Has forest titling strengthened tenure security? A multidimensional analysis of collective forest tenure reform in Southwest China

Motivation Forest tenure security plays a critical role in improving the livelihoods of those who live in and around forests and simultaneously contribute to forest conservation. Governments around the world have tried to strengthen tenure through titling programmes. Little is known about how forest titling contributes in practice to tenure security and how it affects local investment in forest management. Purpose This research aims to understand the legal, practical, and perceptual dimensions of forest tenure (in)security after the titling programme; and to examine causal paths from tenure (in)security to local investment in forest management. Approach and methods Taking Southwest China as an example, the article uses mixed methods to integrate qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Quantitative data were collected using a standardized questionnaire from 410 selected households. Qualitative data were gathered through in‐depth interviews with 45 key informants, including forest officials, village heads, elders, women, and local forest rangers. Nine focus group interviews were set up to learn about local perspectives on collective forest tenure reform and perceived tenure (in)security. Findings Although legal tenure security has been improved by forest titling, both practical and perceived tenure insecurity continue to exist. Titling in the three sites varied between collective and individual titles, and by the degree to which either category had been certified. Context played a crucial role; for example, areas where farmers had planted rubber trees were more likely to have individual titles. In some cases, forest lands remained under dispute and were not certified. Although legal tenure security has been improved by forest titling, in practice, rights to harvest timber and other forest products were restricted by regulations that undermined tenure security. Again, the degree of restriction varies according to local context. Tenure insecurity also arose from the uncertainty of the duration of rights holding, as legal durations and local perceptions of duration diverged. Tenure security did not necessarily encourage investment in the management of forests; local context mattered more than tenure. Policy implications Central government needs to pay more attention to local variation to understand practical and perceived tenure security. Decentralization to empower local decision‐making can help. Central government should also consider removal of the timber quotas to improve tenure security and stimulate local forest management. Additionally, the government and the international community should investigate the multidimensionality of forest tenure security, considering both local biophysical and socioeconomic conditions.