THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

4.2 Institutionalism, local decentralisation and biodiversity resource usage in Kakamega
Debating biodiversity and natural resource usage in Kenya would be incomplete without
debating institutionalism and local decentralisation in Kakamega. It should be noted that after
independence, Kenya abandoned the vestiges of colonial administration, which was based on
western capitalist ideals and embraced various degrees of formal centralization punctuated by
some low levels of delegation. 398 Recent years have witnessed a worldwide movement aimed
at transferring authority regarding the use of living resources from national governments to
regional and even local governments. 389 Not only are such measures expected to produce
results that are more responsive to the concerns of local stakeholders, such measures are also
expected produce more sustainable human/environment relationships. 390
Decentralisation is defined as the transfer of powers from central government to lower levels
within the political administrative hierarchy. It may take the form of decocentration or
delegation. Ideally, effective decentralization would place accountability and powers in the
hands of local institutions and local instituionalism. That is to say downward accountability,
because discretionary power is a key to institutional responsiveness. 391 But what happens in
real practice is the major interest of this sub-section.
Like many other developing countries, Kenya joined the decentralisation bandwagon through
devolution of powers to provincial and regional governments, which we can call regional or
local decentralisation. Decentralization is indicated by a combination of different variables
that collectively confine the authoritative allocation of political and economic values to a
relatively varied number of state actors, through deconcetration, devolution and delegation of
power at all levels of governance. 392 Proponents of decentralisation argue that in extreme
cases, over centralization fostered personalized rule and dictatorships as well as failure in
service delivery. 393 In the foregoing treatment, an effort will be made to draw a relationship
between decentralisation and biodiversity resource usages in Kakamega. What is most
striking here is, understanding the relationship between the local resource users and the local
power structures within Kakamega District. Specifically we ask our selves, what is the role of
the local resource users in the framing of legal regimes relating to resource usage in the
398 Barrow, E. 1998. Collaborative Forestry Management in East Africa. An opportunity for Sustainable forestry
Management. Nairobi:IUCN.
389 Ribot,J.C. 2002. Democratic Decentralisation of Natural Resources:Institutionalising Popular Participation.
Washington D.C: WRI.
390 Gibson, C.K and F. E, Lehoucq. 2003. The Local Politics of Decentralised Environmental Policy in
Guatemala. Journal of Environment & Development, 12 (19):28-49.
391 Litvack, J.J and R.Bird.1998. Rethinking Decentralisation in Developing Countries. Sector Studies Series.
Washington D.C: The Wrld Bank.
392 Barkan, J and M. Chege. 1989. Decentralising the State: District Focus and Politic of Reallocation in Kenya.
Journal of Mordern African Studies 27(3):434-438.
393 Sylvain, H.B. 2002. Decentralization and Reform in Africa. London: Aspatore Books.LeLondonc
81