LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6 Why do people seek to manage the environment?
The World Bank (1999) cited by George in Lee and George (2000:179) defines environmental management as "the set of mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during the implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels".
If communities participate in environmental management it means they would be able to identify, evaluate and rank environmental problems facing them and develop viable local environmental action plans in collaboration with some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local environmental authorities. Murphree (1991: 1) in his study of communities as institutions for resource management suggests that people
seek to manage the environment for two reasons, namely: a) because its management improves the conditions of their livelihood, and b) because its degradation is perceived to be threatening, either to life-sustaining processes (for example, pollution and soil erosion) or to peoples' aesthetic values. In this regard the environment is taken by Murphree to mean the habitat or ecosystem in which human beings live, but he emphasizes on natural resources which form a component of the ecosystem which sustains life or provide goods and services useful to man. Murphree, however, argues that this is highly generalised and there is need for definitive proposition. He thus notes "people seek to manage the environment when the benefits of management are perceived to exceed its costs", (Murphree 1991: 2). This proposition introduces the notion of cost, which is a basic aspect of environmental management. In this regard, people may want to manage the environment for better production or to prevent the effects of its deterioration. However, Murphree notes that they will only engage in environmental management if they consider the benefit to be worth the cost and if they have the means to meet these costs. In the same study, Murphree introduces the notion of resource management and resource use. He notes that resource use without resource management is non-sustainable. But equally any attempt to establish resource management without resource use is likely to be futile" , (Murphree 1991:
14). From the foregoing, this dissertation will need to look analytically at the initiatives and reasons that compelled the Sanale community to come together and manage their environment and consider their short and long term benefits and costs.
2.6.1Conservation initiatives
The need to curb environmental deterioration has catapulted widespread endeavours aimed at conservation and improvement of natural resources. Ghai (1994: 7) highlights 3 categories of conservation initiatives. Two categories comprise official programmes: those which aim to preserve forests, parks and animal and plant species for the benefit of present and future generations; and those that strive to rehabilitate and improve degraded resources to meet the subsistence needs of farmers,herders and foragers. Ghai mentions the category as consisting of resource improvement efforts undertaken at the initiative of local communities and grass-roots organisations, with different support from activists and voluntary development bodies, state agencies and foreign donors. Conservation programmes in the former category have often met with limited success owing to their non-tolerance or failure to take into account the needs
of communities near or surrounding resource areas such as parks or protected areas (Ghai 1994: 7). The second category of conservation endeavours have posted some notable successes owing to their explicit purpose of improving degraded resources with the aim of raising the living standards of the poor. However, some initiatives in this category have failed because they are not embedded in the socio-economic and political scenario of the area. The third category of conservation initiatives has a better record of success because participation by local communities guarantees that the programmes and projects address the real needs and priority concerns of the local people. This is even made possible by the support, material and political, from individuals and organisations, (ibid). Based on this literature, this study will test the community conservation initiatives and assess the factors that lead to success or failure of the initiatives. One such tool of analysis is the sustainable livelihood framework which is tackled below.
2.7Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
Any attempt to analyse rural development programmes should include sustainability of the whole strategy. That's why focus should be on sustainable livelihood strategies.
According to Scoones (1998) livelihood strategies should be understood at different levels. Of note is that ownership of assets does not always translate into effective livelihood strategies. However, a balance between assets is critical to make the best use of opportunities, for example, where access to land of reasonable quality exists, credit, markets and access to inputs are critical in order to expand agricultural production. Therefore, a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can "...cope with and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base", (Scoones, 1998:5).
Linked to Scoones' livelihood framework is sustainable livelihood framework propounded by Department for International Development (DFID) when it comes to analysing how people use the resources at their disposal in a given policy and institutional framework to deal with vulnerability where they are prone to shocks, stresses and seasonal variations. They have access and influence to certain assets
(human, natural, financial, physical and social) that are poverty-reducing factors that
gam meanmg and value through a prevailing social, institutional and policy environment. This environment in tum affects the livelihood strategies that people use to achieve beneficial livelihood outcomes, (DFID, 1999: 1). Thus, the concept of sustainable livelihood securities focuses on local people's ability to act in an environmentally-sustainable way, and on removing the constraints that prevent them from taking the long-term view in conserving their resource base in which, it is argued, they have a vested interest for food security and other reasons (Chambers, 1988). According to Davies et al (1991) this approach to sustainable development represents the most explicit attempt to link food security and environmental concerns at conceptual level although it has been criticised for failing to take account of trade- offs between food security and environmental objectives within local livelihood systems.The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is therefore presented below.
2.7.1 Sustainable livelihoods framework
The framework has been developed to help understand and analyse the livelihoods of the poor. It is also useful in assessing the effectiveness of existing efforts to reduce poverty. It presents the main factors that affect people's livelihoods, and typical relationships between these, Department for International Development (DFID) (1999). This is shown,as developedby DFID (1999),in figure 1 below.
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD FRtMEWORK
LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES re Income
~~;c:711 r.;;--;:::;-:":-=~IIncreased well
,.,. being
Reduced i L:...:":"':;";':'="::":"=.:..JIvulnerability
Improved food security Moresustainable use of NR base
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood Framework
DFID (2001) further notes that the vulnerability context mainly refers to the external factors that create shocks, stresses and seasonal variations in people's lives. Policies of state and non-state players provide the framework for activities, whereas institutions comprise the organisation and rules that enable people to carry out and
benefit from their livelihood strategies. Processes are the dynamic element of policies and institutions implying how things are actually done. Having looked at policies, institutions and processes, this dissertation would advance or add levels of participation to this category. It argues that if people participate in action planning, takes control over local decisions, develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need and retain control over how resources are used. Such levels of participation are viewed as having a bearing on livelihood strategies that communities adopt and eventually leads to beneficial outcomes.
Beneficial outcomes are those that reinforce and expand the assets of the people, (DFID 2001).
Aspects of the sustainable livelihood framework would be utilised in this study to analyse the action of Sanale community in managing their environment and improving household food security, which is explained below.