Land & Local Government: Problem or Potential?(Part 2)

AFRA News No. 60 May 2006

Trend-driven Land Use: Fashionable or Flawed? - Lisa Del Grande

Over the last few years, a number of land use 'products' or 'trends' have emerged, some with allied national roll-out programmes.These are often applauded as being an answer to poverty and land use challenges. This article suggests some points for consideration should a government department or municipality subscribe to two of these 'products'.

Land Use Trend 1: The conversion of commercial agriculture farms to game farms for tourism

A recent study commissioned by AFRA looked at an Investigation of the Effects of Conservation and Tourism on Land Tenure and Ownership patterns in KwaZulu-Natal (6 Feb 2004) and highlighted many concerns with the view that conservation and tourism are seen as “key mechanism[s] to catalyse rural local economic development”. This study shows that there are risks to economic development if integrated planning is not achieved, and makes some practical suggestions which municipalities can use to guide their decision making on these matters.

Land remains a central asset in people's livelihood strategies. For farm dwellers it provides a place for the establishment of their homes, the continuation of certain social and cultural practices, cohesion and identity, and access to natural resources and financial capital. Conservation and agro-tourism are land use options that compete with alternative land use options such as agriculture and housing, which is the case for farm dwellers.

Many tourism initiatives are actively supported through a range of funding programmes by departments like Economic Affairs and Tourism. These also have a key objective of achieving LED and BEE targets. Unfortunately these are still primarily accessed by more urban-based middle-class and well connected people rather than the rural poor. In the drive to achieve these national targets of LED and BEE, these new land users are pitted against the other potential land users, like farm dwellers who happen to be poor.

Some key points to consider are that:

• There should be convincing evidence that tourism or conservation is the best land use for the families involved.

• It may be that communities may be interested in tourism because there is a focus, and resources are being made available for this option, rather than because they have a real tourism product.

• There is a need for proper consultation and an honest evaluation of what the benefits and costs of development will be.

• Negative impacts need to be more carefully assessed and planned for, and there is a need to plan projects so that livelihood strategies are supported and complemented rather than displaced.

• There is little evidence to show that the relocation of families to make way for private developments result in them being better off.

• Where relocation does take place, then real compensation and development options need to be brokered and put in place.

• Single land use projects, where conservation replaces agriculture entirely, have a broad set of impacts on access to and use of natural resources.

The long term effects of a lack of access by poor people to land as a result of conservation and tourism “job opportunities”, needs to be much more carefully considered in the economic analysis of IDPs.

Land Use Trend 2: The re-emergence of agri villages

An agri village (ironically pronounced “ugly village" by most isiZulu speaking people) is defined by the Ethekweni Land Use Guideline as “A private settlement of restricted size, established and managed as a legal entity, that is situated within an agricultural or rural area and where residence is restricted to bona fide rural workers and their dependants, of the farms, forestry, or conservation enterprises situated in the area.” The Amajuba IDP Agriculture Plan 2005 Report goes so far as to suggest that this concept of land use “embraces the need to increase efficiency, increase growth and reduce poverty amongst the rural poor”.

However, many farm dwellers faced with this land use option have resisted the apparent opportunity it purports to offer them.Faced with extreme levels of poverty, declining work opportunities on farms, a lack of basic services, and poor or no access to schools, it is difficult for the average economist or development planner to grasp the basis of the resistance to the concept.

At the heart of this resistance lie certain principles and fears that need to be understood and acknowledged in the process of changing land use options for people whose tenure on the land is so insecure at the best of times.Two of these principles are worth highlighting:

1. The economics of rural people's livelihoods and the path to prosperity

Access to agricultural land and natural resources remains the mainstay of rural people's livelihoods strategies.The ability to have diverse livelihood strategies, and not to be dependent on one livelihood source like a wage, reduces poorer families' vulnerability in the economy. The potential loss of access to natural resources will be weighed up against any new opportunities that are presented. Therefore, how agri villages are conceptualised is critical.

Rather than imposing models based on urban middle class assumptions about what people need to develop, flexible models should be developed in consultation with the proposed affected group, to establish how they currently live and survive. This would begin to ensure that the models are appropriate to the realities of people's livelihoods, and strengthen their strategies rather than change them altogether.The current impact of the HIV in farm dwelling communities, where whole communities are being ravaged, gives further emphasis to this point.Research into the HIV impact recently undertaken by AFRA and the Gender Aids Forum,highlights the impact of poor and insecure access to land for the purposes of food security and the generation of any income.

There is a strong push from planning professionals and engineers for people to be moved from remote areas into organised tight settlements. Underpinning this is the idea that this reduces the cost of rolling out services and it brings people closer to work opportunities.This must be weighed up against the fact that maintaining services will cost the new village residents money they do not necessarily currently have, and job opportunities will not suddenly materialise because a settlement has been created. The idea that jobs and basic services alone will lead to improved livelihoods and decreased poverty requires much more thought.

2. The deep rooted belief in who has rights to this natural resource and agricultural land.

Alongside the livelihood considerations people make will be the belief that the land they currently reside on is in fact rightfully theirs. This conviction has not arisen since the establishment of the Land Reform Programme, but is in fact rooted in people's understanding of how they came to be poor residents on someone else's land. Through a series of workshops with farm dwellers from across the province of KwaZulu-Natal, facilitated by AFRA in 2005, an overwhelming message came through which is summarised in this quote by one of the participants:“It’s because of battles that took place. Black people lost and white people took all the land. They placed us in small places in the townships and divided us and made us their slaves. The new government is a ploy to make us think we are being given our land back.”

In this context of growing frustrations and disappointments amongst farm dwellers in the Land Reform Programme, it would be very difficult to sell the concept of agri villages as defined above by Ethekwini. People will view these attempts to relocate them into villages as a perpetuation of the hardships they have faced to date, and a final attempt to remove them from the land they have held onto for so long. It is a highly emotional matter that must be considered hand in hand with the livelihood consideration mentioned above.

These land uses may be hailed as the way forward, but their flaws should not be overlooked.It needs to be accepted that there is quite possibly no conclusive answer on, or 'land use product' of, economic development strategies and programmes that will redress poverty, bring about transformation, and support the government's overriding drive to achieve accelerated growth and economic prosperity.

“It may be that communities may be interested in tourism because there is a focus, and resources are being made available for this option, rather than because they have a real tourism product”

“The ability to have diverse livelihood strategies, and not to be dependent on one livelihood source like a wage, reduces poorer families' vulnerability in the economy”