Communities, property rights and forest decentralisation in Kenya: Early lessons from participatory forestry management

Esther Mwangi,Jephine Mogoi,Emily Obonyo,Paul Ongugo,Vincent Oeba

doi:10.4103/0972-4923.97490

Abstract

The introduction of participatory forestry management (PFM) in Kenya has led to the formation of community forest associations (CFAs). Data collected from 12 forests over a decade indicate that most associations are confederating to manage shared forests through the Forests Act of 2005. Emerging findings indicate that associations are responsible for diverse management activities in forest protection, monitoring, and management, yet access to decision-making, revenue streams, and overall resource control rights are vested in the Kenya Forestry Service. Still, this is an improvement as CFAs perform most governance functions autonomously, including the crafting of resource harvesting rules, the choice of leadership, and conflict resolution. In order to balance community incentives with the burdens and responsibilities they bear, rights to revenue streams generated from forest resources must be shared with communities to ensure continued commitment to the PFM process. Furthermore, the viability of CFAs is threatened by power struggles, leadership wrangles, and the splintering of groups. Negotiation support to moderate conflicting interests, and strengthen internal conflict resolution and governance is necessary.

Highlights

Many countries across the world have decentralised natural resource management in an attempt to increase equity in decision-making and benefit sharing
Participatory forest management (PFM), joint forest management, and community forest management are among the variants of decentralisation
Data collection occurred prior to the promulgation of the new Forests Act of 2005, it represents the status and functioning of PFM groups, which will evolve to community forest associations (CFAs) once they complete their management plans and contracting with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS)

Summary

Introduction

Many countries across the world have decentralised natural resource management in an attempt to increase equity in decision-making and benefit sharing. It is widely believed that decentralising the management of natural resources can increase both efficiency and equity (Ribot 2005). Decentralisation refers to any act by which a central government cedes rights of decision-making over natural. The efficiency and equity benefits of decentralisation are derived from democratic processes that encourage local institutions and local authorities to serve and deliver relevant services to local people through their institutions (Larson 2005). Many governments have made efforts at decentralising mainly due to pressure from donors, non-governmental organisations, and local politics (Agrawal and Ribot 1999); but what many governments term as decentralisation is not truly democratic since power, property rights, and access to resources are not fully transferred or shared (Larson 2005; see Cronkleton This issue).

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion