Deconstructing sustainable development: towards a participatory methodology for natural resource management

Abstract

The concept of sustainable development has conceivably been superseded by notions of natural resources management, which over the years have acquired a high conservationist status. This does not come as a surprise because, historically, sustainable development has become the quintessential paradigm for addressing the unsustainable use of natural resources such as land, water, soil, sea and minerals. Politicians and other important people in society converge every ten years to deliberate over the disastrous effects of unsustainable development. Often, such meetings are concerned about the symptoms and not the causes of problems such as poverty, unfair trade relations, deepening global economic disparities, disease, pollution and the damage to the environment. The outcomes of these meetings are noted in the form of pledges and signed agreements, as happened not long ago in Johannesburg at the World Summit for Sustainable Development. The shortcomings of these texts are that they do not consider the context within which sustainable or unsustainable development takes place, let alone the causes thereof. Politicians get caught up in the application of the most commonly used notions and principles of sustainable development. If this concept is to become meaningful to the world at large, then the point of departure is to deconstruct the underpinned discourse. As this article does not claim to know it all or to have all the solutions, the focus of the discussion will be limited to South Africa's local context.

1 CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

The concept of ‘deconstruction’ originates from the study of linguistics and discourse of power (cf. Foucault, 1980). In other words, deconstruction could be seen as a process of reformulating the phraseology and epistemology of sustainable development. As noted by Munck & Hearn (1999: 196–208), the problem with the concept of sustainable development is that it is influenced by power relations between and within different nations, and this fact requires a critical review. Power relations shape meanings and the language people use to describe things around them (see Robinson, 1990). Often, it is the most influential people who set the agenda for sustainable development, creating a narrow path of definitions and assumptions, without a broader consideration of participation and ownership of processes by those who are affected. This juxtaposition presupposes a rigorous look at how context should be applied as a point of departure in understanding and accounting for sustainable development.

Since the 1960s, the field of development has undergone tremendous changes in terms of conceptualisation and application. The evolutionary nature of the development discourse was significantly influenced by world bodies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in their efforts to bolster development practice and praxis. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other donor organisations gave further impetus by shaping the development discourse. Although they might have adopted different tactics to those practised by world bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, they have in principle introduced models that influenced development trends and patterns within developing countries. Evidently, these trends and patterns of development are traceable from the much contested financial and market reforms, particularly emanating during the transitional periods of governance, following the much talked about multiparty democratic elections in most developing countries. Evidence of such reforms and concomitant lessons from sustainable development impact analyses can be drawn from Latin America, Asia and Africa, particularly between the 1980s and 1990s.

Since the early 1990s, the concept of sustainable development has become widely used as a common denominator and a panacea for addressing social and human development problems. However, despite the fact that the 1992 Rio and 2002 Johannesburg Earth Summits gave new meaning and interpretations to the concept of sustainable development, developing countries continue to battle to find sustainable solutions for sustainable development. To a large extent, these countries have become more assertive in influencing alternative meanings for sustainable development. This is in response to a lack of implementation of practical solutions or tools from the world summits and conferences held in the name of sustainable development. As a result, some developing countries have adopted a slightly different approach in that they locate sustainable development targets around their local context, using international best practices as guides. It is in this context that this article proposes the deconstruction or reformulation of current meanings towards those that appreciate the local conditions and context, moving away from theory and practice towards praxis.

The challenge is to rise above narrow definitions of sustainable development that often reflect conservative conservationist views. For quite some time, and also as seen from the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987: 43), sustainable development has often been premised on the understanding that it ‘is a development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

Over the years, the above definition has become a slogan for addressing environmental challenges. However, the above‐mentioned pendulum swings in development practice have added more dimensions to militate against potential environmental problems. In advancing progressive, human‐centred development thinking, a new school of thought has also emerged. This can be noted from considerable interpretation and criticism received from a number of authors (Redclift, 1987; Lèlè, 1991:618; Van den Bergh & Van der Straaten, 1994: 5; Agarwal & Narain, 1997:4; Fitzgerald et al., 1997:4; Rao 2000: 23–6). These authors recognise that people, particularly the poor, should influence development trends and thereby become ‘axes’ of their own development. Drawing from the above discussion, it can be concluded that in the South African context, ‘meeting the needs of the present generation’ implies the implementation of robust poverty alleviation programmes, creating employment opportunities for the poor, and ensuring access to capital, markets, technical assistance and accredited skills training. Deconstruction should thus constitute mechanisms and measures South Africans take to redefine concepts and attach new meanings appropriate to their unique situation and history. However, we ought to acknowledge the schisms that have long prevailed in the South African society.

2 CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

South Africa's environmental history is rooted in the colonial and apartheid legacies, which brought about schismatic and opposing worldviews of what constitute environmental protection. As noted from Khan (1990: 23), the protection of the natural environment in South Africa has historically been synonymous with white privilege, power and material possessions. The conservation ideology was thus built on the premise that blacks were subordinate to the environment in which they lived. This is evident from the forced removal of people from their land and houses to make way for industries, parks and animals (MEAT, 2003). This legacy successfully created racial, physical and psychological divisions, which can neither be reversed nor underestimated. It is therefore important to revisit the negative impact that apartheid development practices had on human development in South Africa. Likewise, sustainable development cannot be understood outside the human development context. This context is critical for sustainability because sustainability is about people, and their capacity and willingness to take part in their own development. It can therefore be argued that development requires awareness‐raising through massive educational programmes. People need to become self‐reliant and the government should make an effort to create an enabling legislative and policy environment. Understanding the history of apartheid and conservation ideology means that South Africans can begin to appreciate the damage inflicted by apartheid on the psyches of the people.

Sustainable human development is a people‐centred process that can be associated with a road people travel to reach a certain destination (Kirsten, 2000:2; Scheepers, 2000:3; Van Wyk, 2000:2). As it was, in South Africa, this process was characterised by an unfair competition for land, water and other resources (McKendrick, 1990: 11‐5). Whites had a competitive advantage over their counterparts because after 1910 and also in 1948 there were concerted programmes devised to mitigate their situation, which meant quality service, employment and generally a better standard of living than blacks. The apartheid policy was based on racial development practices, ethics and morals. Its overall value system was unjustly developed and operationalised in order to undermine the human rights of the majority of South Africans. As a result, it compromised the development of a large percentage of South Africans, thereby leaving behind the legacy of an underdeveloped society.

This article advocates a new sustainable development approach that advances human development, self‐esteem and self‐reliance. The freedom attained in 1994 needs to be matched by conscious efforts to assist the poor in realising their own human potential, something which they were denied by apartheid. As racialised forms of poverty threaten sustainable development, all South Africans need to be educated about the sustainable and commercial use of natural resources, their historical and cultural heritage, and their importance for the betterment of their own livelihoods. South Africa's development discourse is certainly rife with such dynamic characteristics, which provide compelling reasons for the government, rural communities and business to make decisive interventions in promoting the sustainable use and management of natural resources.

In order to understand how development can become sustainable, South Africans need to ask themselves what sustainable development means for them. As mentioned by Munslow et al. (1997: 4), sustainable development should represent a truth commission of some sort. People need to confront issues of racial discrimination and what these meant for those people who did not receive adequate shelter, food and clean water services. This self‐introspective process should lay the basis for the sustainable development process in South Africa. Self‐introspection requires South Africans to think about the effects of the changes that have occurred over the years, such as the tremendous social policy changes that were motivated by growing political changes in South Africa (Lund, cited in Alcock & Craig, 2001: 221). Sustainable development will therefore require a major effort to transform, reconstruct and correct the perceptions people have about themselves and others. Understanding the evolution of sustainable development thus requires an extensive analysis of the methods and practices of exclusivity implemented under apartheid.

It can, therefore, be postulated that sustainable development is both a political and a social construct and, depending on the context, it could assist in creating operational mechanisms for policy formulation, policy review and policy implementation. From South Africa's history of racial discrimination, there is a further indication that the application of sustainable development should form part of a conscious process to promote social change and transformation (Baker et al., 1997: 1–7). Application could also become a social change methodology that is profoundly humanistic in its emphasis on the human element of development (Hoff, 1998: 17). In this way, South Africa could find new meanings and principles that embrace all of humanity. Development in South Africa could therefore cease to be driven by macroeconomic forces and dominant conservationist approaches, which, to some extent, elevate only the ecological and economic variables as important, over and above the human elements (Faucheux & O'Connor, 1998: 20).

It is well known that South Africa possesses some of the best legislative and policy frameworks in the world. The major shortcoming, however, is the lack of coordinated planning, which can clearly result in duplication of effort. These are led by bureaucratic public accounting performance measures of government, which are outputs‐driven rather than outcomes‐based. This situation seems to originate from a diverse legislative environment that addresses pertinent issues of natural resource management, but lacks a coordinated and integrated implementation strategy (CBNRM, 2003). The way forward could be the institutionalisation of planning practices, programme design and conceptualisation, which should precede expenditure; that is, if the concern is to lay a sound basis for sustainable development. There is a need to rethink approaches and methodologies for natural resource management, thereby harnessing people's creativity and talents, using their natural environment to fulfil their social and economic needs. Unlike the conservation ideology under apartheid development, it is important to deracialise development and to promote progressive, sustainable forms of human development. Deconstructing sustainable development implies finding progressive ways and means of responding to the human plea for freedom and a good quality of life. This shows that people development is a complex subject that requires a complex set of solutions derived from the infusion of the environmental, institutional, economic, political and social dimensions of sustainable development.

If South Africa is to achieve a transcendental shift from transition towards a developmental society the government needs to recognise the core values, ethics and type of leadership needed for sustainable development to take place. By simply embracing development principles that are embedded in key legislations and policies the government cannot expect the rural poor, in particular, to successfully manage their natural environment in the most economically viable and environmentally sustainable manner. Rather, there must be a strong need to move beyond the theoretical inclinations towards a genuine desire to implement values and principles of development that promote real economic empowerment through ownership of natural resources, such as mineral commodities. Schmandt & Ward (2000: 6) further indicate that there is a need to create a value system in society that recognises and shows a concrete appeal for human development. Without ethical direction in the pursuit of sustainable human development, which is particularly relevant for a society such as South Africa that has gone through a democratic transition, the gains of this transition might as well diminish.

Ethical direction for South Africa would imply the institutionalisation of sustainable development principles within government development programmes. It also means the implementation of the new Constitution and the Bill of Rights by educating the public practically about their responsibilities, obligations and rights as individuals and collectively. It is people who can make development either sustainable or unsustainable. Public participation in natural resource management therefore offers the best‐informed strategy on the best possible trade‐offs and options for careful resource exploitation and conservation, within the resources and time constraints available.

This discussion clearly points out that sustainable development is a human rights issue. According to Taylor (cited in Ginther et al., 1995: 205), the United Nations World Conference on human rights emphasised that ‘the human person is the central subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consequently should be the principal beneficiary and should participate actively in the realisation of rights and freedoms’.

A new theoretical paradigm that promotes human rights is feasible; however, it requires a critical look at a country's internal, local, natural resources and the historical situation in which the country finds itself. Overcoming technocratic and bureaucratic systems implies that the government should decentralise natural resource management responsibilities by placing them with local government, thereby doing away with centralised systems and structures that hinder decentralised governance.

It is noted elsewhere that local government cannot succeed on its own and that public participation is heralded as the most important source of strength for municipalities. The Bolivian government, for example, enacted the Public Participation Law in 1994 in order to bolster prospects for sustainable development through the delivery of public services. A municipality's strength is derived from integrated planning, coordination of development programmes, local economic development and the ultimate stimulation of community ownership and responsibility. These programmes require political commitment because without it, they will all end in failure. These experiences show that a participatory process can bring about effective institutions and a clearer developmental vision for local government. Although it has its own weaknesses, this process can bring about equitable distribution and beneficiation of natural resources and the enhancement of accountability amongst the public and municipalities.

3 INSTITUTIONALISING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Concerns for empowerment and human development are about people and their immediate living environment. They are also about people participating in matters that affect them either directly or indirectly. Creating a culture of public participation in matters of sustainable development requires a conscious effort to understand the dichotomous relationship between people and their natural environment. The latter has an intrinsic value to the people, such as the cultural and historical heritage. From an environmental point of view, therefore, the public needs education regarding conservation and environmental protection, but equally, opportunities should be created to allow their participation in environmental management and ownership issues (cf. CBNRM, 2003). Historically, marginalised peoples have relied on the endowed natural resources and biodiversity, in terms of commercial or subsistence usage. It is in this regard that the conservation values should reflect humanistic values as well. The following equation can be applied to represent this analogy:

Sustainable development=participation+ownership

where:

	SD=P+O
	Participation=(1∞A)+(2∞B)+(3∞C)+(4∞D)
	and
	Ownership=equity, shareholding, intellectual property rights/branding, and management.

Table 1 provides a framework within which localised sustainable development models can be operationalised. Accounting for sustainable development is paramount in that it can provide quantitative and qualitative results. Participation becomes a means towards achieving ownership, the latter being an end in itself. Public participation is thus looked at as transactions (∞) between different stakeholders who, in this context, are driven by a common goal towards natural resource use. This demonstrates that sustainable development should be understood as an integral systemic complex process, which has as its objective the quest to improve the quality of life of the whole population. It should put more emphasis on an integral productive development, a social development with equity and full citizens' participation, based on the principle of conservation of the natural resource base and the preservation of environmental quality. This implies that there is a need for people's participation as a means towards achieving a better quality of life for them. Such an achievement would require an interplay of economic, environmental, technological and institutional factors, thereby doing justice to the complex nature of sustainable development. For example, economic growth that is not centred around human beings is not sustainable; that is to say that we have to overcome the technocratic and environmentalist vision by which development is conceptualised and operationalised.

Parameters of benefit distribution

Variables	Measures/values	Outcomes
Participation	Collective decision making, shared responsibilities, level of effort, resource allocation	Human development, self‐esteem and self‐reliance
Ownership	Equity, shareholding, intellectual property rights/branding, control, natural resources/assets* management	Local economic development, sustainable livelihoods, distribution of income, productive capacity and poverty alleviation
Note: *Assets could be in the form of natural or mineral resources and land transferred by the government to a community.

The equation presented above can also be conceptualised according to Dourojeanni's (1997: 19) ‘cycles of transactions or cycles of consensus building’, which show how stakeholders interact until consensus is reached. The process of transactions between stakeholders ‘confers equal importance on all the stakeholders participating in the management process for sustainable development in a particular sphere’. Figure 1 attempts to demonstrate how these transactions manifest themselves.

Cycles of transactions

Figure 1 shows that stakeholder engagement is a continuous process. It also reflects a qualitative process of testing perceptions of stakeholders through regular engagement. The qualitative process involves the consolidation and concretisation of perceptions, which is then followed by consensus seeking. Furthermore, the process involves the verification of opinions and attitudes in practice, through awareness raising or general assessment, and proposals to be implemented. The verification process demonstrates that public participation can become systematic and therefore bring about collective decision making. As noted from Figure 1, each stage of transaction has certain activities, which according to the progress reached, can be represented either by a solid line (positive) or by a broken line (negative). This shows that stakeholder transactions are not perfect; people may not reach consensus on every issue. However, a study by Benwell (1979) confirms that intensive public involvement is a useful planning approach in development, especially in situations where local government, for example, introduces ‘statutory public participation’ as a means to achieving sustainable development.

It is also important to indicate that elsewhere, a number of sophisticated mathematical sequencing models for quantifying transactions and other factors in sustainable development do exist. Econometrists, for example, apply the economic dimension as a variable to solve economic sustainability questions, assigning values and computing them into software in order to get quantitative results. Quantitative results are then presented in the form of complex graphs, which when interpreted provide technical solutions. Unlike the above model, technical solutions do not necessarily yield the desired qualitative results of human development that can mainly be accomplished through participatory methods. Participatory methods of sustainability are effective in situations in which the outcomes of a project or its continuation are emphasised. A strategic approach, rather than a conventional project approach, is ideal for participatory sustainable development. A participatory sustainable development approach should be seen as a strategic process in which strategies (Ornat, 1997:3) are defined as ‘participatory and cyclical processes of planning and action to achieve three objectives, such as economic, ecological and social’.

Planning is an important element of participation. Often, strategic planning is perceived merely as the creation of a document that outlines the vision, mission, strategic goals, time‐frames and budget of a government or service delivery organisation. Such an approach becomes an end in itself, thereby defeating the entire purpose of having a strategy. A strategy should guide the implementation process. It should be a process and not a document that guides an organisation. According to Ornat (1997: 25), ‘strategies are processes leading towards a comprehensive, complex objective, namely sustainable development’.

A strategic planning process should approach strategy as a management tool for assisting an organisation to reach certain decisions. To reach key decisions, participatory planning should underpin the experiences, or livelihoods of people. That is, existing community knowledge is put under scrutiny, not for criticism, but to assess whether or not the priorities chosen are realistic. Moore (cited in Stewart, 1999: 29) calls this ‘a diagnosis of political expectations’. It is about a reality check and also the setting of clear targets and time‐frames. Therefore, it is clear that strategic planning and public participation co‐exist. A planning process driven solely by government officials and consultants in the form of a simple project cycle is not desirable, as it cannot guarantee sustainable development. It is in this context that members of a community are empowered through interactive planning methods so that they are in a position to address issues of sustainable livelihood. Projects should thus be seen in the broader process of service delivery, and not as mere activities or events leading to the conclusion of a process. Table 2 outlines various typologies of participation, which form an important theoretical component of sustainable development.

Typology of participation

Typology	Components of each type
Passive participation	People are told what to expect. There is no ownership of information and process
Consultation participation	People are consulted but do not take part in decision making
Incentive‐based participation	People's motive to participate is based on material gain (e.g. in labour‐intensive projects). However, there is no guarantee that their involvement will be continued
Functional participation	People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to a project. Involvement occurs after major policy decisions have been taken
Interactive participation	People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of local groups or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies and participatory approaches. Groups have control over local decisions
Source: Adapted from De Beer (2000: 14).

Table 2 demonstrates the two extremes of participation, from the weakest (passive) to the strongest (interactive). The former can be associated with the concept of involvement. Involvement is a typical typology that calculates numbers of people and not the value they add to the project or programme. Often, it is used as a criterion to test the number of women involved in a project.

The extremes indicated in the table further demonstrate that the concept of participation is also rife with contradictions, especially in situations in which participation is becoming meaningless. While there is much consensus on the principles of participation and development, what is still lacking is a comprehensive and critical examination of their semantic, conceptual and practical application (Ginther et al., 1995: 25). The consensus does not emphasise their contribution in decision making, but their presence serves a great purpose. As argued above, this approach compromises the integrity of the process of sustainable development. Contrary to the passive typology, the interactive typology is quite intense. It recognises people's potential and, where possible, it strives towards improving the potential of those who are involved in a project. People are treated as subjects (decision makers) and not objects (numbers). The table also shows that development is void of sustainability unless it takes into consideration meaningful forms of participation.

4 PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Figure 2 provides a framework that can be applied during public participation. However, it should be noted that a number of other participatory methodologies have also been proven useful.

Participatory methodology for sustainable development

Figure 2 provides a consolidation of steps and mechanisms that are underpinned by the following key stages:

	Preparation and organisation represent an important step, which is clearly driven by feedback to stakeholders and consensus on a number of issues such as the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder.
	Diagnosis represents the identification of problems, constraints and different scenarios for solutions. Diagnosis offers facilitators the opportunity to simulate outcomes through the analysis and validation of perceived problems and future options for natural resource management and service delivery.
	A development strategy confirms the level of consensus reached and goals identified. It focuses more on strategic vision and the adoption of a business or development plan.
	The implementation plan represents the operationalisation of the above strategy. It contains targets and time‐frames.
	Impact assessment is about the measurement of success or the qualitative difference brought about by the strategy. This is a critical step, because it emphasises outcomes.
	The nature of outcomes, successes or failures can be used as feedback for policy formulation, review and adaptation.
	Equally, lessons learnt can be replicated elsewhere in other projects or programmes. Hence, ongoing monitoring and evaluation of all the above‐mentioned stages cannot be overemphasised. All processes and activities conducted require ongoing reporting, appraisal and management.

The above participatory methodology can also be tailor‐made to suit development planning in public service delivery. As public participation in South Africa is now statutory and obligatory, this article sees participatory planning methods and models as critical for sustainable development. Section 16(1) (a) and (b) of the Municipal Systems Act of 2000 (South Africa, 2000: 30) legislates public participation as community participation. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 72(1) and (3) that requires each municipality to draft an Integrated Development Plan (IDP), which is integral to good governance and efficacy in the management of public services.

5 CONCLUSION

South Africa's historical context provides an important basis within which the concept of sustainable development ought to be understood. This is particularly important because the past development discourse in South Africa had a profound negative impact on people's perceptions about themselves and their natural environment. The transitional arrangement brought about by the new dispensation heralds a new era in which South Africans need to adopt localised solutions for sustainable development, especially in the quest to instil new ethics for the management and ownership of natural resources. As South Africa becomes one of the champions of community‐based management of natural resources, it is increasingly important that the rigid notions of sustainable development be superseded by progressive methodologies and models of public participation. Overall, this article demonstrates that when conceptualising and operationalising sustainable development, there is a dire need to design localised models that can promote effective participation and ownership by those who are affected. In this way, we could move closer towards building a new research capacity for sustainable human development.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Patrick Thipe Ntsime 1

Operations Evaluation Specialist, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Halfway House, South Africa. This article draws conclusions from some of the lessons the author learnt from the Latin American experiences of public participation in Bolivia and his previous involvement with the Community Public Private Partnerships Programme (CPPP), an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Notes

Operations Evaluation Specialist, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Halfway House, South Africa. This article draws conclusions from some of the lessons the author learnt from the Latin American experiences of public participation in Bolivia and his previous involvement with the Community Public Private Partnerships Programme (CPPP), an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.