Decentralization and devolution in forestry
The terms "decentralization" and "devolution" appear with increasing frequency in discussions on policies and practices aimed at sustainable forest management. Definitions of these two terms abound. A valid starting point is to define decentralization as the relocation of administrative functions away from a central location and devolution as the relocation of power away from a central location, with power being the capacity or authority to contribute to decision-making.
The two terms are so often used together that it is easy to assume that decentralization and devolution are inextricably linked. However, as will be evident from the articles in this issue of Unasylva, although decentralization and devolution may occur together, it is quite possible for them not to. For example, it is possible to decentralize administrative functions without devolving the power to make meaningful decisions.
In fact, earlier failures to transfer power effectively may be at the root of many recent decisions to decentralize responsibility for forest management. Centralized government structures put in place for forestry during the current century have often been inadequate to the task, particularly in regard to forest management (as only administrative functions were effectively centralized).
Attempts to shift management functions and powers can take any number of forms on a sliding scale from complete central control of forest resources to complete decentralization and devolution of both authority and power - although solutions at either extreme of the continuum are generally inappropriate. This issue of Unasylva examines a number of topics related to the redistribution of authority and power for forests and forestry. For the most part, the issue springs from the debate advanced at the International Seminar on Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific, held in Davao, the Philippines, from 30 November to 4 December 1998. A number of articles in this issue were originally presented at the seminar, the organizers of which have been instrumental in the shaping of this Unasylva issue - their assistance is appreciated.
In the opening article, R.J. Fisher, one of the seminar organizers, summarizes the general themes and lessons that emerged from the event. He focuses on pragmatic approaches to effective devolution of decision-making power.
Different primary objectives of forest management result in different perspectives on decentralization and devolution. Where a key objective is biodiversity conservation, local people and their economic activities have often been viewed as threats to the undisturbed functioning of natural ecosystems and have not only been excluded from decision-making processes but even physically removed from protected areas. At tempts to reverse such practices and to devolve responsibility for biodiversity conservation to local people, however, raise new questions. The article by T. Enters and J. Anderson challenges popular wisdom that suggests that local populations are necessarily interested and skilled in sustainable forest resource use and conservation, and that local, community-based tenurial, knowledge and management systems are uniquely suitable for forest biodiversity conservation and forest management. The authors' arguments are supported by a short article by R. Badola which points out some drawbacks of joint forest management and ecodevelopment in India's protected area network. Another complementary article, by C.S. Encarnacion, presents a case study of the Kalahan Forest Farms Development Project -supported by the Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN) - in the Philippines.
A key question in decentralization and devolution is to whom the authority and power should be redistributed. J.C. Ribot, using examples from Africa, argues strongly that elected local government is the appropriate institution to entrust with representation of local populations in matters of public resource use. A. Onibon, B. Dabiré and L. Ferroukhi then present evidence of significant disparities between decentralization of authority and devolution of power in forest management schemes in French-speaking West Africa.
Law has a fundamental role in attempts to shift control over forest resources. Starting with an analysis of an effort to promote community management of the mangroves of the Fumba peninsula of Zanzibar in the United Republic of Tanzania, J.M. Lindsay draws attention to the weaknesses in the legal underpinnings for community forestry in virtually all countries. The article identifies security (instilling confidence that rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily) and flexibility (allowing legal space to make choices adapted to local situations) as essential qualities for any law that will attempt to regulate community management of forest resources.
Two articles in this issue focus on examples from developed countries. M. Clarke examines the impacts of privatization -another form of devolution - of forests and the forest industry in New Zeal and. A.S. Inglis looks at political developments in Scotland and their potential impacts on forest management and, particularly, on local communities' involvement.
A previous issue focused on accommodating multiple interests in forestry and the concept of pluralism. In the final article of this issue, A. Fernández-González and B. Aylward contrast the Unasylva discussion of pluralism with the notion of "polycentrism" and discuss some practical expressions of the concept as applied to a watershed in Costa Rica.
