Public policy reforms and indigenous forest governance: The case of the Yuracar people in Bolivia

Conservation and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 195-207

  León, Rosario ^a   Uberhuaga, Patricia ^a   Benavides, Jean ^a   Andersson, Krister ^b  

^a Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality (CERES)   (Bolivia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Bolivia; governance; indigenous people; property rights; public policy; Yuracar

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863751544     PISSN: 09724923     EISSN: 09753133     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.97493     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Agrawal, A and A. Chhatre. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalayas. World Development 34(1): 149-166.
2. Agrawal, A. and E. Ostrom. 2001. Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society 29(4): 485-514.
3. Agrawal, A. and J. Ribot. 1999. Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas 33: 473-502.
4. Alston, L.J., G.D. Libecap and B. Mueller. 2000. Land reform polices, the sources of violent conflict, and implications for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2): 162-188.
5. Andersson, K. 2003. What motivates municipal governments? Uncovering the institutional incentives for municipal governance of forest resources in Bolivia. Journal of Environment and Development 12(1): 5-27.
6. Andersson, K. 2004. Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Development 32(2): 233-249.
7. Andersson, K. 2006. Understanding decentralized forest governance. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 2(1): 25-35.
8. Andersson, K. and D. Pacheco. 2006. Turning to forestry for a way out of poverty: Is formalizing property rights enough? In: Linking the formal and informal economy: concepts and policies (eds. Guha-Khasnobis, B., R. Kanbur and E. Ostrom). Pp. 195-211. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Andersson, K. and E. Ostrom. 2008. Analyzing decentralized natural resource governance from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences 41(1): 1-23.
10. Ascher, W. 1995. Communities and sustainable forestry in developing countries. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.
11. Baland, J.-M. and J.-P. Platteau. 1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press.
12. Banana, A.Y., N.D. Vogt, J. Bahati and W. Gombya-Ssembajjwe. 2007. Decentralized governance and ecological health: Why local institutions fail to moderate deforestation in Mpigi district of Uganda. Scientific Research and Essay 2(10): 434-445.
13. Barton, D. 2002. Adaptive management, organizations and common property management: Perspectives from the community forests of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Paper read at Community Forestry in Mexico: Concordance and Contradiction between Institutions, Policies and Economies.
14. Becker, D. and R. León. 2000. Indigenous forest management in the bolivian amazon: Lessons from the yuracaré people. In: People and forests: communities, institutions and governance (eds. Gibson, C.C., M. McKean and E. Ostrom). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15. Beneria-Surkin, J. 2003. Decentralization questioned: The structuring and articulation of Guarani participation in conservation and development in Izozog, Bolivia. Ph.D. thesis. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
16. Bigombe Logo, P. 2002. Forest management decentralization and social conflicts in Cameron: Rethinking intergenerational access to forest and its resources in Southeastern Cameroon. Paper read at 2002 IASCP Conference in Harare, Zimbabwe.
17. Bowen, J. 2000. Should we have a universal concept of indigenous people's rights? Anthropology Today 16(4): 12-16.
18. Bruce, J. 1998. Legal bases for the management of forests as common property. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
19. Cardenas, J.C. 2000. How do groups solve local commons dilemmas? Lessons from experimental economics. Environment. Development and Sustainability 2(3-4): 305-322.
20. Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality (CERES). 1997. Manejo Actual de los Recursos del Territorio Indígena Yuracaré: Bases para un Plan de Manejo. Cochabamba: Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality.
21. Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality-Consejo Indígena Yuracaré (CERES-CONIYURA). 1998. Plan de Manejo de Bosques del Territorio Indígena Yuracaré. Cochabamba: Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality.
22. Chandra, K. 2001. Ethnic bargains, group instability, and social choice theory. Politics and Society 29(3): 337-362.
23. Chhatre, A. and A. Agrawal. 2008. Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(36): 13286-13291.
24. Chhatre, A. and A. Agrawal. 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(42): 17667-17670.
25. Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
26. Contreras-Hermosilla, A. and M.T. Vargas. 2002. Las Dimensiones Sociales, Ambientales y Económicas de las reformas a la política forestal en Bolivia. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.
27. Cronkleton, P. and M. Albornoz. 2004. Forestería Comunitaria en Bolivia: Abriendo Horizontes para Nuevos Actores. In Memória: Forum sobre Florestas, Gestão e Desenvolvimento, Belém 2003. Belem: CIFOR.
28. Cronkleton, P. and P. Pacheco. 2008. Communal tenure policy and the struggle for forest lands in the Bolivian Amazon. Cheltenham, UK. 12th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons.
29. De Jong, W. (ed.). 2004. Retos y Perspectivas del Nuevo Régimen Forestal en el Norte Amazónico Boliviano. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
30. Dietz, T., P.C. Stern and E. Ostrom. 2003. Struggling the commons. Science 302: 1907-1012.
31. Fawcett, P.H. 1910. Explorations in Bolivia. Geographical Journal 35(5): 513-529.
32. Ferroukhi, L. 2003. La Gestión Forestal Municipal en América Latina. Bogor: CIFOR.
33. Gibson, C.C., E. Ostrom and M. A. MacKean. 2000. Forests, people, and governance: Some initial theoretical lessons. In: People and forests: Communities, institutions and governance (eds. Gibson, C.C., M. McKean and E. Ostrom). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Gibson, C.C., J.T. Williams and E. Ostrom. 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33(2): 273-284.
35. Groenfeldt, D. 2003. The future of indigenous values: Cultural relativism in the face of economic development. Futures 35: 917-929.
36. Hernáiz, I. and D. Pacheco. 2000. La Ley INRA en el espejo de la historia: dos siglos de reformas agrarias en Bolivia. La Paz: Fundacion TIERRA.
37. Hirtz, F. 2003. It takes modern means to be traditional: On recognizing indigenous cultural communities in the Philippines. Development and Change 34(5): 887-914.
38. Holt, L. 2005. The catch-22 of conservation: Indigenous peoples, biologists, and cultural change. Human Ecology 33(2): 199-215.
39. Inter-American Development Bank (IABD) 2004. Territorial rights (Program of indigenous populations and communal development). Washington DC: IABD.
40. Janssen, M.A., R. Holahan, A. Lee and E. Ostrom. 2010. Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. Science 328(5978): 613-617.
41. Kaimowitz, D., P. Pacheco, R. Mendoza and T. Barahona. 2001. Municipal governments and forest management in Bolivia and Nicaragua. In: World forests, markets and policies (eds. Palo, M., J. Uusivuori and G. Mery). Finland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
42. Larson, A.M. 2002. Natural resources and decentralization in Nicaragua: Are local governments up to the job? World Development 30(1): 17-31.
43. Larson, A.M. 2003. Decentralization and forest management in Latin America: Toward a working model. Public Administration and Development 23(3): 211-226.
44. Larson, A.M., D. Barry, G.R. Dahal and C.J.P. Colfer (eds.). 2010. Forests for people: Community rights and forest tenure reform. London: Earthscan.
45. Larson, A.M., P. Cronkleton, D. Barry and P. Pacheco. 2008. Tenure rights and beyond: Community access to forest resources in Latin America. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 50. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
46. León, R. 1993. Territorios invisibles: Los Yuracarés. Working Paper. Cochabamba: CERES-FTPP.
47. Lindsay, J.M. 1998. Designing legal space for community-based management. Paper presented at International Workshop on Community-based Natural Resource Management. Washington DC: The World Bank. May 10-14, 1998.
48. Loomis, T.M. 2002. Indigenous populations and sustainable development: Building on indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development. World Development 28(5): 893-910.
49. McDaniel, J.M. 2003. History and the duality of power in community-based forestry in Southeast Bolivia. Development and Change 34(2): 339-356.
50. McGinnis, M. 1999. Introduction. In: polycentric governance and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (ed. McGinnis, M.). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
51. McKean, M. 2000. Common property: What is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work? In: People and forests: Communities, institutions and governance (eds. Gibson, C.C., M.A. MacKean and E. Ostrom). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place and B. Swallow. 2002. Innovation in natural resource management: The role of property rights and collective action in developing countries. Washington, DC: IPGRI.
53. Meinzen Dick, R. and E. Mwangi. 2008. Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Land Use Policy 26(1): 36-43.
54. Miller, G. 1992. Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
55. Nagendra, H. 2007. Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15218-15223.
56. Nygren, A. 2005. Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras. World Development 33: 639-655.
57. O'Faircheallaigh, C. 1998. Resource development and inequality in indigenous societies. World Development 26(3): 381-394.
58. O'Neill, K. 2003. Decentralization as an electoral strategy. Comparative Political Studies 36(9): 1068-1091.
59. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60. Ostrom, E. 1992. Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.
61. Ostrom, E. 1999. Self-governance and forest resources. CIFRO Occasional Paper No. 20. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
62. Ostrom, E. 2003. How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(3): 139-170.
63. Ostrom, E., R. Gardner and J. Walker. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
64. Ostrom, E. and H. Nagendra. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(51): 19224-19231.
65. Ostrom, E. and V. Ostrom. 1999. Public goods and public choices. In: Polycentricity and local public economies (ed: Mcginnis, M.). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
66. Ostrom, E., L. Schroeder and S. Wynne. 1993. Institutional incentives and sustainable development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
67. Oyono, P.R. 2004. One step forward, two steps back? Paradoxes of natural resources management decentralisation in Cameroon. Journal of Modern African Studies 42(1): 91-111.
68. Pacheco, P. 2002. Contribuye la Decentralización a Mejorar la Gestión Forestal? Las Lecciones Aprendidas del Caso Boliviano. Paper read at I Reunión Nacional de Investigación Forestal. Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
69. Pacheco, P. 2004. Decentralization of forest management in Bolivia: Who benefits and why? Paper read at Decentralization of federal systems in forestry and national forest programmes. Interlaken, Switzerland.
70. Pacheco, D. 2007. An institutional analysis of decentralization and indigenous timber management in common-property forests of Bolivia's lowlands. PhD. Thesis. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
71. Pacheco, P. 2008. Enfoques forestales homogéneos para actores diversos: la encrucijada del manejo de bosques en Bolivia. Informe Temático Sobre Desarrollo Humano en Bolivia PNUD-Bolivia.
72. Pacheco, P. and D. Kaimowitz. 1998. Municipios y gestión forestal en el trópico boliviano. La Paz and Bogor: CEDLA and CIFOR.
73. Ribot, J. 2001. Local actors, powers and accountability in african decentralizations: A review of issues. Washington, DC: International Development Research Centre of Canada.
74. Ribot, J. 2002. Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
75. Tucker, C. 1999. Private versus common property forests: Forest conditions and tenure in a honduran community. Human Ecology 27(2): 201-229.
76. Uberhuaga, P. 2001. Legal or illegal? Networks and forest regulations in timber commercialization: An analysis of social capital and interfaces among ethnic groups in the tropic of Cochabamba, Bolivia. M.Sc. Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
77. Urioste, M. and D. Pacheco. 2001. Las Tierras Bajas de Bolivia a Fines del Siglo XX. La Paz: PIEB.
78. Van Cott, D.L. 2000. Party system development and indigenous populations in Latin America. The Bolivian case. Party Politics 6(2): 155-174.
79. Van Laerhoven, F. 2010. Governing community forests and the challenge of solving two-level collective action dilemmas-A large-N perspective. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 539-546.
80. White, A. and A. Martin. 2002. Who owns the world's forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Washington DC: Forest Trends and Center for International Environmental Law.