Conflicting Policies: Institutional Approaches Towards Decentralisation and Promoting Climate Change Resilience in Kenya
Abstract
Decentralisation refers to ‘any act by which a central government cedes rights of decision-making over resources to actors and institutions at lower levels in a politico-administrative and territorial hierarchy’. Kenya’s history of a highly centralised forest governance regime has recently seen a shift in policy and legislation authorising decentralisation in the sector. But what is it that gets decentralised in the forestry and natural resources sectors? Is decentralisation effective in meeting the goals of equity, sustainability, poverty reduction and climate change in an environment characterised by conflicting policies? This paper attempts to answer these questions. To understand the resource management outcomes of decentralised programmes, the rights and capacities that are transferred to actors at lower levels were examined. Using both primary and secondary data from two Kenyan forest resources, an analysis was done to find out key roles played by relevant institutions in understanding what is expected to be decentralised; and what policy environments are required to ensure the effectiveness of a decentralised forest resource management system. Results indicate that despite their similarities in ecology, prominence of both forest in local and national economies and conservation of biological diversity, there are some clear differences in institutional regimes for their management. The study concludes that heterogeneity of community stakeholders as government institutions (ministries), parastatals (KWS and KFS), international organisations and NGOs have overlapping mandates and policies that affect common pool resource management. The overlaps should be reduced to provide clear jurisdiction of governance and to enhance transparency in decision-making and equitable benefits distribution, which has long been wanting.
Keywords
Decentralisation Common pool resources Policies Mandates Climate changeReferences
- Arnold JEM (1990) Social forestry and communal management in India: ODI: rural development forestry network (RDFN)Google Scholar
- Barrow EJC, Isla G, Kamugisha-Ruhombe J, Tesse Y (2002) Analysis of stakeholder power and responsibilities in community involvement in forest management in Eastern and Southern Africa. Forest and social perspectives in conservation No. 9. IUCN Eastern Africa ProgramGoogle Scholar
- Barrow E and Murphree M (eds) (2000) Community conservation from concept to practice. James Currey: Oxford. Berkes, Fikret, (ed) 1989. Common property resources: ecology and community-based sustainable development. London; 2001. Barrow, Edmund, Vogt and Bahati J. Decentralized governance and ecological health: why local institutions fail to moderate deforestation in Mpigi district of Uganda. Scientific Research and Essay (10):434–445Google Scholar
- Berkes C (1989) Cultivating peace: conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. IDRC/World Bank, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- Bromley DW, David F, Margaret M, Pauline P, Jere G, Ronald OC, Ford R, James T (eds) (1992) Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy. ICS Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Case A (2006) Natural resource conflict management case studies: an analysis of power, participation and protected areas. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Forest Act (2005) Change in Kenya forest landscape and vision 2030Google Scholar
- Gibson J (2001) Legitimacy and disappointment in forest management. Environ Policy 24:141–148Google Scholar
- Githeko E, Schroeder-Wildberg E, Carius A (2000) Confronting conflict: a first-aid kit for handling conflict. Hawthorne Press, StroudGoogle Scholar
- Hulme D and Murphree M (eds) (2001) African wildlife and livelihoods: the promise and performance of community conservationGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2001) Third assessment report on climate changeGoogle Scholar
- IPCC Climate Change (2007): Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contributions of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ and Hanson CE (eds) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Kenya Press Release (2007) Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science, 1998Google Scholar
- McKean J (1992) Changing to gray: decentralization and the emergence of volatile socio-legal configuration in central Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Dev 32(7):1199–1223Google Scholar
- Meinzen-Dick R and Knox A (2001) Collective action, property rights, and devolution of natural resource management: a conceptual framework. In: Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. Meinzen-Dick R, Knox A and Di Gregorio M (eds) pp. 117–126Google Scholar
- MENR (1994) Kenya forestry master plan: development programs. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, NairobiGoogle Scholar
- NEMA (2008) Environmental mediation for environmental problemsGoogle Scholar
- Ostrom E (1993) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. Ostrom E, Schroeder L and Wynne S. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development, Infrastructure Policies in PerspectivesGoogle Scholar
- Peters W (1994) The dynamics of decentralization in the forestry sector in South Sulawesi: the history, realities and challenges of decentralized governance. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
- Shackleton K (1999) Globalized conflicts of discourse: the type of conflict of proxies. Geo J 52:45–58Google Scholar
- United Nations (2001) The Africa water vision for 2025: equitable and sustainable use of water for socio-economic development. Economic Commission for Africa, Addis AbabaGoogle Scholar
- Wandiga D (2006a) Observations on resource use in Kakamega forest reserve, Kenya. Afr J Ecol 45(Suppl. 1):2–6Google Scholar
- Wandiga S (2006b) Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. Eur J Work Organizational Psychology 10(4):497–522Google Scholar