5.6. Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Programme
5.6.2. Community perceptions of BLSCRP
126 Table 5.29: Impacts of the resfoestatuion project on respondents environmetal awarness (n=44, in %). Multiple responses permitted
Affected views %
No effect 8
More aware about the environment 90
More aware of climate change 53
More knowledgeable about the environment 85
A vast majority of respondents involved in the project (90%) stated that their participation in the project made them more aware about the environment, with 85% stating that they gained more knowledge about the environment. A comparable proportion (53%) said that their involvement has made them more aware of issues and challenges related to climate change.
Overall, these results show that the reforestation project has contributed to participants’
environmental knowledge and responsibility.
127 emissions, and 12% aware of the objective to increase local climate adaptation capacity. The importance of public support for conservation efforts has been sighted as a contributory factor for successful conservation practices (Booth et al., 2009). This support cannot be gained if project objectives are unknown, misunderstood and not accepted by communities (Booth et al., 2009). Overall, there appears to be lower levels of knowledge regarding the objectives of the Reforestation project, thus limiting the understanding of environmental goals set out by the project.
The data revealed that a noticeable proportion (38%) of respondents believed the community reforestation caused conflict within the community. Respondents were further probed and asked to specify what the main drivers of conflict were. From these respondents (n=82), 49%
of respondents stated that conflict was due to the inequitable nature in which community members could participate in the project. These respondents shared that the project focused on a specific region within the community, more specifically households in closer proximity to the landfill site were targeted:
“Those of us here up the hill of the community and do not reside nearby the landfill site are not given the opportunity to get involved in the project. If you go to the houses at the bottom near the main road, you will see that most of the households down there are growing trees because all the attention is on them and not on us” (Respondent 159)
Respondents further elaborated that the project remains exclusive to those households who were involved in the initial launch of the project, and is not inclusive of households who want to be added into the project. Respondents further stated that project participation ought to be rotated as a means to unsure that those who have not been given an opportunity to be current participants, may at a later stage be involved:
“Wildlands or the municipality have to consider giving other parts of the community an opportunity to get involved in the project. They have been focusing on the one part of the community for too long. It would be better to have periods where one section of the community is given an opportunity and once people there have started growing trees, then move on to another section and so on” (Respondent 178)
128 This rotation of participation would ensure that benefits derived from the project are spread out within the community, and would result in less frustration and resentment within the community. It has been noted that projects which adopt a benefit-sharing approach often cause unintended consequences and therefore do not accomplish the desired effect of promoting positive perceptions towards the project (Kideghesho et al., 2007). It is crucial for CBC initiative such as the Buffelsdraai reforestation project to be cognisant of the manner in which benefits are distributed within the communities, and address matters of perceived unfairness which cause undermine the success of the project.
Other respondents (44%), highlighted bias and corruption regarding employment and participation opportunities to be the drivers of conflict within the community. These respondents explained that there is a widespread perception within the community that WCT representatives only recruit members within the community, of which they have a personal relationship with. One respondent further stated that when more community members are recruited into the project, these individuals are either friends or family:
“What I have seen for myself and heard from other community members is that if you are not friends or family of those people who work for Wildlands you won’t be involved in the project.
It’s those corrupt people from Wildlands that live in the community that decide who gets involved in the project and it is wrong of them to only choose their friends and family, and exclude the rest of us” (Respondent 214)
Evidently, some respondents held negative perceptions of the processes in which community members were chosen to be part of the project. An overall negative perception of fairness is concerning as such perceptions undermine the success of incentives based projects, regardless of whether a project produces net benefits (Sommerville et al., 2010). These perceptions of unfairness at an individual level can further contribute to negative perceptions at the community level which may affect community participation, and reduce project objectives linked to enhancing socio-economic development (Sommerville et al., 2010).
Other respondents (5%), stated that conflict was also due to some of the seedlings being rejected. Another respondent shared that there was a lack of communication from WCT in relation to the seedling species that were required:
129
“We are frustrated and angry because when we put our trees out on the road to be collected we are told that our trees will not be taken because they are longer the type of trees they require and that it’s another type of tree which is being collected. A lot of our time and effort goes into growing these trees and its upsetting that I only got told afterwards that my trees are not needed.” (Respondent 156)
Transparent and continuous communication and stakeholder involvement is described to be the cornerstone of successful CBC initiatives (Corbera and Schroder, 2011;Young et al., 2013).
More specifically, there is a need to continuously inform participants within the Buffelsdraai reforestation project regarding changes that directly influence their participation in the project to ensure that participants can maximise the project benefits.
Lastly, a small proportion (2%) of respondents highlighted theft of trees as cause of conflict.
A respondent shared:
“I work very hard to grow as many trees as possible but then as time goes by, I have noticed that some of the trees in my yard have disappeared over night. Then all of a sudden, I see a neighbour has a few number of trees that have already grown to the size necessary for exchange, even though they have never attempted to grow trees before” (Respondent 44)
These findings indicate that theft of trees within the community limits participants’ return on investment in the form of resources and time spent of collecting seeds and growing trees.
Additionally, theft of tress should be matter that needs to be addressed within the Buffelsdraai project as this undermines the success of project participants, and could contribute to increased conflict within the community.
Projects which aim to integrate conservation and development often provide benefits to adjacent local communities as a means to create positive attitudes and perceptions towards conservation initiatives (Ezebilo and Mattson, 2010). Conservation projects that seek to incorporate sustainable development and management have to consider the social, economic and environmental dimensions such as promoting dignified standards of life, employment opportunities, and motivate the importance of utilising environmental goods within ecological limits (Ezebilo and Mattson, 2010). Respondents explained their perceptions of whether the
130 reforestation programme achieved the intended household outcomes, regardless of their involvement in the project (Figure 5.24).
Figure 5.26: Household outcomes from the project (n=270, in %)
Thirty six percent of respondents stated that the reforestation project created employment for a member within their household. Furthermore, 30% of respondents stated that the project has enhanced household food security, while other respondents stated that the project resulted in an increased access to infrastructural (21%), and natural resources (27%). Other benefits cited by respondents included improvement in household food security (26%), levels of environmental awareness and knowledge (36%), increased responsibility for environmental well-being (33%), and increased access to education (26%). These findings indicate that the project has produced tangible and intangible benefits for community members. However, there still remains limited employment opportunities created by the project. Given the socio- economic and demographic profile of the Buffelsdraai community, it is necessary for the project to expand employment opportunities.
Restoration projects are often criticised for focusing on the achievement of project objectives which may not necessarily be tailored to socio-economic contexts of adjacent communities, which limits the ability to deliver the desired social benefits (Iftekhar and Takama, 2008).
These benefits are unattained as there may be a lack of recognition of social values and needs, which further warrants the notion that local attitudes towards restoration projects are a
36 21
26 30 27
36 33
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Job creation Increased infrastructural resources Increased access to education
Enhanced food security Increase access to natural resources Increased environmental awareness Increased environmental responsibility
%
Household outcomes
131 cornerstone for successful community- based management (Iftekhar and Takama, 2008). These results show that the reforestation project did influence the local community in a positive manner, however, a relative minority of respondents could identify with these benefits. More importantly, a major concern permeating these findings is that the benefits of the reforestation are perceived to be inequitably distributed among a minority within the community.
Collectively, the results indicate that in terms of achieving both tangible and intangible benefits within the community, the reforestation project has been unable to positively influence the majority of individuals. Specifically, the lack of educational value attained by respondents is a concern as protected areas are said to be a crucial component for disseminating information on the importance of protecting the natural environment (Booth et al., 2009).
Table 5.31: Level of satisfaction with achievement of outcomes within households (in %)
Indicator
n Extremely dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Satisfied Extremely satisfied
%
Job creation 96 20 23 17 40
Increased access to infrastructure resources
57 12 14 28 46
Increased access to education 72 10 14 18 58
Enhanced food security 85 11 20 18 51
Increase access and use of natural resources
73 10 14 18 58
Increase level of environmental awareness/education
97 10 9 14 67
Increased responsibility to environmental wellbeing
92 11 11 14 64
The results indicated that 57% of respondents were satisfied with job creation within the household, while 43% of respondents stated that they were dissatisfied with the job creation from the project. A small proportion of respondents (20%) stated that the reforestation project increased access to infrastructural resources such as solar panels, Jo-Jo water tanks and cement, indicative of low outcome results. However, these respondents did reveal a significant level of satisfaction (74%). In terms of involvement in reforestation project enabling the support of increased access to education, a significant majority of these respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction (76%) with the manner in which project involvement has aided in the ability to supplement finances towards school fees. These respondents had stated that through household
132 members being involved in the project, there has been an increased affordability to pay for school fees and costs such as transportation for children to attend school.
The results also indicate high levels of satisfaction with the ability of the project to contribute to enhanced food security with 76% of households satisfied as the food vouchers received from the project have contributed towards food security. Households that received benefits from the project further indicated their high levels of satisfaction with regards to increased access and use of natural resources as 58% of households were extremely satisfied, and 18% satisfied.
Similarly, there were higher levels of satisfaction with the project as household respondents stated that their involvement has resulted in increased environmental awareness/education, and responsibility to environmental wellbeing.
The study revealed that individual participation in the Buffelsdraai reforestation project is very limited. However, there were positive signs that the project has been able to retain participants, produce a variety of benefits for those involved in the project, and increase environmental awareness amongst respondents. It is noteworthy though, that the project has not been able to expand and recruit new participants, which limits the ability of project benefits to permeates within the community. Coupled with limited participation were the findings that there was a noticeable proportion of respondents who were yet to receive income from participation in the project. Additionally, for those who did receive income from the project, this income has not made substantial impact in improving the socio-economic status of project participants.
Moreover, respondents indicated that their motivation to participate in the project were mainly for socio-economic incentives. At the community level, the project is considerably well-know.
Unfortunately, there were low levels of awareness of the project objectives. It was further revealed that few households have attained benefits from the project, which can be linked to earlier findings of limited participation in the project. It is worth mentioning that for those households that have attained project benefits, there were high level of satisfaction with these benefits. It was also revealed that the project has caused conflict within the community, with the cause of this conflict linked to the perceived unfairness in the recruitment of project participants.