Community forestry programs like the one reported here by the Peruvian Times, a good online English-language newspaper that reports on Peru-related affairs, often receive great press initially, but then don't pan out as well as initial reports suggest. The article reports that community-held lands will be divided into smaller lots, then managed systematically.
It's not clear if the "division" of the community preserve reported in the article will involve granting private property rights to individual citizens or if the division into lots is just part of a management plan in which the land will remain community-owned and managed--this is a key issue, as are the details of the management system. I've seen situations in which the division of community lands have generated both good and bad outcomes, and I've also seen situations in which the communal management has been both successful and unsuccessful.
The important thing is the details around how decisions about land use are made, who makes the decisions, who is entrusted with enforcement, and how the profits from land management are allocated. If the same people who pay the costs receive the benefits, then things are much more likely work out. If, however, the people who pay the costs of enforcement don't receive the benefits, they simply won't hold up their end of the bargain.
One problem in Peru is that central government authorities often receive the benefits of (costly) actions (such as enforcement) which are palmed off on local authorities. If the local authorities don't receive the benefits of enforcement, however, they're unlikely to be motivated to bear the costs. The same is true in the opposite situation--if the locals accrue the benefits of local forestry but the national government is supposed to enforce the rules, it's unlikely that they'll be motivated to do so.
5 comments:
I agree that the author was very vague on who would manage these plots of land. Would the native communities, who often time take next to nothing in pay for loggers to chop down forests, be the ones in charge? Or if they were to be under government protection could these plots of land potentially be illegally harvested like some of the national parks and reserves that the article mentions?
It seems very pointless that they never mentioned who would manage the lands they are trying to protect. It makes me wonder if they even have an adequate solution to that issue. The forests need to be managed in order to prevent illegal logging and deforestation.
With out a clear group to manage the plots nothing would work. I agree with the post that questions whether or not they have a clear solution and that if no one is clearly managing the land then it will just get pillaged for its resources.
You've heard of the MST in Brazil I assume? Was wondering what you thought about them, as their land projects seem to have been very successful over the long term Though they deal with agricultural plots more than forest, they are involved in intermixing forest conservation with private land ownership (in a community setting). MST tends to be more focused and proactive than what is going on in Peru though...perhaps that's the difference in success.
An issue that could be discussed is that coca cultivation is a hug epidemic in this area and could result in contradictory ideas of land use for peruvians.
andrew sieving
Post a Comment