The Politics of Decentralization

Forests, Power and People

Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Doris Capistrano, Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Doris Capistrano

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136552588
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Forestry
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Decentralization is sweeping the world and having dramatic and far-reaching impacts on resource management and livelihoods, particularly in forestry. This book is the most up-to-date examination of the themes, experiences and lessons learned from decentralization worldwide. Drawing on research and support from all of the major international forestry and conservation organizations, the book provides a balanced account that covers the impact of decentralization on resource management worldwide, and provides comparative global insights with wide implications for policy, management, conservation and resource use and planning. Topics covered include forest governance in federal systems, democratic decentralization of forests and natural resources, paths and pitfalls in decentralization and biodiversity conservation in decentralized forests. The book provides in-depth case studies of decentralization from Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Russia, Scotland, Switzerland, Uganda and the US, as well as highlights from federal countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, India and Malaysia. It also addresses the critical links between the state, forests, communities and power relations in a range of regions and circumstances, and provides case examples of how decentralization has been viewed and experienced by communities in Guatemala, Philippines and Zimbabwe. The Politics of Decentralization is state-of-the-art coverage of decentralization and is essential for practitioners, academics and policy-makers across forestry and the full spectrum of natural resource management.

Part I

Themes in Decentralization

Chapter 1

Forest Governance in Federal Systems:
An Overview of Experiences and
Implications for Decentralization

Hans M. Gregersen, Arnoldo Contreras-Hermosilla,
Andy White and Lauren Phillips

INTRODUCTION

The role of government has been the focus of great debate in recent years. Much of this debate has focused on the reality of reduced government, increased reliance on markets and on private initiative, as well as on the important contributions of civil society and the private sector in providing public services. At the same time, there has been widespread and active debate on the optimal roles of different levels of government: how government authorities and responsibilities should be distributed among different levels of government. A World Bank study in 1999 found that more than 80 per cent of all developing countries and countries with economies in transition are currently experimenting with some form of decentralization (Manor, 1999).

The forest sector has not escaped these trends. Internationally recognized problems such as illegal logging and uncontrolled deforestation are increasingly attributed to weak governance structures. These problems, as well as the broader political trends, are driving many countries to reconsider the role of government in administering their forest resources and others to move away from centralized systems of decision-making and direct government implementation of forest programmes.

Unfortunately, the flurry of debate and political activity has often not benefited from the careful analysis of broader experience. Despite all the experience and innovation across the globe, there have been relatively few attempts to understand how different levels of government interact and balance authority and responsibilities in the forest sector, and how local governments, the private sector and civil society affect progress towards improved management of forest resources.

In this context the experience of federal systems of government in administering forest resources is particularly valuable. Federal systems of government are composed of member states or provinces and thus have, by definition, decentralized systems of governance. Some responsibilities and authorities are vested with the central federal government, and some with state or provincial levels. In federal systems, in contrast to centralized systems, meso- and local-level governments are often well established, with longstanding political constituencies and various accountability mechanisms that enhance their performance. Most importantly, the meso levels of government have not only responsibilities but also real authority and legal rights because they are part of a federal system defined by a constitution.

We review the experiences of selected major forest countries with federal systems of government and derive lessons for policy actors considering future decentralization initiatives, whether through a federal system or through some other system of government. The study focuses on the federal governments of Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Russia and the US. Bolivia, Indonesia and Nepal have undertaken major decentralization programmes and are thus also included, even though they do not have federal systems of government. These 11 countries account for more than 60 per cent of the world's forests.

Each of these countries adopted decentralized forest governance systems at a different point in history. Their combined experience presents both common threads and dramatic differences. Those countries that adopted federal systems of government early on have largely adjusted to the administrative demands of harmonizing the operation of central and sub-national levels of government; others are still struggling with the complexities of decentralized management. Some have been more successful in securing the benefits of decentralized systems of governance while minimizing the associated dangers and costs.

DEFINITIONS: FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
AND DECENTRALIZATION

Countries with federal systems of government share responsibilities and authority, generally through the provisions of a constitution, between the national-level central government and meso (state, provincial or regional) and local levels of government. Powers between these levels are divided and coordinated in such a way that each level enjoys a substantial amount of independence from each other. This implies the existence of a constitution describing the division of powers and a means for resolving disputes. Most importantly, in contrast to simple devolution of specific powers and responsibilities from central to lower levels of government, federations use the principle of constitutional non-centralization rather than decentralization (Olowu, 2001).

In other words, when independent states decide to create a federation and a federal system of government, they confer, generally through a constitution, certain specific responsibilities and authorities to the federal government in the interest of all states. All other powers, responsibilities and rights remain with the states. In contrast, unitary governments may have sub-national levels of governments; but these are not constitutionally empowered to make decisions on major government services and functions; rather, they are subordinate units. Indeed, for these reasons, use of the term decentralized is somewhat awkward in the case of federal governments. In the US, Canada, Malaysia and Australia, for example, authority for forest administration was never centralized at the federal level. Because of this confusion, we use decentralized to refer to the non-centralized distribution of authorities and responsibilities. Other federal governments, notably Russia and India, began as centralized governments, later adopted federal constitutions, and have been ‘decentralizing’ authority and responsibilities.

In a federal system, the central government usually has responsibilities for those resources, activities and events that affect more than one state and that are involved in the production of national (and sometimes international) public goods associated with the environmental services derived from forests. The member states generally have responsibility for and oversight of those resources, activities and events that affect mainly the state in question, the regulation of private forest practice and enterprises, and those functions that depend heavily upon local participation and involvement. Often, the federal government influences or controls state activity through federal laws, incentives and checks and balances related to the use of resources. Member states, in turn, generally regulate and guide the actions of lower levels of government (municipalities and districts), local community entities, private individual landowners and private companies operating within the states.

Variations in federal systems of government are considerable, however. There are differences in the relationship between responsibility and authority at different levels of government within federations; there are differences in the distribution of fiscal responsibilities; and there are many other differences that distinguish various federal forms of government. Federal systems can be simultaneously decentralized in some respects and centralized in others, and, indeed, there is constant tension between different levels of government.

FOREST GOVERNANCE IN FEDERAL SYSTEMS

This section briefly describes the current structure of forest administration in eight major forested countries with federal systems of government, and identifies particular patterns in the distribution of government authority.

Most of the countries in our review are undergoing transitions in their forest administration, and the roles, functions and orientations of forest agencies and forest management are in substantial flux. We often found disagreement or general lack of knowledge about the actual distribution of authority and responsibilities in many countries, and a wide discrepancy between the official and actual distribution of power. Our findings represent our understanding at the moment; but the situation is very fluid in many of the countries studied.

The following nine points highlight patterns of forest administration in the eight federal countries:

1 Federal structures of forest governance tend to be complex and multifaceted, with strong cross-sectoral linkages to agriculture, water, transportation and other sectors (see Broadhead, 2003; Dubé and Schmithüsen, 2003). In all cases the federal forest agency is only one of several federal agencies administering public forestlands. Strong roles of other agencies and linkages to other sectors appear to help to create checks and balances for accountability and to ensure that the forest sector reflects the concerns of stakeholders, particularly beyond those directly involved in the forestry sector. In some countries, the other sectors involved can number into the hundreds. In the US, for example, some 31 federal entities interact directly with the Forest Service in planning and managing federal forestlands, and many others have a more indirect linkage (Ellefson and Moulton, 2000).

2 With the exception of the US, in all federal countries examined in this review, governments own a majority of all forestlands. Interestingly, of these seven countries where public forest predominates, majority ownership rests with the federal governments in Brazil, Russia and India. In contrast, in Malaysia, Nigeria, Canada and Australia, it is the state or provincial level that owns the majority of all forestlands. Federal ownership is substantial even in the US, where the federal government owns about 35 per cent of all forests, the states own about 5 per cent and the private sector owns the majority – about 60 per cent.

3 Policies and government structures to deal with the private sector and the civil society vary widely. In the US, the size of the private sector is considerable; accordingly, federal as well as state governments have established regulations and programmes to encourage and regulate private enterprises. India, in contrast, denies private corporation access to public forests and induces corporations to establish partnerships with small ‘non-forest’ owners. In some countries, the access of nongovernmental institutions to the government decision-making process is encouraged; but in others such linkage is not promoted actively.

4 In many countries, federal and/or state governments do not officially recognize traditional land ownership rights. Thus, they deal in different ways with the interactions between local populations and local governments, with profound implications for the sector's governance.

5 The degree of responsibility and authority for the forest sector vested in the federal government and other tiers of government varies widely. In some the administration of the forest sector is relatively centralized, while in others main responsibilities and authority reside either in the second or even third tiers of government. In Brazil, for example, until recently, most key decisions and implementation of programmes were under the aegis of the Federal Environment Institute; in Malaysia, states enjoy a high degree of autonomy to design and implement their own programmes.

6 In Canada, Malaysia, the US, Australia and India, comparatively strong meso-level government forestry agencies dominate the picture, to some extent because there is little federal forestland and the functions given to the federal agencies are fewer. At the same time, federal entities hold major responsibility for trade, research, international relations in forestry and the establishment of environmental standards. In the US, Brazil and several other cases, there is more federal forestland ownership; thus, more management responsibility for public land resides within the federal agencies.

7 Federal forest agencies tend to be responsible for managing federal forestlands and providing overall leadership on forestry matters, but often have limited jurisdiction over the regulation of forest practice on private lands – a responsibility held, in most cases, by member states or provinces.

8 In Russia and Nigeria, where a majority of the forestland is owned by the central or federal government and managed by the central forest agency, central agencies are weak and control of public forestlands is fragile. India and Canada, where a majority of forestlands are owned by state or provincial governments, have a better record of effectively controlling the public forest estate. Thus, decentralized ownership of public lands appears an effective strategy, at least in some cases.

9 In most cases, the power of the forest administration agencies, whether federal or state/provincial, vis-à-vis other agencies of government, is relatively minor. Public forest administrations are often subsidiaries of ministries of environment or agriculture. In some cases the jurisdiction of forest agencies is shared with other powerful agencies, as in the US and Brazil. Management of inter-sectoral and inter-agency linkages is difficult and is not often achieved satisfactorily in most federal countries. Australia is an exception: the government administers forests based on a broad process of consultation and decision-making, involving various agencies and actors of the private sector. In most cases, federal structures do not ensure horizontal coordination between agencies of government. In Nigeria and India, this hampers administration of forest ecosystems that span local administrative boundaries.

DECENTRALIZED FOREST GOVERNANCE: FINDINGS

The 11 countries studied present a rich array of history and experience in forest governance, and offer some general findings and lessons for those considering the decentralization of their governance structure. Below we discuss findings on:

1 the implementation of decentralization;

2 the role of forestry within the broader political context and the importance of cross-sectoral linkages;

3 the importance of ensuring adequate capacity, incentives and accountability; and

4 the importance of ensuring adequate participation by civil society and the private sector.

Implementation of political decentralization

• In most federal countries, decentralization processes involved sovereign states’ assigning authority and responsibilities to a central government formed through a constitutional process. Exceptions include the Russian Federation, Bolivia and India, where decentralization efforts involved devolution from central to meso- and local-level governments.

• Even in countries where the central government owns most forestland (Russia, Nigeria, Nepal and Indonesia), the relative power of the federal forest public administration is low and forest agencies were generally incapable of influencing the main course of events. The fore...