RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY AREA
MAP 4.1: MAP OF KWAZULU-NATAL SHOWING THE LOCATION OF NHLAZUKA
5.5 Community participation in forestry
when access to the plantations is difficult. Most of the respondents who mentioned that they do not have a problem with wood scarcity are those who hardly collect these resources themselves but often prefer to buy from the selling trucks. Some people mentioned that the scarcity of wood products is influenced by the number of people available in the household to collect and the distance involved.
Table 5.28: Perceptions pertaining to who makes decisions with regard to forest planning in Saint Bernard (in %)
Responses Forest authorities Elected committee
Elected committee and community members
Total (n=50) 34 46 20
The above table reflects those who are involved in decisions with regard to forest planning in the Saint Bernard community. Forty six percent of the respondents interviewed mentioned that the elected committee in the community is in charge of making decisions that relate to land use, including forest planning. It is interesting that twenty percent of the respondents pointed out that both the elected committee and the general community are usually involved in forest planning in the Saint Bernard area.
The difference here emanates from the fact that the majority of the respondents have a concern that forestry related problems in the community are accumulating because the committee does not often contact the community when important issues need to be addressed. They mentioned the issue of access to adjacent forests, the wild animals in the area and the exotic trees that have grown within the area that is controlled by the community. The other group differs in a sense that they mentioned that the community usually takes part when decisions relating to forestry are taken in community meetings. Because Saint Bernard lies adjacent to private forest plantations where community members collect most of their wood resources, 34% of the respondents mentioned that the forest authorities are in charge of forestry planning in the area. This involves the issues of access to the forests by the community.
140
Figure 5.10: Whether respondents have participated in any decision-making process relating to forest planning (in %) (n=50)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% - —
10%
0%
50%
participated
— — —
50%
- -
never participated
The above figure shows that half of the respondents indicated that they have participated in the decision-making process relating to forest planning while the other half stated that they never participated. The people who participated are among the group which attends community meetings because the issues that relate to forestry are usually raised in community meetings where a wide range of community issues are discussed. Some of these respondents mentioned that several forestry problems have been discussed in the community meetings but the only problem is the reluctance of the private forest owners to cooperate with the community. The other group of respondents mainly represents the people who hardly attend community meetings.
This gap between those who participate and those who do not explains the reason why there are conflicting views within the community about the conservation and management of the indigenous and exotic trees that are scattered within the community boundaries and the neighbouring plantations.
141
Table 5.29: Response on how respondents participated (in %) Responses
Attending community meetings
Discussion of forest management plans Not applicable
Total(n=50 40
10 50
The manner in which the community participates in decision-making regarding forest planning is presented in the above table. Since half of respondents mentioned in figure 5.10 that they have never participated in any forest planning gatherings, it is expected that half of respondents in table 5.29 above treated the question as "not applicable" to them. Forty percent of the respondents mentioned that they participate indirectly when forest related issues are raised in community meetings, whereas 10% has been involved directly in the discussions about the forest management plans in the area. It is important to note that the latter group also involves the responses from the committee members. The committee members mentioned that forestry was among the major issues that were discussed during the meetings on the transfer of land ownership.
Table 5.30: Whether participation in forest planning was constructive (in %) Responses
Rewarding Not rewarding Do not know Not applicable
Total (n=50) 14 24 12 50
The above table reveals the perceptions of those who participated in forest planning on whether their views were constructive. Half of the respondents have treated the question as "not applicable". This group involves those who did not attend any meeting. Fourteen percent of the respondents found that their participation was constructive mainly because the committee presented the concerns to the forest authorities and were part of the group that decided that the indigenous trees ought to be protected from exploitation. Twelve percent of the respondents mentioned that they do no know whether their input was constructive because there has been no improvement on the issues that were identified and discussed. Some people in this group mentioned that they supported the idea of protecting the exotic trees in the community, but now they have realized that these trees are an obstacle to the livelihoods of the community, particularly since they have impacted negatively on 142
water resources and limit opportunities for small scale agriculture in the community.
Twenty-four percent of the respondents felt that their contribution was not considered at all. This group involves people who are of the view that they cannot claim that their participation was constructive while most of the problems have not been addressed as yet.
Table 5.31: Whether respondents have access to related forestry information (in
Responses Access No access Uncertain Not applicable
Total (n=50) 62
8 20
10
When asked if they have access to information that is related to forestry, 62% of the respondents indicated that they have access to information, while 20% of the respondents are uncertain whether they have access to forestry related information in the Saint Bernard community, 8% are of the view that they do not have access at all and 10% did not respond. The group of those who are uncertain consists of those who raised a concern that although they do have access to the information, they are not sure whether such information is complete or correct. The group which mentioned that they do not have access to information involves respondents who admitted that it is because they hardly attend community meetings. This group involves the elders/
pensioners in the community.
Table 5.32: Rating of working relationship between forest authorities and community (in %)
Rating Good Fair
Sometimes bad Bad
Do not know
Total (n=50) 2
10 26 56 6
When asked to rate the working relationship between the private forest authorities and the community of Saint Bernard, 56% of the respondents believed that it is bad, 26%
mentioned that it is sometimes bad, 10% indicated that the relationship is fair, 6%
stated that they did not know and only 2% were of the view that the relationship is good. Given the challenges and constraints that were mentioned in the previous 143
sections, it is expected that the majority of the respondents believe that the working relationship between the forest authorities and the community is bad.
Table 5.33: Whether an elected committee representing community when forestry decisions are made exists (in %)
Responses Yes
Do not know Not applicable
Total (n=50) 88 6 6
The above table depicts the views of the respondents on whether there is an elected committee that represents the community when forestry decisions are made. The vast majority of the respondents interviewed (88%) indicated that the committee does exist. The respondents further stated that there is only one committee that handles all the issues that pertain to the development of the Saint Bernard community. Other groups of respondents shared 6% each with one group mentioning that they do not know whether the committee exists while the other did not respond. These groups of respondents include the people who said that they were not clear whether there is a separate committee that handles forestry matters besides the development committee.
Table 5.34: Rating of respondent's satisfaction with the functions of the committee (in %)
Rating Satisfied Not satisfied Not sure Not applicable
Total (n=50) 36
8 40
16
Forty percent of the respondents mentioned that they were not sure whether they are satisfied with the functions of the committee. This group involved those respondents who reported that they are not sure whether the committee represents the views of the community well enough in the negotiations with the forest authorities and in other areas that relate to the development of the community. Thirty six percent of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the functions of the committee. Sixteen percent of the respondents did not respond with some of the respondents mentioning that because the committee has failed to address the development challenges facing
144
the community (such as the need for housing and water), it is therefore difficult to believe that they are addressing forestry matters fruitfully. Only 8% of the respondents mentioned that they are not satisfied with the functions of the committee when it comes to forestry planning in the area. Some in this group mainly believe that there is not even a single issue that has been addressed in as far as forestry is concerned.
Table 5.35: Whether forestry planning should involve members of the general »' public (in %)
Responses Yes
Do not know Not applicable
Total (n=50) 88 10 2
The above table depicts the respondent's views on whether forestry planning process should involve the general members of the public. The vast majority of the respondents (88%) are of the view that there is a need to encourage more involvement of the community members in the discussions about forestry matters in the Saint Bernard community. Some respondents in this group believe that the committee that is currently handling forestry matters does not have much power to deal with the challenges on their own. This is witnessed in the slow progress in the manner in which the committee addresses issues of major concern in as far as forestry is concerned. It has also been mentioned that since the resources in the community are now the property of the community, it is imperative that community members participate when issues of major concern such as that of forestry have to be addressed.
The main view of this group is that the committee should often carry the mandate of the community. The above table further shows that 10% of the respondents mentioned that they do not know whether the general public should be involved in discussions about the forestry matters. This group mainly represents the views of those who argued that there are instances where the community participates and gives directions to the issues, but they have not seen any difference yet. Only one interviewee did not answer the question.
145 ,
Table 5.36: Whether community opinions are well accepted in forestry planning (in %)
Responses Accepted Not accepted Sometimes Do not know Not applicable
Total(n=50) 28 2 22 44 4
When asked whether community opinions are well accepted in forestry planning, 44%
mentioned that they do not know, 28% said they are well accepted and 22%
mentioned that they are accepted sometimes. Four percent of the respondents did not respond while only 2% has argued that community opinions are not well accepted in forestry planning in the Saint Bernard community. The main issue that has been raised by the respondents who mentioned that they do not know whether the community opinions are well accepted in forestry planning was that of the exotic trees that are being protected in the community. These people are of the view that while people have raised the concerns about the constraints caused by the trees, some people, including the committee, insist that these trees must be protected. It was mentioned that the committee plans to meet its own goals at the expense of the community, hence the majority of the respondents are not sure whether the opinions of the community are well represented in forestry planning.
Figure 5.11: Participation of women in forestry matters (%) (n=50)
do not know 34%
participate 66%
I do not know I participate
146
Rural women often play a significant role in maintaining their households (Oberhauser, 1998), and as such they are the main collectors of forest products either for subsistence or income generation purposes (Ham and Theron, 1998; Poteete, 2004;
Williams, 2004). In this light, contemporary forestry policies emphasize the participation of rural women when forestry related decisions are taken (Odebode, 2005). Traditionally, the role of women in the process of development has been ignored (Booth and Protais, 1999). Women are still reported as being marginalized in decisions that concern their livelihoods and development policy (ECA, 2005). It is interesting to note that 66% of the respondents mentioned that women participate unreservedly in community matters in Saint Bernard. Women participation in forestry has been witnessed through their active involvement in influencing decisions about the status of forestry in the community. Thirty-four percent of the respondents mentioned that they do not know if women participate in forestry matters. This group includes those respondents who mentioned that they hardly attend community meetings.
Table 5.37: Whether there are obstacles hindering community participation in forestry planning (in %)
Responses Obstacles No obstacles Sometimes Do not know Not applicable
Total(n=50) 12 42 8 36 2
The respondents presented different views on whether there are obstacles that have an impact on the involvement of the community in forestry planning. This is reflected in the above table. Forty two percent of the respondents mentioned that there are no obstacles whereas 36% mentioned that they do not know whether any obstacles hindering the involvement of the community in forestry planning exist. Some of the respondents in the former group mentioned that the committee usually reports any developments that are taking place in the community concerning forestry and the community often has a major influence when decisions are made in the community meetings.
147
The group that did not respond (2%) or indicated they did not know (36%) involves the respondents who hardly attend the community meetings; it can be deduced therefore that they are not well acquainted with the issues that relate to forestry in the community. The above table further shows that while 12% of the respondents said that there are obstacles to community involvement, 8% believed that obstacles do occur occasionally or sometimes. Some of the concerns that were raised by the group which said that there are obstacles in community involvement were that few people attend community meetings wherein the issues that relate to forestry in the community are often discussed. Another issue was that the community is raising concerns of distrust towards the committee because there are many issues that relate to forestry that have not been addressed yet. The issue that was highlighted here was that the committee has failed to address the concerns of other community members, especially by promoting the protection of the exotic species that are scattered around the community and not disclosing the title deed to most community members.