Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods, and enfranchisement

Abstract

SUMMARYEfforts to promote popular participation in forest management in Sub-Saharan Africa have faced many obstacles and disappointments. Although promises of improvements in relation to forest management, rural livelihoods and local enfranchisement have been achieved in some cases, accounts of frustration outnumber those of success. Focusing on participation through democratic decentralization (namely the transfer of meaningful discretionary powers to local representative authorities), this paper reviews recent empirical studies on the outcomes of popular participation in forest management. The implementation of decentralization of forest management, and ecological, livelihood and democracy outcomes are examined, and misconceptions in analyses of decentralized forestry are explored. The expected benefits of democratic decentralization within forestry are rarely realized because democratic decentralization is rarely established. In most cases, local authorities do not represent the local population or their space of discretion is so narrow that they have little effect on management. There is little official local management taking place, even under so-called decentralized or participatory management arrangements. If ever significant space for local discretion under democratic authorities is created, researchers will have the opportunity to study whether democratic decentralization can deliver the theoretically promised positive outcomes. Nevertheless, some cases shed light on effects of local decision making. Three general observations are made on effects of decentralization. First, environmental, livelihood and democracy objectives are not always mutually reinforcing, and under some circumstances they may be at odds. Second, environmental effects of improved forest management often result in benefits accruing to distant or higher-scale aggregate populations, while local communities carry the costs. Third, poor peoples' use of natural resources to maintain their livelihoods often conflicts with profit and revenue interests of local elites, national commercial interests and governments. A negotiated minimum social and environmental standards approach to decentralization of forest management may safeguard essential ecological functions and at the same time protect essential livelihood and economic values of forests at all scales of society. The remainder of decisions, such as how forests are used, by whom and for what, could then be safely placed at the discretion of responsive local representatives.

Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection. The case of local management boards in Norway

“…The traditional top-down conservation management has empowered the professional state bureaucrats (Arnesen and Riseth 2008;Emmelin and Kleven 1999), and thereby prioritized nature values and protection interests over local values and user interests. It has been criticized for insensitivity to local knowledge, for lack of responsiveness and little capacity to adapt to the local context (physical or social), not recognizing the needs of the local people, and been considered ineffective as local people have resisted the management rules (Ribot et al 2010;Lane and Corbett 2005;Zachrisson 2009a;Ghimere and Pimbert 1997). There is strong empirical evidence behind this critique, both internationally and nationally (Zachrisson 2009a;Sandström et al 2008a).…”

“…There is a risk that this model will suffer from weaknesses that often characterize inter-municipal cooperation in Norway; low political control and blurred accountability lines (Jacobsen 2014), resulting in a weak representation of local population (Agrawal and Ribot 1999;Ribot et al 2010). According to the literature on network governance, democratic anchorage may be strengthened through linkages to elected councils, but also through stakeholder participation, transparency and decision processes following democratic norms (Sørensen and Torfing 2009).…”

The Dynamics of Deforestation in the Wet and Dry Tropics: A Comparison with Policy Implications

“…In thinking about the characteristics of efforts to reduce deforestation in wet and dry tropical biomes, it is important to note the disjuncture between research on tropical deforestation in Latin America and Southeast Asia [29,39] and research on forest governance in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia [40][41][42]. Researchers interested in tropical deforestation almost never reference research on forest governance.…”

“…These policy instruments make sense given the industrial scale of many producers in the wet forests and the long-distance flows of the commodities that they produce. Dry forest analysts have attended to the decentralization of political controls over forests and the clarification of smallholder tree tenure [40][41][42]. This focus follows from the localized circuits of production and trade in and around dry forests.…”

Local people and conservation officials’ perceptions on relationships and conflicts in South African protected areas

“…Decentralisation in principle facilitates local communities' participation in the design and implementation of conservation strategies, which in turn ensures a shared understanding of problems and ways of solving them (Ribot et al 2010). Without this, local communities are often against conservation efforts and can be set on a collision course with conservation officials (Tessema et al 2010;Vedeld et al 2012;Cundill et al 2013;Thondhlana et al 2016).…”