There are two opposing views of decentralization in forest management. Critics argue that things are not going to change when municipalities in forested areas receive greater responsibilities.
In some cases it could even worsen the current situation. But a growing group of supporters argue that decentralization, with all that it implies for institutionalizing social participation, is essential for conserving the healthy forest. CIFOR has been working actively on the effects of decentralization in Latin America to find out the true story. “In our research, we found there are some good reasons to support decentralization in Latin America,” said Pablo Pacheco, an Associate forest researcher from CIFOR and the Amazonian Institute for Environmental Research, based in Belem, Brazil. “But in some circumstances we need to be cautious about the results.”
In some situations the positive effects of decentralization can be overridden by other policies or market changes. Elsewhere, decentralization can harmonize decision making, and include the interests of previously marginalized peoples. Furthermore, decentralization can benefit local people because it helps to involve municipal governments in local development, as well as building social participation and strengthening democracy. In other situations, decentralization may help to reinforce the power of local elites, who often exploit forest resources and promote deforestation. “Decentralization by itself is not the answer,” Pacheco said, “Other conditions need to be in place to conserve forests and share the benefits of forest resources.”
“We have been assessing the models of decentralization that have been implemented, as well as the role of the different actors and the ecological and social outcomes of the different models,” said Brazil-based collaborator, Professor Fabiano Toni from the University of Rio Grande del Norte. Currently, almost all countries in Latin America are attempting to decentralize the management of forest resources to municipal government, a process involving new responsibilities and increased financial resources. Some have been moving aggressively, like Bolivia; others slower, like Nicaragua. And some are doing both. “I would say decentralization is quite advanced in Honduras,” said Anne Larson, a CIFOR Associate based in Nicaragua. “The problem is implementation. On paper, at least, Honduran municipalities have even greater decision-making power over local forests than the Bolivians.” However, in Brazil, the formal process of transferring responsibilities and resources from the upper to the lower levels of government has not yet been set in motion.
Decentralization can contribute to municipal forest management if three conditions are met. The process must promote fairer access to forest resources for all the people who depend on them to make a living. It must stimulate the growth of financial resources invested in forestry initiatives and have multiplier economic effects. Finally, decentralization should assist the planning of better management of forest resources and natural resources conservation. In practice, however, all three conditions are seldom achieved together.
Success comes where local politics and the local economy are strongly influenced by local groups like rural communities and urban dwellers who derive income from forest resources. Municipalities where small-scale timber extraction is the dominant activity are usually good examples of successful decentralization, such as the Bolivian Chiquitania north of La Paz, and some municipalities dominated by ejidos in Honduras and Guatemala. The presence of indigenous people may also enhance decentralization if municipal governments are not competing with indigenous groups for control of resources.
“Decentralization has allowed local associations of small-scale loggers in Bolivia to access forested areas declared as municipal forest reserves,” Pacheco said. “The municipalities also provide technical assistance.” It has also brought larger financial resources to support community forestry in Guatemala and Honduras, and more money to pay trained staff in the municipalities to meet the needs for local forest users. In contrast, in Nicaragua, transferring responsibilities to lower levels of government has not been particularly beneficial for local municipalities.
Furthermore, in situations where agricultural frontiers are actively expanding, as in many municipalities in Brazil, local governments may invest in expansionist activities because of the potential political and economic benefits. When it comes to natural resources, short-term gain often wins out over long-term planning. In some instances, local elites take advantage of decentralization by seeking profits from logging or forest conversion over other land uses. In other instances, decentralization fails because local authorities are unable or unwilling to police corrupt practices. Fabiano Toni cited an example in Brazil where a mayor owns three of the four local sawmills and uses his influence to exert control over as much forest as he can.
“In short, it is not yet clear which groups have benefited most from decentralization,” Pacheco concluded. “The trade-offs between forest health and improving people's livelihoods are mediated by several political and economic forces. Decentralization can redirect some of them but others are strong enough to shape the outcomes of decentralization in unexpected ways.” (PS, FT, PP)
*Many publications have been released containing the results of this research, including the book "Municipal forest management in Latin America" (Spanish version, released in May 2003)
[CIFOR/IDRC, Bogor, Indonesia]. This condenses all the case studies done in six different countries, and offers some comparative analysis.