Can co-management of government forest reserves achieve devolution? Evidence from Malawi
- 1 September 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Forests, Trees and Livelihoods
- Vol. 25 (1) , 41-58
Abstract
Community-based approaches to natural resource management, including forest co-management, form part of a wider trend of decentralization of governance. In terms of process change and the level of power and responsibility transferred, decentralization takes many forms including deconcentration, delegation and devolution. It is expected that forest co-management should take the form of devolution as it should involve transfer of both decision-making powers and responsibilities to local institutions. However, few examples of successful devolution exist in forest management literature, as governments often transfer only responsibilities and not decision-making powers. We adapted the decentralization framework developed by Agrawal and Ribot to determine whether Malawi’s forest co-management programme has achieved devolution. One hundred thirty-four community and 21 committee members were interviewed about their perceptions of how powers and management rights are devolved, to whom and how those with power are accountable. We found that while co-management has established elected local institutions, they are not empowered to actively participate in decision-making. We also found a lack of downward accountability among leaders, which has limited the devolution process. We recommend the introduction of public hearings and public audit sessions to enhance accountability in decision-making and benefit-sharing processes.Keywords
Funding Information
- the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) - Nairobi
- Malawi Government, Ministry of Agriculture
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Local peoples' responses to co-management regime in protected areas: A case study from Satchari National Park, BangladeshForests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2012
- Co-management in community forestry: How the partial devolution of management rights creates challenges for forest communitiesConservation and Society, 2012
- Decentralization and Community Forest Management in Burkina Faso: Constraints and ChallengesInternational Forestry Review, 2011
- Chiefs as Critical Partners for Decentralized Governance of Fisheries: An Analysis of Co-Management Case Studies in MalawiSociety & Natural Resources, 2011
- Power Struggle, Dispute and Alliance Over Local Resources: Analyzing ‘Democratic’ Decentralization of Natural Resources through the Lenses of Africa Inland FisheriesWorld Development, 2009
- Equity in community forestry: insights from North and SouthInternational Forestry Review, 2009
- Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: Theory and narrativeGlobal Environmental Change, 2007
- Democratic decentralisation and local participation: a review of recent researchDevelopment in Practice, 2004
- Social Capital and the Collective Management of ResourcesScience, 2003
- Natural Resources and Decentralization in Nicaragua: Are Local Governments Up to the Job?World Development, 2002