THE THEORY OF CO-MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA’S PFM POLICY
5.3. CO-MANAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
5.3.2. Participatory forest management (PFM) in South Africa
This section focuses on the application of the approach to the South African context, with particular reference to the manner in which the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has interpreted the concept. Information contained within this section is sourced predominantly from Department of Water Affairs and Forestry documents, and therefore it gives an indication of the discourse being adopted by DWAF regarding PFM. As this forms part of the primary data that will be analysed, the qualitative data presented in this section has been presented as evidence in its original form.
The Chief Directorate of Forestry (CD:F) within the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) adopted a new approach to indigenous forest management in South Africa in 2000:
participatory forest management. It was adopted as the Indigenous Forest Management Directorate’s (D:IFM) code of best practice for forest management and is currently being implemented in many ways around the country (DWAF, 2002b). Although PFM originated within the D:IFM as a policy for indigenous state forests, it has since been “scaled up”
(DWAF, 2003a:2; Ramboll, 2003:12). Since early 2003, the newly formed Participative Forestry Directorate (D:PF) has assumed responsibility for the policy, which has broadened in scope and is viewed as an approach “for management of all forest types where feasible (indigenous forests, plantations, woodlots and woodlands) and different types of ownership and management (state, provincial, communal, private and community)” (DWAF, 2003a:2).
The focus of this thesis is on the applicability of the PFM policy for indigenous forests, as this is most appropriate for the case study area of the southern Cape, which was the selected case study area for the interpretation of the policy at the time of data collection.
Participatory forest management is the term given to an approach taken by the Directorate that is in keeping with South Africa’s democratic principles. It is an approach that considers “local people’s forest-based needs, their management capabilities, and intends to empower them
through sharing resource-use decision-making” (DWAF, 2002c:4). It is recognised that in addition to having a biophysical and environmental use and value, protected areas also satisfy human physical and spiritual needs. Shackleton et al. (2002:1) and Grundy and Michell (2004:679) refer to this shift in indigenous forest management as a “paradigm shift” in conservation and natural resource management. There has been a shift “away from costly state- centred control towards approaches in which local people play a much more active role”
(Shackleton et al., 2002:1). There was a need for the government to develop new methods that enable various stakeholders to “enter into mutually acceptable agreements governing use and management of a range of forest products” (Grundy, 2002:1). In the South African policy forest stakeholders are encouraged to work with officials in “planning, managing and developing state forest land and resources as well as recognising and promoting forest-based livelihoods of poor rural communities” (DWAF, 2002c:1). It has become clear to the Chief Director that “sustainable forest management will only succeed in partnership with communities and other role players or stakeholders” (DWAF, 2002d:1).
Figure 5.3 shows that the participatory forest management continuum encompasses full state control and full control by the communities (DWAF, 1999; DWAF, 2002d).
International co-management discourse has been embedded in South Africa’s forestry policy. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry have adopted Borrini-Feyerabend’s (1996) conceptualisation of participation as their framework for participatory management within the forestry context in South Africa (see Figure 5.3). This provides an interesting example of how an understanding of a concept prominent in international literature becomes institutionalised into national policy discourse.
An interpretation of PFM based on this diagram suggests that PFM is a sufficiently broad enough concept to incorporate both ends of the spectrum rather than a portion of the spectrum somewhere between the two extremes. Sekhar (2000) and Obiri and Lawes (2002) however, draw a distinction within the forestry sector between the extremes of the continuum and joint/participatory forest management. Obiri and Lawes (2002) distinguish between state forest management on the one extreme, community forest management on the other extreme, and PFM which exists somewhere between these two extreme management options. This is more consistent with the general conceptualisation of co-management in terms of the definition of
what the term implies19. Perhaps it is due to the difficulties in defining participation, a principal feature of co-management, that some have preferred to use alternative terms to participatory management (such as joint and shared management).
Figure 5.3. The participatory forest management continuum as adopted by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa (after Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996:11; DWAF, 1999).
The lead-up to the new national strategy for indigenous forest management, within which the principles of PFM form the cornerstone, began as early as the 1994 elections. According to DWAF (2002d:1), “prior to 1994, the management of indigenous forests in South Africa had a narrow scientific focus and there was little concern for the social development potential for forests and forestry”. After the first democratic elections in South Africa, the Chief Directorate of Forestry “inherited de jure responsibility for all state forests previously managed under the jurisdiction of former provinces, homelands and the self-governing territories” (DWAF, 2002c:3). This placed 230 000 ha of forest under the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry management, a substantial increase from its former 91 160 ha of forest.
19 See also Sekhar, 2000 and Hauck and Sowman, 2003.
Full control by DWAF
Shared control by DWAF and other stakeholders
Actively consulting
Full control by other stakeholders
Sharing authority and responsibility in a formal way Negotiating
(involving in decision-making) Seeking
consensus
Transferring authority and responsibility
No interference or contribution from other stakeholders
No interference or contribution from
DWAF
Increasing contributions, commitment and accountability of stakeholders Increasing expectations of stakeholders
DWAF may decide to participate with key forest stakeholders at a number of levels, but in deciding on the degree of participation of the other stakeholders, DWAF must be able to identify its own role in the management of forests. Throughout the PFM process, the role of DWAF may change and so may the degree and type of participation. The key is to be flexible but focussed in approach
3DUWLFLSDWRU\)RUHVW0DQDJHPHQW&RQWLQXXP
It is widely held in the international literature that PFM methods arose as a response to the traditional forestry methods, which failed to cease the precipitous decline in the area and quality of national forests and woodlands (Grundy, 2002). Indigenous forests were historically regarded as spaces of exclusion where local communities were legally denied access and consequently denied any benefits derived from forests (Rapoli, 2002). Legal exclusion was entrenched and enforced through a ‘fences and fines’ approach to prohibit unauthorised access and utilisation of resources. Such an approach to managing the people and park relationship is consistent with the colonial fortress model of conservation that was prevalent in many British colonies and often persisted in the post-colonial era too (Ramutsindela, 2004).
In South Africa indigenous forests were managed for their commercial output or hardwood output, but were primarily conservatively managed in the name of nature conservation (DWAF, 2002a) but also providing for the recreational needs of the white minority in specified areas. It is believed that the exclusionary approach to forest management precipitated conflict between government and rural communities and the subsequent rapid depletion of forest resources due to illegal harvesting in an uncontrolled manner. Against this historical background the South African national government has adopted a considerable social focus, directed by the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) policy document20 (ANC, 1994; PCAS, 2003), which is a radical shift from past policies and legislation.
Since 1994, substantial political changes have altered the policy and legislative environment as it pertains to forests and woodlands in South Africa, particularly concerning the rights and responsibilities of those using their resources (Von Maltitz and Shackleton, 2002). The process of transformation from within South Africa has resulted in government structures and policies becoming increasingly democratic and transparent. This change has had a significant impact on forest management, away from the exclusionary approach towards a more participatory approach that also incorporates sustainable resource use. This internal restructuring of South African society, coupled with a growing trend internationally towards increasing community participation in forest management, has resulted in the Chief Directorate: Forestry undergoing a “reorientation and transformation process” (DWAF, 2002a:1). Included in this process is the emergence of new forms of institutional structures and management practices for the sustainable management of forests and woodlands. DWAF (DWAF, 2002a) has identified a
20 See Section 6.3 for more information about the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) policy document.
number of additional characteristics of indigenous forest management in South Africa, which were not in line with South Africa’s democratic principles and with international trends.
Firstly, it was recognised that their management approach lacked a concern for social management; secondly, there was no considerable attention given to the role that forestry could play in poverty alleviation. Thirdly, the application of scientific management was dedicated to understanding forest fauna and flora and their protection rather than the usefulness of forests and forest products. Finally, DWAF recognised that their management demonstrated “little interest in the yield of non-timber products, non-commercial products and cultural and spiritual services of forests” (DWAF, 2002a:1).
The government undertook to review the policies and legislation governing forests, and by 1997 the review culminated in the National Forestry Action Programme, which was subsequently translated into the National Forest Act (Act 84 of 1998). This Act, together with the National Veld and Forest Fire Act (Act 101 of 1998) provides the mandate for the management of forests on state land (DWAF, 2002c). These two pieces of legislation strive to address the mistakes of past management and achieve the following (DWAF, 2002c:2):
a. Address sustainable forest utilisation and management
b. Monitor provincial competency in state indigenous forest management
c. Promote economic and social development and utilise the development potential of forestry
d. Give the South African people a greater access to the country’s state forests e. Improve equability in the distribution of benefits flowing from the forest resources.
The National Forest Act (NFA) is based on the concept of sustainable forest management and brought South Africa in line with international trends in indigenous forest management. The NFA (Act 84 of 1998:16) interpretation of sustainable forest management includes the following principles that apply to all official decisions that affect forests:
a. Natural forests must not be destroyed save in exceptional circumstances where, in the opinion of the Minister, a proposed new land use is preferable in terms of its economic, social or environmental benefits
b. A minimum area of each woodland type should be conserved c. Forests must be developed and managed so as to-
i. conserve biological diversity, ecosystems and habitats;
ii. sustain the potential yield of their economic, social and environmental benefits;
iii. promote the fair distribution of their economic, social, health and environmental benefits;
iv. promote their health and vitality;
v. conserve natural resources, especially soil and water;
vi. conserve heritage resources and promote aesthetic, cultural and spiritual values;
and
vii. advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.
Inclusion of the principle of sustainable forest management did however place considerable responsibility on DWAF, especially since they inherited forests that had been poorly managed in the past, which were spread over 1400 patches, and which were under pressure from rural populations (DWAF, 2002c). In response, D:IFM embarked upon a strategic planning exercise during 1999 that culminated in a strategic goal, which they hoped to achieve by 2005. The goal, which is reflected in the mission statement, can be read as follows:
“To manage, on a sustainable basis, the state indigenous forests with the objective of conserving biodiversity and contributing to the economic, social and spiritual upliftment of South Africa’s people, with special emphasis on poor rural communities” (DWAF, 1999:3 and 2002c:5).
More recently, the vision in the draft policy document encapsulates the goal for forestry in South Africa. The vision for PFM is expressed as follows:
“Through participation in the sustainable management of forest resources a contribution is made from forests to the local economic development, the constitutional rights of all South Africans to use and benefit from the forests, the livelihoods of poor and previously disadvantaged groups” (DWAF, 2003a:4).
PFM was adopted to “promote forest conservation within the context of sustainable development” (DWAF, 2002d:1). It is the approach adopted by D:IFM in all its dealings with indigenous forest management. PFM is an overall framework that seeks to address the following issues (DWAF, 2002c:8):
a. Providing rights to access forest resources and benefits therein by rural people b. Addressing past imbalances through corrective action in both racial and gender equity c. Improving relationships between different forest stakeholders
d. Improving communities’ sense of ownership over forest management decision-making e. Providing the mechanism to encourage and promote the establishment of down stream
opportunities that are beneficial to both the department and the community.
A key shift in forest management under PFM is the desire to “increase the share of benefits that formerly disadvantaged South Africans derive from the country’s forest resources”
(DWAF, 2002a:1). Von Maltitz and Shackleton (2002:20) have stated that the objective of PFM is that “communities adjacent to forest areas should have some level of involvement in the management of the forest, and should also be able to use the forest resource in a sustainable manner”. In order for this to become a reality, Von Maltitz and Shackleton (2002) maintain that community structures, that are based on pre-existing community networks, would need to
be formed to enable communities to enter into Community Forest Management agreements with the state.
In terms of the mandate given to them under the Constitution and departmental policy, the Chief Directorate: Forestry within DWAF has committed itself to five key actions that should assist with the effective and efficient implementation of PFM in South Africa. According to DWAF (2002e; 2003d:1) they will strive to:
a. Develop and implement incentives that support the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of indigenous forests
b. Promote equitable access to natural forest resources to improve quality of life, culture and traditional values, and restore the dignity of all
c. Encourage and facilitate economic opportunities that are compatible with and which compliment the conservation and use of indigenous forest through Community Public Private Partnerships
d. Enhance capacity of communities through appropriate training and education that embraces indigenous knowledge and skills
e. Promote innovative ways of maximising benefits from indigenous forests through the sustainable use of forest resources.
DWAF also adopted a set of eleven principles to guide their approach and practices for the management of indigenous state forests. The principles reflected in Table 5.3 below are incorporated into their departmental training manuals and the brochures about PFM that are available to the public. This research project aims to determine the extent to which these principles are maintained or applied at a local level.
Table 5.3. DWAF’s eleven principles of participatory forest management (DWAF, 1999, 2002c and 2003a).
1 People centred:
For effective forest management, the Directorate must build an understanding of the impact of indigenous forests on rural livelihoods to ensure that people become a priority and that they will be architects of their own development.
2 Participatory and holistic approach
Participatory management will be encouraged as a routine and a style of promoting the involvement of local people in forest management wherever possible.
3 Sustainability Forest management will be implemented in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner.
4 Transparency Forest management will be based on transparency and honesty and implemented with a common vision amongst stakeholders.
5 Equity Forest management will promote a balanced, fair and gender-sensitive approach.
6 Benefits Forest management will strive to ensure tangible short and long term benefits to local and other stakeholders through, for example, the development of markets and enterprises to increase the values of the forest produce and the
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.