諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)弟子講座2

1、Decentralization, Forests and Rural CommunitiesPolicy Outcomes in South and Southeast AsiaEdward L. Webb and Ganesh P. ShivakotiPublished by Sage Press, India, February 20081Problems associated with either or policy dichotomy（二分法）Tragedy of the Commons（Private）Prisoners Dilemmas, and（Nationalized）Th

2、e Logic of Collective Action（Benefit & cost）Led the thinking in terms of: market versus statecentralization versus decentralizationdominated early policy analysis and these led either to failed centralization policies or imposition of a system of private property rights.A large gap exists between po

3、licy and recent empirical research2Examples of centralization of forest resources in AsiaBhutan: Thrimzhung Chenmo (Supreme Law) 1959 India: 1878 Indian Forest ActIndonesia: 1967 Basic Forestry Law No. 67Nepal: 1957 Private Forests Act Thailand: 1913 Forest Protection Act Vietnam: 1975 implementatio

4、n of commune system3Outcomes of centralizationLoss of local authority and traditional rightsOpen access resource baseOver-harvesting of natural resources4Despite complexities, we can say that forest loss has generally not been prevented by centralization policies 5Forest decentralization policy in S

5、 and SE AsiaIndia: Joint Forest Management (JFM) (1990)Nepal: Community and Leasehold Forestry (1976, 1989, 1993)Thailand: Community forestry (outside protected areas) and decentralization of RFD (1986)Indonesia: Re-emergence of nagari system (1999)Vietnam: Doi moi, forest / land allocation (1986, 1

6、991)6Important decentralization questionsWhat have been the outcomes of recent forestry decentralization (practically and theoretically) to the forest-accessing communities? What policy and community features facilitate or hinder community adaptation?78Contributors and CollaboratorsArun Agrawal, Sch

7、ool of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of MichiganLam Dorji, Royal Society for the Protection of Nature, Thimpu, BhutanNgo Tri Dung, Hue University of Forestry and Agriculture, VietnamBirendra Karna, Mukunda Karmacharya, Nepal Forest Resources and Institutions Research Program Nepa

8、lAmbika P. Gautam, Nitaya Kijtewachakul, Ganesh Shivakoti, Edward L. Webb, Asian Institute of TechnologyRucha Ghate, Deepshikha Mehra, SHODH: The Institute for Research and Developement IndiaHarini Nagendra, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, IndiaElinor Ostrom, Workshop in Po

9、litical Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana UniversityYonariza, Andalas University, West Sumatra9Our research methodsCase studies using the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) protocolInterdisciplinary method including:Botanical inventoryInstitutional analysisHistorical transect

10、 大事記Remote sensing / GIS10Synthesis: Facilitating Decentralized Policies for Sustainable Governance and Management of Forest Resources in Asia11ChallengesManagement type: Community-managed, government-managed, self-initiated, NGO-promoted, conservation-oriented, utilization-orientedPrior history: Lo

11、ng-term (n = 5), medium-term (n = 6), recent (n = 8)Forest size: Small (n = 6), medium (n = 5), large (n = 8)User group size: Small (n = 8), medium (n = 5), large (n = 6)Heterogeneity: Homogeneous (n = 9), heterogeneous (n = 10)Forest condition: Degraded (n = 9), good (n = 4), excellent (n = 6)12Str

12、uctural VariablesCentrally managed (n = 6)Co-managed with high or low conflict (n = 16)Locally managed (n = 9)*more than one management system may apply13Support StructuresNetworks: None (3), good (10), excellent (6)Legal plurality: Absent (3), weak (6), good (10)Reliable information: Unavailable or

13、 unreliable (8), available and good (11)Effective link to higher level of governance: Absent or poor (11), present and good (8)Provisions for building social capital: Absent (5), present (14)Conflict resolution mechanisms; Absent (2), available and indigenous (4), introduced (13)14ResultsMonitoring:

14、 Absent or poor (7), effective (12)Forest Condition: Degraded (8), good (7), very good (4)Equity: Low (6), medium (2), high (9)Elite Capture: low (10), medium (5), high (4) CMConflict Management: Difficult (10), moderate (1), easy (8)Recovery from Initial Failure: No (7), yes (12)Sustainability Evid

15、ence: None (1), Available but low (5), Moderate (5), Present at higher level (9)15General ConclusionsThere is a remarkable diversity of challenges, structural variables, support structures and outcomes across these case studiesThe solutions for sustainable decentralized forest management will be as diverse as the contexts themselves. 16Flexibility of policy and the willingness of governments to allow local actors to experiment, test and explore new potential solutions is absolutely essential for long term success. Rigid g