CHAPTER TWO: RURAL DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
2.6 GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY AND FORESTRY: PEOPLE AND FOREST PRODUCTS
101 | P a g e
2.6 GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY AND FORESTRY: PEOPLE AND
102 | P a g e
the Geography of Poverty and Forestry, the next section moves on to explore the role of forestry in the rural development discourse.
The role of forestry follows the same pattern as the rural development discourse mentioned above. It changes rapidly from not only productive but also consumptive and proactive (e.g., biodiversity, erosion) functions (Pistorius et al., 2011; 2012; Miles and Kapos, 2008). It is important to first discuss forest as a natural resource and highlight the role that it plays as an asset. Assets (mainly focusing on natural resources) are seen as essential for any rural development strategy (Barbier, 2012;
Mensah, 2012). Shinns and Lyne (2005:158) view economic wealth as derived “from assets that can generate income, capital gains or liquidity”. Shinns and Lyne (2005) emphasise the key position held by assets in the rural development process. Most literature addressing rural development pays special attention to asset availability, asset distribution, and access to assets. Some scholars believe that some rural areas are richly endowed with resources but due to the lack of accessibility to them, the lack of knowledge about the resources in the area, and the lack of proper distributional services, they are described as poor (Beaulieu, 2002; Mararike, 1999).
Most governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) engage in a preliminary scrutiny of the natural resources available in rural areas and their accessibility to households. These institutions then develop new and sustainable rural development strategies that are based largely on the resource stock of an area. They involve households in development projects so that the supposedly available resources can be harnessed and be fully utilised for the households’ benefit. Beaulieu (2002) calls it “asset mapping”, which involves taking an inventory of what the community offers and to manipulate these resources for the good of the whole community.
Whilst natural resources are the key ingredient to rural development (Domon, 2012;
Nelson, 2012), there is often a wide range of challenges and management issues that are almost universal in their nature that stakeholders face. Some of these challenges, according to Chen and Chai (2010), include massive forest destruction, soil erosion, land degradation and water pollution. Chen and Chai (2010) further assert that these environmental problems are a result of, and lead to, overconsumption and the
103 | P a g e
deterioration of the environment. Warhurst (2002) believes that these are some of the reasons for the rise and widespread adoption of the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable living, both of which focus on making sure that while the needs of the current population are met, this is done in such a way that the prospects of future generations will not be jeopardised. The sustainable livelihood framework that is based on promoting the sustainability of ecosystems and livelihoods has been adopted as the conceptual framework for this study, and owing to its ability to link people, their resources, activities, and coping strategies, and to deal with the challenges confronting them, this framework is used to guide most development projects. This is discussed in detail in the next section below.
The sections above considered rural development, rural discourse, and the role of forestry in the context of sustainable development, and it is important, therefore, to delve deeper into some of these discussions. What is central to this thesis is that sustainable development should be viewed not as an end state, but as a process that is not linked to any technological practice or vision. Specifically, innovative practical projects should be selected not only for funding but be based on the triple bottom line considerations of sustainability, namely, people, the planet, and profit, as well as on the level of involvement of the stakeholders (Elkington, 1998). The overall aim should be to promote a bottom-up vision of innovation, where all projects should be characterised as learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning initiatives. The ideas of the local entrepreneurs (i.e., small scale communal growers) for confronting and finding solutions to practical problems should be the drivers of the innovation process.
Furthermore, lessons learnt through practice and research, and the information thus gleaned, should be closely integrated into scientific and indigenous knowledge banks and used innovatively and in of ways to the benefit of such projects. Such projects should be aimed not only at profiting the strategic partners or government but at generally assisting the stakeholders and at advancing their needs.
The role of forestry and the function of the rural landscape in forestry production are two contested aspects included in the five rurality discourse perspectives discussed above. This leads to the need to adapt the existing classification of sustainability discourses for application in rurality discourses. Currently, perspectives on rural development through forestry are lacking and inadequate, not only in South Africa, but
104 | P a g e
in rurality discourses in general. The challenge of the future lies in developing a new perspective that has a multifunctional view of rural areas without neglecting the possibilities that forestry development has to offer in rural areas. The concept of commercial forestry for rural development has this potential. The discussion now turns to rural development in the South African context.