TY - JOUR

T1 - Unpacking the impacts of 'participatory' forestry policies

T2 - evidence from Kenya

AU - Mutune, Jane Mutheu

AU - Lund, Jens Friis

N1 - Artikel + corrigendum

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - We evaluate the livelihoods of member and non-members of Community Forestry Associations under Kenya's participatory forest management (PFM) programme. We use propensity score matching of households based on recall based data from before implementation of PFM from 286 households and comparison of current incomes (2012), as well as review of records and interviews. Results reveal that members have higher total and forest-related incomes than non-members and indicate that impacts derive from labour and market opportunities supported by donor institutions, more than from differential access to forest products. In terms of governance the Kenya Forest Service largely remains in control of decision-making. Thus, PFM resembles Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) approaches. We conclude that current forest governance approaches in Kenya appear not to support participation in practice. Further, we conclude that impact evaluations must examine both outcomes and participatory forestry to provide meaningful policy evidence.

AB - We evaluate the livelihoods of member and non-members of Community Forestry Associations under Kenya's participatory forest management (PFM) programme. We use propensity score matching of households based on recall based data from before implementation of PFM from 286 households and comparison of current incomes (2012), as well as review of records and interviews. Results reveal that members have higher total and forest-related incomes than non-members and indicate that impacts derive from labour and market opportunities supported by donor institutions, more than from differential access to forest products. In terms of governance the Kenya Forest Service largely remains in control of decision-making. Thus, PFM resembles Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) approaches. We conclude that current forest governance approaches in Kenya appear not to support participation in practice. Further, we conclude that impact evaluations must examine both outcomes and participatory forestry to provide meaningful policy evidence.

KW - Community forest associations

KW - Forests

KW - Households

KW - Impact

KW - Livelihoods

KW - Participatory forest management

UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.034

U2 - 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.004

DO - 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.004

M3 - Journal article

VL - 69

SP - 45

EP - 52

JO - Forest Policy and Economics

JF - Forest Policy and Economics

SN - 1389-9341

ER -