Democracy as the government of the people by the people and for the people, equally represented is one of the most contested claims worldwide yet cherished by many and associated with a universal human right. The word “democracy” did not appear in the global participatory forest policy i.e., the shifting of global forest paradigm toward more participation in the 1970s. However, one of the core ideas of democracy, namely the right of local people to participate in the decision making over the use and management of their forest resources underpinned the policy proposal. Donors and international development agencies such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and other large nongovernmental organizations subscribed to these principles and aimed to translate them into local contexts. Likewise, central government in sub-Sahara Africa, specifically in Burkina Faso undertook political decentralization reforms and participatory forest management programmes to implement these principles of inclusion and self-determination at the local level. It is worth mentioning that beside these discursive aspects of democratisation, the material and political economy of decentralisation and participation in sub-Sahara Africa is argued to be a measure taken to mitigate the negative effects of structural adjustment policies, increase popular legitimacy and public responsibility for growth and social welfare. However, in practice, participatory forest policy and decentralization still await an effective devolution of decision-making authority to local people and the improvement of their livelihoods. In addition, the state and non-state policy translators as above continue to choose processes, plan and implement environmental projects, often in partnerships with other than the democratically elected bodies. In doing so, they risk privatizing common resources, undermine democratization, shrink the public domain and limit citizenship and the spaces available for local people’s engagement in forest management. While literature exists on those issues, it remains unclear how these three dimensions of local democracy i.e., representation, citizenship and public domain operate under environmental interventions in the context of Burkina Faso. Therefore, I ask how participatory forest policy is translated at the local level in sub-Sahara Africa, specifically in Burkina Faso. How do the translation processes influence local democracy?
I adopted a policy translation perspective to acknowledge the turbulence of policy processes, the agency of both project implementers and local people and the unpredictability of the policy outcomes. I further used the theoretical lens of the “choice and recognition” framework to assess the democracy effects of forestry interventions namely on local peoples’ representation, citizenship and the public domain.
I investigated these three components of local democracy through the four articles included in this dissertation: The politics of representation in forest restoration in Africa (Article II); the dynamics of citizenship in forest conservation politics in Burkina Faso (Article III) and the patterns of the public domain through a gender and institutional bricolage lens (Articles IV and I), using qualitative research methods. I collected data with national and local level actors using participant-observation, semi-structured, in-depth interviews, group and focus group discussions in gendered and ethnically disaggregated groups. The recordings were transcribed and the data coded in Atlas.ti 8. I applied content and discourse analysis to interpret the results and produced basic descriptive statistics in an Excel spreadsheet.
The results showed that in Burkina Faso, global forest policy was translated at the local level through political decentralization reforms and participatory forestry projects. The choices of local institutions made by the project implementers influenced the substantive representation of local people’s interests and the effectiveness of forest restoration outcomes (Article II). The forestry interventions unintentionally produced uneven forms of citizenship, turning citizens into denizens i.e., those whose citizenships was revoked (Article III). Lastly, Articles IV and I depicted the multi-layered and complex dynamics in the public domain, continually contested by both customary and post-colonial state logics.
From the findings, it can be inferred that participatory forestry has the potential to strengthen local democracy through political decentralisation. However, the current policy translation processes based on the multiplication and recognition of parallel and competing local institutions’ representatives such as user groups can undermine democratisation, weaken substantive representation, erode the material foundations of political belonging and citizenship and reduce the effectiveness of the public domain for meaningful change.
Local realities and the actors carrying the burden of forestry interventions remain sometimes invisible in the shadows of global forest governance. A more practical approach to participatory and decentralized forest management could help mitigate the emerging issues. Further improving the lenses used to study these such as the choice and recognition framework could be a step forward in shedding light on the local processes and outcomes and advance an understanding of what hampers and enables democracy in and through global forest policy. Thus, I recommend to more systematically pay attention and integrate indicators of local democracy when trying to apply global forest policies in a local context.
Key words: local democracy, community participation, policy translation, institutional choice, citizenship, public domain, institutional bricolage, gender, restoration, forest conservation.