Participation, Decentralization, and Civil Society

Abstract

This article examines Australian indigenous participation in environmental planning to challenge some of the claims made by advocates of more participatory modes of planning. Calls for the enhanced participation of civil society in planning are associated with an international trend toward the decentralization and devolution of many areas of natural resource policy and state responsibility. Democratic decentralization has been widely advocated as being more efficient and equitable than state control. These claims are examined with reference to three stories involving environmental planning and Australian indigenous peoples. The stories suggest that rather than a “new political economy of planning” whereby the spaces for democracy are enlarged by the activities of civil society, the participation of civil society and decentralization can result in political processes whereby public deliberation is suborned by interest group politics.

From global politics to local land users: applying the United Nations Convention to combat desertification in Swaziland

“…In the case of Swaziland, further analysis is needed as to whether the role of NGOs in implementing the UNCCD is sufficiently flexible, given the national ban on trade unions, political parties and other forms of associationalism. There remains a danger that NGOs could be employed instrumentally in order to attain and legitimize top‐down, anti‐democratic policy outcomes (Lewis 2002; Lane 2003). In affording Swazi NGOs greater interaction with policy and implementation processes, this will inevitably lead to the decentralization of power (Sallinger‐McBride and Picard 1989).…”

The Privatization of Metropolitan Jakarta’s (Jabodetabek) Urban Fringes: The Early Stages of “Post-Suburbanization” in Indonesia

“…Planning for the Jakarta region in the New Order regime was characterized by the practice of "clientelism," or patronage relationships between the government and key nongovernmental actors that serve to exclude others (see Kusno, 2014 ;Lane, 2003 ). Spatial plans in the New Order period were just "state-of-the-art products"; local governments often made development decisions and issued building permits without referring to these spatial plans (Silver, 2008 ).…”

Implementing the UNCCD: Participatory challenges

“…This is not a straightforward endeavour, with challenges arising due to the enormous variation in political, environmental, socio‐economic, cultural and technological contexts in which the convention is being implemented; in selecting how, when and which groups should be involved (Stringer et al , 2006); and in determining how desertification should be conceptualized, interpreted and prioritized at the national policy level and by international funding and resource mobilization agencies (Wilson and Juntti, 2006). Furthermore, institutions and methodologies for participation are not always well established and questions about NGO legitimacy may develop relating to their role in projects to combat desertification (Lane, 2003). Consequently, new approaches, established at national and local levels, are attempting to enhance communication across and between levels with the overall aim of contributing to UNCCD implementation.…”