be used to determine the possible impact of its different scenarios. Plans and collective actions follow a selected scenario. The action outcomes provide
feedback to the decentralization option, as well as the CFM. To ensure forestry decentralization policy leads to better results, it should
be linked with CFM and its implementation. A simulation can facilitate the way CFM is implemented in the field by showing multi-stakeholders’ understandings
and commitments. A link between decentralization policies and CFM outcomes is necessary. The policymakers can use the outcomes to seek an appropriate
decentralization policy.
5.3. Adaptive Decentralization policy
Sukwong 2000 realized that a forestry program, even where there are community forestry programs and policies India and Nepal, should not be like a
blanket blue-print that has to be implemented rigidly - but should be something open to specific local conditions. Right now, there is a big debate in India as to
how to move the JFM program forward and provide this flexibility, so that the diversity of local forest management practices can be reflected. Bass et al.
1997 stated that an element that makes policies work for forests and people is an appropriate decentralization, devolution and strengthening capacity.
Sarin 2001 illustrated the failure of a top-down ‘participatory’ forestry project conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department under devolution.
The project ended up disempowering women and the poorest. Instead of validating the rich diversity of indigenous knowledge, land use and management
systems, the village JFM reinforced the Forest Department’s claim to being the monopoly holder of technical forestry knowledge and forestry being the best use
even for remaining commons. Similarly, instead of devolving greater authority and decision-making control to autonomous self-governing institutions, forest
guards are being placed inside Van Panchayats to extend the Forest Department’s control over its functioning.
Ostrom n.d. explained the limits of fully decentralized systems, including a failure to organize properly in some localities, local tyrannies, stagnation,
limited access to scientific organizations, conflict among groups and inability to cope with large-scale problems. In contrast to the centralized and decentralized
structure, a polycentric governing structure offers citizens to organize not one but many governing authorities Ostrom 1993. Governance systems exist at
multiple levels with some autonomy at each level. Polycentric systems are complex adaptive systems. Agent-based models or multi-agent system models
are aimed at understanding the properties of complex social systems through the analysis of simulations.
In order to deal with the complexity of ecosystems and social systems, including micro and macro politics in each district, decentralization must be
adapted for each district. A predefined decentralization scheme is easier said than done. A democratic process of decentralization, through the involvement of
all stakeholders, is necessary. This process will determine which parts of the governing process need to be decentralized, or remain centralized, or self-
governed by the people. A district parliament, established democratically through a general
election, is the most appropriate place for a decentralization process. This process needs catalysts to take place and to take hold. If the parliament cannot
facilitate the process, then facilitators are needed. Appropriate facilitators behave as mediators between stakeholders’ interests. Neutral organizations
stand a good chance of acting as successful facilitators.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
