Community management of natural resources is all the rage among conservationists. But is it really working, asks Saliem Fakir
To promote the sustainable use of natural resources and to maximise benefits for rural communities, several community-based natural resource management projects have been initiated in South Africa, mainly by foreign donor agencies.
These projects aim to perpetuate the idea of community through managing natural resources communally, to ensure sustainable livelihoods and equitable sharing of resources, and to encourage entrepreneurial activities.
A workshop was convened last month by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the South African chapter of the World Conservation Union to review the future of community-based natural resource management in South Africa. Reflecting on the discussions held there, it is clear that the future of community projects is limited.
The question is, how does one shift the current “welfarist” climate to one in which communal and rural areas are places where people can have a decent life with job security and income, and can benefit from the kind of amenities available in urban centres?
Land reform and restructuring in the agricultural sector are seen as possible avenues. But, as the Department of Land Affairs pointed out in its Quality of Life Report last year, putting people on land without resources and support programmes leads to a poverty trap.
While community-based natural resource management projects have a conservation or environmental focus, they are no different in complexity to any other community-based projects. The results so far hardly provide ground for optimism.
The first reason is the ideology that pervades the initiation of community-based projects, which is hamstrung by ideal notions of community, as well as the view that somehow rural people are different and they should behave and live differently. In other words, their desires, needs and aspirations should be different to those of urban people.
Realism is lacking, and projects are pursued for the sake of achieving ideological objectives at all cost.
Hard lessons have been learnt as a result. The Mineworkers’ Development Agency, for instance, is having to change tack after the collapse of most of the co-operatives it set up to engage retrenched mineworkers.
In the absence of a concrete, coherent vision for rural development, community- based projects are not properly integrated in the government’s overall development agenda. This has led to ad hoc, piecemeal projects determined by donor preferences, and located in areas with existing programmes. The projects end up being sporadic rather than strategic.
As experience in Madikwe in North-West has shown, agencies involved in community-based projects often have to carry the burden of local government in ensuring that infrastructure such as roads and electricity is put in place before development projects can be started.
Perhaps too much is being made of possible opportunities in rural areas. There is an increasing tendency for rural people to seek a living in urban and peri-urban areas. Gauteng alone has an influx of about 20 000 people a month.
Many rural areas are bereft of young people, and villages tend to be used more for residential purposes and for retirement. The rural-urban dynamics are not fully understood, and neither are the desires and aspiration of youths in rural areas.
This does have implications for policy. Should the government encourage urbanisation, or force people to stay in rural areas? Is it in a better position to provide wider and more secure benefits in urban or rural areas? It seems that as far as infrastructure investment and rapid implementation are concerned, economies of scale are better achieved in urban areas.
If current trends in rural depopulation continue, more investment is likely to go into development that targets the urban population. This is likely to have a significant impact on the success rate of community-based projects in rural areas.
Finally, it is far more tedious and time- consuming to engage in entrepreneurial and business activities with communities than individuals. While individuals are targets for entrepreneurial support, who gets to be supported and how has to be negotiated with community institutions.
Individuals with entrepreneurial promise often do not realise their full potential for fear of becoming victims of petty jealousies.
The involvement of the private sector in the form of partnerships, particularly in ecotourism projects, is crucial, as the private sector has access to the markets and finance. Given the difficulties in securing agreements and partnerships with community institutions, private sector developers tend to steer clear of the “hard stuff” and limit themselves to “soft options” such as building clinics and schools.
Is there hope then? If current trends prevail, yes and no.
There will be pockets of success, but the general picture is that rural community projects will remain weak and urban centres will continue to be a magnet for the young.
Without an economic base and strong organisational capacity – two major constraints that prevail in rural areas – the likelihood of major breakthroughs across the board must be viewed with scepticism.
This does not mean NGOs and other agencies should stop what they are doing, but they need to take a more pragmatic approach. There needs to be less ideology and more realism.
Saliem Fakir is country programme co- ordinator for the IUCN-World Conservation Union, South Africa