CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL OVERVIEW
1.6 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.6.3 Conceptual framework
28 | P a g e
In the light of the above, many rural development projects have set out to intensify agricultural or forest productivity, but have, however, achieved little success. In fact, the root cause of the problem lies in the prevalence of rural poverty that has contributed largely to the failure of these rural development projects.
Another feasible approach to rural development initiatives is the livelihoods approach.
It is in keeping with the transition from top-down to bottom-up rationalisation around rural development initiatives. It can also be labelled as the sustainable livelihoods approach since it advocates that rural development must also consider the various strategies that rural people follow in order to survive and make a living. Scholars such as Carney (1997), Chambers (1997) and Scoones and McCracken (1989) claim that numerous strategies across all sectors of society are followed by myriads of people in their quest to secure their livelihoods. This is questionable when it comes to the accepted views of the small farm group, which puts agriculture at the centre of development. Specifically, it should be noted that according to Ellis and Biggs (2001:445), “agriculture forms only 40-60% of the livelihood package of those living in rural areas”. Furthermore, in the context of the Caprivi Development Project, this particular approach has effectively shown the valuable contributions that livelihood strategies have made to the rural farming communities in this area (Caprivi Farming Holding, 2008).
29 | P a g e
relatively small settlements. However, in the light of the relatively wide range of statistical and administrative functions globally, the definitions and meanings pertaining to rural and rural areas differ from country to country.
Since the study focuses on small-scale communal forestry in rural areas, the concept of community is also central to the study. Furthermore, to define the concept of community forestry, it also becomes necessary to understand what is meant by the term, community. MacQueen et al. (1998) define a community as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings. The massive degradation of natural forests has shown that communities greatly rely on forestry. In acknowledging the degradation of natural forests, the need to rehabilitate degraded forest areas has been identified in most developing countries. To this end, the Indian government of 1970 coined the term, community forestry, to differentiate natural and government forests from the forests planted by communities.
Another important concept in the study is poverty. According to Ramose (2004), poverty is, to a large degree, the result of political hierarchies, past and present.
Poverty is a prominent issue in South Africa that particularly affects rural populations.
In these areas, income sources emanate mainly from small-scale farming, self- employment, low-paid jobs, and state welfare grants and pensions (Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), 2017; Jele, 2012; Grundy and Cocks, 2002; Kepe and Cousins, 2002; White, 2001). The democratisation of South Africa in 1994 created a belief that the country has been freed from oppression, violence, and inequality, but, according to Chetty (2016), poverty and unemployment rates, particularly in rural areas, remain high.
One of the solutions put forward to address poverty is sustainable development. In the communal forestry areas of rural South Africa, where poverty is prevalent, this approach is particularly relevant in the context of rural development and community development.
Firstly, sustainable development refers to development that yields the highest benefits to the present generation while maintaining the potential to meet the needs and
30 | P a g e
aspirations of future generations (Senaca and Taussig, 1984). Sustainable development must take into consideration social, ecological, and economic factors.
Craig (1995) argued that community development involves initiatives to empower the members of a community to improve on their abilities and to contribute meaningfully to the life of their community. Community support also comes into the picture.
Communities or groups are encouraged to express their needs, viewpoints, and priorities, and in so doing to make a contribution to the decision-making processes that affect them in their daily living. Ordinary people can participate actively in community development initiatives and can even take the lead in creating and exploiting opportunities (Swanepoel and De Beer, 2011; Mendes, 2008; Flora and Flora, 1993).
Furthermore, community development has both economic and socio-cultural dimensions (Flora and Flora, 1993). Abbott and Makeham (1979) identified the following as major indicators of rural development: (1) income per person; (2) life expectancy; (3) infant mortality; (4) food supplies in terms of calories available per person; (5) proportion of children between the age of five and 15 years attending school; and (6) the literacy and employment levels of the economically active population. According to Dudley (1993), the greater the degree of community control over the resources on which the community relies, the greater the incentive for economic and human resource development. Breen (1994) demonstrated that community forestry has brought about increased economic activity and rural prosperity in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. It was further recommended by Breen (1994) that to transform forestry into an industry that better serves the needs of South Africa, it should be geared towards greater participation by individuals on their own land. This, in turn, would lead to an increase in rural prosperity, and an increase in the number of people who are stakeholders in the industry, thus generating a sense of belonging and ownership. Summarily, according to Schiele (2005), community development is about
“mobilising and organising community development resources, developing local competencies, and mobilising political action for collective problem solving, self-help and empowerment”. It is very clear that community forestry is not only about industrial timber production in the interests of national economic growth, but also contributes to sustainable development and community development. The idea of community forestry will be discussed in more detail in the coming chapters.
31 | P a g e
Another important concept when dealing with small-scale communal forestry, especially in the South African context, is land reform. Land reform is pivotal to the research topic and is critically analysed in Chapter 3 of this study. A key concept related to land reform is that of “customary law” (Obeng-Odoom, 2012). This concept concerns economic and political power, the reason being that traditional authorities often apply a form of resistance to state-led policies at the expense of the communities which they govern in that they use their position and the existing community social networks (social capital) for material/economic gain and political power (Obeng- Odoom, 2012; Boydell and Holzknecht, 2003).
The Land Reform Programme in South Africa contains three focus components:
redistribution, restitution, and tenure reform. Whilst restitution aims to return land to the people who were forcibly removed from the land subsequent to 1913, the land redistribution and tenure reform components are aimed at broadening the base of black land ownership in the country and creating a portfolio of secure tenure options for landholders (White Paper on South African Land Policy, DLA, 1997a). Land reform needs to be seen as a process that contributes to the upliftment and the socio- economic well-being of people in South Africa.
Furthermore, land itself must be viewed as a finite resource. This implies that the sustainable use of the natural environment needs to feature as a central concern in land reform policies and their implementation. Improvements in the living standards of all South Africans, particularly the previously disadvantaged, have become the stated priority of the post-1994 government. The intricate relationship between this land-use purpose and the condition of our natural resource base cannot be understated. The process of formulating a new land reform policy must occur within this context.
Finally, it is important to note the role of women in rural settings. Women are primary caregivers but also perform the majority of rural-based agricultural work. They have the responsibility of earning an income through farm labour and housework. Most rural women work long hours of up to 16 hours daily and earn less than men for the same work. Rural women have less access to education and as a result have limited qualifications and low skills levels. They are also underrepresented in government and local leadership roles when compared to men. In rural areas, men own most of the
32 | P a g e
land,resulting in less access to finance by women and fewer inputs into the agricultural production process (e.g., access to fertilizer). Women also have higher entry barriers when it comes to the opening of businesses (IFAD, 2011).
It is generally agreed that the value, availability, and accessibility of natural resources (such as forests, water, and land) vary between men and women because of the gender differences that exist between them, and the way gender is often implicated in their access to and distribution of natural resources (Cotula and Cisse, 2007). Bob (1999:110) defines gender as “socially constructed relationships between men and women”. As a result of these differences, marked variations in their socio-cultural, as well as their economic needs and asset portfolios, emerge between men and women even though they may live in the same household. Perry et al. (2010) indicate that women‘s situations are often characterised by a lack of control or ownership of and access to resources, which impacts on them and their households in achieving sustainable livelihoods and food security; thus women represent the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Sims and Kienzile (2006) emphasise that it is very important for rural development projects to thoroughly observe gender relations in this light so that the strategies they apply to any community would cater for both women and men‘s needs, especially if women are not to be further marginalised.