Research, part of a Special Feature on Navigating Trade-offs: Working for Conservation andDevelopment OutcomesAddressing Trade-offs: Experiences from Conservation and DevelopmentInitiatives in the Mkuze Wetlands, South Africa
Annika C. Dahlberg 1 and Catie Burlando 2
ABSTRACT. Present-day conservation policies generally include the aim to integrate biodiversityconservation and local development, and describe this as a win–win solution that can satisfy all interests.This is challenged by research claiming that many efforts fail to match practice to rhetoric. South Africahas made strong commitments to fulfill the dual goals of conservation and development, and theiSimangaliso Wetland Park is promoted as an example of this. We explore present and potential outcomesof conservation and development interventions in a community bordering the Wetland Park through theperspective of different stakeholders, with the aim of uncovering opportunities and risks. In terms ofimproving local livelihoods as well as involvement in conservation, the success of the studied interventionsvaried. Local communities may accept restrictions on resource use as a result of realistic and fairly negotiatedtrade-offs, but if perceived as unjust and imposed from above, then mistrust and resistance will increase.In this area, collaboration between conservation organizations and the local community had improved, butstill faced problems associated with unequal power relations, unrealistic expectations, and a lack of trust,transparency, and communication. As unsustainable efforts are a waste of funds and engagement, and mayeven become counterproductive, policy visions need to be matched by realistic allocations of staff, time,funds, and training. At the national and international level, the true cost of conservation has to be recognizedand budgeted for if efforts at integrating conservation and development are to succeed.
Key Words: integrated conservation and development; Mkuze wetlands; natural resource management;protected area; rural livelihoods; South Africa; trade-offs
INTRODUCTION
The fortress-type approach to conservation that hasbeen common in protected-area managementthroughout the 20th century has been stronglycriticized because of its negative impact on locallivelihoods (Wilshusen et al. 2002, Dowie 2009).Alternative approaches that aim to integrateconservation and development have been formallyendorsed by both national and internationalconservation organizations (Borrini-Feyerabend etal. 2004). The main reasons for integration relate topoverty alleviation, democracy, human rights, andmore efficient conservation, and such effortscommonly include so-called Integrated Conservationand Development Projects (ICDPs) (Adams andHulme 2001).
The rationale of ICDPs is that economic loss to localcommunities caused by restricted access to natural
resources in protected areas should be compensatedthrough alternative income sources, therebyreducing dependence on these resources andincreasing awareness of conservation benefits(Garnett et al. 2007). However, many ICDPs faceproblems because generated benefits are notsufficient to replace reliance on land and otherresources (Schmidt-Soltau 2004) or they attractmore people, thereby increasing pressure on naturalresources (Wittemyer et al. 2008). The ICDP modelhas been subjected to similar criticism as that aimedat conventional development projects. That is,projects are often too limited in space and time,initiated and owned by external actors, haveinappropriate funding mechanisms, and reach alimited number of people. Furthermore, participationtends to be superficial and promised benefitsunrealistic, and an awareness of the broader social–ecological context is often lacking (Sayer and Wells2004, Springer 2009).
1Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 2Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
The gap between policy visions and actual outcomeshas generated debate concerning whether and howthe dual goals of conservation and development maybe reconciled (Adams et al. 2004, Brockington etal. 2006, Agrawal and Redford 2009). Some fearthat one will take precedence over the other(Sanderson and Redford 2003, Brockington et al.2006), although many governments, internationalNGOs, and national conservation organizationsstate that they believe in win–win scenarios (IUCN2002, Roe and Elliott 2006). It has been argued thatthis perceived need for consensus, aimed atsatisfying all parties, denies the complexity of theissue and hides important aspects of power relations,politics, and justice (Büscher 2008). Conservationand development do not have to be irreconcilablegoals, but they need to be realistically consideredas part of a political and social process ofengagement and negotiation among differentinterests (Brechin et al. 2002). The creation ofprotected areas always entails trading one land-useoption for another, and choices among differentinterests have to be continuously faced. Thus, trade-offs between the goals of conservation anddevelopment, as well as within them, are the normrather than the exception. Trade-offs are complex,appear in many guises, and are perceived differentlydepending on the vantage point (Sunderland et al.2008). This is why the importance of transparencyin negotiations has been highlighted (Brown 2004,Wells et al. 2004).
South Africa has an exceptionally high biodiversity,but also a large human population where many haveendured unjust, exclusionary conservation practicesfor over a century. As a result, protected areas arehotly contested (Kepe et al. 2004, Ramutsindela2004). Since the democratic transition in 1994, thegovernment has embarked on a challenging pathaimed at conserving biodiversity, alleviatingpoverty, and redressing previous dispossessions(Magome and Murombedzi 2003, Carruthers 2007).Northeastern KwaZulu-Natal is a case in point. Theregion has been severely neglected in terms ofdevelopment (Guyot 2002) and at the same timemany protected areas have been established here,such as the country’s first Natural World HeritageSite, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, formerlynamed the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park. Theintegration of conservation and development iniSimangaliso Wetland Park, hereafter referred to asthe Wetland Park, has been described as a win–winsituation (Porter et al. 2003), but this has beenchallenged from both a conservation and a human-rights point of view (Guyot 2002, Jones 2006).
We study the case of one community that bordersthe Wetland Park to explore opportunities and risksinherent in interventions aimed at integratingconservation and development. The study providesa context-specific analysis of interactions betweenthe Wetland Park and the community, with the aimof drawing some general lessons concerning linksbetween process and outcomes. Here, process refersspecifically to the described interventions, but alsoto the local socio-environmental setting, includingchanges in land use and management. Thequalitative research approach applied allows theinterests, experiences, and perceptions of differentstakeholders to be heard, as well as juxtaposed andcontrasted. Finally, in a discussion based on insightsgained, we reflect on varying forms of trade-offs,and how these may relate to the sustainability ofdifferent initiatives to promote both conservationand development.
CASE-STUDY AREA
The Tribal Authority of Mnqobokazi
The tribal authority of Mnqobokazi extends into theMkuze wetland, part of which is included in theWetland Park. People have lived in the area forseveral hundred years, and according to availablecensus data, the community has about 8000 people(Statistics South Africa 2001). The community isdivided into wards, each administered by aheadman, Induna, who reports to the tribal chief,Inkosi (Andrén 2001). Since 1994, power andresponsibilities have been shared between thetraditional leadership and an elected councillor. Thearea has recently seen some improvements ininfrastructure, such as a local clinic, but overall thelevel of development is low, as is the educationalstandard, and the incidence rate of HIV and malariais extremely high. Few people have formalemployment, and reliance on pensions and childgrants has become increasingly important(Burlando 2005, Dahlberg and Trygger 2009).Many households have access to land in the fertiledelta of the Mkuze River for subsistence and small-scale commercial agriculture. Cattle are grazed oncommunal land and in the protected areas, with thelatter being especially important in drought years.People rely heavily on resources from the wetland,such as poles, firewood, reeds used for roofs andmats, ilala palm (Hyphaene coriacea) for basketsand beer, fish, and small game (Dahlberg 2005).This produce is mainly used within the householdor sold locally, although reeds, palm leaves, and
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
crafts are also sold to middlemen or at touristmarkets. This has become an important source ofincome, especially for poor, female-headedhouseholds that are growing in number as a resultof the migration of men in search of work and theeffects of HIV (Dahlberg 2005).
Environment and Conservation History
The coastal plain of KwaZulu-Natal is dominatedby sandy soils, and the scattered wetlands providepockets of productive soil important to localagriculture. The Mkuze wetland includes thefloodplain of the Mkuze River, streams, pans, andswamps (Ellery et al. 2003). The climate is moist–subtropical, and rainfall, averaging between 600 and1000 mm, is highly variable and droughts as wellas flood events are common. The area constitutes amosaic of different habitats and vegetation types,where abiotic, biotic, and human influences havecontributed to a high plant and animal diversity(Ellery et al. 2003). The demarcation of state landand commercial farms for white farmers during the20th century reduced the area available to the localblack communities (Dahlberg 2005). As in SouthAfrica generally, land is divided among differenttenure regimes, categorized as communal, private,or state land. Today, Mnqobokazi is surrounded byprotected areas on three sides: the Mkuze GameReserve, established in 1912, the Phinda Reserve,a commercial wildlife reserve developed in the1980s, and the iSimangaliso Wetland Park (Fig. 1).These protected areas were formerly accessed bythe Mnqobokazi community for settlements, fields,grazing, and hunting (Andrén 2001).The Wetland Park, covering more than 300 000 haalong the coast of KwaZulu-Natal, was proclaimeda World Natural Heritage Site in 1999 (Porter et al.2003). The part that borders Mnqobokazi was earlierdemarcated as a forest reserve, and in the 1970s itwas taken over by the military who forcibly evictedthe resident Mbila people. The area was laterdeclared conservation land and resource use wasfurther restricted. Cattle grazing and the collectionof reeds were allowed, but the collection of firewoodand medicinal plants, setting fires, fishing, andhunting became illegal. This had negativeconsequences for local food security and wasperceived as unjust by local people. Hunting wasthe most contentious issue, where custom and needclashed with official views on poaching. Localhunters entered the protected area at night whilegame guards patrolled the area in search of poachers,and men on both sides were injured and even killed
(Ellery et al. 2003, Dahlberg 2005). Conservationfield staff faced an impossible task, with orders toenforce regulations while simultaneously maintaininggood relations with local communities (Andrén2001). After democratization in 1994, theneighboring Mbila community won a land claim fora large area within the Wetland Park, but on thepremise that the land would remain protected.Resettlement was not allowed, but forms for localinvolvement in resource management were to benegotiated. Other communities that like Mnqobokazihad used the land and its resources but had not beensettled there, were not included in this agreement.In 2007, Mnqobokazi gained land title to about 5000ha inside Phinda Reserve, but also here the landwould continue to be managed for conservation.
METHODS
Previous research in this area has accumulatedextensive knowledge about livelihood strategies,natural resource use and dependence, the history ofland-use changes, and the relationships between thecommunity and conservation interests. We build onthis knowledge to strengthen the analysis of newdata. Field work was conducted in April–May 2005,using participant observations and in-depth,semistructured interviews with 56 stakeholders. InMnqobokazi, 43 people were interviewed, 26 ofwhom were active in development projects initiatedby the park authority. The other respondents fromthe community were selected to include men andwomen who were from different wards and whorelied on different livelihood strategies such asfarming, raising cattle, harvesting wild resources,local employment, and pensions, and includedrepresentatives of the local leadership. Questionsfocused on livelihood strategies, local conservationand development initiatives, and relationships withconservation organizations. Most interviews wereconducted in Zulu with the aid of a local interpreter.Interviews were also conducted with staff fromconservation organizations. Eight of these werefrom the provincial conservation organization,Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) andfive were from the iSimangaliso Authority, andincluded people with different work duties.Interviews dealt with such topics as the mandate ofthe organizations, conservation and developmentefforts, and involvement with local communities.Although not requested by the majority ofrespondents, most opinions and quotes providedremain anonymous.
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
Figure 1. Location of study area (modified from Andrén 2001)
RESULTS
Mandate and Ambitions of ConservationOrganizations
The study area was part of the Lubombo SpatialDevelopment Initiative (LSDI) that supporteddevelopment through the promotion of conservationand tourism. The nomination of the country’s firstWorld Natural Heritage Site was seen as an idealway to use tourism to serve both conservation anddevelopment interests (Porter et al. 2003). TheiSimangaliso Authority (IA) was established in2000 to promote conservation and development inthe region. The Minister of Environmental Affairsand Tourism emphasized the latter: “The newAuthority's primary purpose will be to acceleratedevelopment, generate sustainable jobs and create
conditions for the establishment of an internationallycompetitive tourism destination” (Moosa 2000).
The overall responsibility for the Wetland Park laywith the IA, and the day-to-day conservationactivities were delegated to EKZNW, whosemandate also included local development issues(Porter et al. 2003). In terms of official plans forlocal participation and development in and aroundthe park as a whole, the IA has stated they plan toinvolve local communities in such projects as thetraining of field guides, developing newinfrastructure, and small tourism enterprises. Otherstated aims are to incorporate indigenous resource-management practices in conservation managementand to improve subsistence and small-scalecommercial production (Derwent and Porter 2003).In interviews staff added that they hoped that
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
communities would suggest projects and stated that“It would be ideal to have the community considerthe park as their own asset.” To recreate the area’sformer biodiversity and attract more tourists,wildlife such as elephants, white and black rhino,and buffalo had, during the time of fieldwork in2005, started to be introduced in the park. At thesame time, the IA was negotiating with protectedareas that neighbor the Wetland Park to drop fencesbetween them to create larger conservation areas.They also planned to erect new fences along theborders between conservation and communal land,to keep wildlife safely within the park and to protectneighboring communities.
Conservation and Development Initiatives inMnqobokazi
Communal gardens
In 2003, the IA received government funds toinitiate communal vegetable gardens in communitiesbordering the Wetland Park, and in Mnqobokazithey presented this proposal at a public meeting. Thefirst garden here, S’gungunya, was established in2003, and encouraged by a local Induna and asecond garden, Sisonke, was established a year later.The majority of members were women, and topromote their empowerment, the IA required thatthe garden committees consist of women only. Thelocations of the gardens were decided jointly bythese committees, the Inkosi, and a soil scientisthired by the IA. Both gardens were located high onthe bank of a canal to allow for mechanizedirrigation while minimizing the risk of flooddamage. However, the soils here were sandy andrisked rapidly losing fertility with continuedcultivation. Staff from the IA said that the womencould have selected areas in the more fertile MkuzeRiver delta, but the local councillor claimed thatthere was not enough space there for any futureexpansion of the gardens. Most members wereinitially satisfied with the locations because thegardens were easily accessible. The IA providedfencing, poles, gates, water tanks, and pipes andhired local workers to set the gardens up. Theyprovided funds for seeds and insecticide, and for ashort period they employed a local agriculturalextensionist to promote improved farmingtechniques and commercial skills. In 2005, the firstgarden had 37 members working 2 ha and the secondconsisted of 22 members cultivating 1 ha.
In 2003, yields were good and the project wasdescribed in the IA newsletter as “Planting seeds toimprove lives” (Fakude 2003). In 2004, however,the harvest was poor due to drought, pests, and otherproblems, and in 2005 planting started late due toheavy rains and administrative misunderstandings.In the Mkuze delta, crops had done better and onemember left the project because he could producemore there. In S’gungunya garden, there were manycomplaints. The pump broke, the replacement wasinadequate, funds were delayed, too limited, or usedinappropriately, communication with the IAfaltered, pesticides and a tractor were needed, workwas disorganized, and attendance was slack. In thesecond garden, members were disappointed that theirrigation system had not been installed and that thesteep gradient of part of the garden prevented theuse of a tractor. However, here members weregenerally satisfied with the level of organization andcooperation, and they had built a nursery.
According to the IA, the aims with the gardens wereto address food security for the poorest, strengthenthe skills of farmers, potentially generate income bysupplying tourist resorts with vegetables, and createlinks between the community and the Wetland Park.Knowledge among garden members about theseofficial aims varied. They either did not know ofany specific aim with the project, or thought it wasto help them support themselves or simply to keepthem busy with something useful. Only half of themembers interviewed knew the IA had initiated theproject, and most did not link the IA to the WetlandPark. This lack of knowledge was more pronouncedin the second garden, and according to the IA, thiswas because it was new and because staff had beenrelocated elsewhere and not met these membersoften. All members said crops from their fields inthe delta, or income from reeds, mats, or short-termjobs were their main sources of income, and onlyseven out of 16 mentioned the gardens as acomponent of their overall livelihood strategy. Atthe same time, others who lacked access to landwanted to join, but had been told that the gardengroups were full. In terms of providing agriculturaltraining, local leaders hoped the gardens wouldbenefit the youth. However, all members alreadyhad some farming experience, and no young peoplehad joined. Members were positive about theknowledge learned from the agricultural extensionistand the contact she had initiated with a tourist lodgeto buy their vegetables. However, these negotiationshad ended when the IA ran short of funds for theproject and had to discontinue her contract. The
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
main incentive for members to participate in theproject was to sell produce outside the community,but other villagers doubted they could meet thenecessary demands in quality and volume.
Craft project
The craft group, Qophumlando, consisted of ninewomen, six of whom were interviewed includingthe chairperson. The LSDI initiated the project in1996, in cooperation with local leadership whoselected older women from the poorer householdsas members. Weaving baskets using leaves of ilalapalm was an established local craft. The LSDIprovided teachers to train the women to makebaskets specifically for the tourism market, and laterthe IA employed a designer to help the womenfurther improve their products. The official aim ofthe project was to ensure a monthly income for thewomen, and members said they had joined theproject to earn money, to learn something new, andto work together. Of the original 20 members, threeremained. Women had left due to otheremployment, illness, or because of the demandingquality requirements that also made it difficult torecruit new, and especially young, women to thegroup. The IA and the women agreed that the groupneeded more members, but were undecided on howto best realize this. The group had good relationshipswith staff from the IA, who often visited. Membersand IA staff recounted numerous initiativesconducted to increase profitability and sustainability,such as help to establish contacts with buyers andattendance at trade fairs and workshops to meet craftgroups from other communities. An importantconcern for the IA was to ensure that the womenwere paid appropriately and not taken advantage of.All the women interviewed considered the projecta success, and for some it was their main source ofincome. “I have no pension or child grants, and myonly source of cash income is from the baskets. Ithas meant a big change. Before the familysometimes was very needy, but now they alwayshave something at home to eat.” For others, it wasa welcome supplement to other income sources suchas pensions, child grants, and collecting and sellingpapyrus. The only problem mentioned was thatbaskets were rejected, “...even if there is only a smalldefect,” and therefore, a regular income was notassured.
When discussing efforts to promote development inMnqobokazi, IA staff stressed the success of thecraft group, and considered this more successful
than the garden project in creating links betweenconservation and development. The described linksconsisted of selling crafts to tourists andencouraging people to conserve the ilala trees thatwere declining on communal land. Staff of the IAsaid that people who used ilala palms had beentaught not to dig up roots, to plant new trees, andnot waste weaving material. Group membersdiscussed the increasing scarcity of big palms, butmade no mention of any conservation activity.According to them, the increase in people in thecommunity meant more pressure on the ilala, andtrees with leaves long enough for weaving weredifficult to find on communal land. These could stillbe found within the Wetland Park, and membersusually bought their material from other people inMnqobokazi who collected inside the park. “...theygo in on foot and cut the leaves, and then a tractorwill come and collect the bundles.”
Hopes and Tensions in Fencing forConservation
The IA was involved in negotiations withcommunities neighboring the park about erecting afence along their mutual border, with the intent tokeep local people and wildlife safe from each other,and to help preserve the wetland. In Mnqobokazi,negotiations about a fence had been temporarilysuspended in 2005 awaiting the outcome of the IA’sdiscussions with other communities. Among peoplein Mnqobokazi, feelings about the proposed fencewere mixed. Many knew nothing about it, and thosewho lived further from the wetland often did noteven know the Wetland Park had been established.Among those aware of the plans, many werepotentially accepting. As expressed by a malefarmer, “The fence is good as long as we can accessthe resources.” These sentiments were echoed inother statements concerning conservation and theWetland Park, i.e., it was important to protect theMkuze wetland and its resources, but on thecondition that this did not infringe upon peoples’livelihoods. Even when expressing hopes about newjobs as promised by the IA, respondents were stillhesitant. “People will gain from the jobs created.They will be the first to be employed for fencingand for the [tourist] lodges. [However], there willbe dangerous animals in the park so people won’tbe allowed to keep their cattle [there].” Peoplefeared that the park would not compensate them forreduced access to resources and that a fence couldresult in increased poverty. Negative effects of
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
reduced access would be most noticeable in droughtyears, when access to reserve grazing land and otherresources are especially important. The localleadership felt responsible for securing preferentialaccess to employment in the park for thecommunity. They hoped that the construction of afence would create jobs, and that a subsequentincrease in tourism would generate training andemployment opportunities. However, they sawreduced access to natural resources as a problemand were not prepared to give up communal land oraccept restrictions on agriculture in the delta.
Staff of the IA were aware of the potential negativesocioeconomic effects of a fence and were searchingfor solutions. Some thought that opportunities fortraining and work in tourism ventures wouldoutweigh reduced access to resources. Othersexpressed strong doubts that the number of jobscreated would suffice and thought many positionswould require an education and experience thatlocal people did not possess. One suggested solutionwas to plan for gates in the fence to allow localaccess to natural resources, as had been done in aneighboring community, and to regulate this outtakethrough a new permit system. However, no concreteplans were mentioned concerning how safe accesscould be organized and for what natural resources.For many years, the EKZNW had issued permits forthe collection of reeds that specified species but notlimits on amounts or time of collection. Peopleusually acquired a permit out of fear of penalties,but many thought the system was unnecessary andunfair and were hesitant about complying in thefuture.
Obstacles and Opportunities
One community leader was concerned about thebenefits promised as compensation for reducedaccess to resources in the wetland.
When somebody from the community ishungry, they can go and fetch as muchiduma [Cyperus papyrus] as they want tobuy food. Even if there are permits, thesewon’t be enough... The Authority said thatthe park will bring in tourists. My questionis, how can the profits be divided among thecommunity members when the touristscome?”
Suspicions were raised about a perceived buy-off,as expressed by the same local leader, “The peopleat the Authority will take my fields [in the delta]with the excuse that they gave us the gardens.”
Conservation staff were fully aware that they couldnot expect local people to give up access to naturalresources without compensation. “It is possible tobalance use and protection. Before the aim was toprotect nature at all costs. Today communities mustbenefit from the park. We have to find a way tocommunicate problems and find solutions.”Potential solutions mentioned by IA staff includedtrade-offs. For example, it was suggested thatagricultural fields in the wetland located within thepark should revert to the community in exchangefor areas of communal land. Other forms ofcompensation that were frequently mentionedinvolved monetary benefits through the creation ofnew jobs. Conservation staff aimed at meetingconservation goals as well as addressing the needsof local communities, and this was clearly puttingstress on them. Staff members had differentresponsibilities, often focusing either on conservationor development, and they had to constantly weighoptions and accept trade-offs also within theirorganizations.
Conservation staff who interacted directly with thecommunity said it was important to gain the trust oflocal people. “The IA should go slower and gainmore trust... we also realize that communities canstop projects.” However, at times, building trust wasdescribed simply as a necessary component oftrying to convince local people to accept outsideinterventions, as exemplified in a discussion aboutthe fence.
Before you do anything, you have to sell theidea. If you want a school, you have to makesure everybody feels the need for it. Samefor the conservation area: people need tobe convinced. You must bring people in fromthe start.”
Some emphasized the importance of incorporatinglocal knowledge and ideas in decisions about policyand implementation, but also complained howdifficult it was to get decision makers to accept, andact upon, local opinion. Awareness of historicalprocesses, cultural characteristics, and socio-environmental relationships varied among staffmembers. Some stressed the need to acknowledge
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
the historical legacy as well as different world viewswhen negotiating solutions.
Local people have a negative perception ofconservation of nature because of the wayin which [reserves] were established. Thetraditional way of conservation isdifferent... Man must make use of theenvironment to satisfy needs and he musthave a responsible attitude.
DISCUSSION
Whither the New Approach to Conservation
Through their varied responses, the interviewedrepresentatives of the IA, the EKZNW, and thecommunity illustrate the complex and multifacetednature of combining conservation with development.Conservation staff emphasized that they stood for anew approach to conservation and kept repeatingthe mantras of “conservation with development,”“community involvement,” and “respect the voiceof the community.” However, there were gapsbetween this rhetoric and reality. How to apply andrealize the central components of the “new approachto conservation” were seldom clear either to staff orto local people. At times, simply using the buzzwords seemed to create a belief that their contentwould materialize (Büscher 2008).
The stated official aims of the projects inMnqobokazi were to increase food and incomesecurity among the most vulnerable groups,strengthen the skills of farmers, and increasecapacity for small enterprises. By providingalternative livelihood opportunities, local dependenceon resources in the wetlands would be reduced. Atthe time of field work, the communal gardens, theproject that involved the most people, alreadyshowed signs of being unsustainable. Yields hadbeen poor for two years out of three, and the gardenswere evidently more sensitive to rainfall variationthan fields in the delta. The project had not managedto target the most vulnerable groups, a commonsituation in development efforts (Cleaver 2005) andinstead mainly included households with otherfarming opportunities. Members saw the gardens asa positive addition and not as a substitute to othermeans of survival, consistent with how poorhouseholds generally capture opportunities tosecure different sources of income (Hulme andMuphree 2001). Participation in the gardens was
mainly linked to hopes of accessing commercialmarkets, but this had not yet materialized, at leastpartly due to the discontinued employment of theagricultural extensionist. Rural people are generallyvery knowledgeable about the use and managementof local resources, but lack experience andconnections to market them. Commercialprofitability is usually very difficult to achieve andsustain, even where training has been provided (Nellet al. 2000). Also, a lack of rigor and realism in theplanning stage may result in ventures that are notcommercially feasible.
The communal garden project in Mnqobokazi canbe described as classic example of a traditionalblueprint development project, and risked fallingshort of expectations for common reasons, such asa lack of dialog with local people about needs, aims,and expectations, coupled with a lack of time, funds,and training (Sayer and Wells 2004). The projectalso lacked the transparency and trust amongstakeholders that are especially important whenpower is unequally divided (Sayer and Campbell2004). Gaps in communication within thecommunity and inherent differences in power andinterests further aggravated the process. The craftgroup was more successful, mainly because itincluded important components from the start. Theactivity was relevant to the participants, training hadbeen continuously provided to enhance theircapacity, links with commercial outlets had beenestablished and improved, and participants andfunders shared the same aims. However, althoughit was successful for the participants, theirhouseholds, and potentially their extended families,it brought benefits to very few in a community ofmany. In addition, neither of the projects had anyclear links to conservation apart from being initiatedor funded through the IA, a fact that manyparticipants were unaware of.
Development projects can create economicincentives that act to decrease pressure on naturalresources within protected areas by including trade-offs where people are offered alternatives and agreeto respect conservation efforts. For such trade-offsto be acceptable and sustainable, the alternativesoffered, whether money, jobs, or access to otherresources, have to outweigh the losses caused byabiding with the restrictions (Schmidt-Soltau 2004).
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
Apart from an improved enforcement of existingrestrictions, such as the prohibition on hunting andfishing, the IA and EKZNW wanted to reduce theextraction of reeds and palm leaves from thewetland, as well as restrict further agriculturalexpansion there. However, in Mnqobokazi,households were not working the gardens insteadof their fields in the wetland, women did not rely onthe sale of vegetables instead of reed mats, and thecraft group got most of their raw material from theWetland Park.
As has been discussed in recent literature, trade-offswithin and between conservation and developmentinterests are the norm (Brown 2004, Wells et al.2004), whether recognized as such or not. Theperceived alternative to trade-offs, a win–winsituation where none of the parties give up anything,is untenable in most situations (Sanderson andRedford 2003, Wells et al. 2004), although stillfrequently promoted in policy statements (Adamsand Jeanrenaud 2008). The case presented herehighlights how important it is that trade-offs areidentified, discussed, and negotiated and that howa trade-off is perceived matters more than is oftenrealized. For a trade-off to be accepted in the longterm, it has to be transparent and regarded as theoutcome of fair negotiations. This does not meanthat everyone concerned is satisfied with all aspectsof an agreement, but that the process is regarded asjust by the majority. Otherwise, concrete outcomessuch as reduced access to resources may beperceived as unfair buy-offs they were tricked intoor that were enforced from above and thereforerejected outright or through more subtle resistance.This risk increases if past relationships betweenconservation authorities and local people have beencharacterized by distrust and violence, as inMnqobokazi (Andrén 2001). Negotiating trade-offsis further complicated if there exists a highdependence on natural resources, and if thisdependence is unequally represented within thecommunity, as in Mnqobokazi (Dahlberg 2005).
The risk of increased local resistance was evidentin the study area, where some had started to suspectthat the establishment of the communal gardenswould be used as an excuse, or a trick, to forcepeople away from their fields and other resourcesin the wetlands. The plans for a fence between thecommunity and the Wetland Park was a centralcomponent here. In South Africa, fences thatseparate land uses and tenure rights have aproblematic and troubled history in that they alsoforcibly separated people by skin color, wealth, and
power. During apartheid, “fences became thematerial manifestations of ideology” (Sheridan2008), and this persists today where fences are seento separate people from their land through a foreignideology of conservation. However, in Mnqobokazi,a fence may at the same time create opportunitiesfor economic development through increasedtourism. Officially, the IA declared that an increasein tourism would result in numerous job and trainingopportunities, and expectations were high amonglocal people. Although pro-poor tourism strategiesare promoted in South Africa (Ashley and Roe 2001,Porter at al. 2003, SANParks 2007), evidence oftheir effect on local economies is mixed (Kirstenand Rogerson 2002, Cornelissen 2005). Tourism isvolatile and seasonal, and therefore demands a highdegree of flexibility to remain robust. It tends to bespatially concentrated and involve high capitalinvestment and, therefore, is dominated by externalinvestors (Cornelissen 2005). Generally, althoughtourism is increasing, few new jobs for local peoplehave been created (Kirsten and Rogerson 2002).Previous studies, as well as present statements bypark staff, reveal serious doubts that tourism canbecome the panacea hoped for in the area (Guyot2002).
It is evident that the interplay between realizedoutcomes (e.g., the gardens and the craft group),expected but unrealized outcomes (e.g., jobs in thetourism sector), and existing and expectedrestrictions (e.g., on resource access) was causinghistorically embedded negative attitudes towardconservation to resurface. Within this complexityof events and perceptions, outside interventions,irrespective of good intentions, risk becomingcounterproductive. The extraction of resources mayincrease if alternative income sources areinsufficient (Kepe et al. 2001, Schmidt-Soltau 2004)and if people perceive they have been tricked intounjust buy-offs. Policies, guidelines, discussions,and negotiations need to be transparent forsustainable change to be achieved (Wells et al.2004). This is especially important, but alsoproblematic, in areas with an historical legacy ofdistrust, where stakeholders are unequal in terms ofpower and skills (Fay 2007). The interviews showedthat respect for local practices, views, and needs hadincreased among conservation staff compared withjust half a decade earlier, and that local attitudestoward conservation and the conservationorganizations were somewhat improved (Andrén2001). The present case indicates that existingsuspicions, fears, and antagonism towardconservation may be further reduced if the IA can
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
bring more time, realism, funds, and transparencyto the negotiation table. Among the staff, some wereenthusiastic and positive, but others were frustratedand despondent about how to meet the multiple andoften conflicting policy demands when they lackednecessary resources.
CONCLUSION
Despite the many problems that beset ICDPs andother efforts to integrate conservation anddevelopment, most studies conclude that adecoupling is not realistic (Brechin et al. 2002,Magome and Murombedzi 2003, Adams et al.2004). Rather, we must learn from past mistakes toimprove the mechanisms of ICDPs (Sunderland etal. 2008) and other efforts to promote conservationand development. Conservation must be recognizedas a societal choice, and its costs must berealistically calculated. These costs, which are muchhigher than generally acknowledged, should not beborne by the local poor. Governments, NGOs, anddevelopment agencies must ensure that the staff onthe ground can access necessary resources in termsof time, personnel, training, and funds. Whether theoutcome in Mnqobokazi will come to represent afair trade-off or a top-down buy-off will depend onthe investments made to promote transparent andfair negotiations toward realistic outcomes.
Responses to this article can be read online at:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/responses/
Acknowledgments:
This research was funded by the SwedishInternational Development Agency (SIDA) throughthe Department for Research Cooperation(SAREC), and the Swedish Research Council. Weare especially indebted to members from thecommunity of Mnqobokazi, and in particular to thelate Sam Ngwane. We wish to thank Boni Zikali,Njabulo Ngwane, and Vusi Mduli for fieldassistance. We are grateful to staff at theiSimangaliso Authority, especially Gordon Fakude,staff at the EKZNW, and colleagues at the formerGeography Department, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. We thank Tor ArveBenjaminsen for comments on an earlier version ofthe paper, and Bruce Campbell and three
anonymous reviewers for constructive comments onthe revised version.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, W. M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B.Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira,and W. Wolmer. 2004. Biodiversity conservationand the eradication of poverty. Science 306:1146–1149.
Adams, W., and D. Hulme. 2001. Conservationand community: changing narratives, policies andpractices in African conservation. Pages 9–23 in D.Hulme and M. Murphree, editors. African wildlifeand livelihoods: the promise and performance ofcommunity conservation. James Currey, Oxford,UK.
Adams, W. M., and S. J. Jeanrenaud. 2008.Transition to sustainability: towards a humane anddiverse world. International Union for Conservationof Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland
Agrawal, A., and K. Redford. 2009. Place,conservation, and displacement. Conservation andSociety 7(1):56–58.
Andrén, H. 2001. Wetland resource use in therainbow nation: a case study of obstacles insustainable resource management in the Mkuzewetlands, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. MinorField Study No. 146. Uppsala, Sweden.
Ashley, C., and D. Roe. 2001. Making tourismwork for the poor: strategies and challenges insouthern Africa. Development Southern Africa 19:61–82.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari, and G.Oviedo. 2004. Indigenous and local communitiesand protected areas: towards equity and enhancedconservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, andCambridge, UK.
Brechin, S. R., P. R. Wilshusen, C. L.Fortwangler, and P. C. West. 2002. Beyond thesquare wheel: toward a more comprehensiveunderstanding of biodiversity conservation as socialand political process. Society and NaturalResources 15:41–64.
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
Brockington, D., J. Igoe, and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Conservation, human rights and povertyreduction. Conservation Biology 20(1):250–252.
Brown, K. 2004. Trade-off analysis for integratedconservation and development. Pages 232–255 in T. O. McShane and M. P. Wells, editors. Gettingbiodiversity projects to work: towards moreeffective conservation and development. UniversityPress, New York, New York, USA.
Burlando, C. 2005. Negotiating conservation anddevelopment in a South African World Heritage Site. Thesis. Department of Biology and Center forTransdisciplinary Environmental Research, StockholmUniversity, Sweden.
Büscher, B. E. 2008. Conservation, neoliberalism,and social science: a critical reflection on the SCB2007 annual meeting in South Africa. ConservationBiology 22(2):229–231
Carruthers, J. 2007. South Africa: a world in onecountry: land restitution in national parks andprotected areas. Conservation and Society 5(3):292–306.
Cleaver, F. 2005. The inequality of social capitaland the reproduction of chronic poverty. WorldDevelopment 33(6):893–906.
Cornelissen, S. 2005. Tourism impact, distributionand development: the spatial structure of tourism inthe Western Cape Province of South Africa.Development Southern Africa 22(2):163–185.
Dahlberg, A. C. 2005. Local resource use, natureconservation and tourism in Mkuze wetlands, SouthAfrica: a complex weave of dependence andconflict. Danish Journal of Geography 105(1):1–13.
Dahlberg, A. C., and S. Trygger. 2009. Layknowledge of medicinal plants: primary health careand natural resources in rural South Africa. HumanEcology 37(1):79–94.
Derwent, S., and R. Porter. 2003. Benefits beyondboundaries: field visits to protected areas inKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 14–15 September2003. Prepared for the Fifth World Parks Congress,Durban, South Africa.
Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation refugees: thehundred year conflict between global conservation
and native peoples. MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, USA.
Ellery, W. N., A. C. Dahlberg, R. Strydom, M. J.Neal, and J. Jackson. 2003. Diversion of waterflow from a floodplain wetland stream: an analysisof geomorphological setting and hydrological andecological consequences. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 68:51–71.
Fakude, G. 2003. Planting seeds to improve lives.WetlandsWire 1(2):5. [online] URL: http://www.lubombomapping.org.za/GSLWPA/web/WW2/page5.htm
Fay, D. A. 2007. Mutual gains and distributiveideologies in South Africa: theorizing negotiationsbetween communities and protected areas. HumanEcology 35:81–95.
Garnett, S. T., J. Sayer, and J. Du Toit. 2007.Improving the effectiveness of interventions tobalance conservation and development: aconceptual framework. Ecology and Society12(1):2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art2/
Guyot, S. 2002. Spatial competition and the newgovernance framework in Mabibi (Maputaland):implications for development. The GeographicalJournal 168(1):18–32.
Hulme D., and M. Murphree. 2001. Africanwildlife and livelihoods: the promise andperformance of community conservation. Currey,Oxford, UK.
IUCN. 2002. Beyond rhetoric: putting conservationto work for the poor. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jones, J. L. 2006. Dynamics of conservation andsociety: the case of Maputaland, South Africa.Thesis. Faculty of Natural and AgriculturalSciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, SouthAfrica.
Kepe, T., B. Cousin, and S. Turner. 2001.Resource tenure and power relations in communitywildlife: the case of Mkambati Area, South Africa.Society and Natural Resources 14:911–925.
Kepe, T., M. Saruchera, and W. Whande. 2004.Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation:a South African perspective. Oryx 38(2):143–145.
Ecology and Society 14(2): 37http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art37/
Kirsten, M., and M. Rogerson. 2002. Tourism,business linkages and small enterprise developmentin South Africa. Development Southern Africa 19(1):29–59.
Magome, H., and J. Murombedzi. 2003. SharingSouth African national parks: community land andconservation in a democratic South Africa. Pages108–134 in W. M. Adams and M. Mulligan, editors.Decolonizing nature: strategies for conservation ina post-colonial era. Earthscan, London, UK.
Moosa, V. 2000. Lubombo TFCA protocol:development and investment. Signing of Lubomboprotocol. Address by Minister Valli Moosa, 22 June2000. Department of Environmental Affairs andTourism, Pretoria, South Africa. [online] URL: http://www.environment.gov.za/newsmedia/speeches/2000jun22/lubombo_22062000.htm
Nell, W., B. Wessels, J. Mokoka, and S. Machedi..2000 A creative multidisciplinary approach towardsthe development of food gardening. DevelopmentSouthern Africa 17(5):807–819.
Porter, R., M. Swift, B. James, D. Scott, A.Zaloumis, M. Makgolo, and G. Palmer. 2003.World Heritage, the South African experience.Pages 67–79 in G. I. Cowan, J. Yawitch, and M.Swift, editors. Strategic innovations in biodiversityexperience–the South African experience. Departmentof Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria,South Africa.
Ramutsindela, M. 2004. Parks and people inpostcolonial societies: experiences in SouthernAfrica. Kluwer, London, UK.
Roe, D., and J. Elliott. 2006. Pro-poorconservation: the elusive win–win for conservationand poverty reduction? Policy Matters 14:53–63
Sanderson, S. E., and K. Redford. 2003.Contested relationships between biodiversityconservation and poverty alleviation. Oryx 37:390.
SANParks. 2007. People and conservation:community-based conservation. [online] URL: http://www.sanparks.org/people/community
Sayer, J., and B. Campbell. 2004. The science ofsustainable development. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.
Sayer, J., and M. P. Wells. 2004. The pathology ofprojects. Pages 35–48 in T. O. McShane and M. P.Wells, editors. Getting biodiversity projects towork: towards better conservation and development.Columbia University Press, New York, New York,USA.
Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2004. The costs of rainforestconservation: local responses towards integratedconservation and development projects inCameroon. Journal of Contemporary AfricanStudies 22(1):93–117.
Sheridan, M.J. 2008. Introduction: the ecology offencing. Africa 78(2):153–156.
Springer, J. 2009. Addressing the social impacts ofconservation: lessons from experience and futuredirections. Conservation and Society 7(1):26–29.
Statistics South Africa. 2001. South AfricaCensus. [online] URL: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/C2001Stages/C2001Stages.pdf
Sunderland, T. C. H., C. Ehringhaus, and B. M.Campbell. 2008. Conservation and development intropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34(4):276–279.
Wells, M. P., T. O. McShane, H. T. Dublin, S.O’Connor, and K. H. Redford. 2004. The futureof integrated conservation and developmentprojects: building on what works. Pages 397–422in T. O. McShane and M. P. Wells, editors. Gettingbiodiversity projects to work: towards moreeffective conservation and development. UniversityPress, New York, New York, USA.
Wilshusen, P. R., S. R. Brechin, C. L.Fortwangler, and P. C. West. 2002. Reinventingthe square wheel: critique of a resurgent“protectionist paradigm” in international biodiversityconservation. Society and Natural Resources 15:17–40.
Wittemyer, G., P. Elsen, W. T. Bean, A. C. O.Burton, and J. S. Brashares. 2008. Acceleratedhuman population growth at protected area edges.Science 321:123–126.
