protegidos, es decir, todos los otros bosques que no fueran de propiedad privada; las comunidades tenían el derecho de usar los bosques con fines de subsistencia, mientras que el Estado tenía a su cargo todo el uso comercial (Becker 2001). Los caciques estaban a cargo de la asignación de tierras a nivel local, pero no tenían derechos para manejar los bosques (Ribot comunicación personal).…”

Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options

“…Rather than promoting representation, the aims of decentralisation in forestry are often to reduce costs (Colfer 2005), boost forestry department revenues (Pacheco 2003) or even gain more control over local communities (Becker 2001;Contreras 2003;Sarin et al 2003;Elías and Wittman 2005). State forestry personnel are reluctant to relinquish power and resources, and often find ways to retain these even when discourse and policies direct otherwise (Larson and Ribot 2005;Ribot and Oyono 2005;Pulhin et al in press).…”