Probably the most important trend in developing countries’ forest policy over the past several decades has been decentralization—the transfer of management authority from the national level to states, villages, and local communities. More than a quarter of all developing countries’ forests are now managed by local communities—well over twice the share for protected areas.
According to advocates, decentralized forest management (DFM) both improves forest health and boosts local livelihoods by empowering actors who have the best understanding of local conditions, extending their planning horizons, and redirecting human and financial capital to the local level. But case studies suggest that, in practice, these benefits can be elusive. DFM initiatives sometime fail to spur meaningful shifts in power, and even when they do, can lead to recentralization. Given this mixed track record, careful empirical study is needed to understand whether, under what conditions, and how DFM has ecological and socioeconomic benefits.
Evidence on DFM has been accumulating steadily since the 1980s, when the topic first gained currency in policy circles. However, most of this evidence comes from qualitative case studies, which, although they’re invaluable, have limitations. Relatively few studies use experimental and quasi-experimental methods that aim to draw causal inferences by controlling for confounding factors.
To help fill this gap, the Environment for Development Initiative, of which RFF is member, organized a special issue of the journal World Development titled “Decentralized Forest Management: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Evidence.” It features nine rigorous empirical studies of DFM interventions, policies, and governance structures in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, along with an overview by the special issue editors (Table 1). All nine studies feature Environment for Development researchers.
