THE THEORY OF CO-MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA’S PFM POLICY
6.4. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
through intensive stakeholder consultation and at the time of this research were being tested by DWAF and the Committee for Sustainable Forest Management (CSFM).
According to DWAF (2003a), 22 of the 80 indicators have particular reference to PFM, local development and stakeholder participation, and PFM principles fall within ten of the twenty- four criteria.
Draft PFM Policy (May 2003).
This draft document was revised in October 2003, but it is the May 2003 version that has been used here in the analysis because the analysis was already underway when the updated document became available. The draft policy document, which follows from the 1999 Framework document, is “an overview and a synthesis of existing PFM policy in South Africa” with the stated purpose being to “stimulate further development of PFM under the existing mandate and revised organisational structure of DWAF” (DWAF, 2003:2).
For the purpose of analysis, only the White Paper of Sustainable Forest Development in South Africa (DWAF, 1996); the National Forests Act (DWAF, 1998); the Framework for the PFM Programme of the Directorate: Indigenous Forest Management (DWAF, 1999) and the Draft PFM Policy (DWAF, 2003) were selected for analysis in this research, the results of which are discussed in Chapter Eight. These four documents were selected on the basis that PFM forms a key component of the documents and they therefore provide the official state rhetoric for PFM and an indication of the way in which the concept of participatory forest management is being conceptualised at a national level.
(NV&FFA, Act 101 of 1998), has the responsibility to sustainably manage forests on state land. This responsibility initially fell on the Directorate: Indigenous Forest Management (D:IFM) within the Chief Directorate of Forestry (CD:F) of DWAF but since 2003 is the responsibility of the Participative Forestry Directorate (D:PF).
Since 1994 a number of changes have taken place within the department in order to bring South Africa in line with international trends in forest management (DWAF, 2002c). In order for the department to give effect to the changes in policy and legislation, three major changes were made which have implications for the implementation of PFM. Firstly, Section 6.4.1 discusses the internal restructuring of the forestry function within DWAF. Secondly, Section 6.4.2 discusses the external restructuring underway concerning the transfer of State Forest Management Functions. The third major change is the adoption of PFM as best practice approach for forest management in South Africa. However, this third change has been discussed in Chapter Five and therefore the focus of this section will be on internal and external restructuring in DWAF.
6.4.1. Internal restructuring
DWAF has had a number of roles within the Forestry sector in South Africa. The department has managed plantations and indigenous forests; been responsible for developing and implementing policy and legislation; and undertaken scientific research and monitoring. The national office was also in the position of having to regulate its own operations. The Chief Directorate has subsequently been restructured so as to “separate policy and regulation from operations” (DWAF, 2002c:17) and bring the department in line with its anticipated future role as a “regulatory, advisory and monitoring body, divested of management functions” (DWAF, 2003:16). Accordingly, the former Indigenous Forest Management, Commercial, and Community Forestry Directorates which were under the Chief Directorate of Forestry, were dissolved and the following Directorates created, namely: Participative Forestry, Forestry Support, Technical and Information Systems, Regulations and Forest Policy and Strategy. In addition, since 1 April 2002, the Chief Directorate: Forestry and the Chief Directorate: Water Services were joined by two new Chief Directorates that are responsible for both Water and Forestry, the Chief Directorate: Operations and the Chief Directorate: Policy and Regulations (Kühn et al., 2002).
According to Kühn et al. (2002:302) the reason behind this restructuring is the policy that “the Department of Forestry will gradually move out of direct management of state forests, both commercial and indigenous, and strengthen its policy and regulation role in the sector”. The Organogram in Figure 6.1 represents an attempt to outline the structure of DWAF as it applies to PFM in South Africa, from a national level and national office, down to the local level in the southern Cape.
Bold print indicates Forestry Functions
Figure 6.1. The organisational structure of DWAF as it pertains to Participatory Forest Management in the southern Cape (Adapted from Rambøll, 2003:67).25
25 It is acknowledged that this diagram may not be fully accurate but as a result of the restructuring processes underway in DWAF it was difficult to obtain information.
Dept. of Water Affairs and Forestry National Office:
Policy Regulation (Deputy Director General Level)
(Water and Forestry)
Operations (Deputy Director General Level)
(Water and Forestry)
Function: Forest Policy and Strategy (Director Level) Forestry: Manager (Chief Director Level)
National PFM Task Team (Reps from the 5 clusters around SA)
Southern Cluster Task Team (Reps from Western and Eastern Cape Regions)
King Williamstown Area Office Knysna Area
Office Belville Area
Office
Mthata Area Office
Cradock Area Office
Farleigh Estate PFM Forum
Diepwalle Estate PFM Forum
Tsitsikamma Estate PFM Forum Function: Forestry
Support (Director Level)
Regional Co-ordination &
Support (Chief Director Level) (Water and Forestry)
Function: Forestry Transfers (Director Level)
Function: Participative Forestry (Director Level) Function: Technical Information Services
(Director Level)
Function: Forestry Regulation (Director Level)
Cluster
Cluster Cluster Cluster
PFM Co-ordination Committee (Co-ordinates Clusters)
Southern Cluster
Regional Co-ordination &
Support (Chief Director Level) (Water and Forestry)
PFM was first introduced in 1997 by the then D:IFM but since the restructuring, it is intended that the operationalisation of PFM will be “scaled-up” across the previous Directorates and will also include the devolution of management functions to local level (DWAF, 2003a). PFM is therefore envisaged as an “approach to all Forestry functions, across forest types [that] will align Forestry functions at regional level with national office’s envisaged future role” (DWAF:
2002:3a). The decision in late 2002 to scale up PFM, thus making it a crosscutting issue to be dealt with concerning all forest types, is seen by DWAF and Ramboll26 to be a reflection of the importance of PFM within the Forestry Function at DWAF Head Office and at regional levels (DWAF, 2003b). This is also reflected in the establishment of a new Forestry Function at Head Office, namely Participative Forestry.
A National PFM Task Team has been formed, which comprises representatives from each of the five clusters around South Africa, including support from representatives from both the Department for International Development (DFID). This Task Team is tasked to provide support for the national restructuring and capacity building for PFM. It is assisted by the DANIDA who is providing support to the CD:F in DWAF to build capacity within the department for the operationalisation of PFM at the local level. The PFM Co-ordination Committee is tasked with co-ordinating the activities of the five clusters that the country is divided into. Working on the same principle as the National Task Team, each cluster meets to discuss issues pertaining to the operationalisation of PFM. For example, the Southern Cluster has a Southern Cluster Task Team and comprises representatives from the Area Offices within the cluster (for the Southern Cluster these are Area offices from within the Western and Eastern Cape Regions). At still a more local level each Area Office holds meetings and has discussions with the Estate Managers from the estates in the area. The responsibility for implementing PFM sits primarily on their shoulders, the lowest level of operation.
6.4.2. External restructuring
The external restructuring currently underway within DWAF refers to the change in the Department’s role as a manager of state forests. An important policy detail contained within
26 Ramboll is the local implementing agency for the Danish Development Agency (DANIDA) in South Africa.
the White Paper (DWAF, 1996) is the proposal that the role of national government should change from management to rather playing a coordinating and enabling role in the promotion of Sustainable Forest Management at all levels of governance (Willis, 2004). This involves the
“devolution of all management functions to local level, in most cases to new managing agents”
such as provincial government, nature conservation bodies, the South African National Parks (SANParks), or local communities (Kühn et al., 2002; DWAF, 2003a:16) and would apply to both indigenous and commercial state forests. This would assist DWAF in assuming its new role as referee, advisor, regulator and policy-maker (Abbot, pers. comm. 30/01/2003; DWAF, 2003a). The intention is that the D:IFM would cease to exist and that the role of the Chief Directorate: Forestry Operations (whose responsibility it is to issues licences and issue authorisation for use of state forests) will diminish over time, leaving behind the Chief Directorate: Policy and Regulation to regulate and monitor forests that have been assigned, delegated or leased to other management agencies (DWAF, 2002b; Kühn et al., 2002). Within the context of indigenous forests in the southern Cape, the responsibility for managing indigenous state forests is shifting away from the D:IFM within the Department of Forestry to SANParks.
Within the southern Cape, state forest assets fall under the management of the South African National Parks (SANParks). SANParks is a parastatal body that falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). The decision-making rests with an 18 member National Parks Board, which comprises nine members appointed by Provincial government and nine appointed by the Minister of DEAT (Horn, 2002b). It is reported that SANParks is primarily self sufficient in that they only receive 15% of their budget from the state and are required to provide their own funding to support their work. In addition, of the 20 national parks under their management, only three are financially profitable and income generated from these parks is used to cross subsidise the others (Horn, 2002c).
Now that the D:IFM’s responsibility has been transferred to SANParks in April 2005, the forests remain as state forests and therefore under the governance of the National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998) and SANParks are empowered to administer the Act and ensure that the provisions of the Act are upheld. As PFM has been captured in the National Forests Act, this means that local people’s legislated rights to participate in forest management, and to access to decision-making and benefit sharing, should not be diminished by the transfer. Two issues have been raised that are of concern for PFM’s implementation. Firstly, SANParks, like
DWAF, have a history of exclusionary resource management, which has been epitomised by forced removals and a ‘fences and fines’ approach to access and control. It remains to be seen whether this historical legacy will affect PFM. Secondly, it has been noted by Horn (2002c) and DWAF (2002b) that the profit motive that is said to drive the parastatal “puts in question the extent to which new management agencies will be willing to engage in meaningful economic benefit-sharing with the D:IFM’s target group” (DWAF, 2002b:26).
It has been noted that the lengthy transfer of management from D:IFM to SANParks resulted in uncertainty amongst staff regarding their future employment status, as retrenchments are perceived to be part and parcel of restructuring. The reported lack of change management processes to facilitate this transformation process has resulted in increased staff turnover and a lack of commitment to PFM. Furthermore, concern has been raised as to whether SANParks will have the same vision, approach and obligations to PFM without having had the ‘buy in’
from the start.
Optimistically, the transfer to SANParks may rectify a problem, which has been termed by many as a “fatal flaw” in the PFM programme (DWAF, 2002b; Vermeulen, W., pers. comm., 28/03/2003 and Horn, pers. comm., 28/03/2003). A criticism of the PFM process is that it is constrained by the central Treasury regulation which “requires D:IFM to return all revenue generated by it to state coffers” (DWAF, 2002b:26). In other words, income generated from local resources (such as permit fees) does not stay in the region or province but is required to go into central coffers. Because SANParks are free to distribute revenue as they choose, the amalgamation with SANParks is likely to address this ‘flaw’.