Challenges to supporting forest livelihoods development after tenure reform
- 1. Challenges to supporting forest livelihoods development after tenure reform Peter Cronkleton IUFRO 2019 October 2, 2019 Curitiba, Brazil Side Event: Forest Tenure, Sustainability Performance and Innovative Finance: Connecting the Dots from a Smallholder and Governance Perspective
- 2. Content • Securing tenure rights is a fundamental step for sustainable development, especially on forest frontiers • However, efforts to secure property rights often face additional challenges after tenure reform • Presentation will illustrate common challenges emerging for tenure reform o Research in Peru and Ecuador: Comparison of formalization processes for individual and communal property rights Role of individualized and collective behavior in property rights security o Latin American review of commons, indigenous rights and governance challenges
- 3. Comparing collective and individual properties • Communal title demarcated an outer polygon • Inside the polygon: o Complex nested mosaics of collective and individual institutions o Individual household held customary right to land for cultivation o Collectively areas maintained, often forests Commercial use required formal authorization, but little compliance Reserves held for future allocation and use not for conservation Communal Property
- 4. Comparing collective and individual properties Areas observed all originated from spontaneous settlement • Occupied land that was viewed as unoccupied (usually forest) • Self-organized and pooled resources to demarcate boundaries o Collective agreements o Reflected what they expected government to approve • Petitioned for formal rights but many left with “imperfect title” Individual property rights
- 5. Comparing collective and individual properties Individual rights appear relatively simple compared to complex mosaics in communal lands, however: • Embedded within complex collective rights systems • Incongruence between customary claim and formal title mediated though collective institutions • Some informal claims had greater legitimacy than formal rights • Lack of effective mechanisms to administer transfer of rights led to “informalization” Individual property rights
- 6. Tenure security observations Factors cited by residents of individual and collective properties were similar o Title seen as crucial basis for security (but alone insufficient to guarantee security) o Shared group identity and strong social network also key to defending property rights o Demonstrated occupation and use of land, usually demonstrated through forest clearance, crucial for maintaining security
- 7. Remaining challenges to secure and support effective governance of indigenous commons
- 8. Challenges: 1) Reconciling the scope of rights granted with existing claims over resources • Advances in the recognition of tenure rights countered by regulatory frameworks that limit the scope of rights • Rights granted to ‘land’ but key natural resources excluded • Restrictions on ability to use or derive benefits from rights
- 9. Challenges: 2) Addressing legal overlaps • Some territories are simultaneously classified as conservation areas • Recognition of ‘third party’ stakeholder rights • Timber, mining, petroleum concessions, carbon • FPIC mechanisms often voluntary, not legally binding and lack grievance processes • Compartmentalization of rights undercuts territorial integrity - Tragedy of the ‘anti- commons’* (Bollier and Helfrich 2012: 1)
- 10. Challenges: 3) Gaining tangible benefits from formalization • Reforms often lack necessary provisions to operationalize rights • Regulatory frameworks do not create enabling conditions • Rights are conditional or non-permanent • Weak co-management: rather than oversight and support -- imposes costs and burdens • Perception by government agencies that their work ends with issuing of land title
- 11. Challenges: 4) Operationalizing territories, boundaries and authority • Formalization redefines the collective but not representation, legitimacy and authority • Does not resolve internal conflicts nor eliminate external pressures • Requires clear consensus on territorial boundaries, shared understanding rights, and agreement on authority. • Institutions emerge from constant negotiation and adaptation
- 12. Challenges: 5) Management and governance of indigenous commons • Assumption IPs will manage and govern commons only through collective action • Shared distribution of resources • Equal rights and benefits • Based on custom, kinship and independent of external institutions • Indigenous commons are varied • Shaped by national political conditions • Historic context • IP’s identities, beliefs and livelihoods
- 13. cifor.org forestsnews.cifor.org ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org THANK YOU Cronkleton, P. and A. Larson. 2015. Formalization and collective appropriation of space on forest frontiers: comparing communal and individual property systems in the Peruvian and Ecuadoran Amazon. Society & Natural Resources, 28(5), pp.496–512. Monterroso, I., Cronkleton, P., and Larson, A.M. 2019. Commons, indigenous rights, and governance. In Hudson, B., Rosenbloom, J. and Cole, D., Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons. pp.376– 391. New York, USA: Routledge.
Editor's Notes
- #11: Rights recognition does not guarantee implementation