Figure 1
A substantial percentage of our sample (more than 15%) gather more than a sixth of locally-collected funds from forestry-related sources. According to estimates from our surveys with local government personnel in the 100 municipalities, more than 10% of all municipalities get more than 90% of their total incomes in the forestry sector from their own collection of local fees and taxes.
Figure 2
As the importance of forestry as a source of revenue increases, municipalities commit more resources to forestry. Likewise, as the frequency of community organization demands for forestry services increase, spending in forestry increases. This chart was made with all control variables set at their means, except for party, which was set at 1.
Figure 3
Our statistical models provide some evidence that financial incentives have a greater impact on forest conservation investment when pressures from below are not strong. Here, the effect of financial incentives on the percentage of municipal employees assigned to forestry is significant where community organization pressures are low, but not when they are high. The top graph shows predicted values and the bottom graph shows marginal effects of a shift from forestry activities being “much less important” than other areas to “much more important.” These graphs were made with all control variables set at their means, except for party, which was set at 1.
Table 1
Variables.
| Variable | Obs. | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min. | Max. | Source(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total employees in forestry | 218 | 1.22 | 1.63 | 0 | 10 | ’01 and ’08 mayor surveys, ’08 UFM (Municipal Forestry Unit) |
| Municipal budget in forestry (pct.) | 218 | 2.62 | 4.71 | 0 | 40 | ’01 mayor, ’08 mayor and ’08 UFM survey |
| Relative importance of forestry | 212 | –0.80 | 1.08 | –3 | 1.5 | ’01 and ’08 mayor surveys |
| Importance of forestry as a revenue source | 210 | 2.18 | 1.37 | 0 | 5 | ’01 mayor and ’08 UFM surveys |
| Central government supervision | 244 | 2.27 | 1.20 | 1 | 5 | ’01 and ’08 mayor surveys |
| Frequency of community organization demands on forestry | 244 | 2.45 | 1.10 | 1 | 5 | ’01 and ’08 mayor surveys, ’08 UFM survey, ’08 CV (Oversight Committee) survey |
| Mayor’s education | 217 | 12.90 | 4.22 | 1 | 18 | ’01 and ’08 mayor surveys |
| “Officialist” party | 240 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0 | 1 | ’01 and ’08 mayor surveys |
| Forest cover (pct.) | 244 | 55.82 | 41.43 | 0 | 100 | Remote sensing data, ’01 and ’08 |
| HDI (Human development Index) | 242 | 0.57 | 0.08 | 0.347 | 0.759 | 2007 Bolivian government statistics |
| Municipal budget (millions of Bolivianos) | 218 | 20.38 | 99.59 | 0 | 1293.40 | 2001 and 2007 Bolivian government statistics |
Table 2:
Incentives for Forest Conservation
| Dependent variable | Importance of forest policy | Forestry budget (pct. of total budget) | Forestry employees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Importance of forestry as a source of revenue | 0.292 | 0.181 | 0.255 |
| (0.00)*** | (0.01)* | (0.00)*** | |
| Frequency of central government supervision | 0.173 | 0.102 | 0.036 |
| (0.00)** | (0.20) | (0.60) | |
| Frequency of community demands | 0.174 | 0.365 | 0.159 |
| (0.01)* | (0.00)*** | (0.04)* | |
| Mayor’s level of education | –0.025 | –0.016 | –0.033 |
| (0.20) | (0.52) | (0.13) | |
| ‘Officialist’ party | –0.024 | 0.058 | 0.304 |
| (0.87) | (0.75) | (0.05)+ | |
| Human Development Index (HDI) | –0.898 | –1.001 | 5.625 |
| (0.36) | (0.47) | (0.00)*** | |
| Forest cover (pct. of municipal area) | 0 | 0.007 | –0.002 |
| (0.84) | (0.03)* | (0.54) | |
| Forest area (ln square km.) | 0.013 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| (0.79) | (0.76) | (0.60) | |
| Municipal budget size (millions of) | 0 | 0 | –0.001 |
| (0.47) | (0.81) | (0.37) | |
| Constant | –1.627 | –0.685 | –4.176 |
| (0.01)** | (0.45) | (0.00)*** | |
| Observations | 178 | 180 | 180 |
| Municipalities | 104 | 104 | 104 |
| Wald chi-square | 64.15 | 43.17 | 65.79 |
| Tolerance | 7.63 e–7 | 2.33 e–7 | 2.909 e–7 |
| Scale parameter | 3.99 | 1.25 |
p-Values in parentheses. +significant at 10%; *significant at 5%; **significant at 1%; ***significant at 0.1%.
Table 3:
Types of Financial Incentives
| Dependent variable | Importance of forest policy | Forestry budget (pct. of total budget) | Forestry employees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forestry income: own income | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| (0.21) | (0.01)* | (0.01)** | |
| Forestry income: central government transfers | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| (0.00)** | (0.08)+ | (0.04)* | |
| Frequency of central government supervision | 0.19 | 0.169 | 0.039 |
| (0.04)* | (0.13) | (0.64) | |
| Frequency of community demands | 0.266 | 0.422 | 0.381 |
| (0.03)* | (0.00)** | (0.00)** | |
| Mayor’s level of education | –0.016 | –0.013 | –0.05 |
| (0.53) | (0.70) | (0.05)+ | |
| ‘Officialist’ party | –0.217 | 0.257 | 0.357 |
| (0.39) | (0.41) | (0.16) | |
| Human Development Index (HDI) | –2.632 | –2.253 | 5.433 |
| (0.10)+ | (0.28) | (0.00)** | |
| Forest cover (pct. of municipal area) | –0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| (0.60) | (0.60) | (0.63) | |
| Forest area (ln square km.) | –0.001 | 0.01 | 0.24 |
| (0.99) | (0.93) | (0.01)* | |
| Municipal budget size (millions of) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (0.32) | (0.83) | (0.72) | |
| Constant | –0.308 | 0.141 | –7.313 |
| (0.83) | (0.94) | (0.00)** | |
| Observations | 94 | 94 | 94 |
| log pseudolikelihood/ deviance | –132.01 | 498.54 | 86.33 |
| AIC | 3.04 | ||
| BIC | –285.8 | 121.44 | –290.72 |
| Scale parameter | 1.09 | 1 | 1 |
Robust p-Values in parentheses. +significant at 10%; *significant at 5%; **significant at 1%.