WORKSHOP - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND DECENTRALIZED
MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
GENERAL REPORT - COTONOU (Benin) 10 - 16 December 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

1. Introduction
2. General Considerations
3. Capitalizing on Past Achievements
4. Understanding the New Dynamics
5. Direction of Future Policies
6. Recommendations
7. Conclusion

APPENDICES

1. 'Inventory'
2. 'Natural Resource Management and Decentralization' (presentation by H. Ouédraogo)
3. 'Guiding Principles:' Decentralized Management of Natural Resources
4. Results of the Workshop's Self-Evaluation
5. List of Participants
6. List of Documents Made Available to Participants

1. INTRODUCTION

A United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) workshop on "Local Development and Decentralized Management of Natural Resources" was held on 10 - 16 December 2000, in Cotonou (Benin).

This workshop brought together about thirty participants [1], including the programme officers of nine French-speaking West African nations and of Madagascar and the national coordinators of twelve UNCDF projects in the area of local development and natural resource management.

The meeting was also attended by a delegation from UNCDF headquarters led by the Executive Secretary, Mr. Normand Lauzon, and the Deputy Executive Secretary and Director of Operations, Mr. Albéric Kacou, and comprising three members of the Local Governance Unit, namely Mr. Angelo Bonfiglioli (Technical Advisor), Mr. Roger Shotton (Technical Advisor), and Ms. Kristin Wambold-Liebling (Programme Manager). Mr. Bernard Michel, a former UNCDF Technical Advisor, also attended the workshop as a resource person. For Benin, the Resident Representative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Mr. Moustapha Soumaré and his deputy with responsibility for the Programme, Ms. M'Baranga Gasarabwé, also followed the Workshop's activities closely.

The workshop's primary objectives were:

• To capitalize on the achievements and experience of UNCDF programmes that are under way,
• To understand current local dynamics,
• To contribute, by making realistic and appropriate suggestions, to a better formulation of the principles of UNCDF policy on Local Development and the Decentralized Management of Natural Resources .

---

1   See the complete list of participants in Appendix 5.

---

Return to top



2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Workshop provided the UNDP and UNCDF co-chairs with the opportunity to emphasize the fact that the very survival of African populations, increasingly jeopardized by the transformation of their immediate natural environment, was intimately linked with the sustainable management of the natural resources of their lands. Consequently, the prospect of local management of these resources represented a unique opportunity for them.

In his addresses, Mr. Moustapha Soumaré, the UNDP Resident Representative for Benin, also touched upon problems arising from the degradation of productive natural resources and related conflicts, changes in the legal and regulatory framework, as well as the actual responsibilities of the local populations. In this context, the main questions related to good management of these resources seemed to be: 'What can be done? What must be done to guarantee that resources are used well? What institutional mechanisms are required?' As in all other areas, the UNDP and UNCDF projects supporting local development and local resource management were under an obligation to produce concrete results. Therefore, one of the main results of these programmes would be their real ability to influence national policy in issues related to good governance and environmental management.

For his part, Mr. Albéric Kacou, the UNCDF Deputy Executive Secretary and Director of Operations, invited the workshop participants to undertake, inter alia, a critical analysis of the participatory Eco-Development Programmes (PEDs) being implemented. This analysis should be based both on successful and on failed undertakings in order to provide as many lessons as possible for future UNCDF projects. UNCDF's thematic evaluation of the PED approach in 1998 had already pointed to a number of weaknesses: for example, the lack of an appropriate institutional framework, the inadequacy of the 'sustainability' dimension, the cumbersome programming tools and methodologies, and the difficulty of replicating the approaches. Following that evaluation, a certain lack of a clear picture, perhaps even a certain doubt, on the part of headquarters had been perceptible in the field; it had been evident through a lack of direction and support. Subsequently, however, all projects had been able to receive the aid required to adapt to the new policy.

In Mr. Kacou's view, development assistance was currently in a phase of crisis, as revealed by a widespread reduction in resources. It was in this context that UNCDF's 1998 general evaluation had been conducted. Although, on the whole, the different programmes had been judged positively, the evaluation had also contained some recommendations, asking UNCDF (in September 1999) to re-centre its activities in two areas, namely local governance and microfinance. Thus, responding positively to these recommendations, UNCDF had established an Action Plan 2000 based on a set of precise, detailed activities (for example, with reference to its new organizational structure, the project formulation cycle, the information management system, project replication, their impact on national policies, or improving the capabilities of its personnel).

In his addresses, UNCDF's Executive Secretary, Mr. Normand Lauzon, stressed in particular the profound change that UNCDF had undergone since its creation in 1966 and the actual beginning of its activities in 1973. Since 1995, UNCDF had opted for a unified support strategy for local development, based on sound governance and microfinance. This new strategy contained the key elements of the approaches of the Local Development Fund (LDF) and of participatory eco-development (PED). Now the challenge facing UNCDF was to prove, by means of concrete results, the effectiveness of its action in the fight against poverty. This action would be guided by a number of major principles, of which the most important were:

• If no concrete steps for protecting, rehabilitating, and managing natural resources are taken, there will be no local development and no sound governance either;

• The local authorities will assume the role of 'project owner' for all local development initiatives;

• UNCDF's interventions must be based on a rigorous approach and a comparative cost analysis to enable national structures to reproduce pilot programmes on a larger scale;

• All projects must include, from start-up, a well-defined 'withdrawal' or 'disengagement' strategy.

Return to top


3. CAPITALIZING ON PAST ACHIEVEMENTS

3.1 Lessons learnt and inhibiting factors
One of the main themes of the Workshop was capitalizing on past achievements. Above all, this entailed considering collectively the lessons learnt from current projects, in particular the PED projects, the validity of their tools, instruments, and products, as well as the ways in which this experience could be used to advantage when planning future projects.

Here, the Workshop participants benefited greatly from the results of the preparatory work that the different teams had been able to accomplish during the months preceding the actual workshop. They had at their disposal a document synthesizing the main elements of their considerations, as well as a study 'capitalizing' on this, conducted by two resource persons [2]. During the course of the workshop, these reflections were re-examined in greater depth, and the general context in which the different projects take place was presented. Most particularly, the focus of the discussions was on the achievements and the constraints of these projects.

(a) Achievements
The diagnostic and planning procedures and mechanisms adopted for all of the projects seem to have contributed greatly to creating a new balance of power between the local actors (that is between State institutions and civil society organizations) and to stressing how important it is that these actors should establish interactive institutional relationships. The village communities that are targeted first and foremost by PED projects have gradually acquired remarkable planning tools. Whenever they have been able to receive proper training in basic participatory methods (diagnosis and programming), they have rapidly shown their ability to assume a crucial role in managing their own development.

With respect to natural resource management practices, one significant achievement is the new awareness of environmental problems shown by the populations who utilize the environment; another is experimentation in 'good'' management practices for natural resources and the adoption of these practices by village communities.

Natural resource management practices are considered to be 'good' when: Local aspirations and priorities are taken into account; Populations are considered to be both actors and policy-makers; All actors are involved in the conception and implementation of the different initiatives; Local know-how and indigenous technical knowledge are used to advantage; Local ecological and social dynamics are taken into consideration; Actions are duly prioritized; The immediate needs of the population are satisfied; The measures contemplated are economically viable and produce tangible results; Minority and marginal groups (in particular women) are not neglected; Lessons learnt from other projects are turned to account; Clear and flexible institutional arrangements define the responsibilities, rights, and obligations of all stakeholders; Transparent agreements provide for the active and financial participation of all actors; Producers do not pay excessive work costs; The technical initiatives are ecologically sustainable and use technologies that entail little or no risk; Long-term behavioural dynamics are created; The liquidation of investments is based on quality criteria; Appropriate communication strategies are adopted.

Finally, when it comes to institutions, all project teams have become aware of the need for "realignment" - for adapting to a process of democratization of society, completed to differing degrees in different places. This process has entailed the setting up of decentralized government structures - decentralized to different degrees - and the definition of legal provisions, particularly in questions related to land management and the organization of farmers. In this respect, these teams have demonstrated a high degree of flexibility, especially when going beyond the sometimes too rigid frameworks of their respective project documents. Most of them have been able to emphasize the importance of the 'processes' rather than the proliferation of institutional forms. They have also had to take into account the emergence of various structures involved in managing local development (local NGOs, economic interest groups, consumer lobbies, women's groups, etc.) and the potential of partnering with them.

The work accomplished by discussion groups made it possible to address the issue of achievements in a very concrete and pragmatic way, by identifying the main elements of the PED projects that deserve to be retained within the new local development programmes, even if it means adapting them (See box below). To this end, the different sequences in the implementation of a project - all of its main instruments, procedures, and tools - were identified in the work of discussion groups (from diagnosis to planning and programming to completion)[3].

The emphasis on institutional problems now seems to be an important achievement insofar as it has led to the creation of a more global, less sectoral vision of the problems of local development and decentralized management of natural resources.

(b) Main constraints and inhibiting factors
The diagnostic and planning processes have generally been cumbersome, with participants demonstrating a lack of mastery of basic methodological tools. This has resulted in long delays and frustration among populations. Information from data bases, despite the effort and expense involved with the collection process, has ultimately been used only to a limited extent. The monitoring and evaluation systems set up have often been deficient.

It seemed quite clear that, without adequate preparation, diagnostic studies risk producing mere 'lists' of needs and that the aspirations of an elite may be interpreted as the desires of a whole community. Finally, one major constraint encountered in most projects concerns intervention zones that are too vast and populations that are too scattered. The concept of village 'land (terroir)' has not always proved pertinent; it does not take into account intervillage bonds or the characteristics of the production systems of nomadic populations. In particular, difficulties have been encountered adapting the 'village/land' framework to the 'commune/communal territory' framework. Finally, interactive relationships between rural villages and corresponding urban centres have not been emphasized sufficiently and few novel solutions have been found.

THE MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS The diagnostic process represents the beginning of a process of participatory action, an important means of interacting with populations. It has made it possible to reinforce the links between individuals in the community, to express individual opinions, to promote exchanges between individuals, and to reinforce the social fabric. Through their participatory diagnostic processes, almost all projects have not only resulted in greater knowledge of local problems, but also in the creation of new dynamics. Thus everywhere, the process of participatory planning seems to have provided an excellent initiation into democracy. Populations have shown a remarkable ability to analyse their own situation pertinently, once they are shown the right approach and given appropriate communication tools. Implementing this approach has produced a complete reversal of the mode of action in rural environments and led to the emergence of rural communities that are more conscious of the realities that surround them. These projects have played a pioneering role, 'clearing the ground' and building up enough experience to help in the formulation and operationalization of a local development programme in the context of decentralization. The ground has been cleared for all actors who will now commit themselves to supporting decentralization in the rural environment. The immediate, top priority needs of economically disadvantaged populations have been satisfied. The actions undertaken in the fight against poverty have had an empowering effect (allowing beneficiaries to invest in sectors such as housing and agricultural equipment). The creation of a dynamic partnership with the structures of civil society has made it possible to reinforce local organizational and entrepreneurial skills. Project initiatives have led to an awareness of a global vision of 'village land (terroir)' and of the necessity of institutionally anchoring local development to the commune level. The approaches adopted have helped the partners to take hold of the programme from the very first contacts. THE MAIN CONSTRAINTS The diagnostic processes have often generated rich but sometimes redundant information with very little practical value for subsequent action. It has proved difficult to go beyond sectoral analysis and to achieve a true analysis of the whole. The projects come up against the vagueness of the regulatory frameworks that deal with the decentralized management of natural resources: the State is considered to be the official manager of these resources. The transfer of powers has not been accompanied by the appropriate financial and human resources. The allocation of powers and responsibilities is often relatively confusing. Different actors are involved and their respective roles are not clear. There is a conflict between customary authorities and newly elected representatives. Because of the regulatory framework, the local actors do not feel very responsible for natural resource management: consequently, these resources are misused, there is no formula for renewing natural resources, no voluntary reafforestation policy, and no volume discounts on products used for natural resource development. Cumbersome political mechanisms and/or sociological factors of all kinds, involving forms of political manipulation, patronage, and a 'handout' mentality are still very much alive. Economic, social, and cultural development programmes for local government bodies are drawn up, based on a 'closed model' which fails to take into account many aspects of the needs of these populations. This approach overlooks many development activities without which it is not possible to win the fight against poverty. Natural resource management (NRM) activities are uniform and repetitive and pay little heed to the uniqueness of different localities. The 'village' approach has not made it possible to operationalize a process that is focused on a collection of sociologically homogenous villages with shared resources (watershed, forest areas, grazing lands). There are some limits on intervention at the 'village land' level. Indeed, a considerable proportion of the actions contained in a village development plan are related to land-use management and must be negotiated at a higher level (at the 'district' and inter-district levels); on the other hand, other elements contained in village plans consist of actions related to production units (individual or family) over which the village has very little control. Implementation is impeded by the lack of territorial jurisdiction and by the inadequate negotiating skills of communal and village authorities. The range of decision levels, involving several actors (donors, implementing agencies, government agencies, NGOs, etc.), each with different procedures, has considerably slowed down the process of implementing the proposed technical measures.

Attempts to implement good NRM practices have encountered cultural problems (degree of local acceptance of the proposed initiatives and the slow pace of the required changes in attitude). They have not always been able to turn local know-how to account. Insufficient local technical skills have often been one of the main reasons for the slow implementation of these practices.

Finally, at the level of institutions, the main inhibiting factors are due to the vagueness of the regulatory frameworks defining the roles and areas of expertise of the different actors, the lack of local knowledge of the main legal texts (due in part to the high illiteracy levels), and the inadequacy of State technical services.

Participants had the opportunity, using concrete examples from different countries, to explore various aspects of these considerations in greater depth. These exchanges made it possible to present the outlines of certain innovative policies and experiments: for example, the guidelines for community development in Burkina Faso and the new law on (inter)village land management committees, the law on local natural resource management with village communities having a legal personality (Madagascar), and inter-district experiments (Mali), etc.

A major current, or potential, problem concerns the degree of representativity of village communities within local government bodies. Even if the elected officials are themselves members of specific village communities, this is not sufficient to ensure that the points of view and the interests of these communities are defended and considered. The situation varies, of course, from one country to another, but several projects (for example, in Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Senegal) keep a watch - with varying degrees of success - to ensure that village representatives attend local government district council meetings at sub-district levels, especially when programming and budget issues are discussed.

The lessons learnt from past experience in natural resource management show that the main constraint encountered is the inability to create social, economic, and institutional conditions that would enable technical solutions to be applied. In other words, technical solutions exist, but they are strongly conditioned by the institutional framework under which they are defined, planned and implemented.

3.2 Similarities and differences between projects
To further explore the problem of capitalizing on lessons learnt from the past, the Workshop participants collectively found it necessary to go beyond certain generalizations, beginning with the basic observation that current projects are very different from each other, despite numerous common characteristics and similarities (for example, the scale of participatory approaches, the degree of influence of natural resources on the lives of local populations, and so on).

These projects were not designed in the same way, have not been confronted with the same external socio-political situations or the same inhibiting factors, have established different types of collaborative relationships with different partners, and their institutions were set up differently. Therefore, their achievements, their constraints, and also their expectations or their needs differ considerably. Similarly, the lessons learnt from a particular project cannot necessarily be adapted to other projects.

At the risk of oversimplifying a rather complex reality, a classification of the projects under way may make it easier to perceive the internal dynamics of the individual projects. Thus, three main project categories can be discerned:

1. The projects that were designed as PED projects during the period 1994-1997 and which, consequently, were meant to target village communities and their lands. Over the last two years, these projects have been subjected to a more or less formal realignment policy, and even 'upgraded' to fit in with the rapidly changing social, political, institutional, and ecological contexts (and also to take into account the new UNCDF policy). The project teams encountered many problems because of the inappropriate methodological tools and concepts over which they had little control or which were slow and laborious to implement. However, they have usually shown a high degree of vitality and flexibility, readjusting their basic tools, modifying their goals, revising their criteria for making choices, modifying their institutional underpinnings, and even their approaches, at the risk of their becoming somewhat 'hybrid''. These projects, that are now drawing to a close, have provided a wealth of experience in natural resource management (even though, as the participants observed on several occasions, a proper evaluation of the ecological impact of these projects would require a much longer time-frame). The current challenges for this type of project entail (i) providing a better evaluation of the scope of the achievements; (ii) communicating them more effectively to other participants (government agencies and donors, local government bodies, national NGOs, etc.); and (iii) implementing the technical and institutional conditions that can promote the sustainability of the different activities undertaken - for example, by reinforcing the skills of the local partners and through greater involvement of the decentralized technical services. Such projects include the projects in Assaba (Mauritania), Bankass (Mali), and Dalaba (Guinea), and also, perhaps, the Kédougou project in Senegal. The Djibo project (Burkina Faso) can also be grouped in this project category.
2. Projects that, although they pursue the work undertaken by some PED projects (now completed) in the same geographical areas, were not designed as PED projects, but rather as projects to support local development (their project documents were formalized in 1999). These projects take place in the context of partial or incomplete, or sometimes interrupted, decentralization. However, after formal local elections have taken place and once local government bodies have been set up and/or consolidated, these projects will need to be 'updated' to varying degrees. Unlike other project categories, the main challenge here is to operate in a context where the primary relationship is no longer with the village community, but in which the local government bodies are not yet operational or are not fully operational. These projects can play an important 'pilot' role and may have a significant influence on future regulatory frameworks for decentralization and local natural resource management. As they are at the 'junction' between two different situations, they can adapt for local development (in the context, for example, of structures at the pre-commune level) certain PED project methodologies (for example, certain participatory approaches, train-the-trainers models, participatory self-evaluations, etc.), provided that they can retain a degree of flexibility or some leeway. The projects in Mayahi and Nguigmi (Niger), the one in Boulsa (Burkina Faso), and the project supporting local development in Nikki and Tanguiéta (Benin) belong to this category. The Ambato Boeni project (Madagascar) could also be grouped with this category, although it operates in the context of a more advanced form of decentralization.
3. Finally, projects that are conducted in the context of a more specific political decentralization, in the context of decentralized government institutions and formal regulatory frameworks. These projects have few direct links with the older PED projects. Their project documents were drawn up (in 1999 and 2000), based on the guidelines of the new UNCDF policy for supporting local development. Unlike the two previous categories, the teams for these projects are very limited, (a maximum of two or three national managers), do not provide 'project ownership' for the different local development initiatives, but simply play a supporting/advisory role for local government bodies and provide an interface between all of the participants. Thus, unlike the projects in the first category, these projects are not meant to try out imaginative NRM practices, but simply to help local governments be better informed about possible technical choices (by drawing on the achievements of PED projects in other regions or other countries). On the other hand, unlike the projects in the second category, these projects operate in a context in which local governments exist formally, even if they do not yet have all the powers and all the resources that would allow them to play an effective role in the decentralized management of natural resources. The 'pilot' role played by these projects consists of conducting experiments with certain technical and financial mechanisms that are still at the theoretical level, and in implementing viable and replicable forms of local development and decentralized management of natural resources. The primary relationship will be with the local government bodies, especially with those that are closest to the grassroots level (communes). But their main challenge will be to help these government bodies take into account the needs and priorities of all of the actors under their jurisdiction. Indeed, there is a risk that an increased emphasis on local government institutions will be at the expense of village communities and nomadic groups, customary authorities and minority and marginal groups (the lessons learnt from the PED projects will be very valuable in helping to overcome any obstacles). The two Mali projects (Timbuktu and Mopti), and probably the new project in Upper Guinea, belong to this project category.

Thus, all of these projects are different, but complementary. UNCDF's current policy steers towards the formulation of quite a range of projects belonging to the third category. However, it is clear that the specific components of these projects will need to draw on the lessons learnt from the projects in the two other categories.

The current or potential 'pilot' role of all the projects was emphasized by all of the participants. However, beyond any feelings of self-satisfaction, this should further incite participants to specify the nature of this role and to ask certain relevant questions: in the realm of local government and natural resource management (NRM), what is being piloted? Where is this leading? Do others (donors, governments, civil society) recognize this role? Are we really ready to play this role and upon what conditions? Wouldn't others, in more specific fields, be better qualified to play this role? etc.

---

2   This study was carried out by Boubacar Fall and Mana Diakité on the Assaba, Bankass, Dalaba, and Kédougou projects

---

3   See Annex 1 of the document 'Guiding Principles' (Appendix 3).

---

Return to top


4. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW DYNAMICS

4.1 General Considerations
The second major objective of the Workshop was to obtain a better understanding of the current local dynamics in local development, decentralization, and the decentralized management of natural resources.

The basic principle is as follows: in order to be able to provide a better direction for future programming, the interpretation of past experience must be accompanied by a better appraisal of ecological phenomena, of socio-economic change, and of current institutional changes. A document that provides a critical review of the main elements of the current debate helped the participants in their reflections [4].

The discussions underlined the fact that, under the weight of ecological factors, agrarian policies, and socio-economic changes, rural environments are producing new survival and adaptation strategies that it is important to try to understand and turn to account. At the same time, new concepts - democracy, decentralization, and good local governance - are being integrated into local development approaches to a greater or lesser degree.

In Africa, the main symptoms of the crisis that most populations are undergoing seem to be the following: a process of widespread impoverishment in the rural environment (poverty that is linked essentially to a lack of access to and control over productive natural resources); a review or adaptation of all local production and survival strategies; the emergence of new, extremely serious forms of conflict over land between different users of the space and/or between different ways of using the same space.

Participants had the opportunity, using concrete examples from different countries, to explore further several aspects of this consideration. The exchanges made it possible to present the outlines of some policies and innovative experiments: for example, the guidelines on community development in Burkina Faso and the new law on (Inter)village Land Management Committees; the law on local management of natural resources with village communities possessing a legal personality (Madagascar); the inter-district experiments (Mali); etc.

This process of collective consideration gave rise to the following thoughts:

• In most of the countries considered, decentralization is a process that is under way and affects several levels (including the local level), directly concerned by natural resource management;

• The legal and regulatory provisions in most of these countries tend to transfer authority over natural resource management to decentralized, local governments. But in reality, this transfer of authority is not accompanied by concrete measures for enforcing this authority;

• This process, although imperfect, represents an important step towards making locally elected representatives accountable.

Decentralization makes it possible to go beyond the limits of centralized planning and management, to ensure greater fairness in resource allocation, to promote a greater representation of different political groups, or to promote the exchange of more information between the government and populations. Decentralization makes it possible to give local communities a higher degree of autonomy and to expand their capacity for negotiating.

4.2 Presentation
A talk by Professor Hubert Ouédraogo, a lawyer and anthropologist from the University of Ouagadougou, helped Workshop participants to gain a better understanding of certain legal concepts and legislative provisions pertaining to the decentralized management of natural resources [5]. His analysis contains three major findings:

• African populations are entirely dependent on natural resources;
• Natural resources are continually being degraded;
• Various forms of centralized management of natural resources have resulted in serious failure everywhere.

Decentralization is a highly political question, being a reform that raises the issue of the transfer of power, that produces new authorities, new actors and new responsibilities, and that gives a new dimension to natural resources.

Characterized by an effective transfer of power to entities other than the State, decentralization has the effect of making local communities accountable for the decisions taken. But it is not synonymous with excluding the central State, as the latter continues to determine the legality of autonomous bodies.

Many difficulties are encountered when implementing decentralization. They include:

• The State's lack of political will to carry this process to completion;

• The inadequate incomes of the population; these limit the possibility of self-financing development activities;

• The weak level of local capabilities due to illiteracy.

"Decentralization is a profound political reform of the State. It recognizes the existence of other responsible public entities apart from the State itself. It legitimizes the autonomy of these entities based on recognition of the concept of local interest. However, the role of the State is neither denied, nor neglected: it is rethought and given a new dimension. The State must focus on tasks that exceed the capabilities of local bodies."

The discussion that followed this talk made it possible to explore more thoroughly a number of specific questions, such as: the relationship between decentralization and deconcentration; the principle of subsidiarity as regards natural resource management; the inconsistency of legal frameworks with respect to natural resource management; the evolution of various frameworks for consensus-building and facilitation established by projects within village communities, and so on.

"It is still possible for projects to conduct a successful policy for the decentralized management of natural resources; for this to happen, it is necessary for those implementing the project to: have a clear perception of the new institutional and regulatory environment that decentralization entails; work to reinforce the capabilities of the new local government bodies; fully understand that decentralization is not accomplished against the State, but with it; support local civil society which must be able to exercise control over the actions of local elected representatives." (H. Ouédraogo)

When addressing the issue of resistance by the State to the process of decentralization, Mr. Ouédraogo drew an important distinction between the various positions of the government institutions. Specifically, he drew a distinction between: (a) the attitudes of members of the Ministries of 'sovereignty' (such as the Ministry of Defence), who have a neutral attitude with regard to decentralization; (b) the attitudes of members of the Ministries of 'decision' (such as the Ministries of Finance) who have a negative attitude to decentralization: they consider it as a disruptive element capable of divesting them of certain prerogatives and areas of authority and, for this reason, are ready to engage in intense negotiations on each point concerning the relationship that decentralization entails; (c) the attitudes of members of the Ministries of 'development', who, by contrast, have an open attitude towards decentralization, considering it as an indispensable condition for obtaining real accountability from constituencies, with regard to their environment and its resources.

4.3 Field Trip
Within the context of these reflections on understanding local dynamics, a field trip to the Prefecture of Aplahoué provided participants with insight into a specific experiment in community development and local resource management in the village community of Soglonouhoué (supported by an NGO named GRAIB, Groupe de Recherche et d'Appui aux Initiatives de base pour un Développement Durable, a research and support group for grassroots initiatives in sustainable development). This experiment involves village land management and natural resource management, and is an extension of a former project financed by the World Bank, France, and Germany.

The village populations, within the village and inter-village committees, seem to have a very good mastery of the different planning, programming, and self-evaluation tools and seem quite capable of playing an active role in managing their own development (despite illiteracy). Therefore, the field trip helped confirm several elements contained in the Workshop discussion.

---

4   See Appendix 1 for this document prepared by Angelo Bonfiglioli.

---

5   "Natural Resource Management and Decentralization: Current Legal Mechanisms and Political Framework" (See this paper in Appendix 2).

---

Return to top


5. DIRECTION OF FUTURE POLICIES

5.1 Methodology
The third component of the Workshop's reflection was aimed at better identifying the principles that could help to give direction to future UNCDF policies in local development and the decentralized management of natural resources.

Even though the Workshop was not mandated to formulate a new UNCDF policy, the participants nevertheless had the unique experience of participating actively in a thorough collective reflection on these guiding principles and of contributing to it.

Their considerations were facilitated by a discussion paper ('Guidelines') which had been sent to all participants two weeks before the Workshop and which the participants studied in detail. The working groups examined the following points in depth: (a) prerequisites and strategic axes; (b) institutional strengthening and local capacity building; and (c) support for local economies.

Some specific suggestions were made to improve the wording of the document. But in general, the participants appreciated the quality of a document which seems to offer a very good foundation for work. Before it is finalized, however, it should take into account the achievements and the experiments currently under way in other countries where UNCDF operates, particularly in East Africa. The strategic approaches defined in the document are coherent and will require a collaborative re-examination as new lessons are learnt from evaluations of projects in progress.

5.2 The most important aspects of the 'Guiding Principles'
The main characteristics of these 'Guiding Principles' were presented by Angelo Bonfiglioli. He observed that, above all, these principles were the results of lessons learnt from projects that are currently under way and/or of completed projects (PED and LDF projects), of current thinking within the context of other development and research agencies, as well as the application of the main guidelines of the new UNCDF policy to the area of the decentralized management of natural resources (See the document 'Taking Risks'). The main aspects of these 'principles' are as follows:

• The new Local Development Programmes/Projects (LDPs) will deal with the problems of rural poverty more closely (better defined strategic approaches, more pertinent criteria for making choices, nature of the technical and financial mechanisms to be implemented, etc.);
• The diagnostic process in the LDPs will not endeavour to cover all of the local ecological, social, economic, historical, and politico-institutional factors, but will focus on the main inhibiting factors in the systems of local life and the insecurity of the rural populations;

  "The overall mission of UNCDF is to reduce poverty, especially in the rural zones in the least advanced countries, and to reinforce good local governance. Consequently, the local development programmes that have to do with natural resource management should be based on the logic of the fight against poverty and should deal, first and foremost, with the institutional problems related to the administration of these resources. At the same time, they should pay close attention to the technical constraints that affect the ways of life and the livelihoods of rural populations."

• With regard to local development and natural resource management, the specific contribution of the local development programmes will be (a) institutional, as they will contribute to legitimizing local institutional actors and to making them accountable for management of the environment; (b) technical, as they will promote the dissemination of good practices in natural resource management in order to increase productivity over the long term, to increase the wages earned from that productivity, and consequently, to diminish the vulnerability of rural populations to recurrent crises; and (c) legal, as they will support the formulation and the implementation of appropriate local regulatory frameworks;

  "A major strategic approach will involve assistance to the establishment of socio-institutional conditions that will allow local actors - in particular, local government bodies - to participate actively in protecting and managing their natural environment and in implementing all appropriate technical solutions. If the specific technical solutions are not part of a coherent institutional vision, they risk failing to meet their own objectives, and they also risk increasing the 'land insecurity' of a majority of the population and exacerbating their poverty even further."

• The mandate of the local development programmes (LDPs) will not be to try out 'new techniques' in natural resource management, but to help local government bodies (in their role as 'project owners') to obtain all necessary information on the most effective techniques and their use, and to be able to benefit more from their results, by adapting them to local conditions;

• In the realm of natural resource management, the emphasis on institutional strengthening will allow the local development programmes to focus their attention on the local power structures so that they can participate actively in local development and productive resource management. In particular, the LDPs will attempt to:

  • promote the creation and/or the consolidation of formal and informal institutions that, in the realm of local development and the protection, rehabilitation, and management of natural resources, are capable of defining, negotiating, and implementing coherent initiatives;
  • foster the definition, the introduction, and the formalization of participatory planning practices, arrangements, and mechanisms, of consensus-building mechanisms, of procedures for the prevention, the management, or the resolution of land conflicts and for decision-making, as well as transparent mechanisms for 'accountability', and self-evaluation procedures: that is, a set of 'rules of the game' allowing institutional actors to operate - individually and/or collectively - according to the principles of good governance;

• When it comes to local capacity-building, the LDPs aim at making the local institutional actors capable of assuming their responsibilities and of playing their respective roles fully. The LDPs should make it possible to convey this policy through a set of information, awareness-raising, and training initiatives for all of the institutional actors involved, namely the members of local government bodies and the representatives of grassroots peasant farmers' organizations, as well as those in charge of deconcentrated government technical services;

  "The efforts aimed at reinforcing the productive activities of rural communities, at combating their poverty, and improving their ways of life and livelihoods cannot be crowned with success without a sustained increase in investment in their human capital. On the other hand, the poverty of rural populations is inversely proportional to the levels of information and education that they have at their disposal (in particular, with regard to the technologies and factors of production available."

• In order to support the local economies effectively, the LDPs will help local government bodies choose and implement specific technical measures capable of solving problems related to natural resource management and productivity in agricultural, stock-breeding, and fishing activities. They will also promote the setting up of a financial mechanism whereby local governments will have at their disposal the financial instruments suitable for financing their own investments and those of the local communities. The LDPs' main technical contributions will be related to water management, anti-erosion measures, soil fertility, intensification of agriculture, and animal production and health.

5.3 Discussions
The discussions allowed participants to emphasize some particularly important aspects and to identify those points that the document should explore in greater depth.

The LDP projects should address, first and foremost, local government bodies that are closest to the grassroots level and which possess a legal personality and have some autonomy in financial management (it is clear that in most countries represented at the Workshop, the 'commune' is the institutional entity that best fits these characteristics).

Along with the LDP approaches, it will be necessary to introduce methods for collecting and using local tax resources. Moreover, so that the UNCDF intervention can encompass local development on a larger scale, it will be necessary to align the LDP projects with the microfinance projects.

The great diversity of current projects should result in a more thorough reflection on the interactions and links between the different types of NRM technical initiatives, on the one hand, and the specific institutional frameworks, necessary for their implementation, on the other.

As far as the document itself is concerned, the participants wanted the text to emphasize the following elements more firmly:

• Provide a clarification of certain basic concepts;
• Provide a better definition of the notion of 'commune' (or 'sub-district'), the preferred action unit for LDPs;
• The legal mandate that local government bodies will need to ensure local management of natural resources;
• The role of local government bodies in implementing methods for collecting and utilizing taxes stemming from natural resources;
• The simultaneous consideration of the microfinance instruments that should accompany the new LDP approach (to encompass local development problems more globally) [6];
• The minimum time-frame that LDPs will have in order to make some kind of impact on natural resources;
• The 'exit strategy' (achieved through institutional support from the State's deconcentrated technical services) that all LDPs should define right from the beginning;
• A comparative examination of the various types of measures for natural resource management and the institutional levels.

These observations and suggestions were taken into account and some parts of the document were revised (the new version is contained in Appendix 3).

---

6   It may be noted that, in addition to the work done by the Workshop itself, Mr. Makarimi Adéchoubou, the Regional Technical Advisor of the Special Unit for Microfinance, SUM (Lomé), presented the objectives of his unit, which are to support the decentralized system, to reinforce institutional support and to provide financing. The involvement of SUM is a significant component in the reinforcement of local economies in the context of the UNCDF and UNDP projects.

---

Return to top

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The participants were unanimous in expressing their desire to pursue these collective examinations of the problems of local development and decentralized management of natural resources. Sharing experiences and disseminating ideas could provide a strong stimulus for the initiatives and the dynamics of individual projects.

All participants grew more aware not only of the overall stakes involved in this approach, but also of the concrete 'pilot' role that UNCDF projects are called upon to play in order to support good governance and the decentralized administration of natural resources.

Specific recommendations made by the Workshop concern the issues that future collective research should help to explore in greater depth, as well as its procedures and tools.

(a) Issues
In future, the process of collective consideration should continue and exchanges between the various project teams should focus, in particular, on the following points:

• Local economy, taxation, and microfinance,
• Approaches and strategies for resource mobilization,
• Decentralization and natural resource management,
• Different land ownership systems,
• Training communes for their specific roles in natural resource management,
• Diagnostic and planning tools for the village/commune and intercommune approach,
• Conflict management,
• Measures aimed at stimulating investment (by local government bodies and local communities) in natural resources,
• Replicability and exit strategy,
• Village land management.

(b) Process
This collective consideration, especially with regard to systematizing the lessons learnt and identifying new strategic axes, could be facilitated through:

• Creation of an exchange network;
• Creation of a bulletin to aid in the dissemination of information and the sharing of ideas within UNCDF;
• Organization of field trips between projects;
• Participation of some programme offices or project coordinators in missions to support the technical advisors in third countries;
• Greater familiarity with and use of existing bibliographical sources;
• Preparation and dissemination of research directed by and/or supervised by the project teams.

(c) Tools
The participants wished to have at their disposal, fairly quickly, a certain number of tools, in particular:

• A good practices manual in natural resource management (fact sheets that are easy to consult and that would be made available to local government bodies and their service providers);

• Guidelines that would allow teams to carry out systematic self-evaluations: the 'memory' from these self-evaluations should be kept in the same way as the judgements expressed by external consultants when formal evaluations of the projects were made:

• A list of the main international and sub-regional institutions and resource persons who could support the different projects in the different areas related to decentralization and the decentralized management of natural resources (in this respect, Mr. François Yatta's workshop presentation on the Municipal Development Programme (PDM or Programme de Développement Municipal) , was a beginning [7].

---

7   The mandate of the Municipal Development Programme (PDM or Programme de Développement Municipal) is to support the decentralization process in West African countries. It also aims at integrating local economic development concerns with financial decentralization and regional integration relating to the WAEMU countries. UNCDF is in the process of developing a partnership with this institution that could offer support in the various areas of local development, especially in local finance and training for elected representatives.

---

Return to top


7. CONCLUSION

The workshop on "Local Development and Decentralized Management of Natural Resources" occurred at a time when UNCDF was in the process of defining a new approach for its projects in the new context of decentralization.

All of the participants paid tribute to the organization of the workshop, expressing their great satisfaction both with its content and with the way it was conducted. (See results of the self-evaluation in Annex 4).

They thanked Mr. Normand Lauzon and Mr. Albéric Kacou, who had participated actively in this meeting. They also thanked Mr. Angelo Bonfiglioli, a technical advisor and the workshop organizer, as well as Mr. Roger Shotton and Mrs. Kristin Wambold-Liebling. Mr. Bernard Michel was mentioned for all the work he had done for UNCDF in the past. Finally, Mr. Moustapha Soumaré, the Resident Representative of UNDP in Benin and Mr. Blaise Tchabi, the UNCDF Programme Director in Benin, were acknowledged for their successful organization of this workshop.

The workshop expressed the hope that the spirit of consensus-building and friendship, reinforced in the course of the workshop, would continue, and that the Executive Secretary would be able to provide all of the support necessary to maintain the dynamics set in motion by the workshop.

In his closing speech, Mr. Normand Lauzon stressed the dual challenge now facing UNCDF in the context of decentralization and local governance: on the one hand, it would be necessary to continue supporting the grassroots (institutional strengthening of local government bodies, local capacity-building, support for local economies) by means of appropriate programmes/projects; on the other hand, ways and means of influencing national policies and ensuring the 'replicability' of specific projects and programmes had to be found.

The Executive Secretary also emphasized the strong interactions existing between the new decentralized local government bodies, on the one hand, and the village communities, on the other. Although UNCDF considered that its main contacts would be the local government bodies (especially the communes), UNCDF's projects should not neglect the village communities and all of the organizations, associations, and groups of civil society. On the contrary, these projects had to reinforce the social and economic exchanges between rural zones and the administrative and business centres to which they were related.

Finally, he asked participants to be vigilant and to ensure that the decentralization process being supported by UNCDF did not reproduce on a local scale the same bureaucratic, centralized approaches and attitudes characteristic of the central State.

Mr. Lauzon then thanked the UNDP/Cotonou Resident Representative and his colleagues for their help in organizing the Workshop and for their ready assistance during it. He also thanked the Benin Government, represented at the Workshop closing ceremony by the Director of Political Affairs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), for its welcome and hospitality.

Return to top