Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:10:14.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards community-based forest management in Southern Africa: do decentralization experiments work for local livelihoods?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2010

FRANK MATOSE  and
SCOTNEY WATTS
FRANK MATOSE*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7700, Cape Town, South Africa
SCOTNEY WATTS
Affiliation:
Parliament of South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa
*
*Correspondence: Dr Frank Matose e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Differences are emerging in decentralization of forest and community management in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa. This paper draws on case studies in each country to examine five aspects of their decentralization experience, namely forest tenure, new organizational structures, accountability and livelihood outcomes. Tenure arrangements developed as a result of decentralization are important for communities, as these determine the nature of access sanctioned by the state and security of the arrangements. The transfer of power to new organizations is proving to be a challenge. Experiences across the three case studies show that new committees were formed for these forestry initiatives by outside agencies and attempts were made to make them relevant to the way local communities managed forests. One of the main tenets of decentralization revolves around accountability of community representatives to their constituents rather than to the state. Although moves have been made to promote the accountability of community representatives, these have produced mixed results in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa. Only after changes in the approach taken by the state in Zimbabwe did community representatives become more accountable. In Mozambique, because of the special arrangements around the specific case, greater authority was given to community representatives, whereas, in South Africa, the state retained authority over representatives. Decentralization may bring benefits and improve communities' livelihoods from forestry activities, however much more still needs to be done by states in order for forests to take communities out of poverty.

Keywords

accountabilitycommunity-based managementdecentralizationforest resourceslivelihood strategiesMozambiqueorganizational structures powerSouth AfricaZimbabwe
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 2)
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 3: Thematic section. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Designing the next generation (Part 2) , September 2010 , pp. 310 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anstey, S. (2005) Governance, natural resources and complex adaptive systems: a CBNRM case study of communities and natural resources in Northern Mozambique. In: Confronting the Crisis in Community Conservation: Case Studies from Southern Africa, ed. Dzingirai, U. & Breen, C., pp. 138–193. Pieter-maritzburg, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.Google Scholar
Anstey, S. & Rihoy, L. (2009) Beacon and barometer: CBNRM and evolutions in local democracy in Southern Africa. In: Beyond Proprietorship: Murphree's Laws on Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa, ed. Mukamuri, B.B., Manjengwa, J.M. & Anstey, S., pp. 41–57. Harare, Zimbabwe and Ottawa, Canada: Weaver Press and IDRC.Google Scholar
Colfer, C.J.P. (2005) The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty and Adaptive Collaborative Management. Washington, DC, USA: Resources For The Future Press.Google Scholar
Degeorges, P.A. & Reilly, B.K. (2009) The realities of community-based natural resource management and biodiversity conservation in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 1: 734–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DWAF (1997 a) Sustainable forest development in South Africa. The policy of the Government of National Unity. White Paper, March 1997. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa [www document]. URL http://www2.dwaf.gov.za/dwaf/cmsdocs/25___Forestry%20White%20Paper.htmGoogle Scholar
DWAF (1997 b) National Forestry Action Programme. Specialist Paper, Workshop Proceedings: Supply and Demand for Forest Products. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria [www document]. URL http://www2.dwaf.gov.za/webapp/ResourceCentre/Documents/Strategy/scan1.pdfGoogle Scholar
DWAF (2004) Policy and strategic framework for participatory forest management. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
FAO (2008) Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper Document No. 19, ed. FAO, pp. 241–281. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
German, L.A., Karsenty, A. & Tiani, A.M., eds (2009) Governing Africa's Forests in a Globalized World. London, UK: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, D. (2000) Strategies, methodologies and gender approaches for CBNRM development in Mozambique. FAO Project GCP/MOZ/O56/NET, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Godana, T. & Naimhwaka, E. (2002) Decentralisation of Capital Projects. NEPRU Working Paper No. 83. Ausspannplatz, Windhoek, Namibia.Google Scholar
Government of South Africa (1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa No 108 of 1996. Government Gazette 378: 1–147.Google Scholar
Government of South Africa (1998 a) National Environmental Management Act No 107 of 1998. Government Gazette 401: 1–73.Google Scholar
Government of South Africa (1998 b) National Forests Act No 84 of 1998. Government Gazette 400: 1–83.Google Scholar
de Moçambique, Governo (2004) Lei de Florestas e Fauna Bravia, Lei n° 10/99 de 7 de Julho. In: Legislação do Sector Agrário, ed. Ministério da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural; Maputo, Centro de Documentação e Informação Agrária.Google Scholar
Hobley, M. (2007) Where in the World is There Pro-poor Forest Policy and Tenure Reform? Washington, DC, USA: Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
Holmes-Watts, T.N. & Watts, S. (2008) Legal frameworks for and the practice of participatory natural resources management in South Africa. Forest Policy and Economics 10: 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ITTO (2003) ITTO principles, criteria, and indicators for sustainable management of African natural tropical forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No. 14. Yokohama, Japan: ITTO.Google Scholar
Iversen, V., Chhetry, B., Francis, P., Gurung, M., Kafle, G., Pain, A. & Seeley, J. (2006) High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai. Ecological Economics 58 (1): 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalá, A. (2004) Democratic governance and common security in Southern Africa: Mozambique in focus. Journal of Security Sector Management 2 (1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Larson, A.M. & Ribot, J.C. (2004) Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens: an introduction. The European Journal of Development Research 16 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, J. (1999) The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralisation. Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, J. (2005) User committees: a potentially damaging second wave of decentralization? In: Decentralization of Natural Resources: Experiences in Africa, Asia and Latin America, ed. Ribot, J.C., & Larson, A.M., pp. 192–213. London, UK: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Mapedza, E. (2009) Decentralization outcomes in the context of political uncertainty in Zimbabwe: a comparative assessment of co-management and CAMPFIRE and implications for policy. In: Governing Africa's Forests in a Globalized World, ed. German, L.A., Karsenty, A. & Tiani, A.M., pp. 215–233. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Matakala, P.W. (2004) Gestão Participativa dos Recursos Naturais-Modelos de Parceria Em Maneio Comunitario dos Recursos Naturais. In: Memórias da III Conferência Nacional sobre o maneio Comunitário dos Recursos Naturais, ed. Nhantumbo, I., Foloma, M. & Puná, N., pp. 77–88. Maputo: Mozambique: IUCN.Google Scholar
Matakala, P.W. & Mushove, P.T. (2001) Arranjos institucionais para o maneio comunitário dos recursos naturais (MCRN): perfis e análise de 42 iniciativas de MCRN em Moçambique. Projecto FAO GCP/MOZ/056/NET.FAO, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Matose, F. (2006) Co-management options for reserved forests in Zimbabwe and beyond: policy implications of forest management strategies. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukamuri, B.B., Manjengwa, J. & Anstey, S. eds (2009) Beyond Proprietorship: Murphree's Laws on Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe and Ottawa, Canada: Weaver Press and IDRC.Google Scholar
Mutimukuru-Maravanyika, T., Prabhu, R., Matose, F., Nyirenda, R. & Kozanayi, W. (2008) Facilitating adaptive collaborative management in forested landscapes: the Mafungautsi case study. In: Coping Amidst Chaos: Studies on Adaptive Collaborative Management from Zimbabwe, ed. Mandondo, A., Prabhu, R. & Matose, F., pp. 15–64. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Nelson, F. & Agrawal, A. (2008) Patronage or participation? Community-based natural resource management reform in Sub-Saharan Africa. Development and Change 39 (4): 557–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A.N. (1997) Participation and decentralisation in rural development: lessons from the Lesotho Highlands Project. Agrekon 36: 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rana, E.B, Shrestha, H.L. & Silwal, R. (2008) Participatory carbon estimation in community forest: methodologies and learnings. The Initiation 2008 2: 91–98 [www document]. URL http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/INIT/article/view/2528/2255Google Scholar
Ribot, J.C (2002) Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalising Popular Participation.Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Ribot, J.C. (2004) Waiting for Democracy: the Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization. Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Ribot, J.C. (2009) Forestry and democratic decentralisation in Sub-Saharan Africa: a rough review. In: Governing Africa's Forests in a Globalized World, ed. German, L.A., Karsenty, A. & Tiani, A.M., pp. 29–55. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Ribot, J.C. & Peluso, N.L. (2003) A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68: 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruitenbeek, H.J. & Cartier, C. (2001) The invisible wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. CIFOR Occasional Paper 34, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Salomão, A. (2004) Legal framework for participatory natural resources management: privileges or rights in Mozambique?. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute. Environmental governance in Africa Working Paper No. 17Google Scholar
Salomão, A. & Matose, F. (2008) Towards community- based forest management of Miombo woodlands in Mozambique. Technical Annex 3. In: Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor ed. Dewees, P.A. & Campbell, B., pp. 50–79. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank [www document]. URL http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/03/24/000333038_20100324030253/Rendered/PDF/536180ESW0P0971A0Volume0201P0979341.pdfGoogle Scholar
Serra, A. (2004) The legitimacy of local institutions for natural resource management: the case of Pindanganga, Mozambique. Marena Research Project: Working paper 2, School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex and Centro de Experimentacao Florestal, Sussundenga, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Shackleton, S.E. & Campbell, B. (2001) Devolution in Natural Resources Management: Institutional Arrangements and Power Shifts. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E. & Edmunds, D. (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? ODI Natural Resources Perspectives No. 76, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SLSA Team (2008) The politics of decentralisation in Southern Africa. Future Agricultures Consortium: policy process briefing for WDR 2008 [www document]. URL http://www.future-agricultures.org/EN/WDR/WDR_decentralisation_SLSA%20Team.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sitoe, A.A. & Tchaúque, F.J. (2008) Trend in forest ownership, forest resources tenure and institutional arrangements in Mozambique: are they contributing to better forest management and poverty reduction? Case study from Mozambique. In: Understanding Forest Tenure in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges for Forest Tenure Diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper Document No. 19, ed. FAO, pp. 241–281. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Tacconi, L. (2007) Decentralisation, forests and livelihoods: theory and narrative. Global Environmental Change 17: 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, C. (2001) The reform and implementation of land policy in Mozambique. A case study of FAO support. FAO Land Reform 2: 5–15.Google Scholar
Tanner, C., Baleira, S., Norfolk, S., Cau, B. & Assulai, J. (2006) Making rights a reality: participation in practice and lessons learned in Mozambique. FAO, LSP Working Paper 27. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Watts, S. (2003) Review of South Africa's National Forestry Action Programme(NFAP): natural forests and woodlands. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
Watts, S,(2006) Strategic developments in natural forest conservation in South Africa. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 22: 77–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, S. & Holmes-Watts, T.N. (2006) The effects of participatory forest management on a forest-margin community in the Southern Cape Forests: a case study of Covie. In: Proceedings of the IVth National Symposium on Natural Forests and Woodlands, Port Elizabeth, May 2006, pp. 295–309. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry [www document]. URL http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:463yvjU2SI0J:www2.dwaf.gov.za/dwaf/download.asp%3Ff%3D4281___Day4_session%2B2_item3.pdf%26docId%3D4281+The+effects+of+participatory+forest+management+on+a+forest-margin+community+in+the+Southern+Cape+Forests:+a+case+study+of+Covie&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShGYetaSrc951Y0Nl5NvShfrmIhFi_tcnCeDKV3R3Ac1G8zVnsFE8u5uv66wzXXRTUxW2KADY0ErQhT9IlYDdP7KdczOFpVfhnYus5JHIJz8RGg2FC-xItaBwEzUqllORmoiG-m&sig=AHIEtbTBGOyF_8cj6PQO3bnFIVjX24zV_AGoogle Scholar