Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

OWNERSHIP54W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 8FIGURE 2 GROWTH IN COMMUNITY FORESTOWNERSHIP WORLDWIDE, 1985-2002Communally owned forest area(million hectares)40030020010001985 2002Source: White and Martin 2002: 11of its degraded state forestlands to communities, and the head ofChina’s State Forest Administration said that strengthening localproperty rights was a top priority (White et al. 2007:15; White andMartin 2002:4-7; Lok Sabha 2006).How this will play out in terms of actual increases in forestbasedenterprises is again unknown. There is often a significantdifference between policy and practice on the ground, and thenature of the tenure rights granted to communities varies widely,from substantive to shallow. In addition, there are many requirementsfor successful enterprise beyond resource access.Nonetheless, current trends show that governments are increasinglyaware that ecosystem resources have considerable potentialto contribute to rural development if progress on the issue ofresource tenure can be made (White et al. 2007:15).Local Demand and CommitmentSuccessful ecosystem-based enterprises arise out of an expresseddemand from the community. Secure resource rights alone arenot sufficient. There must be the desire and willingness to usethese rights to jointly manage ecosystems, reflecting the beliefthat doing so will benefit individuals and the group. (See Box 2.2.)Demand manifests itself as community consensus on the need toact and a commitment on the part of the majority of stakeholdersto adhere to an agreed action plan. Without this kind ofdemand from the community, ecosystem enterprises are likely tofail; people will not maintain projects or adhere to managementplans over the long term that they do not want or do not considerfair. Similarly, by requiring commitments and investments—oflabor, money, or other resources—community-based enterpriseencourages a sense of local ownership, in turn engenderingsustained involvement on the part of participants.Insights on the importance of community demand forsuccess in development efforts first arose out of experience withwater and sanitation projects in the 1970s and 1980s. Authoritiesnoted that drinking water or sewer projects that were plannedand executed without consultation with local communities oftenfailed to meet community needs and subsequently were underusedand poorly maintained. In contrast, projects that respondedto focused community demand and involved the community indesign, construction, and maintenance had a better performanceand cost-recovery record (Deverill et al. 2002:2–3; Breslin2003:1–10). These lessons provided the groundwork of experiencefor the community-driven development approach and apoint of reference for examining the structure of demand.The Structure of Demand for Rural EnterpriseIn the realm of community development, demand can be definedas “an informed expression of desire for a particular service,measured by the contribution people are willing and able to maketo receive this service” (Deverill 2000:1). A “contribution” oftenincludes time and effort, not just goods and money. For naturebasedenterprises, the service involved is an ecosystem service,such as increased agricultural production, the provision of timberor non-timber forest products (NTFPs), higher fisheries production,or landscapes and species that attract tourists.Demand is not static; it develops with changes in thecommunity and the resource base. Among some groups, demandfor jointly managing ecosystems has deep historical roots, but ithas often broken down as modern tenure patterns and economicforces have disrupted traditional ways. In other instances, degradationof the resource base or new opportunities for resourceexploitation offer conditions for the demand for communityresource management to arise.Development of local demand can be envisioned in threestages. First, there is a change, or initiating event in the community.Second, participants decide whether or not to respond tothis change. This usually involves deliberation among thecommunity members, with individuals weighing the costs andbenefits to themselves. Third, the participants decide how toaddress the problem. These stages are iterative and not discretefrom one another, as people constantly update their informationand weigh the consequences of participation or nonparticipation(White and Runge 1995:1685).The initiating event that leads to demand for a new ecosystementerprise can come from a number of sources: a change inthe information available, a change in the local environment oreconomy, a change in the financial incentives for investment, ora change in resource rights or access that makes resources moreavailable. A dynamic community leader who can put the changein perspective and advocate for action is often an important partof the mix. In many cases, several of these factors work inconcert to create the perception that a new opportunity is athand. In the end, the decision whether to act on this opportunityis a function of available information, communitydynamics, and the perceived costs of action versus inaction(Lobo 2007; White and Runge 1995:1685).