DSA Annual Conference November 2006

In association with The Business School and School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading

THE PRIVATE SECTOR, POVERTY REDUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Saturday 11th November 2006

University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus

Trade Links to the Private Sector and Poverty Reduction

Chair: Colin Kirkpatrick, IDPM, University of Manchester

Lead Presentation:

Trade Links to the Private Sector and Poverty Reduction John McGrath, CEO, Imani Developments, Malawi

Panellists:

Globalisation, Free Trade and the Social Impact of the Decline of Informal Production: The Case of Quito, Ecuador Alan Middleton, University of Central England,

Trade Liberalization and Poverty Reduction: Impacts on Child Well-being Nicola Jones/Paola Pereznieto, Save the Children

Abstracts:

Privatisation in a Centralised Context: Commercialisation of Medicinal Plants

There has been a surge of theoretical and empirical research and considerable debate in the international development policy arena on decentralization of natural resource management from the federal to sub-national governments and resource users. This paper primarily examines the process of devolution, a type of decentralization, which requires a creation of ‘domain of discretion’ or autonomy that state officials transfers to local resource users. This allows resources users to make decisions about how to manage natural resources on their own. I attempt to determine the impact of devolution policies and assess whether resource users are able to make autonomous decision regarding access and management of resources, especially when economically valuable resources, such as medicinal plants, a non-agricultural product, are concerned. I also examine how resource users engage with privatization in a decentralized context, such as a community forest, and whether resource users are able to negotiate with actors in the private sector to determine how lucrative medicinal plants should be commercialized to reduce poverty.

I conduct this research by using a political ecology lens, which focuses on relations of power between actors. I explore the relationships between harvesters of medicinal plants and other actors such as forest officials, a private company, and representatives from a local non-governmental organization. Through the analysis of relationships, I argue that harvesters who are primarily adolescent girls are unable to take advantage of the autonomy provided to them by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation when the community forest was created because many of them do not know the devolved power they have been given to be able to negotiate with Himalayan Biotrade, a private company that wants to commercialize wintergreen, a medicinal plant. Some harvesters are also unable to create their autonomous space because adults do not regard children’s views seriously or because of the stage of the girls’ life course that prevents them from engaging with the private company. Therefore, the private sector is able to harvest wintergreen at unmonitored levels with indirect approval of representatives of the NGO, Federation of Community Forest Users Network that intend to protect harvesters’ rights but do not because of such representatives seek private gains from the Himalayan Biotrade’s presence in the community forest. Finally, forest officials in Kathmandu who want to promote the trade of medicinal plants to reduce rural poverty, also gain from Himalyan Biotrade’s work because it supplies wintergreen oil to a government company in order for the government to directly generate revenue from international sales.

Based on such relationships, I demonstrate in this case study that although harvesters may benefit financially, they do not benefit from devolved governance, which is aimed to give resource users more autonomy to make decisions about how private companies should operate in community forests. Although poverty is reduced, it is at the cost of the alliance among forest officials, the private company, and officials from an NGO with vested interests who are not committed to devolution of power as a development strategy. Ultimately, this case study shows that policies that promote decentralization and economic growth are not compatible.

Page last updated: 9 November, 2006