Search

Scholars have engaged actively with the link between customary practices and ecological conservation in Africa as part of a broader debate on governance approaches for natural resource management. To a large extent, this is in response to a growing voice articulating the need to integrate traditional institutions and customary practices into a more contemporary form of governance for Africa’s democratic and socio-economic transformation. To date, however, the integration of customary and statutory approaches to governance has yielded only modest progress in the forest sector and knowledge remains limited about the interface between these governance systems and the effect of this dualism on natural resource management. Using the lens of the baobab tree, this research set out to address these gaps and to elucidate understanding of the interplay between customary and statutory governance in managing natural resources; the influence of such interactions on ecological sustainability and livelihoods; and the contextual factors that shape such approaches. Uses of the baobab tree as well as factors affecting access were analysed. Two study sites were selected on the basis of similarities in resource endowment and contrasting use patterns and forms of governance. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Quantitative methods included an ecological survey to examine the relationship between different indicators of ecological sustainability and different tenure regimes. A household survey was also carried out to examine the extent to which households use and benefit from baobab products. Qualitative methods included focus group discussions, institutional mapping, ranking and scoring, and oral histories. The study engaged with debates around governance, bricolage, non-timber forest products, bifurcation, livelihoods and access. Findings show that the baobab tree is used in multiple ways by households, and has both consumptive values as well as intrinsic values which are typically overlooked in the discourse of natural resource governance. The study illustrates that the interest of traditional institutions in regulating baobab use and access has been informed by reasons relating to sustainable livelihoods, ecological sustainability and the need to maintain a delicate link between environmental sustainability, the spirits of the land and resource users. Local arrangements are robust, dynamic and are entrenched in the day to day lives of the resource users. These arrangements may not fit into existing technical toolkits or environmental blueprints, and policy from the top may not be connecting with reality on the ground. Although traditional authorities and customary practices have remained relevant for local people in the realm of resource governance, they are weakening in the face of commercial baobab use. Where statutory forms of governance are overlaid onto existing customary forms of governance without due regard for local practices, unintended consequences arise. A key finding is that history profoundly informs the way local people harvest and use resources due to the long trajectory of the interplay between customary and statutory forms of governance that spans back to the colonial era. The main conclusion from the study is that both customary and statutory systems of governance are important, but need to be used in a graduated manner. Statutory forms of governance can be introduced to assist customary practices on a demand-driven basis. Results emphasise the importance of considering seemingly peripheral forms of governance such as customary practices within the continuum of resource governance in rural areas.

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.La décentralisation devrait idéalement aboutir à un transfert effectif de pouvoirs de l’État à des autorités locales élues ou décentralisation démocratique. Mais la plupart des décentralisations se présentent comme des démarches initiées, dirigées et contrôlées par l’État et les autorités centrales, qui en définissent la forme et contrôlent les pouvoirs dévolus aux autorités locales. Ceci conduit finalement à une simple déconcentration. L’article ci-dessous s’appuie sur des évidences empiriques tirées du Zimbabwe pour montrer que la décentralisation semble ne pouvoir renforcer le pouvoir des acteurs périphériques que si elle se présente comme une demande de la base, et non comme une offre étatique. Même lorsque les pouvoirs sont demandés par la base, et obtenus, les relations entre le niveau central et le niveau local dans les arènes décentralisées ne sont pas toujours agalitaires. Nous montrons en conséquence que les efforts déployés pour résoudre le dilemme de la marginalisation du niveau local à travers les décentralisations ne doivent pas perdre de vue les dimensions de ce niveau local. Nous voulons dire que même les décentralisations demandées et ‘arrachées’ ne doivent pas impliquer le retrait total de l’État central. Un réel renforcement des pouvoirs du niveau local va de pair avec le maintien de certains rôles de l’État central, comme la légitimation politique, l’appui au développement local ou l’expertise technique, et le soutien financier.