Towards community-based forest management in Southern Africa: do decentralization experiments work for local livelihoods?

Abstract

SUMMARYDifferences are emerging in decentralization of forest and community management in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa. This paper draws on case studies in each country to examine five aspects of their decentralization experience, namely forest tenure, new organizational structures, accountability and livelihood outcomes. Tenure arrangements developed as a result of decentralization are important for communities, as these determine the nature of access sanctioned by the state and security of the arrangements. The transfer of power to new organizations is proving to be a challenge. Experiences across the three case studies show that new committees were formed for these forestry initiatives by outside agencies and attempts were made to make them relevant to the way local communities managed forests. One of the main tenets of decentralization revolves around accountability of community representatives to their constituents rather than to the state. Although moves have been made to promote the accountability of community representatives, these have produced mixed results in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa. Only after changes in the approach taken by the state in Zimbabwe did community representatives become more accountable. In Mozambique, because of the special arrangements around the specific case, greater authority was given to community representatives, whereas, in South Africa, the state retained authority over representatives. Decentralization may bring benefits and improve communities' livelihoods from forestry activities, however much more still needs to be done by states in order for forests to take communities out of poverty.

Navigating dynamic contexts: African cooperatives as institutional bricoleurs

“…In this line of thinking institutions are not fixed entities, but the results of what people do; institutions must be continually reproduced or re-enacted by people to exist (Lund, 2001). An institutional bricolage perspective also challenges the notion of collective benefits: it assumes that power and inequality always result in some people benefitting more from outcomes than others (Cleaver, 2005;Matose & Watts, 2010;Ribot, Lund, & Treue, 2010). The bricolage approach offers an understanding of organizations as embedded and evolving phenomena and aligns well with our aim to grasp the development and functioning of two cooperatives in two distinct contexts.…”

Carbon Governance Arrangements and the Nation‐State: The Reconfiguration of Public Authority in Developing Countries

“…There is no indication for a transfer of competencies and management rights to community management entities or for the integration of forestry programs into provincial and municipal development plans. In addition, local government bodies were in several cases denied access to forests (Matose & Watts, ). Not surprisingly, REDD+ has up to now not played any significant role in South Africa's forestry sector.…”

Decolonizing conservation? : co-management of natural resources in Bushbuckridge Nature Reserve (BBR NR), South Africa

“…Noticeably missing, however, were the local people whose livelihoods are at greatest risk. Common sense would lead to us to believe that "those who stand to benefit directly from the sustainable management of environmental components like forest resources ought to have greater voice and can best manage the environment" (Matose & Watts 2010, Nelson & Agrawal 2008.…”