Linking environment and development, easier said than done: learning from the Zimbabwean experience

Abstract

Despite the popularity of the concept of sustainable development, there is growing evidence that, globally, human enterprise is becoming less sustainable rather than more. This paper examines this concept and the difficulty of linking it with environmental concerns. Developing countries emphasise economic growth and the eradication of poverty as prerequisites for sustainable development, but despite national strategies and programmes, implementation, especially in Africa, remains weak and fraught with problems. Focusing on national strategies for sustainable development in Zimbabwe, this paper highlights the fragmented and sectoral approach that results in low impact. Agenda 21 as a blueprint for sustainable development underestimates the complexities of diverse situations on the ground and the political and socio-economic realities of development that are in constant flux. Sustainable development initiatives fail to successfully integrate development with environmental concerns, poverty is not adequately addressed, and conservation is regarded as merely an income-generating luxury.

1. INTRODUCTION

The vision of sustainable development that focuses on the sustainable use of natural resources is shared by all, but the current reality does not match pronouncements of this vision. Little progress has been made. There is evidence that poor people are getting poorer and the environment continues to be degraded, thereby threatening the livelihoods of those too poor to invest in it. The findings of the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment indicate that the velocity of environmental change is fast and increasing, that the level of poverty remains persistently high, with 1.1 billion people living on less than US$1 a day, and that inequality is growing (Adams, 2006). Per capita food production in sub-Saharan Africa is declining. This paper is motivated by these concerns and the need to revisit the concept of sustainable development in an attempt to find out why the gap between the theory and practice of sustainable development is widening and its goals remain unfulfilled and elusive in developing countries, particularly in Africa.

This paper examines the concept of sustainable development, its many definitions and its implementation. The link between environment and development is explored, with an emphasis on poverty and the need for economic growth in developing countries. These themes are explored further with reference to national sustainable development strategies, such as conservation strategies and environmental action plans in Africa, focusing on Zimbabwe. The case study of the District Environmental Action Planning (DEAP) programme, an example of a national strategy designed for implementing Agenda 21 to achieve the goal of sustainable development, illustrates some of the problems associated with implementing sustainable development initiatives.

2. DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

There is little agreement on the definition of sustainable development or of its implications for development strategies (Carvalho, 2001). The World Conservation Strategy defined it as improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. However, this definition has an environment bias and imprecision that makes implementation problematic. Furthermore, it does not adequately address the inherent trade-offs in the development process between economic, social and conservation goals (Barbier, 1987).

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)'s Brundtland report defined sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (WCED, 1987: 43). Adams (1995) describes the Brundtland definition as superficially attractive, but more of a slogan than the basis for a theory. Despite its contested shortcomings, this definition has become the standard and has consequently greatly influenced contemporary environmental thinking and literature on the subject (Adams, 1990; Carvalho, 2001). The definition contains two key concepts: human needs, and the limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life, using poverty and well-being indicators that they define themselves (WCED, 1987; DFID, 1999).

The WCED definition gives no indication of a time scale or the scope and substance of human needs. Adams (1990: 3) suggests that the ‘terrible versatility’ of such phases as the WCED definition of sustainable development allows users to make high-sounding statements with very little meaning at all. The role of the environment in development is not even mentioned in the WCED definition, for which it has been further criticised, notably by conservationists. They point out that the Commission employed terms such as ‘sustainable growth’, ‘sustainable use’ and ‘sustainable development’ interchangeably, although they are somewhat contradictory (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991). Nevertheless, the evolution of the concept of sustainable development has progressed to the point where intergenerational equity of access to and use of natural resources, or natural capital, has gained wide support, together with the need to conserve the underlying ecological processes and systems.

This brief discussion on how sustainable development is defined illustrates the rather nebulous character of the concept. Carvalho (2001) suggests that the appeal of the notion of sustainable development lies in its conceptual imprecision, which allows it to be interpreted in different ways and is palatable to many different interests. By 1995, at least 70 more definitions of sustainable development had been developed since the WCED definition of 1987, each different in subtle ways, emphasising different values, priorities and goals. In fact a new hypothesis is emerging that any belief that sustainability can be precisely defined is flawed as it is a contested concept, representing neither a fixed set of practices or technologies, nor a model to describe or impose on the world (Pimbert & Pretty, 1995). The looseness of the term ‘sustainable development’ enables it to cover very divergent ideas for many different actors who adopt it, such as environmentalists, governments, economic and political planners and business people (Adams, 2006). O'Riordan (1988) maintains that under the guise of sustainable development almost any environmentally sensitive programme can be established.

3. ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

The core mainstream sustainable development thinking has formed the idea of three dimensions: environmental, economic and social sustainability (Adams, 2006). These have been expressed in a variety of ways, the most common being as pillars, concentric circles and interlocking circles, to illustrate their interconnectedness. Whichever way the concept of sustainable development is defined, it embraces both environment and development. Human development and environmental conservation must be integrated if a society is to be sustainable (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991). This is recognised in the various international conventions that were developed in the 1990s to address worsening environmental management globally. The Framework Convention on Climate Change aims to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at the level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. This would allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensuring that food production is not threatened, and enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. The regional annex for Africa of the Convention to Combat Desertification emphasises the need for African countries to focus on improving the economic environment with a view to eradicating poverty and developing measures to conserve natural resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity promotes both the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources.

However, as we have seen with the definitions of sustainable development in Section 2, the relationship between socio-economic development and bio-physical environment is not at all clear or equal and furthermore they influence each other. Even agencies within the United Nations system do not have the same understanding of the idea of sustainable development, as some agencies adopt environmentally sustainable development, while others call for sustainable human development, and still others are concerned with conservation and environmental plans, all under the banner of sustainable development (UN-DPCSD, 1997). In reality, to integrate conservation and development in sustainable development is difficult and complex.

Historically, the development field was viewed as dominated by economists, with occasional inputs from sociologists, addressing issues such as economic growth, industrialisation, trade liberalisation and occasionally people, while environment and conservation have been dominated by biologists, and later ecologists, concerned with ecosystems and biodiversity (le Breton, 2000). Conservationists have generally believed that there is an inverse relationship between human actions and environmental quality (Pimbert & Pretty, 1995). On the other hand, concerns for environmental protection have been seen as restricting economic development. Redclift (1987) asks if it is possible to undertake environmental planning and management in a way that does minimum damage to ecological processes without putting the brake on human aspirations and social improvements. Sustainable development has even been defined as development without growth. ¹

This definition may be acceptable in developed countries that have large amounts of accumulated capital, large productive capacity and well-developed social and economic infrastructure. However, it is considered untenable for developing countries, where sustained high rates of economic growth are considered to be an absolute necessity for sustainable development to occur (Benedict & Christoffersen, 1996). Furthermore, practical experience has shown that people will opt to use their natural resources in a sustainable manner only if such actions constitute part of a socio-economically optimal livelihood strategy (Milner-Gulland & Mace, cited in Williams et al., 1998). Integrating human development and environmental conservation requires effective policies and legal frameworks that safeguard human rights, the interests of future generations and the productivity and diversity of the earth. Furthermore, economic incentives for conservation and sustainable use should be provided (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991).

Today's developed countries had the opportunity to get rich at a lower cost because they have not had to worry about growing in an environmentally friendly way. In today's environmentally conscious age such an opportunity does not exist for less developed countries. Nevertheless, economic growth is considered imperative for them. It is not surprising that people's concept of sustainable development and the relative importance they attach to economic growth and environmental protection vary with their stage of economic and technical development (Benedict & Christoffersen, 1996). Paradoxically, it appears that, globally, most environmental degradation is actually caused by the non-poor who have higher consumption levels (Ambler, 1999).

The importance of economic growth is evidenced by the fact that lack of economic growth and poverty have been identified as the biggest problems facing developing countries today and it is on economic growth that the maintenance of environmental quality depends (WCED, 1987; Benedict & Christoffersen, 1996; Chenje et al., 1998). In fact, it has been suggested that zero growth can be as detrimental to the environment as rapid growth (Pronk & Haq, 1992). The debate is no longer about environment versus growth, but rather about the kind of growth that takes environment into account in the growth process (Benedict & Christoffersen, 1996).

4. IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Problems with Agenda 21

The inseparability of environment and development was institutionalised through the process leading up to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and sustainable development became the dominant theme. Governments of most countries of the world, as well as donor agencies, adopted the UNCED's action programme, Agenda 21, a blueprint for implementing sustainable development. This Agenda is probably the most prominent, significant and influential non-binding instrument in the environment field and has become the guiding document for environmental management in most regions of the world, providing policy makers with a starting point for linking environmental and socio-economic issues (UNEP, 1999). Its scope is enormous; it consists of 40 chapters which cover nearly every aspect of the planet and how humans interact with it, dealing with current problems and trying to set a framework within which the problems of tomorrow can be addressed (Adams, 2001).

Although welcomed as a strategic document intended to set the framework for environmental and developmental policies for the whole world, Agenda 21 has nevertheless been described as a cautious document made toothless by the absence of a timetable and serious financial targets (Middleton et al., 1993). Adams (2001: 86) describes Agenda 21 as ‘a monument to the problems of making the rhetoric of international cooperation about environment and development concrete’, suggesting that it has become ‘an icon of sustainable development, held up to for symbolic veneration for its encapsulation of all possible arguments, a scripture dipped into for proof-texts to legitimate particular points of view but not subjected to detailed analysis’.

Five years after UNCED, Rio Plus Five, 1997, attracted even more negative coverage than the Rio Conference itself (Adams, 2001). Problems with implementation were already apparent. There was the lack of fulfilment of the pledges that emerged at UNCED, whereby the south agreed to environmental commitments in return for assurances of more financial resources and technical assistance from the north (Adams, 2001). However, aid disbursements fell during the 1990s, except from the Scandinavian countries. One of the biggest problems in implementing sustainable development is lack of financial resources. Financial flows were far less than the sums calculated as necessary at UNCED to implement Agenda 21. These problems continued up to Rio Plus Ten, known as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg, 2002. Lack of progress on implementation and increasing levels of poverty, especially in developing countries, were the main themes of the conference. At WSSD the social and economic aspects of sustainable development were much better integrated with environmental goals than was the case at UNCED. However, there was concern, especially regarding trade, that environmental policy would be subservient to economic policy (Bigg, 2003; Steiner, 2003).

One of the main outcomes of WSSD was the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation that set out over 30 targets and commitments, most of which are re-commitments to previous goals. However, little is said about how these will be realised or who will be responsible for realising them and consequently it was anticipated that effective implementation would be difficult (Bigg, 2003). Another outcome of WSSD was the promotion of Type Two partnerships involving civil society and the business sector as well as governments, thus shifting away from the traditional inter-governmental negotiations and commitments of Type One partnerships. Fearing that they would reduce the pressure on donor countries to provide direct financial support for sustainable development in the south, a coalition of southern governments lobbied against Type Two partnerships at the summit. Many participants in WSSD were disillusioned by the modest outcomes, described as weak and lacking in terms of hard action (Steiner, 2003). The intervening years from UNCED to WSSD were characterised by a shifting geo-political environment, including the United States' intransigence about working multilaterally on global issues and a collapsing new economy that adversely affects the implementation of sustainable development (Steiner, 2003).

4.2 The sectoral difficulty of linking environment with development

In the concept of sustainable development, environment and development are inextricably linked, and both Principles 4 and 25 of the Rio Declaration and Chapter Eight of Agenda 21 highlight the link as a prerequisite for achieving sustainable development. However, in practice, national governments invariably operate sectorally. In Zimbabwe, for example, sustainable development initiatives such as DEAP, the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), and the WSSD Johannesburg Plan of Implementation are generally perceived as environmental programmes, separate from rural development and local government initiatives. The articulation of multi-sectoral initiatives at international and national levels does not necessarily equate to reality in practice during the implementation of sustainable development initiatives. For example, during the implementation of DEAP locally produced environmental action plans were not incorporated into mainstream development planning (Manjengwa, 2004). Furthermore, few of the projects and activities that were implemented under DEAP had both development and environmental aspects, and both human and environmental benefits were negligible.

Development projects were invariably of the highest priority for the community during action planning, but during implementation the local ‘development’ agenda was overruled by environmental goals, generating conservation projects with little local support. The internationally acclaimed CAMPFIRE initiatives also had difficulties in linking environment with development. Alexander and McGregor (2000) found that in Gwampa, north-western Zimbabwe, the CAMPFIRE programme rhetoric exaggerated its ability to reconcile environment and development goals. Despite evidence of substantial economic gains in some CAMPFIRE areas, Wolmer et al. (2003) point out that CAMPFIRE's driving philosophy appears to be related to conservation not development. The link between environment and development is difficult, not only in practical terms but also at a conceptual level (Wells & Brandon, 1992). Emerton (2000) argues that the ‘win–win’ conservation and development benefit models are based on an incomplete understanding of the economics of community conservation and the nature of the benefits which in fact, in the long run, may lead to improvement of neither human nor ecosystem well-being.

High levels of poverty have been identified as a key constraint on achieving sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa. What poor rural people want is to receive tangible human well-being benefits from sustainable development interventions (Manjengwa, 2004). Although undoubtedly a real concern, it has also been posited that the environmental crisis is sometimes exaggerated (see for example Lomborg, 2001), putting unfair burdens and inappropriate obligations on developing countries. Carvalho (2001) points out that building a sustainable society would require those who are already poor to make more sacrifices on the way to sustainability.

The dilemma lies in how to reconcile environmental and human developmental concerns and satisfy both. Le Breton (2000) proposes that if people's needs are put first you are more likely to have their support, and (hopefully) environmental conservation will follow as a spin-off, instead of making development an add-on to environmental projects. In reality, where poverty pervades, environment will always come second to human development, and concern for the environment will be considered to be a luxury. ‘No one will slave over resources for long from which they do not benefit’ (Mafuta, 2001: 29).

5. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES IN AFRICA

The implementation of sustainable development in Africa has been fraught with problems primarily because issues of poverty and equity have not been adequately dealt with. Although many countries in Africa use Agenda 21, the action plan is considered flawed for application in Africa, as it does not deal effectively with the interlinked challenges of economic recovery, poverty reduction and environmental improvement (SADC, 1996). In Africa, as in most developing regions, sustainable development should imply development with growth that alleviates poverty. To address this problem, southern African countries have set a new agenda for equity-led growth and sustainable development which focuses on accelerating economic growth with greater equity and self-reliance, improving health, income and living conditions (SADC, 1996; UNEP, 1999).

Various strategies and programmes have been adopted to implement sustainable development. Some countries, such as Botswana, have implemented national conservation strategies (NCSs) modelled on the World Conservation Strategy of 1980, prepared with help from the IUCN and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), while others, such as Burkina Faso and Ghana, have developed national environmental action plans (NEAPs) – strategic frameworks within which environmental and sustainable development issues are identified and prioritised. Some countries, such as Uganda, have developed both, eventually opting for one or the other, while others have ended up with both. Besides NEAPs and NCSs, there are other internationally inspired national processes that can be adopted and prepared to promote environmental management, including Tropical Forestry Action Plans prepared with the Food and Agriculture Organisation guidelines, and National Action Plans that are called for as part of the implementation of the United Nations Conference to Combat Desertification. Often these are parallel processes, with different funders and conditionalities, and any interface between the emerging processes and initiatives is usually lacking.

Environmental sustainability became a core objective of the World Bank, alongside economic growth and poverty reduction. The Bank made completion of NEAPs a prerequisite for borrower countries (Wade, 1997). By 1995, 83 per cent of sub-Saharan countries were involved in the NEAP process and 21 countries had already endorsed NEAPs (Greve et al., 1995). However, Ethiopia felt that the World Bank had imposed the NEAP on the country and therefore decided to carry on with the NCS which had already been started (NCSD, 1997).

In practice, experience of implementing NEAPs has varied from complete failure in Guinea, to modest progress in Kenya, to perceived success in Uganda (Wood, 1997). In Kenya, the NEAP process began in 1993 and provided a mechanism for getting a holistic approach to environmental issues onto the national agenda. The NEAP process in Kenya was regarded as being participatory where non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society have considerable input (NCSD, 1997). However, progress from development to implementation has been slow and the provisions of the NEAP have yet to be operationalised and fully integrated into the country's planning and development system.

Guinea-Conakry developed a NEAP with funding not only from the World Bank, the main proponent of the activity, but also from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), various United Nations agencies and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, the process of developing Guinea-Conakry's NEAP was characterised by poor performance and eventual collapse and the impact was regarded as being counterproductive (Wood, 1997). The process relied heavily on external support and never developed sufficient national-level political support for conferring ownership and ensuring long-term momentum for sustainability of the process (Wood, 1997).

Uganda, under the Obote-led government, originally embarked on developing an NCS in the early 1980s. However, owing to political upheavals and civil war, it was never completed, and the process was formally closed in 1986 under the new government of the National Resistance Movement led by Yoweri Museveni. With the onset of World Bank involvement in structural adjustment, the NEAP process in Uganda began in 1991. In addition to World Bank funding, USAID also provided funding and technical support. Rapid progress was made and the NEAP process was perceived as having high-level political commitment (Wood, 1997). Approval of the NEAP document by cabinet in 1994 was followed by the preparation of district environmental action plans. Uganda, whose administrative arrangements consist of national and district levels only, has a decentralised approach. District forums are mandated to address environmental management and natural resource issues. By 2002, four district environmental action plans had been produced by using a participatory bottom-up process involving more than 300 parishes and 20 000 citizens (Wood, 1997).

Concern has been expressed by African countries about conditionalities attached to donor funding of national sustainable development strategies (NCSD, 1997). Most African countries that have developed NEAPs consider them to be primarily World Bank conditionalities and have accused the World Bank of imposing conditions that preclude recipient countries from assuming ownership of the strategic planning process (Dorm-Adzobu, 1995).

6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES IN ZIMBABWE

6.1 The sustainable development policy process

In 1983, inspired by the World Conservation Strategy, Zimbabwe was one of the first countries to undertake a process of national consultations for the purpose of developing its own NCS. The NCS, subtitled ‘Zimbabwe's Road to Survival’, was prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and formally launched in 1987.

The process of developing the NCS started with the development of a draft strategy by a committee comprised of a wide range of stakeholders representing government, industry, NGOs and academics. A stakeholders' workshop was held in 1985 where the draft was reviewed. The process did not involve primary stakeholders with respect to natural resource management. Mukahanana et al. (1996) attributed the lack of local participation to lack of financial resources, arguing that post-independence rural priorities were focused on the basic survival needs of health, education and resettlement after a long period of war, rather than on conservation.

The NCS was intended to be a blueprint for environmental management, its objective being ‘[t]o develop and implement action plans to ensure that the utilisation of Zimbabwe's natural resources is undertaken in an equitable, productive and sustainable manner’ (GOZ, 1987: 22). It also made it clear that the government's policy of interpreting the term ‘conservation’ in the context of sustainable use, as the broad goal of the NCS, was ‘[t]o integrate sustainable resource use with every aspect of the nation's social and economic development’ (GOZ, 1987: 22).

This 1987 strategy document presents a profile of environmental issues that has helped raise awareness on the part of the government and the public. It contains elaborate statements of Zimbabwe's good intentions about environmental management designed on the philosophical lines of community participation, sustainable development and holistic planning. National-level policy makers saw the NCS as bringing development into balance with the environment (GOZ, 1992). They envisaged that its implementation would centre on locally based projects that would aim at promoting sustainable development through the efficient long-term use of resources within the ecological capacity of the land and the improvement of people's lives (GOZ, 1992). Notwithstanding, the strategy is technocratic, emphasising correct land use planning and inventorying the resource base. Matowanyika (1990) questioned whether the NCS had correctly identified the central environmental problems of the country. Cliffe (1988) also pointed out that the NCS could not be separated from an agrarian reform strategy based on major land redistribution and the reform of institutions.

The status of the NCS as a policy document was unclear as it was never presented to parliament or approved by cabinet and consequently was not recognised by the country's planners or incorporated into national development planning. Development policies made rhetorical reference to environment, but did not include any strategies for action. Consequently, environmental matters were not integrated into the national agenda but remained sectoral and thus the Ministry of Environment and Tourism lost its initial thrust for environmental holism (GOZ, 1992). The failure of the NCS to have a substantial influence on developmental policies or legislative or economic reforms can be attributed to the lack of an appropriate substantial action plan on the basis of which it could have been implemented. The plan of action enunciated in the NCS was a rhetorical ‘wish list’ with no means of implementation, conveying no specific responsibilities for the various stakeholders and lacking financial backing to fund its activities.

The process of developing the NCS was mostly without any external technical or financial assistance (Mukahanana et al., 1996), although IUCN provided expertise and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and UNEP provided financial support for the 1985 workshop (Matowanyika, 1990). The concluding statement of the NCS, addressing the issue of financing implementation, stated that ‘Government will endeavour to meet this obligation to the greatest extent within its own resources. It will, in addition, seek assistance from friendly nations in order to accelerate the programme of sustainable development’ (GOZ, 1987: 36). Implicit in this statement is the perception that the international community should be involved in financing the implementation of the NSC.

Zimbabwe's preparations for its participation in the UNCED Rio Earth Summit of 1992 involved a national conference held in March 1991 where the country's environmental and development priorities were defined, to be incorporated into the report to UNCED. Over 94 people attended this conference from various government agencies, NGOs, farmers' unions, the private sector and international organisations and embassies, but there was no local-level representation. A small team from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, together with a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-funded local consultant, wrote up the report to UNCED. In the recommendations of this report the Government of Zimbabwe states that it is committed to programmes that will attack problems of poverty and the environment especially at the local level and to supporting ‘home grown’ solutions to environmental problems (GOZ, 1992). The report includes populist notions asserting that GOZ was committed to ‘empowering rural people so as to enable them to manage and control their own resources for their own benefit in the premise that this forms the very basis of sustainable development’ and that GOZ is ‘further committed to … people-centred approaches to sustainable development, as declared in the NCS’ (GOZ, 1992: 69).

After UNCED, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism organised a national ‘Response to the Rio Earth Summit’ conference in March 1993 with the objective of defining a national response strategy for sustainable development that was called for by Agenda 21. Participants were again from a wide spectrum of Zimbabwean society, including representatives from government agencies at provincial and district levels, as well as from the Association of District Councils. Once again though there was no local-level representation.

A report on the response conference to UNCED (GOZ, 1993), compiled by the conference steering committee, was produced by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism in collaboration with national governmental and NGOs, with financial support from UNDP. The Report provides guidelines for a conceptual framework for environmental action. These include the guiding principles of linking environmental action with economic development, sustainability, broad-based participation, and dialogue with the communities in the prioritisation of environmental activities and projects (GOZ, 1993).

No details were given of how implementing programmes identified by Agenda 21 would be financed. In Zimbabwe there are many other competing needs, such as education, health and debt servicing. In the 1990/1991 Zimbabwe national budget only 0.08 per cent contributed to environmental programmes (GOZ, 1993). It was probably assumed that donors as well as government would be expected to provide the money for sustainable development programmes. The concern about having adequate financial resources to successfully implement Agenda 21 was reiterated by the NGOs in their follow-up to the Agenda 21 paper which gives the perspective of the NGOs as represented at UNCED (GOZ, 1993).

6.2 District environmental action planning (DEAP): a sustainable development initiative

District environmental action planning originated from an initiative by GOZ as a mechanism to operationalise Zimbabwe's National Conservation Strategy of 1987 (Mukahanana et al., 1996; Chenje et al., 1998). Although the NCS had overlooked a number of resource use and management issues which needed to be addressed, it was considered preferable to prepare an action plan for the NCS rather than revise the strategy itself (Cobham, 1992). This intention was overtaken by events as Zimbabwe prepared to take part in UNCED, 1992. Consequently, the proposed action plan also became a framework for implementing Agenda 21 at the local level in rural areas (Department of Natural Resources, 1999). Zimbabwe, unlike most other African countries, went for local, sub-district-level environmental action planning with the aim of building up to a national environmental action plan. Various actors, particularly IUCN, had an influence on the decision to start at the local level (Manjengwa, 2004). DEAP was implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism through its Department for Natural Resources. A number of partners, including donors, collaborated with GOZ in the DEAP initiative. The most important partners were UNDP, which provided funding, and IUCN, which provided technical support.

The concept of DEAP, which was described as a community-based participatory bottom-up planning approach that aimed to integrate environmental concerns with development planning (Chenje et al., 1998), reflected the populist-inspired emphasis on the local, participatory and communitarian processes of the environmental management ideology of Agenda 21. However, this populist approach was incongruous with the dominant technocratic approach to natural resource management in Zimbabwe, which has been described as basically ‘technicist, proscriptive and centrist’ (Murphree & Mazambani, 2002: 59). It is therefore not surprising that problems were encountered during implementation and DEAP had little impact on the ground, improving neither human nor ecosystem well-being. Commitment by national governments to populist ideas of conservation is often superficial, without sufficient thought being given to how they would actually work effectively and sustainably in practice.

DEAP was not grounded at local level; it failed to empower local people in natural resource management and was socially unsustainable as people did not buy into the process and saw few direct or immediate benefits from it (Manjengwa, 2004). Furthermore, the participatory process rendered DEAP financially unsustainable and dependent on donor funding. Although village environmental action plans were envisaged by the designers of DEAP as building up into ward and district environmental action plans that would culminate in a NEAP, a national action plan was not produced through this process. There was an inherent weakness in the conceptual framework for DEAPs building up to a NEAP and there was no mechanism in the design that would enable this to happen. Why then did Zimbabwe decide to adopt the idea of environmental action planning starting at the local level, aiming to build up to a NEAP? In the early 1990s, UNDP had indicated that it would provide financial support for local environmental action planning (Bengtsson, 1996) and, as a separate initiative, the World Bank had initially promised support for developing a NEAP for Zimbabwe. However, World Bank support never materialised and therefore it can be conjectured that, at that point in time, GOZ's decision to go for local environmental action planning rather than starting with developing a NEAP was heavily influenced by the availability of donor funding. Ten years later, formulation of a NEAP using a different process was included in the new Environmental Management Act of 2002.

DEAP failed to link environmental concerns with development planning and it was ultimately seen as an environmental programme, relegated to the environmental sector. While national stakeholders have a conservation agenda, local people are more concerned with development issues, as reflected in their prioritisation of activities and projects under local environmental action plans. The majority of projects identified had an economic rather than ecological bias. This dichotomy underlines the difficulties involved in successfully linking environment with development.

7. PROBLEMS WITH IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES

Problems encountered during the implementation of DEAP in Zimbabwe have highlighted some of the problems inherent in Agenda 21 as a model for achieving sustainable development. Adams (1993) contends that it is not clear whether sustainable development in fact offers a new paradigm. The implementation of populist-inspired DEAP in Zimbabwe in a technocratic centrist system had only a superficial impact, illustrating some aspects of the dilemma caused by weak conceptualisation of sustainable development. Rather than being part of a new paradigm, DEAP ended up being simply the usual ‘green-wash’. Sustainable development initiatives are characterised by low impact on the ground, indicating that as a blueprint Agenda 21 may not be appropriate for all situations. Complex realities of development which are in constant flux are often underestimated, underplayed or ignored and cannot be solved by oversimplified solutions (Chambers, 1997).

A contributing factor for discrepancies between sustainable development programme rhetoric and impact on the ground is lack of recognition of the complex political socio-economic situation. Initiatives such as DEAP are inclined to ‘black box’ the situation, without taking account of the bigger picture and external influences. Agenda 21 tends to deal with idealised politics rather than the real politics of conflict, including the whole range of interactions among people and interest groups and between these and governments. For example, in Zimbabwe sustainable development has to be cognisant of economic and political crisis and a radical land reform process, where the top-down technocratic dominant natural resource management paradigm prevails. Each country and indeed community is unique, each with its own construct giving rise to historical and social dynamics. Instead of individual solutions to complex situations on the ground, donors are inclined to prefer simple blanket solutions or ‘magic bullets’ (Vivian, 1994). Furthermore, technocrats' ideas on development do not always coincide with people's views and requirements. For example, people's preference for cattle and agriculture over wildlife management, although revenue from hunting may be more lucrative, indicates that there are more than monetary values involved in their choices (Alexander & McGregor, 2000). Porter et al. (1991) believe that the failure of a great many development projects to achieve even their most fundamental objectives is due to reluctance on the part of development practitioners to appreciate the significance of history, and they maintain that projects are frequently designed as if time began with the project implementation schedule.

If history is not taken into account then development projects tend to be isolated and their appropriateness becomes questionable. Past lessons are seldom examined and still fewer professionals bother to enquire into the historical circumstances of the people their interventions seek to assist (Porter et al., 1991). Dore (2001) argues that when history, culture and social context are neglected, huge amounts of effort and funding can be wasted on misconceived initiatives, resulting in lost opportunities, frustration and fatigue. In the case of DEAP in Zimbabwe, similar to many other sustainable development projects, fundamental historical and political aspects were not taken into consideration. DEAP, implemented in Zimbabwe's communal areas, neglected to address a major root cause of land degradation and poverty, namely the historically unequal land distribution. Although pre-programme reports were written, no in-depth analysis was carried out to determine whether or not DEAP would be appropriate for implementation in rural Zimbabwe, or indeed that the required institutional mechanisms were in place. The underlying assumption was that the DEAP model would result in environmental action planning for sustainable development, but as it turned out this assumption was misplaced.

8. CONCLUSION

This paper has focused on sustainable development, which has been mainstreamed by the United Nations as a proper way of reconciling the competing claims of the environmental movement and the consensus for growth in the Third World (Preston, 1996). It has explored the dilemma of defining the concept, the subsequent difficulties in implementing such development, and the balance and trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection. Although the question of how sustainable development can take place without being at the expense of the environment appears simple enough, Carvalho (2001) argues that within the current international political economic system it would be almost impossible to adopt development strategies that are conducive to achieving sustainable development. This would necessitate profound changes in economic, political and social structures. Adams (2006) is more optimistic in suggesting that while the present global dilemma offers huge risks there are also outstanding opportunities for achieving sustainable development, including new technologies, developments in ecological restoration, reorientation of the concept of sustainable development and the development of a new strategic approach to global sustainability.

The move from policy creation to implementation of sustainable development is proving difficult. Implementation of sustainable development initiatives, particularly in Africa, has had little impact in improving either human well-being or environmental quality. Fragmented, sectoral approaches to sustainable development still prevail and the integration of social, economic and environmental components has proven elusive (Mallock Brown, 2002). Agenda 21 has been described as a ‘good plan, weak implementation’ (UNDPI, 2002: 1). Mosse (2002) makes the point that the prevailing preoccupation with getting the theory right has ignored the practicalities of implementation. In practice, sustainable development has failed to put people first, poverty has deepened and inequities are more entrenched. Implementation of sustainable development is a formidable task owing to the complexities of development and environment, and compounded by the ambiguities in the expectations of sustainable development.

Although espoused enthusiastically by national governments, NGOs and donor agencies, there is no common understanding of the concept of sustainable development and, not surprisingly, this ambiguity has affected its implementation. In developing countries, especially in Africa, where poverty is a major concern, economic growth is paramount for development. Environmental conservation on its own is regarded almost as a luxury, being effective as an incentive for income generation.

Nevertheless, sustainable development remains an ideal to aim for, but the difficult part is ensuring that implementation has the required tangible impacts. To ensure improvement of human well-being and environmental enhancement and to enable people to develop without degrading the environment and compromising the development of future generations, the enigmatic and complex nature of the process of implementing sustainable development must be recognised by all stakeholders and not underestimated.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeanette Marie Manjengwa

Lecturer, Centre for Applied Social Sciences (CASS), University of Zimbabwe.

Notes

¹Herman Daly, in a speech to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Council, 1995, cited in Benedict & Christoffersen, 1996.