Analysis of costs and benefits sharing under Participatory Forest Management Approach:
Research proposal
Key words: Community, CFA, KFS, participation, costs, benefits inputs, outputs, rational choice, social justice, procedural justice, governance, policies, legislative framework, PFM, SFM, forest plantations,
1. Background and Introduction:
The “shamba” system also known as “Taugya” has been used in Kenya since the first systematic plantation establishment was initiated in the 1900s. (Imo 2008, Mathu 2011) It has taken different forms over the years including the non-resident cultivation (NRC) of the 1990s (Chamshama & Nwonwu 2004) and now implemented as plantation establishment and livelihood scheme PELIS since 2005 when a new forest Act was enacted (Thenya 2007). The approach was perceived as a cost benefit sharing arrangement between forestry agencies and local communities. The rationale being that while the communities benefited from short term agricultural crops production, the agencies would benefit from trees planted and tendered over the two to three years thus low costs in forest plantation establishment (Kagombe et al 2008, Imo 2008, Mathu, 2011, Thenya 2007). In Kenya, the issues of its contribution food security, poverty reduction and contribution to development has been debated since its introduction. (Mathu 2011, Imo 2008, Chamshama & Nwonwu 2004). A look at the details of how the system was implemented in its various forms reveals that among other things, issue of costs and benefits has been central during the controversies. The pros and cons of the system have been studied (Mathu 2011) but benefit sharing has never been addressed from cost benefit analysis perspective that takes into account community inputs in relation to benefits. Proponents of the shamba system have always assumed that subsistence benefits were sufficient for communities without a real basis for making this decision thus courting unending controversies (Imo 2008). The question of adequacy in compensation to participating communities is evidenced by different compensatory mechanisms including casual payments in addition to short term proceeds from on farm cultivation and full employment which were applied in the earlier systems (MENR reports 1994, Bertram, 2003).. Empirical research as well as practice recognizes that analyses of the economic sustainability of plantation forestry is not always easy and straight forward especially when ecological benefits and costs are taken into account. Chamshama & Nwonwu 2004. From the private sector perspective, maximisation of profit or economic benefits over a reasonably long time is normally the primary objective. The public sector on the other hand does normally not express its goals with plantation development as profit maximisation, but rather in terms of social benefits (such as employment, income generation, poverty reduction, etc.) and/or environmental (soil and water conservation, wind and erosion control benefits). Chamshama & Nwonwu 2004.
Traditionally communities needs and benefits are viewed in terms of subsistence, and social cultural values. (KFWG 2013, Mathu2011,Forest Act 2005, Forest Bill 2012.) With the enactment of the forest act 2005, which increased democratic access to forest resources and raised expectations for improved benefits (KFWG 2013), financial gains and profits are increasingly gaining interest amongst communities engaged in forest management partnerships with government. This has drawn the attention of communities on profits, revenues and other gains in relation to the role they play and their contribution to the main source of forest profits- plantations. In this regard, questions have been raised with respect to correlation between community inputs and benefits they get in the PFM arrangements. Perceptions on this question varies and often results to protest and contentions on technical decisions relating to benefits accruing from forest plantations.
In its annual report 2012, KFS reported 4,000 ha of forest planted under Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) with a resultant cost reduction of Kshs. 67 million. (KFS annual report 2012). However, analysis of levels of community benefits in relation to their contribution to such realization has not been taken since the introduction of the Forest Act 2005. PELIS is a key component of PFM that is applied in Kenya as plantation establishment method. As in a number of other issues in PFM, implementation of PELIS has not always been smooth. Many issues remain unresolved, such as role of CFAs in the allocation of PELIS land and more importantly the sharing of costs and benefits between the Kenya Forest Service and communities (ARP 2009). Some analysts have expressed concern of the potential negative impacts that co-management processes and the institutional arrangements that oversee their implementation can easily lead to more powerful members of the community dominating key profitable systems, producing an outcome that perpetuates or even reinforces social inequality (Schreckenberg, k et al 2006).
Recent evaluation of 20 of the earliest approved Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs) implemented since year 2000 indicated that absence of benefit sharing mechanisms ranked high among key factors that contributed to drawback in PFM implementation (KFWG 2013). This, the report argues has potential socio-psychological impacts on communities whose anticipation of a shift from traditional subsistence forest resource use to major investment benefits has not been realized. The report concludes with a plea that a costs benefit sharing mechanism is absolutely essential to motivate communities and close the CFA expectation gap.
The relevance of investigating the implementation of benefits and costs sharing is further underlined by reports of new instances of conflicts in areas of PELIS implementation, particularly amongst the CFA groups, between community leaders and their followers and formal institutions like KFS and CFAs (Christie 2008, Siringi 2010, Kenya Land Alliance 2011). Despite the implementation of the new forest Act, recent frequent contentions witnessed between civil society (communities) and licensees and between local communities and forest authority decisions particularly on value and allocation of plantations for harvesting are indicative of underlying perceived or real problems in the partnerships. (KFS legal reports 2013)
Problem statement:
The study will focus on analysis of cost-benefit sharing in participatory forest management taking into account key inputs and outputs in forest plantation with respect to participating communities, KFS and other Key stakeholders.
The question of forest governance under a participatory forest management approach cannot be fully addressed without first addressing the issue of appropriate and acceptable mechanism for sharing costs and benefits. Similarly the issue of an appropriate and acceptable mechanism cannot be fully developed without being based on an objective rationale which is supported by convincing empirical data. This data lacks in the Kenyan version of “shamba” system –PELIS.
It is necessary to develop a mechanism that improves equity and equality and acceptability seen to fulfill the principles of social justice in order to improve forest governance. It is also important that the model developed is seen to be as such in the perception of the role communities play against the benefits that accrue.
Analysis of the existing policy and legislative frameworks to assess gaps in support of equality and equity in costs and benefit sharing will lead to development of recommendations that can improve long term governance in forestry.
2. Research questions:
The study will therefore focus on the following research questions and hypotheses:
1.1: What are the current policy and legislative provisions that guide costs and benefits sharing under PFM what is the underlying rationale.
1.2 What are the technically established inputs and outputs in development of unit forest plantation in conventional forestry? How does this compare with data under PELIS (Plantation Establishment and livelihood improvement scheme)?
1.3: What are the actual benefits to communities under PELIS?
1.4: What are the critical parameters essential to determine the cost benefit sharing under a PFM arrangement? (Defined in terms of equity, equitability, fairness, measurability and acceptability)
3. Research Objective:
The main objective of this study is to analyse the framework of cost benefit analysis under PELIS and to develop an explicit mechanism for sharing benefits and burdens thus contributing to improved governance in forest management.
The study will focus on (i) analysis of inputs and outputs particularly with respect to communities, KFS and private sector in the establishment and benefiting from a unit hectare of plantation forest.
To achieve the objective, the study will (ii) analyse procedures of costs and benefit sharing from socio-psychological and economic dimension based on the theories of social justice and rational choice and the implication to sustainable forest resource management. The policy, legislative and administrative procedures of decision making (with respect to costs and benefits sharing) will be analysed within the context of the principles of equity and equality.
The specific objectives of the study will therefore be:
} To explore existing framework on costs and benefits sharing under PELIS
} To determine actual costs and benefits to communities
} To document current costs and benefit sharing mechanisms.
} To develop and recommend a cost benefit sharing model.
In undertaking the cost benefit analysis, the study will take into account inputs and outputs in establishing a unit plantation forest and the subsequent contributions and gains of partners in the process. The study will make use of Forest Technical Orders (FSTO) and KFS General Orders (FSGO), management and operational plans on forest plantation establishment and development.
Procedures of determining the resource value and verification means will be central in the study. This is because the theory of procedural justice –key in the discourse -requires that procedures taken in reaching a conclusion are to a large extent acceptable if trust is to be sustained in any partnership (……….. …………). The main discourse on this analysis will however center on costs and benefits through the lenses of appropriate proportionality and fairness and the principles of equity and equality.
The outcome of this objective is expected to clarify and support determination of appropriate parameters and mechanisms to guide costs and benefit sharing for plantation forest resources under a PFM engagement. The study is also expected to contribute knowledge by establishing the nexus between the socio-economic theory of rational choice, social-psychological theory of social justice and the concepts of community participation and sustainable natural resource management.
4. Hypotheses:
The current policy and legislative frameworks do not provide for cost and benefit sharing. Administrative procedures exists but are insufficient and largely unacceptable to key partners in forest plantation establishment and development. This creates real or perceived state of unfairness and social injustice. It is hypothesized that the consequence of this provokes a sense of deprivation on part of partners leading to disagreements and protest against technical decisions contributing to ineffective governance.
5. Theory and conceptual Framework:
In this research, costs and benefit sharing will be studied in the context of social justice theory. It is hypothesised that the absence of the costs and benefit sharing mechanism largely contributes to dissent among communities leading to a perception of deprivation which in turn provokes collective reactions including protests and conflicts against technical decisions (Rawl 1974, Bond and park 1991, Mitchel Tetlock, Mellers & Ordeorez 1993, Scott, Matland, Michelbach & Bornstein, 2001)
Social justice, may be viewed in either actual or ideal as a state of affairs in which benefits and burdens in society are distributed in accordance with some allocation principle (s), procedures and rules and other forms of decisions making that preserve the basic rights and entitlements of individuals and groups and where dignity of human beings and other species is respected (John T Host...). The concerns of appropriateness and fairness, equity and equality principles in the PFM will be explored and discussed in the framework of social justice and rational choice theories taking into account the questions of distribute fairness among PFM partners. In this regard, PFM is viewed as a social system of resource management and PELIS is a key component of costs and benefit sharing under PFM.
There is little question that procedural characteristics affect overall perceptions of fairness and satisfaction and also exert downstream effects on a wide range of social and organizational variables (Van den Bos 2005, pp 274-277, Greenberg 1993, Sweeney & Mcfarlin, 1993). These concerns will be addressed from legal and policy dimensions by critically and intellectually analysing the forest policy, legislative and administrative frameworks against principles of social and procedural justice. In addition, the study will also look at the issues of civil society contentions and protests against technical decisions in the context of procedural justice. On the basis of social justice theories it is assumed that people generally determine whether their rewards are equitable based on comparisons involving their own prior experiences, those of similar others and those based on system-specific expectations such as organizational policies or promises. (Goodman 1977). Community perceptions and expectations will be evaluated as important variables in the analysis.
These will be assessed and analysed as costs, inputs or burdens to communities against outputs or benefits. Variables in plantation establishment and management including costs in land preparation, staking, planting, tendering/weeding, patrols, pruning, thinning and harvesting will be taken into account as inputs. Outputs will mainly focus on the direct benefits and will not take into account intangibles components such as influence on climate and other immeasurable ecosystem services that generally benefit anyone unselectively.
Fairness is not driven sorely by input-output ratios but also affected by procedural factors that interact with those ratios. Folger 1986, lind and Tyler 1988, Thibaut and Walker 1978). It is assumed that if a situation of inequality is perceived as occurring due to one’s own choices or because of unimpeachable decisions made by others (ie decisions made as a result of fair procedures) negative reactions DO NOT generally ensue. This therefore raises questions of and need to investigate underlying causes of frequent negative reports on relations between CFAs , Communities and other interests particularly from CSOs in respect to the role of costs and benefit sharing in the conflicts.
The overall analysis will entail an interrogation of the nexus between socio-psychological and socio economic influences on collective behaviour (participation or protests) as motivated by costs and burdens and perceptions on legislative frameworks. The consequential impact on governance and sustainable management of resources will be analysed.