3.3 The new South African forestry
3.3.4 The new dispensation
In the new South African forest policy framework, community forestry has been revised. Now there is more emphasis on the incorporation of the issues and stakeholders that have a direct or indirect impact on forestry (DWAF, 1996;
Hargreaves, undated; Smit and Pitcher, 2003). More importantly, the link between people and forests is increasingly recognized (DWAF, 1996). Hence, the contribution of forests resources in rural livelihoods has been widely investigated. According to the White Paper on Sustainable Forest Management (DWAF, 1996: 7), community forestry is now defined as: .
Forestry designed and applied to meet local social, household, and environmental needs and to favour local economic development. It is implemented by communities or with the participation of communities. It includes farm forestry, agroforestry, community or village planting, woodlots and woodland management by rural people, as well as tree planting in urban andperiurban areas.
The White Paper further notes that in contrast to the previous interpretation and understanding of the role of forestry as a science of managing forested land, the current forestry policy identifies community forestry as one of the integral components of rural development. The role of forestry in development is now understood as incorporating the issues that relate to rural livelihoods through either local economic development or direct household consumption of non-timber forest products. As a result there is now more emphasis on the involvement of rural communities both in the management of natural forests and the commercial sector (Cairns, 1995; Hargreaves, undated; Mayers et al, 2001).
75
3.3.4.1 Rural communities and the management of natural forests
After 1994, a swift shift in the policy and practice of forest management in South Africa has been witnessed in many parts of the country. The right of access and use of forest resources by local communities has become one of the primary focuses of the new South African policy. The shift, as it has already highlighted above, has been the one from traditional preservation of natural forests by excluding people, to the one which emphasizes the people-centred approach in forest management. Participatory forest management is one of the strategies with which the government fosters the involvement of local communities in forest management (Grundy et al, 2005). This move reflects the shift at the international level that had long dominated the thinking about the management of natural resources such as forests.
The shift towards the involvement of local communities in the management of natural forests in South Africa has also been influenced by the growing acknowledgement of the role that the non-timber forest products (NTFPs) play in the livelihoods of rural communities (DWAF, 2005; Shackleton, 2004; Shackleton, 2005; Shackleton et al, 2007). As a result, forest management is in some areas a shared responsibility between the government and other stakeholders, including local communities (Grundy
et al, 2005). ' ' > • > " • • ' ;
Community involvement in forest management in South Africa has largely been influenced by the land reform policy (IUCN-SA and ART-SA, 2005; Von Maltitz and Shackleton, 2004). The current land policy has in some areas transferred, to the rural communities, the land with areas that are rich in natural forests. In such communal areas, although the community reserves a right to decide on the use of its resources, they are encouraged to use natural forests in a manner that would improve their livelihoods, protect biodiversity and promote local economic development, wherever possible. However, there are challenges that are currently facing the management of natural forests in South African communal areas and some of these are outlined by Von Maltitz and Shackleton (2004). These include:
76
(1) Institutional confusion and competition regarding who is/ who should be responsible for the management of forests (communities, local government, traditional leaders or new combinations of these) and the I dubious legitimacy of the organizations that exist, (2) the general absence of an identifiable, collective entity that one might call a 'community' (communities are highly differentiated along social, economic and political lines with different households and individuals having widely
* varying interests and incentives for resource management (3) high levels of resource use by 'outsiders', (4) a lack of clarity regarding tenure rights in communal areas, (5) overlapping rights and elastic or variable boundaries, (6) the scale of support, facilitation and capacity building needed and, consequently, financial and human resources required, and (7) the high, and increasing, demand for resources and inability of the poor to substantially curtail use.
(Von Maltitz and Shackleton, 2004: 129). •'" >;
Moreover, Everson and Underwood (2004) are of the view that although there is an indication that sustainable community forest management can be achieved in other areas, however, such opportunities look slim mainly because in most rural areas in South Africa fuelwood remains the main household source of fuel even in cases where electricity has been provided. The demand for fuelwood and other NTFPs such as medicinal plants in many rural areas could be seen as a serious threat in the
• management of natural forests in South Africa.
• • . . • . ' • • " •
3.3.4.2 The small out-grower timber schemes and rural livelihoods
The small out-grower timber schemes are the other initiatives that have influenced the involvement of rural communities in South African forestry. Over the past few years various arrangements between forestry companies and rural communities or individuals have emerged with an objective to get into contractual agreements to grow trees to supply the pulp, paper and wattle bark industries (Everson and Underwood, 2004; Lewis et al, 2005). It is against this background that small out-grower timber schemes have emerged. The out-grower schemes could be defined as the formalized partnership arrangements involving contracts between two or more parties combining land, capital, and management and market opportunities, formed with the intent to produce a commercial forest crop (Lewis et al, 2005).
In the schemes the households or growers are usually provided with physical inputs, loans and extension for the establishment and maintenance of small woodlots by timber companies such as Mondi and SAPPI. In return, they expect the harvest from .•
77
..:, . _ii „ . . A', ~ . Jii.. J«Bl V i » . „• s -: Jk, &•• i&k. *i •' '• . ..
#
all trees after a growing cycle of six years on the coast and seven years inland (Mayers et al, 2001). Generally, the growers' motivations for entering into the out- grower schemes are, according to Lewis et al (2005), driven by factors such as income generation, physical proximity to trees or land suitable for forestry, traditional or legal rights to land suitable for forestry, and economic and cultural dependence on forest goods and services.
According to Everson and Underwood (2004), some of the advantages associated with the schemes are that there is a reasonable profit from the output and loans are provided to overcome the lack of capital, extension is provided, markets are guaranteed and there has been increased organizational capacity in communities. The schemes have also improved the supply of firewood. In the light of such advantages, Everson and Underwood (2004) further outline a number of disadvantages associated with the schemes in rural areas. Their concern here is that:
The schemes result in the loss of land for agricultural production, decreased biodiversity and increased water use by forestry species. A potential further disadvantage is the privatization of the commons, as much, although not all, of these plantings are on what was former communal grazing land accessible to all community members.
(Everson and Underwood, 2004: 657)
In addition to the above submissions there is also an argument that the out-grower schemes cannot alone draw households and communities out of poverty because, according to Lewis et al (2005), land in communal areas is limited. They further submit that:
Despite the belief that forestry based Small, Medium and Micro enterprises (SMMEs) are an underdeveloped opportunity to stimulate job and income generation opportunities among rural poor communities, the existing enterprises remain primarily survivalist and the opportunities for sustainable enterprises remain largely undeveloped. The enterprises that have been established in poor rural areas are mainly micro-scale enterprises that provide little more than employment for the business owners themselves.
(Lewis etal, 2005:20)
Given the nature of the problems that have been outlined above, one can deduce that .' the small out-grower timber schemes are not likely to provide sustainable benefits to
A-
the rural poor. In other instances it seems that the schemes are not directly designed • 78
for social transformation but are driven by the demand for land by the big companies for the purpose of creating sustainable economic growth in the forestry industry.
The issue that has not yet been addressed in commercial forestry is perhaps that the environmental and social impacts associated with the forest plantations have not yet been given adequate attention. The negative impacts of the commercial forestry activities have been witnessed, for instance, in communal areas that are adjacent to the commercial forestry activities (Tewari, 2000). In some of these areas, the private forest owners fail to control the growth of the plantations within their boundaries.
Some of the trees have serious impacts on the community's open space including the water streams (Mayers et al, 2001; Tewari, 2000).