Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit?

This paper draws together evidence from a number of studies on the impacts of natural resource devolution policies in several Asian and southern African countries from the perspective of local people. Devolution outcomes are assessed in terms of who has greater benefits and decision-making authority. Factors that have influenced the devolution process are also examined.Initially the authors examine whether develoution has really led to increased benefits for communities and find that many studies reported that these were limited. Distribution of what benefits did accrue was also found to be uneven and concentrated around elites whether at local, district or national level. However, devolution also had some indirect benefits such as the re-enfranchising of marginalised groups, increased accountability and greater participation in policy making.The full benefits can be summarised as follows:<BR>Direct benefits: Access to some subsistence and commercial products Share of revenues from hunting, tourism concessions, sales of timber, sales of valuable non-timber forest products (NTFPs) Share of incomes from permit and licence fees EmploymentSupport for alternative livelihood activitiesMore productive resource baseInfrastructural development (schools, clinics, roads, etc.)Indirect benefits:Organisational development and strengthening New alliances (e.g. with NGOs)New channels of communication with governmentTechnical and managerial capacity buildingDiversification of livelihoods/incomePolitical empowermentGreater visibilityPride and identityThe paper then looks at the degree to which real devolution has been achieved in natural resource management and the extent to which different bodies have been successful in influencing decisions. Tied in with this discussion are questions relating to the capacity of some groups to influence these processes effectively and what can be done to improve the balancew of decision making.The papers main policy conclusions concludes that:Most ‘devolved’ natural resources management (NRM) reflects rhetoric more than substance, and is characterised by some continuation of substantive central government control and management over natural resources rather than a genuine shift in authority to local people. The ways in which local people realise the benefits of devolution differ widely, and negative trade-offs, mostly felt by the poor, are common.States, communities and other stakeholders have different visions of devolution and its mode of implementation. A shared framework, more accountable to local livelihood needs and people’s rights to self-determination, is required. Careful re-assessment of the state’s claim to be protecting the wider ‘public interest’ forms part of this process.Organisational models that devolve authority directly to disadvantaged resource users are more embracing of local interests and priorities than those that allocate control to higher levels of social organisation.More powerful actors in communities tend to manipulate devolution outcomes to suit themselves. Checks and balances need to be in place to ensure that benefits and decision-making do not become controlled by élites.Strong local organisational capacity and political capital enhance outcomes for local people by enabling them to mobilise resources and negotiate better benefits. NGOs, donors, federations and other external actors have a key role in moving devolution policy and practice towards local interests.[authors]