Can community monitoring save the commons? Evidence on forest use and displacement.

Rapid deforestation is a major driver of greenhouse-gas emissions (1). One proposed policy tool to halt deforestation is community forest management. Even though communities manage an increasing proportion of the world's forests, we lack good evidence of successful approaches to community forest management. Prior studies suggest that successful approaches require a number of "design conditions" to be met. However, causal evidence on the effectiveness of individual design conditions is scarce. This study isolates one design condition, community-led monitoring of the forest, and provides causal evidence on its potential to reduce forest use. The study employs a randomized controlled trial to investigate the impact of community monitoring on forest use in 110 villages in Uganda. We explore the impact of community monitoring in both monitored and unmonitored areas of the forest, using exceptionally detailed data from on-the-ground measurements and satellite imagery. Estimates indicate that community monitoring does not affect our main outcome of interest, a forest-use index. However, treatment villages see a relative increase in forest loss outside of monitored forest areas compared to control villages. This increase is seen both in nonmonitored areas adjacent to treatment villages and in nonmonitored areas adjacent to neighboring villages not included in the study. We tentatively conclude that at least part of the increase in forest loss in nonmonitored areas is due to displacement of forest use by members of treatment villages due to fear of sanctions. Interventions to reduce deforestation should take this potentially substantial effect into consideration.

Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts.

Pervasive overuse and degradation of common pool resources (CPRs) is a global concern. To sustainably manage CPRs, effective governance institutions are essential. A large literature has developed to describe the institutional design features employed by communities that successfully manage their CPRs. Yet, these designs remain far from universally adopted. We focus on one prominent institutional design feature, community monitoring, and ask whether nongovernmental organizations or governments can facilitate its adoption and whether adoption of monitoring affects CPR use. To answer these questions, we implemented randomized controlled trials in six countries. The harmonized trials randomly assigned the introduction of community monitoring to 400 communities, with data collection in an additional 347 control communities. Most of the 400 communities adopted regular monitoring practices over the course of a year. In a meta-analysis of the experimental results from the six sites, we find that the community monitoring reduced CPR use and increased user satisfaction and knowledge by modest amounts. Our findings demonstrate that community monitoring can improve CPR management in disparate contexts, even when monitoring is externally initiated rather than homegrown. These findings provide guidance for the design of future programs and policies intended to develop monitoring capabilities in communities. Furthermore, our harmonized, multisite trial provides sustainability science with a new way to study the complexity of socioecological systems and builds generalizable insights about how to improve CPR management.