Articles · Vol. 31 No. 2 (2006): Africa Development: Special Issue Decentralisation and Livelihoods in Africa

5 - A Demand-driven Model of Decentralised Land-use Planning and Natural Resource Management: Experiences from the Chiredzi District of Zimbabwe

Vol. 31 · 2006 No. 2 Africa Development: Special Issue Decentralisation and Livelihoods in Africa AD

Abstract

Decentralisation should ideally result in the transfer of effective power and control from the state to elected local level authorities – it should take a democratic form. But most decentralisation reforms turn out to be supply-led interventions in which states and other upper level actors, most of whom have a predilection to retain far-reaching control, define the form and extent of powers to be given to local-level authorities, usually resulting in de-concentration. This paper uses empirical evidence from Zimbabwe to argue that decentralisation is likely to result in more thoroughgoing empowerment if it is demand-driven. Even if empowerment is demanded we note that relations in decentralised arenas are not necessarily always egalitarian. We therefore argue that efforts to resolve the dilemma of community marginalisation through decentralisation should not lose sight of local level equity dimensions. We caution that demand-driven decentralisation should not be misconstrued as implying that the state and other external actors should completely retire from the business of the local. Effective empowerment appears to require a preserved role for upper level (non-local) actors, especially in providing political legitimation, technical backstopping, financial support and resolving issues whose solutions transcend the scope and scale of the local.

Statistics

Abstract views
176
Downloads
67

References

  1. Bazaara, N., Bosuyt, J. and Gould, J., 2000, ‘Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction: Elaborating
  2. the Linkages’, Policy Management Brief no.12, Maastricht, ECDPM.
  3. Chambers, R., 1983, Rural Development: Putting the Last First, London, Longman.
  4. Conyers, Diana, 1990, ‘Decentralisation and Development Planning: A Comparative Perspective’, in P.
  5. de Valk and K.H. Wekwete, eds., Decentralisation for Participatory Planning?, Aldershot, Gower
  6. Publishing Company, pp. 15-33.
  7. Fortmann, Louise and Nontokozo, Nabane, 1992, ‘The Fruits of their Labours: Gender, Property and
  8. Trees in Mhondoro District’, University of Zimbabwe Occasional Paper, Centre for Applied Social Sciences.
  9. Godwin, P., 1996, Mukiwa: A White Boy in Africa, New York, Harper Perennial. Government of
  10. Zimbabwe, 1994, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Agricultural Land Tenure
  11. Systems, Harare, Government Printers.
  12. Hasler, R., 1993, ‘Political Ecologies of Scale and Multi-tiered Co-management of Zimbabwean
  13. Wildlife Resources under CAMPFIRE’, Harare, Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe.
  14. Hesseling, G., 1996, ‘Legal and Institutional Incentives for Local Environmental Management’, in
  15. Improved Natural Resource Management: The Role of Formal Organisations and Informal Networks and
  16. Institutions, Henrik Secher Marcussen, ed., International Development Studies, Rosklide University,
  17. Occasional Paper No. 17, pp. 98-134.
  18. Holm, J.D., Molutsi, P.P., and Somolokae, G., 1996, ‘The Development of Civil Society in a
  19. Democratic State: The Botswana Model’, African Studies Review, Vol. 39, pp. 43- 69.
  20. Lan, D., 1985, Guns and Rain: Guerillas and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe, London, James Currey.
  21. Lovell, C., Mandondo, A., and Moriarty, P., 2003, ‘The Question of Scale in Integrated Natural
  22. Resource Management’, in B.M. Campbell and J.A. Sayer, eds., Integrated Natural Resource
  23. Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment and Development, Bogor, CABI Publishing in
  24. Association with the Centre for International Forestry Research, pp. 109-38.
  25. Mandondo, A., 2001, ‘Situating Zimbabwe’s Natural Resource Governance Systems in History’, Centre
  26. for International Forestry Research, Working Paper 32, Bogor, Centre for International Forestry Research.
  27. Martin, R.B., 1986, ‘Communal Lands Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE)’,
  28. Government of Zimbabwe, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management.
  29. McGregor, J., 1995, ‘Conservation, Control and Ecological Change: The Politics and Ecology of
  30. Colonial Conservation in Shurugwi, Zimbabwe’, Environment and History, Vol 1, pp. 257-79.
  31. Moyo, S., Robinson, D., Katerere, Y., Stevenson, S., and Gumbo, D., 1991, Zimbabwe’s Environmental
  32. Dilemma: Balancing Resource Inequities, Harare, ZERO.
  33. Murombedzi, J.,1991, ‘Decentralising Common Property Resources Management: A Case Study of the
  34. Nyaminyami District Council of Zimbabwe’s Wildlife Management Programme’, IIED Paper No. 30,
  35. London, IIED.
  36. Murphree, M.W., 1991, ‘Communities as Institutions for Resource Management’, mimeo, Harare, Centre
  37. for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe. Murphree, M.W., and Cumming, D.H.M., 1991,
  38. ‘Savanna Land Use Policy and Practice in Zimbabwe’, Paper presented at the UNESCO/IUBS Conference
  39. on Savanna Land Use, Nairobi, January 1991.
  40. Phimister, Ian, 1989, ‘Discourse and the Discipline of Historical Context: Conservationism and
  41. Ideas about Development in Southern Rhodesia, 1930- 1950’, Journal of Southern African Studies,
  42. (2), pp. 263-75.
  43. Reason, P., 1999, ‘Integrating Action and Reflection through Co-operative Inquiry’, Management
  44. Learning, Special Issue: The Action Dimension in Management: Diverse Approaches to Research,
  45. Teaching and Development, Vol 30, No. 2, pp. 207-27.
  46. Ribot, J.C., 1999, ‘Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry: Legal
  47. Instruments of Political-administrative Control’, Africa, Vol 69, pp. 23-65.
  48. Ruitenbeek, J. and Cartier, C., 2001, ‘The Invisible Wand: Adaptive Co- Management as an Emergent
  49. Strategy in Complex Bio-economic Systems’, Centre for International Forestry Research, Occasional
  50. Paper 34, Bogor, Centre for International Forestry Research.
  51. Sayer, J.A. and Campbell, B.M., 2003, ‘Research to Integrate Productivity Enhancement,
  52. Environmental Protection, and Human Development’, in B.M. Campbell and J.A. Sayer, eds., Integrated
  53. Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment and Development, Bogor, CABI
  54. Publishing in Association with the Centre for International Forestry Research, pp. 1-14.
  55. Scoones, I., & Matose, F., 1993, ‘Local Woodland Management: Constraints and Opportunities for
  56. Sustainable Resource Use’, in P.N. Bradley and K. McNamara, eds., Living with Trees: Policies for
  57. Woodland Management in Zimbabwe, Washington D.C., World Bank, pp. 157-98.
  58. Wekwete, K.H.,1990, ‘Constraints to Planning for Socialism in Zimbabwe’, in de Valk, P. and
  59. Wekwete, K.H., eds., Decentralization for Participatory Planning?
  60. Aldershot, Gower Publishing Company, pp. 37-51.

In this issue

Vol. 31 No. 2 (2006): Africa Development: Special Issue Decentralisation and Livelihoods in Africa →