The Impact of Decentralization on Sustainable Natural Resource Management: The Case of Lake Hawassa

Merawi Assefa ID.NO GSR 5021/03

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Acknowledgement................................................................................................... i List of Tables and Figures....................................................................................... vi

List of Appendices.................................................................................................... vi Abstract..................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER ONE ... I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................1 1.2 Problem Statement................................................................................................4 1.3. General Objectives.....................................................................................6 1.3.1 Specific Objectives...................................................................................7 1.4 Research Questions....................................................................................7 1.5 Study Design and Methodology.................8 1.5.1 The Nature and Type of the Study 8 1.5.2 Data Collection and Instruments.8 1.5.2.1 Primary Data............................................................................................9 1.5.2.2 Secondary Data.......................................................................................9 1.6 Significance of the Study...............................................................................10 1.7 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................10 1.8 Scope of the Study.10 1.9 Organization of the Study..............................................................................11 CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................... II. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................... 2.1 Conceptual Issues............................................................................ 2.1.1 Sustainable Natural resource Management........... 2.1.2 Governance 2.1.3 Decentralization...................................................................... 2.1.3.1 Types/Dimensions of Decentralization...................... 2.1.3.2 Forms of Decentralization......................................... 2.1.3.2.1 Deconcentration......................................... 2.1.3.2.2 Delegation................................................... 2.1.3.2.3 Devolution .................................................. 2.2 Bench Marks of Environmental Federalism..... 2.2.1 Pure Public Good......................................................... 2.2.2 Local Public Good......................................................................... 2.2.3 Local Spillover Effects 2.2.4 Race to the Bottom............ ........................................ 2.3 Decentralization. and Sustainable Natural Resource Management.................................................. 2.3.1 Decentralization Vs Centralization............................... 2.3.2 Accountability and Popular Participation......................................................................... 2.3.3 The Subsidarity Principle . CHAPTER THREE

III. THE PROCESSES OF DECENTRALIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN ETHIOPIA 3.1 Overview of Decentralization and Sustainable Natural Resource Management 3.2 Current Institutional and Legal Frameworks for Decentralized Sustainable Natural Resource Management 3.3 Institutional Arrangements for Decentralized Sustainable Natural Resource Management at Local Level............................................................................ CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................... IV. The Impact of Decentralization on Sustainable Natural Resource Management of Lake Hawassa 4.1 The Causes and Consequences of Pollutions of Lake Hawassa.. 4.2 General Overview of Environmental Legal Structures of SNNPRS and Oromia Regional State. 4.3 Findings.................................................................................................................. 4.4 Constraints.............................................................................................................. CHAPTER FIVE............................................................................................................ V. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................. BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER ONE

I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Decentralization, community rights and the sustainable use of natural resources are some of the key issues underpinning the development discourse of our times (Baumann et al.,2003). Edmonds noted that nearly every country in the world is currently experimenting with some form of community resource management by devolving some of their power to the community to use and manage the resources (Edmonds, 2002). In all countries, governments accompanied decentralization reforms with a parallel process of sector-based policy and legislative change, amending existing laws or passing new ones to ensure their consistency with the spirit and objectives of decentralization. Although these institutional reforms vary across countries and in many cases harbour considerable problems of a conceptual and practical nature, they nonetheless constitute an important step forward (IIED, 2006).

Ribot (2004) argues that decentralization is changing the kinds of authorities that make decisions over natural resources; the kinds of decisions that these authorities are empowered to make; and the relations of accountability between the central state, local government, other local institutions, and the local population. These reforms have implications for the way in which local people can derive benefits from natural resources, and how they value, manage, and use them. In short, decentralizations are changing the local institutional landscape for better or for worse. During the 1990s decentralization reforms have been legislated throughout the developing countries. As a result participatory development for sustainability merged with decentralized state (Sito, 2007). Decentralized management is demanded more appropriate for facilitating community conservation (Ribot, 2001).

However, the political frame of decentralization which needs a systemic redistribution of power and responsibility from the central level to States and further actors at different levels make sustainable natural resource management uncertain. In particular, the debate over who is really mandated and make a decision on a certain natural resource management often brings overlapping of jurisdictions lead to conflict. Sharing of power, responsibility and resources among the constituent unites of government has complicated the applicability of real natural resource management. Adler (2007) states that in recent years scholars have begun to reexamine the federal-state balance in environmental law. New scholarship has challenged the necessity and effectiveness of much federal environmental regulation, while others have defended the

preeminent role of federal environmental law. There remains substantial disagreement on the extent to which states can be trusted to adopt welfare-enhancing environmental safeguards. One possible explanation for the states failure to provide effective environmental regulation is their lack of scientific expertise and their inability to provide the resources needed to implement such regulation. Similarly, federal environmental legislation arguably permits environmental policymakers to take advantage of the economies of scale that result from the adoption of national standards (Glickman,2006).Some scholars argue that the centralized nature of environmental regulation makes environmental procedures difficult to apply. As per to this assertion, Adler has commented on the current status of environmental management of USA stating that:Nearly all environmental analysts recognize the need to experiment with new approaches to environmental protectionapproaches that are more flexible and market-oriented or rely upon stewardship and voluntary arrangements. Yet despite substantial talk about using incentives and cooperative approaches, the underlying nature of federal mandates has not changed. It is hard to teach old bureaucrats new tricks. Efforts to "reinvent environmental regulation" have yielded paltry results, and to date every substantial legislative initiative to reform environmental law has died in Congress (Adler, 1998) In Oatess (2001) view, decentralization can provide a valuable dimension in policy innovation by offering the opportunity for experimentation with differing approaches to environmental management . Under so-called laboratory federalism, there are potential gains from learning by doing so that we can find out how certain kinds of policy measures work in practice without imposing untried systems on the entire nation. However, according to Kunce and Shogren decentralization can lead to a .race to the bottom as state, provincial, or regional governments over-compete for domestic firms and/or capital (Kunce and Shogren, 2002, 2005) or cause firms to over-invest in un- productive lobbying activities ( Fredriksson et al., 2006)

Engle documents that regulatory authority to address environmental ills should be allocated to one or the other level of government with minimal overlap (Engle, 2006).According to Adelman and Engel a hallmark of environmental federalism is that neither the states nor the federal government limits themselves to what many legal scholars have deemed to be their appropriate domains. The federal government continues to regulate local issues, such as remediation of contaminated industrial sites, that have few direct interstate connections or that benefit from federal uniformity. At the same time, states and local governments are not content to confine

their attention to issues of local concern, but are developing policies on environmental issues of national or even international scale, such as global climate change. Nor do environmental issues stay in the control of any particular level of government, but rather tend to pass back and forth between them, much like the proverbial football (Adelman and Engle, 2007) As a unitary state, Ethiopia has for long time operated under a highly centralized system, with the center assuming full responsibility for policy. Ethiopian political systems under successive regimes of the past are noted for their restriction on space for local self-rule and institutional development. In addition the country is home to several ethnic and cultural groups whose relationship is loaded with incompatibilities that could pose potential and actual threats to peace and stability (Tegegne and Kassahun , 2004). Throughout the 1990s the initiative for decentralization has been limited to the regional level without any clear definition of the role of the lower tiers of government. It is only from 2001 onwards that Ethiopia began to adopt a decentralized form of local governance characterized by devolution. Woreda/district decentralization has been initiated as one of the reform measures in the country underlining on poverty reduction In particular, decentralizing natural resource management with responsibility and authority to

the local level are not operational. Since the central government is responsible in environmental issues, decision making power lacks at local level. This in turn affects the sustainability of natural resource management. As Ethiopia is a federal country, Regional States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to enact laws which will be applicable in their jurisdictions. It is the Federal State that is empowered to enact laws for the utilization and conservation of land and other natural resources, historical sites and objects (FDRE, 1995, Article 51(5). However, it may,

when necessary, delegate to the Regional States powers and functions granted to it by Article 51 of the Constitution (Article 50(9)). It is assumed that the Regional Governments are now exercising the right of enacting environmental laws by the power they got from the Federal State through delegation. Regional States can better take care of the environment than the Federal State, if they build their capacity, as they are nearer to the people, land, forests, water, etc. In some Regional States the environmental laws are even stronger than their Federal counterparts.

Proclamation No 106/2007(SNNPRS,2007) has determined the powers and responsibilities of the Regional State of SNNPR. This proclamation ,However, do not explicitly put the authonomes organ in environmental protection. Rather, it is structured as one part of the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development. This bureau is legally entitled the protection of environmental issues.

1.2. Problem Statement

Lake Hawassa is very important hydrological natural resources. It is one of the natural gifts which are also taken as one of the causes for Hawassa foundation, its naming, tourist attractions etc. This lake is located at the north of Sidama, south of Oromia areas, and West of Hawassa city. The Lake is situated in the main Ethiopian Rift Valley system (Serkalem, 2008). Lake Awassa is one of many Ethiopian wetland resources. It lies near the town of Awassa in the middle of a series of rift valley lakes at an altitude of 1680 m and 275 km south of Addis Ababa. The lake has a surface area of 90 km2, a volume of 1.036 x 109 m3 and a drainage area of 1,259 km2. Different species of waterfowl, hippopotamus and reptiles also reside in, and are supported by, the lake. Shallo Swamp drains into the lake through the Tikur Wuha River. .The River Tikur Wuha is Lake Awassas only influent. It serves different purposes for people, domestic use and wildlife. The river gets its name (which means black water) from the black humis-rich soil bed. (Zerihun, 2003)

The transitional administration of Hawassa as advanced municipality level was set up based on proclamation No. 51/2002 SNNPRS. Transitional Administration of Hawassa whose accountability to the Regional Government came in to being on May, 20/95 E.C with its present office and administration including Lake Hawassa.(Serkalem,2008). The community of

Hawassa and its environs has utilized the resources of these lake and the associated wetlands as a livelihood source for a very long time. The water of the lake is used for irrigation, bathing, recreation and as drinking water for domestic use and wildlife. The fishery of the lake supplies vital fish protein and incomes for the people of the area and beyond (Zerihun, 2003).

Zerihun (2003) states that the lake, the river and the swamp are presently faced with serious ecological problems due to deleterious anthropogenic activities in the catchment. The construction of irrigation and drainage systems, clearing of forest, building of factories and use of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides all contribute towards the damage of these indispensable but fragile systems. Until now, the institutional and legal framework for developing and ensuring the sustainability of wetlands is lacking in the region. A Regional Conservation Strategy is in the final stages of completion. The pace of such reforms, however, cannot keep up with the pace of environmental damage. According to Tamiru (2007), there are numerous point and non-point sources of pollutants that could deteriorate the quality of water resources. The major point sources of pollution in Awassa include storm-water drains, industrial facilities and direct discharges from different activities. These facilities commonly add sufficient loads of a variety of pollutants to surface water bodies, affecting the quality of water resources. Point sources of contamination to groundwater may include septic tanks, underground fluid storages and industries. Runoff from street surfaces contaminated with automobile oil, petrol, dust and wastes of animals are major forms of non-point sources of pollution in urban areas. Urban agricultural activities, which use pesticides, fertilizers and manure, are other nonpoint sources of pollution. The main contaminants to the water are derived from municipal solid and liquid wastes, industrial centers, government and private establishments, agricultural activities, septic tanks, underground storages and urban runoff (Tamiru, 2007).

The Awassa lake basin, in particular, has come under an unprecedented pressure, ever since the beginning of 1950s. In the process together with population growth, changes in land use have occurred due mainly to expansion of subsistence agriculture, opening up large scale state farms, manufacturing plants or related developmental ventures including fishing in the lake. These developmental changes however, were promoted without any appraisal on their impacts on the environments. As a result land degradation, aquatic and terrestrial habitat destruction and signs of desertification are observed. Some of the factors that worsened the situations are deforestation

(for farming and charcoal making), emergence development and subsequent expansion of a number of urban centers, unsustainable resource utilization and lack of proper environmental management practices. The negative impacts of the development processes have manifested themselves in the form of increased soil erosion, siltation, water pollution, habitat destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems (IBC, 2000).

In Ethiopia, the extent to which the local people have control over water resources is not clear and therefore requires investigations. This is because no systematic study has been conducted. Furthermore, the reasons behind apparent ineffectiveness of the Local Administrators (LAs) in managing water resources need to be comprehensively analyzed. It is not clear whether this ineffectiveness is due to lack of genuine decentralization of power to lower levels or lack of capacity by the local administrators. In particular, the implication of decentralization on interboundary integrated natural resource management should be thoroughly studied. It is this view that this research is intended to analyze the situation of Lake Hawassa which is shared by Hawassa City ,Sidama Zone in SNNPRS and West Arsi Zone of Oromia Regional State.

1.3.General Objective
The general objective of the study is to asses the impact of decentralization on sustainable natural resources management of Lake Hawassa and there by to bring an effective mechanism in the environmental protection of Lake Hawassa.

1.3.1. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To asses the impact of decentralization on sustainable natural resource management and protection of Lake Hawassa.

2.

Examine how the environmental policies can be adapted to the indigenous knowledge systems in changing circumstances.

3. Explore factors which are necessary to motivate the local communities to participate in sustainable water resources management for their benefit. 4. Explore effective ways through which local peoples experiences can be integrated into regional and, national policies and programs. 5. To asses the Inter jurisdictional management of SNNPR State and Oromia Region in protecting the lake.

6. To asses the role played by the Hawassa City Administration and other stake holders in the management of the lake

1.4.Research Questions
1. What is the impact of decentralization on sustainable resource management of Lake Hawassa?

2. What are the causes and consequences of environmental problems in Lake Hawassa? 3. What are the spillover effects of environmental pollution of Lake Hawassa across SNNPR and Oromia regions?

4. What are the obstacles for integrated environmental management of the Lake between SNNPR State and Oromia region? 5. How can the local people be motivated to sustainably and beneficially participate in protection and management of Lake Hawassa? 6. How can the environmental policies and policy implementation procedures be adapted to changing and varied circumstances?

1.5. Research Design and Methodology

This part is concerned with method of the study. It deals with the nature and type of the study, sources and types of data, as well as instrument for extracting the same.

1.5.1. The Nature and Type of the Study

The study will focus on describing and analyzing the impact of decentralization on sustainable resource management of Lake Hawassa. It, therefore, will try to explore, describe and analyze the level of decentralization and to what extent decentralization has improved the agenda of sustainable resource management of Lake Hawassa. The study will employ a qualitative approach in dealing with the themes associated with the phenomenon.

1.5.2. Data Collection Methods and Instruments

Two data collection methods will be used in conducting the study. These will be consultations/ interviews and content analysis of relevant documents. Therefore, in the study, both primary and secondary data sources will be used. The consultations will take a form of semi-structured interviews, which will base on a series of checklists and questions about the impact of decentralization on sustainable resource management of Lake Hawassa. Secondary data will be obtained by a thorough consultation and reviewing of relevant documents.

The study undertakes in SNNPRS of Lake Hawassa and Oromia Region and limits to the impact of decentralization on the management of sustainable natural resources. The study is designed in Hawassa City, Loke woreda in Sidama Zone and Tikur Wuha woreda in West Arsi Zone. The study attempts to explain the extent to which decentralization impacts on the management of water resources in the country. Since Lake Hawassa lies in the rift valley system, the benefit from the lake affects the lives of many people in this area. Hawassa City is suitable because the lake lies west of the city covering a large area. Loke Woreda is located in between Hawassa City and Oromia regional state ,while Tikur Wuha Woreda is situated in Oromia Regional State having Tikur Wuha River which flows to lake Hawassa.

1.5.2.1. Primary Resources

The study will use key informant interviews, non- participant field observation, focus group discussions and literature review. Using semi-structured interviews , data will be collected from the SNNPR Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau, Hawassa City Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau ,SNNPR State Water, Energy and Mines Bureau, Hawassa City Administration Office, West Arsi Zone Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau , West Arsi Zone Shashemene City Administration, Tikurwhaw Woreda Agricultural and Rural

Development Environmental Office, Sidama Zone Agriculture and Rural Development Office, SNNNPR Investment Bureau, Federal Environmental Protection Authority ,Federal Metrology Agency Hawassa Office, SNNPR State Police Commission, Hawassa City Police, West Arsi Zone City Police ,Private Sectors ,Media and Hawassa City Fishery Association will be conducted. Focus Group discussions will include both women and men consists primarily fisher men and peasant farmers who live around the lake. Since wide portion of the lake is shared by Hawassa City and Sidama Zone, ten focus group discussion will be arranged .Besides, in Oromia region of West Arsi zone seven focus group discussion will be taken. The number of participants in each discussion group will consist of six participants.

1.5.2.2 Secondary Data

Various literatures on decentralization as well as the impact of decentralization on sustainable resource management will also be reviewed. Different materials like books, internet, periodicals and journals (both published and unpublished documents) will be used as a secondary source.

1.6. Significance of the Study

The impact of decentralization on the management of natural resources ultimately is a measure of success, which is a function of peoples perception, their knowledge and experiences as well as an appropriate organizational structure.

To ensure that there is successful management of water resources all the above is of paramount importance. In principle, the on-going democratization process should improve in the management sustainable resources which affects peoples lives, including water resources. The

study explains the ipact of decentralization on sustainable resource management targeting Lake Hawassa.In line with this, the research helps

To find out new strategies to facilitate successful improvement in integrated water management between SNNPR State and Oromia Regional state.

To assist both local and central government to design applicable policies in relation to sustainable natural resource management

To assist the local people to identify their experience in managing natural resources and can be integrated to the already existing environmental agendas.

1.6. Limitation of the Study

Scarcity of resource such as money, vehicle and necessary tools such as GIS can be taken as prior limitations. Time constraints and insufficiency of pre- studied materials also be encountered as major limitation for my work. In addition, refusal to give genuine information from some respondents will also be taken as a major limitation.

1.7. Scope of the study

The scope of this study is limited to Hawassa Lake. Though there are similar issues related to decentralization and environmental management of wetlands, it would not provide an exhaustive account along the SNNPR and Oromia region wetlands. Thus, it focuses only in bringing effective mechanism in integrated water management of Lake Hawassa between SNNPR and Oromia Region.

1.8.Organization of the Thesis

The remaining chapters will be organized as follows. Chapter two deals with theoretical issues pertinent to decentralization and sustainable resource management discussing the current debate

on the new environmental federalism approach. Chapter three will briefly provide an overview of decentralization and sustainable natural resource management in Ethiopia while chapter four will devote to the major findings of the study. Chapter five will contain summarized conclusion and suggested recommendations that are presumed to be instrumental in designing strategies for the protection of resource management under Ethiopian federalism.

Reference
Adler Jonathan H ( 2007 ).When is Two a Crowed? The Impact of Federal Action on State Envirnomental Regulation .Harvard Environmental Law Review p.8 Adler,J.(1998). A New Environmental Federalism, Environmental policymakers are increasingly turning to the states for solutions to todays environmental problems. Forum for Applied Research & Public Policy Vol. 13,p.3 Edmonds, E (2002). Government-initiated community resource management and local resource extraction from Nepals forest. Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 68,pp. 89-115 Engle, K. (2007). Harnessing The Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,P.161 Fredriksson, P. G., M. Mani, and J.R. Wollscheid (2006).Environmental federalism: a panacea or Pandora.s Box for developing countries?. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3847 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constitution (1995). Federal Negarit Gazeta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Glicksman ,R.(2006), From Cooperative to Inoperative Federalism The Perverse Mutation of Environmental Law and Policy, p.733 International Institute for Environment and Development (2006).Making decentralization work for sustainable natural resource management in the Sahel, Lessons from a Programme of Actionresearch, Policy Debate and Citizen Empowerment. Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (2000). National Report on Conservation and Sustainable use of Biodiversity in Rift Valley lakes of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Kunce, M. and J. Shogren (2002).On environmental federalism and direct emission control. Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 238-245. Kunce, M. and J. Shogren (2005).On inter jurisdictional competition and environmental federalism. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 212.224. Oates, W.(2001) .A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism, Discussion Paper 0154,P.22 Pari Baumann, Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Manish Dubey, Rajiv K. Raman, and John Farrington (2003).Institutional Alternatives and Options for Decentralized Natural Resource Management in India ,Working Paper 230 ,UK London Overseas Development Institute, p. 2 Ribot Jesse C (2002). Waiting for Democracy. The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization, Washington D.C. World Resource Institute, p. 4

Ribot Jesse C(2002).Democratic Decentralization of Natural resources :Institutional Popular Participation ,Washington D.C. World Resource Institute. Saito, F (2007) Local Council Common Management in Uganda :A theoretical Assessment. Discussion Paper 153 ,Japan RYUKOKU University , p. 2 Serkalem Tesfaye(2004).City Culture, The Case of Hawassa City,p.25 The Revised SNNPRS Determination of Executive Organs Powers and Responsibilities Proclamation No 106/2007 Tamiru Alemayehu (2007). Harnessing the Water Resources of Ethiopia for Sustainable Development in the New Ethiopian Millennium , Proceedings of the Public Meetings on water use, management and industrial pollution in Awassa , P.53 Tegegne Gebre-Egziabher and Kassahun Berhanu (2004). The Role of Decentralized Governance in Building Local Institutions, diffusing Ethnic conflicts, and Alleviating Poverty in Ethiopia. Regional Development Dialogue. Vol. 25, No.

Zerihun Desta (2003). Wetlands of Ethiopia, proceedings of seminar on challenges and opportunities of the wetlands of Ethiopia: The case of Lake Awassa and its feeders ,IUCN wetlands and water resources program,P.67

General Tentative Instruments for the Research Participants

Research Instrument 1: The Impact of Decentralization on Sustainable Natural Resource Management: The Case of Lake Hawassa.

1.

Which natural resources are available in your village?

2. 3.

What are the resources of Lake Hawassa? Do you use Lake Hawassa resources? Yes/No. Explain

4.

Who controls the lake resources in your area?

5.

What is the management structure of the lake of Hawassa resources that you are aware of?

6. 7.

What do you know about decentralization? What impact has decentralization had in your area?

8.

How has decentralization affected the control and management of natural resources in your area?

9.

Which local institutions affect your lives in your village? (List them)

10.

What are the roles of these institutions? Institution Role

11.

Which of these institutions most relate to sustainable natural resource management? How?

12.

Has decentralization made any impact on the institution in Q. 11. above? Yes/No Explain your position.

13.

Suggest how these set backs could be overcome.

14.

Are you aware of environment policies? Yes/No

15.

If yes, which you are aware of?

16.

Do any of them affect your welfare? Yes/No

17.

Explain your position

18.

Give your personal opinion on the current environmental policies.

19.

Do you derive any benefit from Lake Hawassa ? Yes/No (Explain)

20.

Are there any problems you face in trying to derive the above benefits? Yes/No

21.

If you experience problems in deriving these benefits suggest how you could sustainably and beneficially participate in the management of the lake?

22.

Do you think it is important to manage lake resources sustainability? Yes/No

23.

Explain your position

24.

Do you believe you could take up effective management of lake Hawassa resources? Yes/No How? What could be your role in such a management structure

25.

What would be the role of the central government as far as sustainable natural resource management is concerned?

26.

What are the obstacles for integrated water management between the two regions?

27.

What are the spill over effects of lake Hawassa?

28.

Do you think that resource competition for fishery resources could bring an escalating ethnic based conflict between the two regions?

Research Instrument 2: The Impact of Decentralization on Sustainable Natural Resource Management: The Case of Lake Hawassa.

Topic guides for focus group discussions

1.

Devolution of power & natural resource management Local Level Regional Level

Central Government

2.

Institutional structure and lake management Local institutions Roles Effects

3.

Knowledge and experience on lake Hawassa resources management Indigenous technical knowledge & experience (local) Induced technical knowledge (external)

4.

Benefits out of sustainable lake resource management Lake resources vis--vis agriculture Economic and non-economic values Control of benefit

The Impact of Decentralization on Sustainable Natural Resource Management: The Case of Lake Hawassa

Merawi Assefa I.D.NO.5021/03

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Acknowledgement................................................................................................... i List of Tables and Figures....................................................................................... vi List of Appendices.................................................................................................... vi Abstract..................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER ONE ... I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................1 1.2 Problem Statement................................................................................................4 1.3. General Objectives.....................................................................................6 1.3.1 Specific Objectives...................................................................................7 1.4 Research Questions....................................................................................7 1.5 Study Design and Methodology.................8 1.5.1 The Nature and Type of the Study 8 1.5.2 Data Collection and Instruments.8 1.5.2.1 Primary Data............................................................................................9 1.5.2.2 Secondary Data.......................................................................................9 1.6 Significance of the Study...............................................................................10 1.7 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................10 1.8 Scope of the Study.10 1.9 Organization of the Study..............................................................................11

CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................... II. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................... 2.1 Conceptual Issues............................................................................ 2.1.1 Sustainable Natural resource Management........... 2.1.2 Governance 2.1.3 Decentralization...................................................................... 2.1.3.1 Types/Dimensions of Decentralization...................... 2.1.3.2 Forms of Decentralization......................................... 2.1.3.2.1 Deconcentration......................................... 2.1.3.2.2 Delegation................................................... 2.1.3.2.3 Devolution .................................................. 2.2 Bench Marks of Environmental Federalism..... 2.2.1 Pure Public Good.........................................................