2.2 Political ecology approach
2.2.2 Political ecology and conservation
others and responsible for near and distant spaces, places and environments.” Bryant and Jarosz (2004) assert:
Political ecology prioritises the rights of the poor whose livelihoods are dependent on the natural resources over those of the politically and economically powerful. Thus, people’s survival needs are viewed to be more important than any conservation effort regardless of the fact that political ecology views vulnerable communities and environments as equal entities to be treated the same.
The ethical stance of political ecology helps in avoiding prescribing policies that are not objective and promote unethical separation of people and the environment. Such ethical matters concern issues such as the de-humanisation of people accessing natural resources for their livelihoods by imposing harsher sentences on them. In addition, ethical concerns include addressing issues where decisions or policies are made to prioritise conservation over the need to earn a livelihood by local communities.
Political ecology addresses moral and ethical issues on how conflicts are perceived and later used to formulate policies.
Morality and environmental ethics are critical to this study in light of the inequalities existing among the GGEP stakeholders. In this study, ethical issues surrounding access, harvest, and use of the GGEP open space resources by the stakeholders were considered. Thus, analysis highlighted inequalities among stakeholders and how they affected resource access and use. In addition, issues were also pursued in light of sustainability requirements for the GGEP resources.
countries, the fight for and later gain of independence brought about another paradigm shift from Protected Areas to participatory conservation (Argyrou, 2005; Adams and Hutton, 2007).
Participatory approaches were emphasised through sustainable development in the 1980s and later on in the early 1990s through the CBD which provided for inclusion of local communities in managing and conserving natural resources while sharing the benefits arising thereof (Adams and Hutton, 2007;
Vaccaro et al., 2013). Thus, for all countries which ratified the CBD, the focus of conservation is community involvement in conservation through development (Jones, 2006). International organisations and governments focus their efforts (through grants, loans and political support, among others) on development projects that promote conservation and poverty alleviation (Jones, 2006).
At a national level, the key issues that the South African Government seeks to address include poverty alleviation, job creation, sustainable livelihoods, access to quality education, improved healthcare, social development, human settlement and, fighting crime and corruption, among others (Republic of South Africa, 2009; KwaZulu-Natal Legislature, 2011). These priorities provide direction to all government activities performed at national, provincial and local levels including decision-making and formulating rules and regulations in various sectors of the economy. For instance, in promoting conservation and healthy living, the eThekwini Municipality provides for the establishment and management of parks and open spaces through the D’MOSS. The study area (GGEP) falls within the jurisdiction of the D’MOSS and was established under a local government legislative instrument, the SRA (eThekwini Municipality, 2010). The conservation land falling under the D’MOSS is either a privately owned protected area or government owned protected area (EPCPD, 2010). However, the Giba Gorge is neither a privately owned protected area nor government owned protected area. It is a collection of government parcels and privately owned parcels of land that are collectively managed by a partnership between the private property owners and the Municipality (local government).
2.2.2.2 The politics in environmental conservation
Environmental discourses surrounding nature conservation and livelihoods have become prominent among researchers over the last few decades (Viccaro, 2013). These have been prompted by the increasing trend in unsustainable practices in natural resource management which manifest through capitalist behaviours controlling the world economies (Bob et al., 2008). Such discourses are of fundamental importance as they deal with the question of actual survival of the poorest in society (Adams and Hutton, 2007). Environmental discourses pertain to the management systems adopted by governments to manage natural resources as well as the effects of resource harvesting on people living adjacent to or within those environments in question.
There are various environmental management systems practiced throughout the world, among which are the Protected Areas and Community-Based Natural Resource Management systems. As discussed previously, Protected Areas are an old resource management system which in developing countries has its roots in colonial management systems (Viccaro, 2013). The motivations of declaring and managing resources as Protected Areas include preserving biodiversity, maintaining hunting, protecting scenic beauty and sustainable extraction of natural resources (McDonald and Boucher, 2011), as well as maintaining the evolutionary potential through conservation of genetic diversity.
Traditionally Protected Areas were characterised by exclusionary rights and local or indigenous communities were viewed as interference to sustainable management of resources (Gruber, 2010).
New forms of Protected Areas emerged to include, public private partnerships, private and community managed Protected Areas (Dudley, 2008). These emerged as a result of growing awareness of human rights, acknowledgment of the role of humans in shaping the environment and the recognition of inefficiencies in implementing Protected Areas due to resistance from communities, among others (Lockwood, 2010; Viccaro, 2013). Despite that governments have devolved power, they still maintain control through funding which is given upon meeting government’s objectives and performance requirements, among others (Lockwood, 2010). Such discourses provide a glimpse of the politics inherent in Protected Areas’ conservation policy.
As an alternative to centralised management systems, Community-Based Natural Resource Management system emerged as a new paradigm in conservation that aimed to bring social equity in environmental conservation (Gruber, 2010; Viccaro, 2013). It was a move from exclusion to inclusion of all people with a stake in the resources managed (Adams and Hutton, 2007). Community-Based Natural Resource Management system recognised and integrated indigenous or local communities’
natural resource use with conservation (Viccaro, 2013). Despite the milestone achievement of incorporating local communities in conservation, there are still many challenges that Community- Based Natural Resource Management system faces (Fabricius and Koch, 2004: Sebele, 2010).
Fabricius and Koch (2004) assert that despite devolution of government power to manage natural resources, communities have not been empowered in decision-making. In addition, there is lack of respect for communities which is unlike the situation with private landowners. Despite this, Community-Based Natural Resource Management system has embraced local or indigenous communities, interactions between communities and management are minimal (Sebele, 2010).
Further, Fabricius and Koch (2004) assert that donors and managers fail to recognise and understand the role of belief systems of the communities involved in management of natural resources.
This discussion has revealed paradigm shifts in conservation practice from Protected Areas to Community-Based Natural Resource Management and within Protected Areas, various forms have emerged. Evident is that environmental conservation practices are rid with challenges as revealed in
the discussion. Consequently, political ecology criticises all conservation strategies, which “restrict local rights and traditional resource users” (Clapp, 2004: 839). As highlighted in previous discussions in this chapter, political ecology discourses concern issues regarding rights, responsibilities, benefits and relationships in managing resources. The major concern around conservation efforts is the infringement of local people’s rights by the state, NGOs and other powerful global actors through unfair policies and exclusion of local people from management (Clapp, 2004). In addition, politics in conservation dictate that most (if not all) threats to the environment are only addressed if they affect the most privileged or influential people in society (Forsyth, 2008). This study pursues some of the issues highlighted regarding conservation involving private landowners and adjacent communities.