Editorial
Development cooperation through the NGO sector plays a significant role in defining how the development policy is formulated and rolled out. 

Development cooperation is dynamic and has many dimensions making it very unpredictable and averse to criticism.  Conceptually it is interpreted differently by people, institutions, agencies and governments. There has been concerted efforts to understand development so as to better the setting of development goals and achieving results. There has been calls for increased financing of development cooperation, and importantly, there has also been calls to make it more transparent and efficient. To this end Governments in partnership with different stakeholders have been developing guidelines, policies and strategies that are supposed to be responsive, harmonious and "fit for purpose". 

Tiina Kukkamaa in her article “Reflections on designing development for the 21st Century” sees the emphasis on structure and form as a failure to recognize the inherent flaws in the design and thinking of the whole development cooperation framework. There is a need to re-evaluate the interface of engagement especially at the local level where emphasis on form and structure does not necessarily lead to positive social change but rather serves to stratify society. Structure and form have in effect been shown in some cases to be a bottleneck to development through stealing the voice of the society, distorting facts and being disconnected from the ground. There is a need for a deeper interrogation of the current framework of development cooperation and willingness to adapt, be open and ready to change when faced with dysfunctional systems.

In “Regaining control of community forests under trust land in Kenya” Mumbi Murage points to the fact that most communities derive their knowledge through a process of constant interaction between humans and nature, and by losing one's eco-feature they would be losing a column of accumulated knowledge. This  is in reference to the Karima-ka-Inya which the community lost to the colonial powers and then later to local government in post colonial Kenya. These changes had a devastating impact on the lives of the community and the environment. Through a creative approach of ecological mapping and intergenerational transfer of knowledge, the community has mapped their historical identity and have found power and dignity to begin the process of regaining the control of this resource. However, there are still many hurdles to cross.  

Extending the methodological aspect of the Karima experience, “Mapping for Human Rights” by Muthee Thuku reviews the different kinds of mapping and their role in natural resources management, in human rights and in the defining of social economic justice parameters.   Participatory mapping process facilitates learning and understanding, it encourages critical thinking and seeks to move communities towards collective action. As a process it can drive autonomy, peace building, conflict resolution, and support conservation of biocultural diversity. To actualise these outcomes, a robust, yet flexible process is a requisite that might not be well accommodated within the current development cooperation paradigm which seeks for conformity rather than diversity.

The article by Kaisa Seppänen is a general synthesis of the links between biodiversity, climate change and affordable practical solutions that deal comprehensively with climate change and environmental degradation. Kaisa observes that in Kenya, enough awareness campaigns about different dimensions of environmental degradation have been conducted. It is now time to upscale different workable technologies that deal with fuel poverty and at the same time address the chronic problem of unemployment. 

Emmanuel Mukanga walks us through the giving away of the Mabira Forest to the provision of free energy saving bulbs in Uganda. On the one hand, there is a responsive government taking extreme measure to deal with a national energy crisis, then on the other hand, the same government is using economic austerity measures to curve out a tropical forest for the development of a sugarcane plantation. Mukanga exposes the hard choices developing countries have to make between the models of sustainable development and market lead economic development.

The last paper by Peter Kuria focuses on the biofuel debate. There is convergence on the role of biofuels in the future, but there is divergence on how this should be achieved.  The scale factor and the associated land use changes (besides the food versus fuel debate) are critical. Additionally, the lumping together of energy and fuel as a national security issue by most governments is potentially a dangerous precedence which in the future might lead to flagrant abuse of human rights, and transgress social economic and environmental justice issues. Kuria concludes that the physical and mental design of the general infrastructure has a bigger role to play in promoting sustainable options, and the debate on energy should incorporate this perspective.