DECENTRALIZATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A NICARAGUAN CASE STUDY

This case study examines the process of decentralization in Nicaragua, focusing on the transfer of natural resource management responsibilities to municipal governments. It highlights a significant gap between legal attributions and the actual transfer of power and funding from the central government, noting that while grassroots support for local autonomy is high, municipal capacity remains low and central control over revenue-generating resources persists.

• Decentralization in Nicaragua is described as an incomplete process that has primarily functioned as deconcentration and privatization rather than a true transfer of power. The central government has not adopted a national decentralization policy, and municipalities received only 1% of the national budget in 2001 (and 0.9% in the 2002 proposed budget).
• There is a disconnect between the legal responsibilities granted to municipal governments and their actual authority. While the Municipalities Law gives them the responsibility to conserve and control the environment and the right to provide an 'aval' (opinion) on resource exploitation, the central government retains the final decision-making power over contracts for forestry, mining, and fishing.
• The central government maintains control over the most lucrative aspects of natural resource management and has failed to transfer legally required tax revenues to local governments. This financial control is used as a mechanism to hold local governments accountable to party bosses rather than citizens.
• Municipal capacity to manage natural resources is generally low, with INIFOM classifying 75% of municipalities as having a relative capacity of 6-40%. Consequently, many local governments view environmental responsibilities as a burden that distracts from priority service provision.
• Local government action on environmental issues is typically driven by four factors: economic interest in generating revenue, specific conflicts or crises, NGO/project pressure, and a gradual recognition of the problem. Revenue generation is the primary incentive but is considered the least likely to promote sustainable management.
• NGOs and foreign donors play a critical role in promoting municipal environmental management through lobbying, funding technical staff, and drafting ordinances. However, this can lead to a lack of sustainability if the NGO performs the work instead of the local government, or if the resulting policies are illegal or lack local follow-through.
• Grassroots support for decentralization is strong, with a 1996 study of 14 northern municipalities showing that 68% of people believed municipal governments could perform better than the central government and 97% believed in the importance of citizen participation.

APA

Larson, A. M. (2002). DECENTRALIZATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A NICARAGUAN CASE STUDY. World Resources Institute. http://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/pdf/eaa_decent_larson.pdf

Chicago

Larson, Anne M. DECENTRALIZATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A NICARAGUAN CASE STUDY. World Resources Institute, 2002. http://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/pdf/eaa_decent_larson.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Larson |first1=Anne M. |title=DECENTRALIZATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A NICARAGUAN CASE STUDY |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=February 2002 |url=http://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/pdf/eaa_decent_larson.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{larson2002decentralization, author = {Larson, Anne M.}, title = {{DECENTRALIZATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A NICARAGUAN CASE STUDY}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2002}, month = feb, url = {http://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/pdf/eaa_decent_larson.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }