Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe particular characteristics of natural resources make the decentralisation of their management to elected local governments even more complex than the decentralisation of services and infrastructure. Nevertheless, natural resources are equally important to rural development concerns in the Third World. Numerous countries have begun to implement policies for some form of decentralisation involving natural resources and the environment, and many local governments are already making decisions that affect the future of local resources. This article reviews experiences with decentralisation of forest management in Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Based on those experiences, it proposes a working model for more effective decentralisation strategies. The model addresses the legal structure for decentralised forest management and relevant variables that define the local decision‐making sphere, as well as key mediating factors that also affect outcomes. Most of these variables, even in the local sphere, offer important sites for policy and aid intervention. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

La descentralización no es igual a la democratización, pero para mucha gente, esta última debe ser una de las metas principales de la desconcentración de poder. En particular, la descentralización debe aumentar la participación ciudadana en las decisiones que afectan sus vidas y mejorar la equidad, a través de la mayor retención y distribución local de los beneficios de sus propias actividades (Ribot, 2002). La descentralización también está dirigida a mejorar la eficiencia en muchos sentidos: bajar costos para el gobierno central en la provisión de servicios públicos, mejorar el conocimiento del gobierno de las necesidades locales, mejorar la rendición de cuentas de parte del gobierno hacia los ciudadanos, etc. Como debe mejorar el flujo de información, la participación también es importante para mejorar la eficiencia.

In spite of reforms since the end of the colonial period and more-recent discourses of participation and democracy, the forestry policy environment rarely supports the needs or aspirations of rural communities. Even when policies appear fair, the rural poor face severe biases in implementation. In addition, the poor must compete on an uneven playing field of class, ethnic and other social inequities and economic hurdles. With the development of the global forest (carbon) conservation strategy such as Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), which is ushering in accelerated forest commodification, poor people living in forests risk further marginalisation, exclusion and rights abuses. This article examines how forestry policy and implementation maintain double standards on this uneven playing field in a manner that continues to exclude the rural poor from the natural wealth around them. Poverty is not just about being left out of economic growth. It is produced by the very policies that enable some to profit – today from timber, firewood and charcoal, tomorrow from carbon. For REDD interventions to support poverty alleviation, forestry policies must be radically reworked to counterbalance widespread regressive policies and structural asymmetries. To make forestry policy emancipatory, strong social protections or safeguards are still needed that require REDD and other interventions to support and work through local democratic institutions. Otherwise these policies will continue their regressive trends.

In spite of reforms since the end of the colonial period and more-recent discourses of participation and democracy, the forestry policy environment rarely supports the needs or aspirations of rural communities. Even when policies appear fair, the rural poor face severe biases in implementation. In addition, the poor must compete on an uneven playing field of class, ethnic and other social inequities and economic hurdles. With the development of the global forest (carbon) conservation strategy such as Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), which is ushering in accelerated forest commodification, poor people living in forests risk further marginalisation, exclusion and rights abuses. This article examines how forestry policy and implementation maintain double standards on this uneven playing field in a manner that continues to exclude the rural poor from the natural wealth around them. Poverty is not just about being left out of economic growth. It is produced by the very policies that enable some to profit – today from timber, firewood and charcoal, tomorrow from carbon. For REDD interventions to support poverty alleviation, forestry policies must be radically reworked to counterbalance widespread regressive policies and structural asymmetries. To make forestry policy emancipatory, strong social protections or safeguards are still needed that require REDD and other interventions to support and work through local democratic institutions. Otherwise these policies will continue their regressive trends.

A number of governments, particularly in Latin America, have begun to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities to the lands on which they live. Recognition has often taken the form of constitutional provisions or laws that grant use rights in perpetuity or provide land titles. These provisions usually establish rights for multiple communities over a large territory, at a scale that may be ideal for promoting broader, ecosystem management approaches. At the same time, however, indigenous communities often do not have existing territorial governance structures at these scales. Nicaragua's North Atlantic Autonomous Region provides a rich setting in which to study issues of multilevel natural resource governance. In addition to the devolution policies that have created official indigenous territories, the central government has decentralised important powers over natural resources to the regional autonomous authority, while municipal authorities still exist but have been marginalised. At the same time, however, the community scale is the one at which local people have traditionally managed resources. This paper examines these issues in light of efforts to establish democratic governance institutions at the territory level and argues that communities continue to lose out under multilevel governance regimes without concerted efforts to level the playing field. The findings are based on several years of research in the region, emerging research on newly titled territories and a six month training and dialogue with territory leaders, organised by a consortium of international and local NGOs.

A number of governments, particularly in Latin America, have begun to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities to the lands on which they live. Recognition has often taken the form of constitutional provisions or laws that grant use rights in perpetuity or provide land titles. These provisions usually establish rights for multiple communities over a large territory, at a scale that may be ideal for promoting broader, ecosystem management approaches. At the same time, however, indigenous communities often do not have existing territorial governance structures at these scales. Nicaragua's North Atlantic Autonomous Region provides a rich setting in which to study issues of multilevel natural resource governance. In addition to the devolution policies that have created official indigenous territories, the central government has decentralised important powers over natural resources to the regional autonomous authority, while municipal authorities still exist but have been marginalised. At the same time, however, the community scale is the one at which local people have traditionally managed resources. This paper examines these issues in light of efforts to establish democratic governance institutions at the territory level and argues that communities continue to lose out under multilevel governance regimes without concerted efforts to level the playing field. The findings are based on several years of research in the region, emerging research on newly titled territories and a six month training and dialogue with territory leaders, organised by a consortium of international and local NGOs.