CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL OVERVIEW
1.6 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.6.2 Theoretical Framework
23 | P a g e
experience of, and the values that local people attribute to the forests (in the case of this study, it is communal forest plantations) in their rural areas, a phenomenological approach should be used as basis for the interviews.
Figure 1.4: Phenomenological approach followed Source: Adapted from Kreye et al. (2019)
24 | P a g e
From the 1960s onwards, the emphasis was placed on increasing the efficiency of small farms and their contribution to local economies. This large step was recommended by theorists such as Mellor (1966) and Schultz (1964) who had shifted their focus from industrialisation as the key focus area that had previously been advocated by modernisation theory. In support of this new trend, in 2002, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) drew attention to the success of small farms in Brazil as productive units, claiming that their production levels were at least twice those of the larger farms. The authors attributed this to the larger employment uptake that small farms offered, the greater diversity of crops, and the practice of intercropping (Ashley and Maxwell, 2001). During this period, the focus was purely on socio-economic development.
Although ecological aspects were introduced in the 1970s (Aurenhammer, 2013), rural development theories became popular during this period and received even stronger support from donor agencies and governments (Biewenga, 2009). According to Biewenga (2009), this is the period when rural development initiatives became more integrated, and quests were made to incorporate multiple sectors (e.g., health, housing, education, and agriculture) into development programmes. Integrated rural development was not achieved through theoretical analyses. Instead, it was bolstered up by information emanating from assessments as to how development interventions had performed. Biewenga, (2009) is of the opinion that most of the rural development initiatives based on integration showed great potential for success but failed to provide manageable and internationally agreed upon solutions to the problems faced in rural areas. One of the disadvantages of an integrated rural development approach involves the fact that if there is a decline in funding, projects usually collapse; thus, sustainability is questionable in such projects. Furthermore, there is often a mismatch in the power between the community, government, and the agency managing rural or community development projects. According to Birgegard (1988), rural development initiatives do not often focus on the needs of the community.
In the beginning of the 1980s, the idea that the “Third World would disappear” became popular amongst geographers (Menzel, 1992 cited by Aurenhammer, 2013). The 1980s period marked the introduction of the free market approach to rural agriculture that was based on neo-liberal economic policies (Biewenga, 2009; Aurenhammer,
25 | P a g e
2013). This approach was regarded as an effective one towards achieving rural development and mitigating poverty. Markets could then be opened up to international trade. This approach was built on economist Adam Smith’s theory of market liberalisation (1976, quoted from Biewenga, 2009). However, because rural farmers had limited access to funding and were also limited by the scale of their subsistence farming methods, they could not compete in the marketplace. This was especially the case once protective tariffs had been removed. As such, the neo-liberal economic adjustment programmes arising in the 1960s and gaining ground in the subsequent decades, right up to the present time, have tended in certain respects to have had negative outcomes. In fact, Biewenga (2009) is of the opinioin that in many cases these structural adjustment programmes have intensified poverty.
According to Aurenhammer (2013:7), “since the 1990s, neo-liberalism (‘free trade’) and ‘new modernisation theories’ (such as environment, sustainability, and gender aspects) “have become more important”. Biewenga (2009) notes that during this period there was also an increase in awareness in terms of the value of community participation. In 1982, Freire (1982) had already advocated for a change in the approach to development – together, he and Roodt (1996), promoted the view that the community should progress from being a passive entity to an active one that should display an increased sense of awareness and demonstrate the ability to transform its environment. In this case, the emphasis had shifted to community participation for rural community development. The focus was now on empowering communities and granting them the confidence to take control in the planned development initiatives.
The philosophy behind this approach involved the idea that the success of a developmental intiative depends entirely on the participation of the community. Thus, community involvement in development initiatives should be crucial in any development intiatives (Biewenga, 2009).
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was used as a model for communism (Zimbalist and Sherman, 1984), some Marxist theorists (e.g., Bowles and Gintis, 1998) were no longer calling for a complete revolution to communism as a solution to poverty and inequality. Instead, they were now promoting what is called “assets-based redistribution”. The focus of this approach is the redistribution of productive assets.
This new Marxist thought argues that giving “all citizens ownership rights to assets
26 | P a g e
such as workplaces and residences would increase productivity and efficiency as individuals assume the rights and responsibilities of property ownership” (Clark, 1998:167). The new Marxist proposal is dismissed by critics as “speculative and inconclusive” (e.g., Hausman,1998:79) and overly optimistic (Roemer, 1998).
However, some studies (e.g., Craig and Pencavel, 1992) do provide empirical evidence in support of the assets-based redistribution approach.
The number of people living in extreme poverty has increased concurrently with the growth in the size of the world’s population. Simply put, a population with a large proportion of its members trapped in abject poverty cannot be said to be developed.
From a geographical perspective, this is one of the many characteristics that differentiate the more developed countries (MDCs) from the less developed countries (LDCs) (Shah, 2011). Consequently, poverty eradication (or at least mitigation of its effects on the population) is probably the most important developmental goal of our time. This sentiment is well captured in both the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). MDG 1 challenges UN member states to:
• reduce by half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (i.e., living on less than a dollar a day);
• achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people;
• reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
The three focal points of MDG1 indicate that poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon that, in addition to monetary deprivation, encompasses many other dimensions of well-being. This notion is also embodied in the World Bank’s (The World Bank, 2000) definition of the phenomenon of poverty.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have their foundation in the successes attained by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which embody specific targets and milestones in eliminating absolute poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. The SDGs expanded their scope to 17 goals from the eight goals presented in the MDGs and cover the universal goals of fighting inequality, increasing
27 | P a g e
economic growth, providing decent jobs, creating sustainable cities and human settlements, promoting industrialisation, tackling ecosystems, protecting the oceans, fighting climate change, and fostering sustainable consumption, and production, as well as building peace and strengthening justice and the integrity of institutions (Figure 1.4). Unlike the MDGs, which only target developing countries, the SDGs apply to all countries, whether rich, moderately financially endowed, or poor countries. The SDGs are also nationally owned and country-led, to the extent that each country is given the freedom to establish a national framework for achieving the SDGs.
.. .
Figure 1.5: The 17 Sustainable Development Goals Source: IFAD (2018)
Globally, there are many lines of thought as to why the previous rural development initiatives have not been sustainable and ultimately failed. Some experts claim that the lack of consultation and participation offered to the communities in respect of these projects has been one of the main causes (Biewenga, 2009). The essence of this study is the necessity to plant trees on larger tracts of land and, in the process, to apply new technologies. Thus, according to Jayne et al. (2002), the vision is that through increased forest productivity and by ensuring higher yields per hectare, it will be possible to raise many individuals out of poverty.
28 | P a g e
In the light of the above, many rural development projects have set out to intensify agricultural or forest productivity, but have, however, achieved little success. In fact, the root cause of the problem lies in the prevalence of rural poverty that has contributed largely to the failure of these rural development projects.
Another feasible approach to rural development initiatives is the livelihoods approach.
It is in keeping with the transition from top-down to bottom-up rationalisation around rural development initiatives. It can also be labelled as the sustainable livelihoods approach since it advocates that rural development must also consider the various strategies that rural people follow in order to survive and make a living. Scholars such as Carney (1997), Chambers (1997) and Scoones and McCracken (1989) claim that numerous strategies across all sectors of society are followed by myriads of people in their quest to secure their livelihoods. This is questionable when it comes to the accepted views of the small farm group, which puts agriculture at the centre of development. Specifically, it should be noted that according to Ellis and Biggs (2001:445), “agriculture forms only 40-60% of the livelihood package of those living in rural areas”. Furthermore, in the context of the Caprivi Development Project, this particular approach has effectively shown the valuable contributions that livelihood strategies have made to the rural farming communities in this area (Caprivi Farming Holding, 2008).