Shifting the power : decentralization and biodiversity conservation

Sections of the study: (1) organize the case studies according to primary level of decentralized authority and summarize the studies; (2) discuss the promise of decentralization and some pitfalls in its practice that can undermine conservation aims; (3) examine the stakeholders, power relations, and aspects of conservation-oriented alliances in decentralized natural resources management; and (4) present the institutional conditions favoring the effective decentralization of natural resource management. Next, the report addresses the two questions underlying the study. (1) Does decentralization empower local people? The question cannot be answered simply. The cases studied did not involve complete devolution of management authority, but rather continuing, complex associations between national and local authority regarding both management and financial responsibility. Decentralization"s impact on natural resources management depends a great deal on who gets more authority as a result -- state or municipal governments, NGOs, or community organizations -- and on their perceptions of resource management needs. It also depends on people"s loyalties. Decentralization increases opportunity for some community members and decreases it for others. The transfer of power may even exacerbate, rather than resolve, resource conflicts. Thus, the meaning of local empowerment depends on the local balance of power, a balance which, the case studies show, is often very fragile. (2) Is decentralization likely to result in environmental policies and management practices that reduce threats to biodiversity? At best, the answer to this question is sometimes. Decentralization does not determine a priori that local people have a particular kind of relationship with the land or the resources. Communities vary, as do the interests of their members. It is difficult to predict the choices that real people will make if presented an opportunity to manage resources. The following lessons were learned: (1) When there is strong local interest in collaborating with a conservation effort, partnerships and participation are possible. (2) Where pro-conservation forces have the interest, skills, organization, and political will to further the resource management process, decentralization sometimes gives them a greater voice in it. (3) Meaningful local participation appears critical for the success of conservation efforts, not only because it reduces conflicts on the ground, but also because it ensures that such efforts are appropriate for the natural and social environments. (4) Although multi-level coordination is a source of tension, such tension may actually enhance the prospects for mutual accountability. Without the tension, decentralization can produce deregulation of natural resource use and the abdication of national responsibility.