CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms (2012-2021)
    • CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
    • FTA outputs
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms (2012-2021)
    • CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
    • FTA outputs
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    ‘We Are Not Bad People’- Bricolage and the Rise of Community Forest Institutions in Burkina Faso

    Thumbnail
    Authors
    Karambiri, Mawa
    Brockhaus, Maria
    Sehring, J.
    Degrande, A.
    Date Issued
    2020-09
    Language
    en
    Type
    Journal Article
    Review status
    Peer Review
    ISI journal
    Accessibility
    Open Access
    Usage rights
    CC-BY-4.0
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    
    Citation
    Karambiri, M., Brockhaus, M., Sehring, J., Degrande, A. 2020. ‘We Are Not Bad People’- Bricolage and the Rise of Community Forest Institutions in Burkina Faso. International Journal of the Commons, 14(1), 525-538. http://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1061
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/113343
    External link to download this item: https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ijc.1061/
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1061
    Abstract/Description
    From a critical institutionalism and institutional bricolage perspective, this article analyses what drives institutional change in the commons and the outcomes for forest and people. It builds on the comparison of three neighbouring villages in Burkina Faso that in 1989, expecting higher returns, agreed to release their common lands for the creation of a community forest called Chantier d’Aménagement Forestier (CAF) within an international forestry project. The project created new bureaucratic institutions to replace the pre-existing customary and socially embedded system. Decades later, the three villages display different institutional change pathways and outcomes: one village abandoned the CAF, converted, and sold its forest and land; another maintained the CAF; and a third operates in-between. Using qualitative research methods, we ask why and how these different change trajectories and outcomes occurred among villages of identical cultural and sociopolitical background. The results show that poor design and implementation of the new bureaucratic institutions, as well as their disrespect of customary and socially embedded rules, led to forestland disputes between the villages. The bureaucratic institutions failed to solve those disputes, effectively manage the forest, and share the benefits equitably. This caused local people’s discontent and prompted actions for change. Actors in diverse ways made use of their social networks, agency, and power relations within and between the villages to either reshape, re-interpret or reject the new forest institutions. These processes of institutional bricolage led to highly diverse trajectories of change. The findings demonstrate the crucial role of locals as agents of change from below and question universal claims in institutional theory on how institutions induce rule-guided behaviour and create path dependencies.
    Other CGIAR Affiliations
    Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
    AGROVOC Keywords
    natural resource management; power; network; landscape conservation
    Organizations Affiliated to the Authors
    World Agroforestry Centre; University of Helsinki
    Collections
    • FTA outputs [1739]

    Show Statistical Information


    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback