Introduction

Forestry sector decentralization policies are a widespread phenomenon across the Global South [1]. Officially, these policies have been driven by a belief that situating decision making closer to where forest management and use actually occurs — where its direct effects are felt most immediately — and in the hands of representative local authorities, will result in more ecologically and socially sustainable outcomes [2]. These are broadly the same official rationales underlying the support to various community-based forest management approaches. Research on forestry decentralization policies has proliferated and grown in widely different directions through contributions from different disciplines. Therefore, in this paper, we attempt a synthesis of recent contributions to this literature aiming to identify strands within it and illustrate differences, overlaps, and gaps among these. We believe this will assist scholars in situating their own work within this burgeoning literature. We also believe it is relevant to ongoing efforts at forestry decentralization as well as to more recent carbon forestry initiatives that in different ways articulate with and (re)shape existing forestry decentralization policies [3–۵]. Our review focuses on research that examines forestry decentralization processes by which decision-making powers over forests are handed down, or devolved, to lower levels in a jurisdictional hierarchy of the state [6]. This implies transfers to subnational bodies, such as provinces, districts, wards, villages, or user groups. In the following we present and discuss four strands within the literature assess how decentralization impacts forests and livelihoods; studies that examine whether decentralization empowers public and democratic local institutions; studies focusing on power and elite interests in decentralization, and; studies that historicize and contextualize decentralization as reflective of broader societal phenomena. We argue that these strands reflect disciplinary differences in values, epistemologies, and methods preferences, and that they present partial representations of forestry decentralization policies (see Figure 1). Although we try to provide both depth and coverage, our review should be seen as representative of studies within the four strands we identify, and not as an attempt at fully covering the existing literature.