| dc.contributor.author |
Banana, Abwoli Y. |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Ongugo, Paul |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Gombya-Ssembajjwe, William S. |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Tadesse, W. G. |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Senbeta, Feyera |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Namaalwa, J. |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Luoga, E. J. |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Bahati, Joseph |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Mbwambo, L. A. |
|
| dc.contributor.author |
Gatzweiler, Franz W. |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2011-04-13T19:40:56Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2011-04-13T19:40:56Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2011 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/7279 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
"As forests continue to decline globally and more so in the East African region,
decentralization reforms that aim to improve rural livelihoods and conserve forests by
transferring management powers to local communities and governments have occurred
in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Unlike Tanzania, where decentralization
reforms have been implemented for over a decade, the reforms in Ethiopia, Kenya and
Uganda are still in their infancy. As a result, there is still little empirical understanding of
its impacts on livelihoods, governance and forest conditions. Limited studies carried out
in the region indicate that decentralization of the forest sector in the region has taken
many different forms; from partial devolution of management responsibility to more
profound devolution of ownership to communities. Similarly, the outcomes from these
reform efforts also vary within and between countries. Livelihood outcomes are limited in
areas where CFM, JFM and PFM are practiced and positive where CBFM is practiced.
The outcomes of forest conditions under CFM, JFM and PFM are also mixed within and
across the countries. Some forests have shown some improvements while others are
continuing to be degraded. More forests under CBFM are showing improvement than
the forests under JFM, PFM or CFM. Improvement in forest condition and livelihoods
under CBFM may be due to improved enforcement of forest rules by the local
communities because of strong security of tenure and better benefits that accrue to the
communities that have CBFM arrangements." |
en_US |
| dc.language |
English |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
decentralization |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
deforestation |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
livelihoods |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
forests |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Forest Governance Reforms in Eastern Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional, Livelihood and Forest Sustainability Outcomes |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Conference Paper |
en_US |
| dc.type.published |
unpublished |
en_US |
| dc.type.methodology |
Case Study |
en_US |
| dc.coverage.region |
Africa |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Forestry |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationconference |
Sustaining Commons: Sustaining Our Future, the Thirteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationconfdates |
January 10-14 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationconfloc |
Hyderabad, India |
en_US |