A Quantitative Analysis of Livelihoods in Community Forestry in the Northern Bolivian Amazon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Quantitative Analysis of Livelihoods in Community Forestry in the Northern Bolivian Amazon Mario Zenteno Claros PROMAB, Scientific Series 15 The Programa Manejo de Bosques de la Amazonia Boliviana (PROMAB) was a research, training and extension program advancing the sustainable exploitation and management of timber and non-timber forest resources in northern Bolivia (April 2005 to July 2010). PROMAB was a joint effort of various Bolivian institutes in Riberalta and Cobija, The Universidad Autónoma de Beni, and the Universidad Autónoma de Pando, Bolivia, and the financial support of Utrecht University, Tropenbos International in the Netherlands, and the European Commission for the last 3 years. Copyright: © 2013 Mario Zenteno Claros All rights reserved. No part of this publication, apart from bibliographic data and brief quotations in critical reviews, may be reproduced, re-recorded or published in any form including photocopy, microfilm, electronic or electromagnetic record, without written permission. Citation: Mario Zenteno Claros (2013) A Quantitative Analysis of Livelihoods in Community Forestry in the Northern Bolivian Amazon. PROMAB Scientific Series 15. PROMAB, Riberalta, Bolivia. PROMAB, Casilla 107, Riberalta – Beni, Bolivia. www.promab.org ISBN: 978-90-393-5941-9 Keywords: Amazon, Bolivia, Brazil nut, Community forestry, Dependence, Forest, Management, Forest Governance, Forest livelihoods, Non Timber Forest Products, Social- ecological systems, Social thresholds, Timber Printed by: Wöhrman Print Service B.V. Cover layout and invitation: Harry Wilcken Design & Photography A Quantitative Analysis of Livelihoods in Community Forestry in the Northern Bolivian Amazon Een kwantitatieve analyse van bestaansbronnen in communaal bosbeheer in het noordelijk Amazonegebied van Bolivia (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Un Análisis cuantitativo de los medios de vida en la Forestería Comunitaria en el Norte Amazónico Boliviano (Con un resumen ejecutivo en Español) PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 4 april 2013 des middags te 12.45 uur door Mario Zenteno Claros geboren op 17 mei 1971 te Cochabamba, Bolivia Promotoren: Prof. dr. R.G.A. Boot Prof. dr. ir. W. de Jong Co-promotor: Dr. P.A. Zuidema To my parents Mario and Gladys To my kids Mario and Diego To provide a sustainable livelihood through forests goods and services, “we should envision sustainable forest management as a co-evolutionary process among the changing forest, the changing market, and an industry moving toward higher efficiency standards over time” (Adapted from Nasi and Frost, 2009) Contents Chapter 1 Theoretical Framework 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Forest livelihoods and sustainable livelihoods 5 1.3 Explaining the success of community forest management 9 1.4 Communities and adaptation to changes 13 1.5 Outline of the thesis 20 Chapter 2 Regional Background 23 2.1 Introduction 23 2.1.1 Eco-geographical features 23 2.1.2 The demography and economy of the region 25 2.1.3 The importance of forest resources in the regional economy 27 2.2 Forest policies and implications for community forest management 29 2.2.1 Land policies and devolution of rights in the northern Bolivian Amazon 29 2.2.2 Forest management policies in Bolivia 32 Chapter 3 Methodology 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 Methods of data collection 37 3.2.1 Preliminary survey 37 3.2.2 Community and household samples: selection criteria 41 3.2.3 Simplification of quantitative protocols 44 3.2.4 Complementing qualitative methods and validating secondary information 49 3.3 Quantitative and qualitative analysis performed 51 3.3.1 Household level analysis and classification techniques for Chapter 4 51 3.3.2 Canonical Correspondence Analysis for Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 53 3.3.3 Quantitative and historical analysis in Chapter 6 54 Chapter 4 Livelihood Strategies and Forest Dependence: New Insights from Bolivian Forest Communities 57 4.1 Introduction 58 4.2 Materials and Methods 60 4.2.1 Study region 60 4.2.2 Data collection 62 4.2.3 Data analysis 64 4.3 Results 66 4.3.1 Household income and outcomes 66 4.3.2 Relations of sustainable livelihood assets to total income 67 4.3.3 Identifying livelihood strategies 69 4.3.4 Relating strategies to assets 72 4.4 Discussion 74 4.5 Conclusions 77 Chapter 5 Community Forest Management Success and Forest Management Plans: A Multidimensional Analysis of an On-going Process 79 5.1 Introduction 80 5.2 Materials and methods 83 5.2.1 Community forest management and the Bolivian forestry regime 83 5.2.2 Data collection and validation of information 85 5.2.3 A framework for analysing measures of success and factors enabling success 86 5.2.4 Data analysis 88 5.3 Results 90 5.3.1 Correspondence analysis of success measures 90 5.3.2 Canonical Correspondence Analysis of factors that enable success 92 5.4 Discussion 96 5.5 Conclusions 98 Chapter 6 Learning From The Past: Changes In Forest Policies And Livelihoods In Bolivian Forest Communities 101 6.1 Introduction 102 6.2 Methodology 105 6.2.1 Collection and validation of information 105 6.2.2 Data analysis 107 6.3 A historical account of changes in the northern Bolivian Amazon 108 6.4 A quantitative analysis of recent changes in forest communities, 1997-2009 113 6.4.1 Associations among changes 116 6.4.2 Multivariate analysis of changes 117 6.5 Discussion 119 6.6 Conclusions 124 Chapter 7 Discussion 127 7.1 Introduction 127 7.2 Livelihoods specialization and sustainability 129 7.3 Factors for CFM success and forest governance 133 7.4 In the light of changes 139 7.5 Conclusions for theorizing CFM success: an ‘ecology’ of factors 144 7.6 Reflections for the study region and for future research 146 References 149 Appendix Tables 185 Resumen 195 Samenvatting 207 Acknowledgements 219 Author’s Curriculum Vitae 221 A Quantitative Analysis of Livelihoods in Community Forestry in the Northern Bolivian Amazon Chapter 1 Theoretical Framework 1.1 Introduction Community forest management (CFM) is receiving much attention from international donors and development agencies as a strategy to achieve tropical forest conservation and improve the wellbeing of forest dwellers (Bray, 2003; de Camino, 1999; Pokorny and Johnson, 2008; Sunderlin et al., 2008). Presently, almost 11% of the world’s forests, and 22% in tropical forest countries, is in the hands of forest communities (White and Martin, 2002; Charnley and Poe, 2007). This trend of changing forest ownership is the result of the devolution of forest property rights to local user groups, a process that is still on-going (Baland and Platteau, 1999; Charnley and Poe, 2007; Banana et al., 2007). Consequently, CFM can be understood as a new form of local forest governance (Lise, 2000; Tole, 2010; Cronkleton et al., 2011; Larson and Petkova, 2011). The role of CFM is also a new paradigm for forest management and calls for an evaluation of its uncertainties, challenges and related outcomes (Scoones, 1999; Mehta et al., 1999; Barry and Taylor, 2007; Ostrom, 2009). To understand how CFM affects livelihoods and forest areas is relevant and important knowledge for the design and implementation of development policies. 1 A Quantitative Analysis of Livelihoods in Community Forestry in the Northern Bolivian Amazon CFM is commonly present in environments where people depend on forest products and services for their daily incomes (Persha et al., 2011, p. 1608). The importance of timber and non-timber forest products to local livelihoods and well-being has been documented for various tropical regions (Wiersum, 1997; Sunderlin et al., 2005; Vedeld et al., 2007; Angelsen et al., 2011). It is recognized that CFM can result in effective forest conservation and contribute to rural well-being (Pagdee et al., 2006; Chhatre and Agrawal, 2008). In fact, in some conditions it is evidenced that CFM constitutes an adequate path for promoting sustainable livelihoods (Agrawal, 2008; Chhatre and Agrawal, 2008). There are different institutional, economic and social environments that may create scenarios to promote or lessen resilience and sustainability of resource use (Assies, 1997; Cronkleton and Pacheco, 2010; Nasi and Frost, 2009; Perz et al., 2010; de Jong et al., 2010). While changing forest tenure in developing countries has advanced, there are also reasons to doubt whether CFM can lead to more sustainable ways of managing forests (Ostrom, 2005; Agrawal et al., 2003; Bush et al., 2011). Therefore, there is an increasing necessity to identify what drivers influence communities to better manage forests, and consequently, enhance livelihoods in an expected sustained way. The explorations of the factors that influence CFM outcomes have many interpretations, and mostly are characterized by a social science focus (Brooks et al., 2006; Arts, 2006). In this case, the conceptualization of CFM is premised on collective action of natural resource management (Oakerson, 1992; Koontz, 2003; Sayer and Campbell, 2004; Behera and Engel, 2006; Ostrom, 1999; 2009). It is also accepted that the successful promotion of CFM is dependent upon the characteristics of the resources that are being managed, and the characteristics of the users, their governance system, property rights, power relations and formal and informal practices of resource use (Agrawal and Angelsen, 2009). Consequently, the study of factors enabling CFM necessarily needs to be based on explanations of how actors, social conditions and policies influence CFM outcomes. Placing CFM in the realm of forest policies is sometimes complex. On the one hand, it is acknowledged that local people have used and managed forests for many decades, sometimes centuries (Wiersum, 1997; Shepard and Ramirez, 2011). On the other hand, there is an urgency to incorporate CFM into national and international forest regimes and in that case, CFM has to comply with multiple regulatory demands of the new regimes (Pokorny et al., 2010).