Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 183–200 | Cite as

Is Recentralization Really Dominant? The Role of Frontline Foresters for Institutional Arrangement in the Philippines

  • Ayumi Sugimoto
  • Juan M. Pulhin
  • Makoto Inoue
Research Paper
  • 202 Downloads

Abstract

Decentralized forest policy has been moderately successful in delivering resource-use rights to local people. At the same time, it is possible that decentralization leads to recentralization because governments never give their authority over forest resources. Recentralization studies have paid little attention to the potential of local dynamics to lead to institutional arrangements that affect forest outcomes. This paper uses a case study of Community-based Forest Management (CBFM) in the Philippines to explore how local realities lead to the development of effective institutions for forest management. In this case study, local informal regulations of forest resource use were created through the process of settling local conflicts among competing CBFM interests, including members and non-members of people’s organizations, and frontline foresters who are working at local level. Frontline foresters played a role as coordinator of institutional arrangements that regulate local forest exploitation within the CBFM implementation process. The behavior of frontline foresters affected by their own personalities and existing social relations among residents, can deter recentralization in some ways. More attention is needed on the role of frontline foresters and non-members of people’s organization as influential negotiators in state-society relations concerning forests.

Keywords

Community-based Forest Management Frontline forester Socio-economic heterogeneity Local institutional arrangement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science for supporting this research.

References

  1. Adhikari B, Lovett CJ (2006) Institutions and collective action: does heterogeneity matter in community-based resource management? J Dev Stud 42(3):426–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. W Dev 29(10):1623–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A (2005) Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. W Dev 27(4):629–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal A, Goyal S (2001) Group size and collective action: third-party monitoring in common-pool resources. Compara Polit Stud 34(1):63–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. W Dev 33(7):1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Agrawal A, Ribot CJ (1999) Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. J Dev Areas 33:473–502Google Scholar
  8. Baland JM, Platteau JP (1999) The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. W Dev 27(5):773–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balooni K, Pulhin JM, Inoue M (2008) The effectiveness of decentralisation reforms in the Philippines’s forestry sector. Geoforum 39:2122–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Batterbury SPJ, Bebbington AJ (1999) Environmental histories, access to resources and landscape change: an introduction. Land Degrad Dev 10:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bene C (2003) When fishery rhymes with poverty: a first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. W Dev 31(6):949–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blaikie P (2006) Is small really beautiful? community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. W Dev 34(11):1942–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blundo G (2006) Dealing with the local State: the informal privatization of street-level Bureaucracies in Senegal. Dev Ch 37(4):799–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castillo G, Paz B, Guiang E (2007) Assessment of forest management in tenured forest lands: issues and recommendations. A report of the Environmental Governance Project, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  15. Contreras AP (2003a) The kingdom and the republic: forest governance in Thailand and the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  16. Contreras AP (2003b) Creating space for local forest management in the Philippines: a synthesis. In: Contreras AP (ed) Creating space for local forest management in the Philippines. La Salle Institute of Governance, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  17. Cubbage WF, Laughlin OJ, Bullock SC (1993) Forest Resource Policy. Wiley, NewyorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahal GR, Capistrano D (2006) Forest governance and institutional structure: an ignored dimension of community based forest management in the Philippines. Int For Rev 8(4):377–394Google Scholar
  19. Department of environment and natural resources (2010) Philippine Forestry Statistics. DENR, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  20. Gauld R (2000) Maintaining centralized control in community-based forestry: policy construction in the Philippines. Dev Ch 31:229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbs C, Payuan E, del Castillo R (1990) The growth of the Philippine Social Forestry Program. In: Poffenberger M (ed) Keepers of the forest. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Manila, pp 253–265Google Scholar
  22. Gray LC (2002) Environmental policy, land rights, and conflict: rethinking community natural resource management program in Burkina Faso. Environ Plan 20:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guiang ES, Borlangdan SB, Pulhin JM (2001) Community-based forest management in the Philippines: a preliminary assessment Institute of Philippine Culture. Ateneo de Manila University, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  24. Guiang ES, Esguerra F, Bacalla D (2008) Devolved and decentralized forest management in the Philippines: triggers and constraints in investments. In: Colfer CJP, Dahal GR, Capistrano D (eds) Lessons from forest decentralization: money justice and the quest for good governance in Asia-Pacific. CIFOR, London, pp 161–183Google Scholar
  25. Hall D, Hirsch P, Li TM (2011) Powers of exclusion: land dilemmas in southeast asia. University of Hawai’i Press, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson C, Forsyth T (2002) In the eyes of the state: negotiating a ‘right-based approach’ to forest conservation in Thailand. W Dev 30:1591–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufman H (1967–2006) The forest ranger: a study in administrative behavior. RFF Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Klooster D (2000) Institutional choice, community, and struggle: a case study of forest co-management in Mexico. W Dev 28(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar S (2002) Does ‘participation’ in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. W Dev 30:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kummer MD (1992) Deforestation in the Postwar Philippines. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Larson AM, Ribot JC (2004) Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens: an introduction. Eur J Dev Res 16(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leach M, Mears R, Scoones I (1999) Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. W Dev 27:225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li TM (2007) Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Econ Soc 36(2):263–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipsky M (1980) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Magno F (2001) Forest devolution and social capital: state-civil society relations in the Philippines. Environ Hist 6:264–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marites DV (1993) Power from the forest: the politics of logging. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Quezon CityGoogle Scholar
  37. Mosse D (1997) The symbolic making of a common property resource: history, ecology and locality in a tank-irrigated landscape in South India. Dev Ch 28(3):467–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naidu SC (2009) Heterogeneity and collective management: evidence from common forests in Himachal Pradesh India. W Dev (37)3:676–686Google Scholar
  39. Nayak PK, Berkes F (2008) Politics of co-optation: community forest management versus joint forest management in Orissa, India. Environ Manag 41:707–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, Group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Ch 35(3):435–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pulhin JM, Dressler WH (2009) People, power and timber: the politics of community-based forest management. J Environ Manag 91(1):206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pulhin JM, Inoue M, Enters T (2007) Three decades of community-based forest management in the Philippines: emerging lessons for sustainable and equitable forest management. Int For Rev 9(4):865–883Google Scholar
  43. Ribot CJ, Agrawal A, Larson A (2006) Recentalizing while decentaralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. W Dev 34(11):1864–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robson JP, Berkes F (2011) Exploring some of the myths of land use change: can rural to urban migration drive declines in biodiversity? Glob Environ Ch 21:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tole L (2010) Reforms from the ground up: a review of community-based forest management in tropical developing countries. Environ Manag 45:1312–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Varughese G, Ostrom E (2001) The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. W Dev 29(5):747–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Basic EducationAkita International UniversityAkitaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Social Forestry and Forest Governance, College of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of the Philippines Los BañosCollege Los BañosPhilippines
  3. 3.Department of Global Agricultural Sciences, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations