Almost all PRSPs refer to decentralization and its importance for improving governance and reducing poverty. Often the discussion is rather general, however, and mentions only one or two sectors—usually education and health. PRSPs should incorporate analysis of important aspects of decentralization issues that are directly related to natural resources management and opportunities to enhance environmental income for the poor.
Among the current crop of PRSPs, a few contain welldeveloped discussions of decentralization for the management of environmental resources. A few also outline ways in which the government proposes to work with local people to increase rural income through community-based management of forests, fisheries, and other environmental assets.
Bolivia’s PRSP explicitly addresses the implications of decentralization for environmental management. The strategy refers to institution-strengthening initiatives aimed at ensuring that municipal governments will have the capacity to carry out new responsibilities to implement environmental policies and standards. It also highlights the ongoing role of Bolivia’s central government in important environment-related planning functions, including the development of diagnostic assessments,resource inventories, and soil and water-use plans, that will influence environmental investments (Bolivia 2001:131-2). Some innovative mechanisms are proposed for financing the environmental activities of local governments, including sharing revenues from a special hydrocarbon tax (Bolivia 2001:149).
Zambia designates development of a decentralization policy a matter of top priority to ensure citizen participation in their own affairs (Zambia 2002:35). The PRSP outlines decentralization measures that will enable communities to benefit from the commercial use of their lands, including shareholding arrangements with investors and tax-sharing arrangements (Zambia 2002:51).
Concerning community-based natural resource management, PRSPs should spell out in detail how the government proposes to work with local people to increase rural incomes through community-based management of forests, fisheries, and other environmental assets. For example, Cambodia notes that it is transitioning from state control to co-management of fisheries with local communities. In response to rising incidence of conflict between commercial fishing operators and subsistence and small-scale family fishers, Cambodia is releasing more than half of the country’s fishing lots to local fishing communities. The PRSP notes that this change will empower local people to participate in conservation and management of the fishery resource, giving them an incentive to refrain from illegal fishing practices that have been degrading the aquatic environment (Cambodia 2002:59).
Also outlined in Cambodia’s PRSP are initiatives related to community forestry to enhance local community participation in decision-making for forest management. In consultation with local user groups, the government will review the system of fees and permits on NTFPs and work toward removing barriers to marketing NTFPs, especially resin, that can be harvested without damaging the forest (Cambodia 2002:60).
Sri Lanka details several initiatives for community-driven development through sustainable management of natural resources. Community-based reef management projects will be undertaken as part of a 5-year public investment program to minimize coastal erosion, already affecting an estimated 55 percent of the Sri Lankan coast prior to the December 2004 tsunami. Community organizations will prepare coastal management plans, undertake reef stabilization and habitat conservation, implement measures to improve water exchange in affected lagoons, and help develop community fish hatcheries (Sri Lanka 2002:64, 89-90).
The PRSP also highlights plans to involve poor communities in decision-making for protected forests, providing funding to communities to replant degraded forest areas, manage buffer zones, and develop timber farms using conservation- oriented cultivation practices, with a goal of halving the rate of deforestation due to encroachment and illegal forest use (Sri Lanka 2002:90–91). The poor will be encouraged to participate in the development of Sri Lanka’s ecotourism industry by forming community-based organizations in the buffer zones adjacent to national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, which will receive a share of ecotourism earnings and training to assist in wildlife conservation activities (Sri Lanka 2002:91).
Kenya also plans to promote pro-poor tourism by fostering community-based ecotourism in the northern and western areas of the country. The PRSP outlines efforts to strengthen community involvement in wildlife conservation, implement measures to reduce human-wildlife conflict, provide small and medium enterprises with access to credit, review the structure of park tariffs to expand tourism in less-visited parks, and establish certification schemes for environmentally friendly resorts (Kenya 2004:49).
