THE THEORY OF CO-MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA’S PFM POLICY
5.4. CONCLUSION
development of sustainable harvesting practices.
7 Remedial measures Forest management will ensure that mechanisms are in place to address fairly any conflicts that may arise.
8 Capacity Building
The process of indigenous forest management will promote local empowerment by building capacity and utilising appropriate indigenous knowledge.
9 Cultural and traditional values
Forest management will be based within the current legal and policy framework of South Africa whilst acknowledging cultural and traditional authority.
10 Partnerships An integrated approach to forest management will be encouraged through partnerships with various stakeholders.
11 Dynamic approach
The Directorate will maintain a pattern of continuous consultation and feedback amongst stakeholders, ensuring that the lessons learned can be applied to modify the process if necessary.
Although the principles highlighted in bold in Table 5.3 have not changed since 1999, the description or explanations of some of the principles have been amended to reflect the broadening of scope beyond indigenous forests and the inclusion of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM).
The philosophy behind PFM has not altered substantially; the alterations to the goals (as reflected in the 1999 mission statement and 2003 vision) are of interest to discourse analysis and are discussed at length in Chapter Eight, where policy vocabularies of PFM in South Africa are discussed.
Co-management theory is used to frame the research because it incorporates the debate around state-civil society engagement processes in the field of nature conservation in post-colonial countries. Co-management is a contemporary management strategy that involves multiple stakeholders in decision-making concerning natural resources (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996;
Hackel, 1999; Turner et al., 2001). It is an alternative to earlier approaches that were often top- down, where the state or conservationists were regarded as the gatekeepers to decision-making and the participation of local communities and resource users were either excluded or marginalised.
Many writers agree that there are a variety of versions of co-management. These versions have been expressed as a continuum. The main difference between these versions is the degree to which participants are able to influence or control decision-making (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996;
Goodwin, 1998; Turner et al., 2001; Sihlophe, 2002; Grundy and Michell, 2004). At one end of the continuum is strong co-management (high levels of participation and devolution of decision-making power) and at the other end of the spectrum is weak co-management (low levels of participation and devolution of decision-making power). In general, co-management is interpreted as a management process that occurs between the extremes on the spectrum (Turner et al., 2001; Sihlophe, 2002; Grundy and Michell, 2004). Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) has been criticised by some writers for her inclusive interpretation of the concept of co- management where the extreme ends of the spectrum are still regarded as co-management. Her justification being that it is not the process that is important, as long as the outcome is local needs and demands are resolved (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Despite these differing interpretations of the concept, co-management is still regarded as a more appropriate management approach than previous approaches because by aiming to improve the relationship between management and resource users it is hoped that the goal of sustainable development will be achieved (Treseder and Krogman, 2002).
The concept of co-management became prevalent in South Africa from the mid 1990’s when literature and policy in the forestry, fisheries and tourism sectors began to reflect the global shift in thinking that was taking place about how natural resources could be managed in a more socially sensitive manner. The shift towards more participative and democratic approaches to natural resource management is considerably different to management approaches that had
prevailed in the past, which alienated local rural people from conservation efforts (Hackel, 1999).
Finally, participatory forest management (PFM) is discussed as a co-management regime that is particular to forestry. It is part of a global shift in woodland and forestry policy-making and management planning away from the government who were regarded as the custodians of these resources for the public towards a more socially aware approach that is mindful of the concerns of a variety of stakeholders and that seeks to include these stakeholders in the management and monitoring of forests and woodlands (Harcharik 1997; Kennedy et al., 1998).
Hobley (1996:337) encapsulates this in her definition of PFM where she defines it as “the sharing of products, responsibilities, control and decision-making authority over forest lands between Forest Departments and local user groups”. In theory, PFM links the socio-economic aspects of local people with the sustainable management of forest areas without compromising their environmental stability nor their ecological well-being (Rastogi, 1995 in Vira, 1999).
The concept of PFM was adopted in 2000 as a policy of the South African government towards the management of indigenous forests, plantations, woodlots and woodlands on state, provincial, communal, private and community land. The state acknowledges that within the forestry context there is a need for resource management to be cognisant of: the value that these resources have for people with regard to satisfying their physical and spiritual needs, the need for local people to have an opportunity to exercise their management capabilities by contributing to decision-making and monitoring, and of the need for them to have an opportunity to be empowered to participate in resource-use decision-making (DWAF, 2002c).
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry have adapted Borrini-Feyerabend’s (1996) co- management continuum as the model upon which to base their interpretation of participatory management. This interpretation suggests that the government department has adopted Borrnin-Feyerabend’s (1996) understanding of co-management and this has implications for the implementation process that is analysed in this thesis.
These theoretical concepts and their application to the South African context will be used to frame the research because they provide the basis upon which an understanding of the concepts is made and upon which further interpretations can proceed. This research will contribute to this set of ideas in that it will challenge the accepted wisdom of co-management approaches such as PFM. The research will provide empirical data reflecting the inherent difficulties of
implementing co-management approaches such as PFM. It will be shown that participatory approaches are insufficient to bring about a significant change in the decision-making arena, whereby the balance of power is shifted from the state and scientific experts to include local communities and inhabitants, and that approaches may need to be more deliberative and communicative if they are to be truly collaborative management approaches. However, before an analysis can be conducted, it is necessary to contextualise the research to understand the dynamics of the locality in which PFM is being implemented in the southern Cape, and this is the focus of Chapter Six, which follows.