Under which conditions will secure forest tenure promote socially equitable and ecologically sustainable outcomes?
No single tenure regime (public or private, individual or collective) leads consistently to outcomes that improve both livelihoods and biodiversity. The interest of communities dependent on the forests and forest conservation do not always go hand in hand. More substantial rights to people, or improved tenure security, might lead to deforestation, for example, when landholders clear forests for more profitable alternatives.
How is favorable tenure arrangements negotiated? How can more equitable tenure and resource rights be achieved?
Currently, local communities often cannot participate meaningfully in the planning, management and allocation of forest resources. However, greater local participation in resource management, such as locally-made rules have shown to lead to better outcomes for biodiversity and livelihoods. However, there is no single solution. While recognizing or formalizing tenure may provide security for the communities, it likely will only create fixed, static borders that prove ultimately limiting. Whereas informal (customary) systems tend to be more flexible and complex in nature, the rights may only be granted to certain forest users or to local authorities and elite members who assume the rights and benefits during the formalization process, excluding or increasing insecurity for others within the community, including groups often overlooked, such as women and the disadvantaged.