Search

This article summarises and discusses eight case studies from Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Pakistan, India and Nepal that focus on the everyday realities of decentralisation. It recalls the mainstream arguments favouring decentralisation as a basic human right (i.e. to be able to participate in decision-making) and in a more utilitarian sense (i.e. decentralisation for development). The eight case studies support aspects of the mainstream; however, they also present new insights. To position these insights, the article deconstructs mainstream decentralisation discourses as based on a functionalist ontology, often leading to rather managerial and mechanistic approaches. To contrast such a functionalist position, three critical social science perspectives are introduced: the neo-Marxist view of the hegemonic state (including the notion of subalterns), Scott’s simplifying state techniques, and Midgal’s state-in-society approach. A reading of the case studies in this context highlights that decentralisation programmes often follow standardised procedures that encounter social, political, economic and ecological local complexities. Dimensions of these complexities are: already ongoing contestations among social groups; conflicting expectations upon, and interpretations of, the meaning of decentralisation; and strategic handling of decentralisation as a resource – highlighting the importance of agency. The article concludes with the proposition that decentralisation is not primarily a managerial challenge (i.e. to introduce improved governance mechanisms), but is inherently political, influenced by interests and agency, and thus contingent. The challenge for researchers and practitioners is to support adequate social processes that allow decentralisation to give local complexities more room, without fuelling local competition over the scarce resources offered by decentralisation.

The management of forests involves, very basically, three main issues: (i) how the forest resources under consideration should be used, for what purpose, and by whom; (ii) to decide on a specific procedure on how the use of forests in the agreed manner should be organised; and finally (iii) the practicing or implementation of the decisions taken. In all these three basic dimensions of forestry, various groups of people want their ideas to be considered. Generally, one distinguishes between the state and its line departments, the local people or communities (or citizens), the civil society, and (specifically so in southern contexts) the development donors. The dominant global discourse argues that the state is the custodian of forests in the name of the people and the nation as a whole. Therefore, state Forest Departments are mandated to oversee and implement forest policy, enabled to do so through policies, laws, rules, management tools, enforcement powers, finances and staff. This is a very general overview, but it holds true for most countries on our globe – and it holds true as well for Pakistan and its Khyber Pakthunkwa (KP) Province. The present article describes and discusses this official system of forest governance, its evolution over time, and the enormous challenges it faces at present.

The forests of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP – now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) of Pakistan are vanishing at high rate in spite of more than two decades of donors led interventions and extensive forest governance system led by the state. Failure of most of the forest related projects and policies in meeting their intended objectives calls for searching out the underlying causes of the ineffectiveness of such interventions. The importance of stakeholders’ analysis has been stressed by many development researchers. A holistic analysis of the stakeholders, conflicts and power relations is an essential step to ensure the sustainability of development interventions and active participation of local actors. There is a wide range of actors who can influence or can be influenced by any forest related intervention in NWFP. This paper, therefore, presents an exploratory analysis of the stakeholders’ characteristics, power relations and conflicts in the context of interventions in the forestry sector of NWFP. Various groups of stakeholders for example local communities, civil society organizations, religious and traditional institutions, state agencies, global actors etc. are trying to operate within the contested political arena of NWFP. The paper shows that on the one hand, the state as well as donors led interventions do not really engage in a meaningful dialogue with the local stakeholders and institutions, and on the other hand these entities themselves are not in a position to initiate a change in local resource use. Thus, a way forward is seen in fostering a dialogue among key stakeholders.

The present contribution is an attempt to understand the conditions that impede some households and social groups in securing a decent livelihood by drawing on ‘purported’ facilitating institutions. It is generally agreed that access to livelihood assets is negotiated through institutions. However, the way in which these institutions operate in everyday practice and in specific contexts is less well understood. The four case studies presented here there- fore analyse how customary norms and state regulations work. The article argues that a deeper understanding of the working of institutions, which in turn influence who is excluded from and who is entitled to access a particu- lar livelihood asset, also provides a bridge to evidence-based development support.

Lange Zeit hat man Naturgefahren durch technische Massnahmen zu bändigen versucht. Die aktuelle Gesetzgebung spricht nun davon, Naturgefahren prio-ritär raumplanerisch anzugehen, also zum Beispiel gefährdete Räume zu meiden. Dieser Politikwechsel bedingt eine Klärung der Frage, wie Interessierte und Betroffene bei der Umsetzung dieser neuen Strategie mit einzubeziehen sind. Für den häufig aus der Sicht der Naturwissenschaften beforschten Gegenstand «Naturgefahren» eröffnet sich so eine relevante sozialwissen- schaftliche Herausforderung.

Die Wälder im Nordwesten Pakistans sind bedroht. Sie überleben nur, wenn die Bevöl kerung und die lokalen Behörden bei der Bewirtschaftung und beim Schutz konstruktiv zusammenarbeiten. Ein Forschungsprojekt zeigt, wie sich das schwierige Verhältnis zwischen ihnen verbessern lässt. The forests in northwestern Pakistan are being threatened. They will survive only if the population and the local authorities can manage to work together constructively to solve problems. A research project shows how the difficult relationship between them can be improved.

Most developing countries have made efforts to undertake decentralisation. Women and marginalised groups have enhanced their political power, and funds have been allocated to remote communities. A recent NCCR North- South publication, Decentralisation Meets Local Complexity, examines case studies in Latin America and South Asia. It confirms the importance of basic principles for successful decentralisation, such as participation, non-exclusion, efficacy, transparency and accountability. At the same time it shows that there is no “global blueprint”, as decentralisation takes place in highly complex and diverse local contexts.

Aussenpolitisch präsentiert sich Pakistan gerne als starker Staat. Nach innen tut sich die Regierung in Islamabad jedoch schwer mit der Durchsetzung der staatlichen Autorität. Ein anschauliches Beispiel bietet das staatliche Forstwesen. In der North West Frontier Province erwiesen sich Projekte zum Schutze des Waldes und zu einer Reform des Forstwesens wegen der schwachen Präsenz des Staates als wenig erfolgreich.