Please note - this article was originally published on the id21 website which has now closed. This and other articles produced by id21 were archived by Eldis in 2009 and are not actively maintained. If you find links and references which are no longer valid please email eldis@ids.ac.uk.

Decentralisation revisited: behind the rhetoric of local natural resources management

What exactly do researchers and policymakers mean by ‘decentralisation’? Although the concept has become central to sustainable development, it has been open to a variety of interpretations. Whilst decentralisation reforms have proceeded in Africa, do the assumptions which underlie these reforms stand up to scrutiny?

Researchers with the African Centre for Technology Studies question the assumptions underlying the decentralisation of natural resources management in eastern and southern Africa. They assert that 'negative' changes in local environments may be part of a normal cycle of fluctuations in the ecosystem, rather than as the result of unsustainable practices. They also challenge the assumption that such change can be reversed through the creation of new 'participatory' local institutions for natural resources management. Not only do such ideas overlook the considerable divisions which may exist within a community, but they may also undermine pre-existing indigenous institutions and fail to take account of the extent to which people play a role in managing natural resources.

In the case of Uganda, they conclude that decentralisation reforms are more effective where they take account of differences between people and groups, and where they introduce bargaining mechanisms to increase the capacity of marginal populations to negotiate. In Zambia, the decentralisation process has been institutionalised in response to structural adjustment policies. Traditional institutions have been adapted to facilitate the decentralisation of natural resources management. The fact that reforms have been along sectoral lines have led to very limited communication between sectors at ministerial level. It has been at the local level, and through informal institutions, that co-ordination between sectors has been the most successful.

The researchers’ findings were that:

Decentralisation trends in Uganda and Zambia are driven by a pessimistic view of the state of the environment. Changes in landscapes are seen as degradation, rather than change.
Traditional natural resources management approaches are viewed negatively in Uganda. In Zambia they are seen in a more positive light.
In both countries, the overall approach to natural resources management is dominated by imposed notions of sustainability, participation, ecology and community.
Common approaches to natural resources management are rare. People evolve their own strategy according to their particular social, economic and environmental situation.
There is nothing in the examples of Uganda and Zambia to suggest that decentralisation will enable people to have greater freedom in managing their own environments.

Implications for policy to promote improved natural resources management include:

Environments are varied and heterogeneous. No single ‘best practice’ in environmental management can be applied in the African context, where maintaining different environments is a flexible response to variation in the physical environment.
Communities are characterised by division and differentiation. Policies for improving local natural resources management must be correspondingly diverse. Policies which seek to impose one standard ‘appropriate’ practice achieve only limited success.
Even where formal mechanisms do not exist, people take action to improve their environment. The outcomes of any decentralisation process are unpredictable due to the different possible ways in which people and communities respond to the opportunities which they present.
Decentralisation is not an inevitable outcome of ‘political reality’. It is one of a number of options for fostering partnerships between state and local actors to improve natural resources management. The role of the state and other ‘non-local’ actors must be acknowledged.
Creating improved forms of local environmental management does not necessarily require formalised mechanisms. Moderate approaches which offer a variety of options, and which strengthen beneficial strategies, can be more effective than stronger policies which seek to impose uniform models.

Source(s):
‘Realities or Rhetoric? Revisiting the Decentralisation of Natural Resources Management in Uganda and Zambia’, African Centre for Technology Studies, by Jeremy Lind and Jan Cappon, 2001 Full document.

Funded by: African Centre for Technology Studies

id21 Research Highlight: 24 February 2003

Further Information:
Jeremy Lind
Department of Geography
King’s College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
UK

Tel: +254 (2)524700/524713
Fax: +254 (2)524701/524001
Contact the contributor: acts@cgiar.org

Contact the contributor: jeremy.lind@kcl.ac.uk

Department of Geography, King's College London, UK

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.