“Jobs are better than Water1”

:
Afforestation, Community Members and the Environment in the Tembe Tribal Area of Northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Daily water chores in

Kwamakwakwa

2

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an honours degree in Economic History and Development Studies, at the University of KwaZulu-Natal by James G.T. Mardall November 2006

1

A statement made by an Mqobela community member who requested anonymity (Tuesday 26th July, 2005). Water is a scarce local resource in the Tembe Tribal area, particularly during the rainless winter months

For this reason, community members will not be referred to by name in this study.
2

between May and August. Families predominately collect their water from communal water points some distance from their homesteads (Wednesday, 27th July, 2005).

Cover Page

Contents

Contents Page 1. An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area...................1 2. Governance, Tribal Authority and Systems of Tenure
2.1.

..........................6

Tribal Authority ....................................................................................................10

3. A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area...............13
3.1. 3.2. A Record of Woodlot Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area .................................13 15

A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area…

4. A Historical Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation
4.1. 4.2.

....................................................18

A record of Socio-Economic Consequences of Tembe’s Tribal Woodlots....................18 A Record of Socio-Economic Consequences of the Manzengwenya Plantation...........24 24

4.3. 4.4. 4.5.

Environmental Consequences of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area..................27 A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Changing Environment..............................29 A record of the Changing Environment of Tribal Woodlots.......................................30

5. Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised? .........................................33 6. Appendices (Contact Information):......................................................37 7. Appendices (Scans):...........................................................................38
7.1. Document 01: June 2005 - Document granting permission to plant a five-hectare community woodlot issued within the Tembe Tribal Authorities area of administration.38 7.2. Table 01: A Sappi Table demonstrating a grower’s annual income per hectare for caretaking a Eucalyptus sp Woodlot for eight years, in the Tembe Tribal Area..........40 7.3. Table 02: A Sappi Table demonstrating a grower’s projected profit for caretaking a 7.5 hectare Eucalyptus sp Woodlot for eight years, in the Tembe Tribal Area.................41 7.4. Map 01: Composite Map of KwaZulu Natal, showing the Tembe Tribal area/Chiefdom and locations of communities.........................................................................................42

8. Appendices (Photographs):.................................................................43
8.1. Photograph 01: 22 July 2005 – Meeting with the Induna of the KwaMahlungula Community and some community members at the KwaMahlungula community hall. ..................43 8.2. Photograph 02: 22 July 2005 – The KwaNgwanase Nursery in Manguze, the farmers who grow Eucalyptus (Gum) trees in the area, get their seedlings from this nursery, who in turn get their seedlings from Nseleni Nursery, near Richards Bay to the South................43 8.3. Photograph 03: 22 July 2005 – The KwaNgwanase Nursery in Manguze, trays of Eucalyptus seedlings that are ready to be planted....................................................................44

-i-

Contents

8.4.

Photograph 04: 23 July 2005 – Mfihlweni preparing to meet with the Induna’s right hand man and some community members at their local gathering point...........................44

8.5.

Photograph 05: 25 July 2005 – Eucalyptus seedlings at a Sappi Logging Yard located between Mfihlweni and Manguze.............................................................................45

8.6.

Photograph 06: 25 July 2005 – Eucalyptus logs being loaded by machinery onto an articulated long haul truck, prior to transport to Richards Bay, at a Sappi Logging Yard located between Mfihlweni and Manguze.................................................................45

9. Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues):...........................46
9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. Primary Research Process.....................................................................................46 The Sustainable Livelihoods framework and Linkages .............................................47 Primary Research Issues........................................................................................47 Research Limitations..............................................................................................49

10. Bibliography and References.............................................................51
10.1. 10.2. 10.3. Primary Sources:..................................................................................................51 Secondary Sources and Bibliography:...................................................................51 Electronic Sources:...............................................................................................54

11. Thanks and Acknowledgements.........................................................56

- ii -

An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

1. An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area This study explores the socio-economic and environmental impacts of a half century process of afforestation with non-indigenous trees, within the Tembe Tribal area of Northern KwaZulu-Natal. The study highlights circumstances where tribal elites and Sappi, have benefited from the extraction of surplus value from communally owned natural assets in the Tembe Tribal area. The study will recount how an Apartheid era state plantation and Sappi’s3 Project Grow woodlot4 model have facilitated socioeconomic and environmental exploitation within a Tribal system of communal tenure. The study will be presented as follows. The introductory section presents the general scope and methodology of the study, and a description of the Tembe Tribal area. Section two provides a review of the historical institutions of governance and authority informing the current land tenure arrangements in the Tribal Areas of South Africa. Section three outlines a historical record of afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area. Section four recounts a community record of the socio-economic and environmental consequences of the historical process of afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area. Focussing on Sappi’s Project Grow, the Tembe Tribal Authority, the Manzengwenya plantation and related community issues captured during a process of primary research. This account will be augmented and contextualised by relevant secondary sources. Section five concludes the study by recapping and highlighting key aspects of the preceding sections, and suggesting how the Tembe Tribal area is being affected by the process of afforestation. Initiated in 2005, this study focuses on the Tembe Tribal area of Northern KwaZulu-Natal, incorporating the town of Manguze and the Manzengwenya plantation. The study seeks to provide community narrative of a process of timber related change that has occurred in the Tembe Tribal area. The primary research process (See appendix 9.1), although carried out at a limited scale, was strongly qualitative and reliant on participant and non-participant observation. The primary research portion of this study has been strongly informed by a form of Rapid Rural Appraisal, qualified through the use of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF), as popularised by Robert Chambers5 (See appendix 9.2). This study utilises the SLF to assist in the recognition of the ongoing tensions and contradictions in the relationship between individuals, community assets and the broader socio-economic and environmental factors, where they relate to

3

South African Pulp and Paper Industry, a public company founded by the Union Corporation mining house in Small (between 1 and 15 hectares) community owned/managed/operated area, planted with Eucalyptus sp. (Chambers, 2005)

1936 (Cairns, 2000).
4

(gum trees).
5

-1-

An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

livelihood

sustainability6.

The

Sustainable

Livelihoods

Framework

is

a

dynamic,

conceptual toolkit that makes it possible to disaggregate some of the core issues relating to life in a rural community. This toolkit uses a participatory approach to identify five forms of capital assets available to a community, namely: physical, financial, natural, social and human. Physical assets could for example consist of farming implements and cell phones; financial assets could include social grants and remittances; Natural assets could describe rivers, pans, fish and wild fruits; Social assets could encompass, extended family connections and tribal hierarchies; and Human assets could refer to an individual’s health, skills, nutrition and emotional outlook. The research approach is designed to be mutually beneficial, so that researchers and community members can both be informed by the process. In addition, secondary data gathering, in the form of a literature review of issues relating to plantations and the emergence of woodlots in KwaZulu-Natal, was carried out. Secondary sources were focussed on KwaZulu-Natal, but broadly grouped into the following categories: afforestation and development; historical accounts of KwaZulu Natal’s economic growth; land tenure arrangements in South Africa; woodlots, plantations and forestry; Traditional Authority; and the socio-economic and environmental impacts of forestry. Secondary research was carried out subsequent to the primary research process and augments the findings of the primary research. The Tembe Tribal area falls within the Umkhanyakude (DC 27) District Municipality of the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province of South Africa. It extends from Mozambique’s border in the north, to the Lake Sibaya Complex in the south; and from the Pongola River in the west, to the Indian Ocean in the east (see appendix 7.4). Administratively, the Tembe Tribal area is a characterised by overlapping grey areas. The Tembe Tribal Council (uBhukhosi) headquartered in the town of Manguze; oversee the role and function of the Tembe Tribal Authority, comprised of chiefs (amaKhosi) and headmen (izInduna). The Tribal Authority administers the communal system of rules and tenure within the Tribal areas surrounding the towns. Local government structures headquartered at Manguze and Jozini administer and maintain the towns, freehold areas, infrastructure and public amenities. The provincial Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and the private timber company Sappi, manage the Manzengwenya plantation to the south. DWAF, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), manage, safeguard and protect the various conservation areas, wetlands and Coastal Forest Reserve7 areas. DWAF are the blanket issuing authority for the permits that since 1997 are a legal requirement for the afforestation process in this water stressed environment.

6 7

(Chambers, 2005) The Coastal Forest Reserve is a conservation area that was established in conjunction with the Manzengwenya

plantation by the Department of Forestry during the 1950s, it is located adjacent to the Indian Ocean (see appendix 7.4.).

-2-

An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

The area is situated in a savannah biome that is the result of centuries of human intervention. Fifteenth century Portuguese traders, sailing past what they called the ‘Maputaland’ coastline, referred to the area as ‘Terra del Fumo’ which translates as ‘Land of smoke’. This is a historical reference to the Bantu ancestors of the Tembe people, who annually used fire, to rejuvenate grassland pastures for livestock and cultivation 8 before the spring/summer rains. The climate is humid and exhibits a high mean temperature, with a summer rainfall pattern that has become increasingly erratic in the last few decades9. Winters are historically rain free, dry and normally conclude with a period of strong warm wind followed by annual spring inundation. The soils in the area are made up of ancient alluvial deposits10 and are therefore deep, sandy and low in humic content. This soil type allows for good drainage and therefore poor surface moisture retention. Soils situated near the flood plains and pans exhibit more clay like characteristics and good water retention but are susceptible to salination when incorrectly irrigated 11. Land adjacent to the flood plains and pans is considered to be highly fertile and there is a greater agricultural demand for this land. The sandy soils require increased levels of agricultural inputs to remain viable and productive, but allow for good root penetration. Land that is inaccessible and unutilised because it is far from water and deemed to be unproductive, is covered by indigenous grassland, scrub and trees that are a characteristic of a savannah biome. Invasive alien vegetation, such as Triffid weed (Chromaleana oderata) and Lantana (Lantana camara), is both evident and widespread. As observed during the primary research process and confirmed by secondary data (see the table below) the area described by this study exhibits a visible inter household economic stratification. At one end of the spectrum are a small number of large brick and plaster homesteads that are connected to tarred roads and serviced by municipal amenities and infrastructure. At the other end are a larger number of traditional wattle and daub homesteads, tenuously connected to sand roads by a foot path. Apart from the more densely populated town and suburbs of Manguze, homesteads in the broader Tembe Tribal area are widely dispersed. There are usually small kitchen gardens in close proximity to the homesteads. Larger fields allocated by the Induna are within walking distance and situated in productive soil near a year round wetland feature such as a river or pan. Typically there are also fruit trees such as mango or banana situated near the homestead.

8

Interview with Terry Furgason (Conservation Manager - KZN Ezemvelo), Island Rock, Coastal Forest Reserve, Conversation with Mr Jobe (Farmer), Mboza, July 2005. (McCarthy & Rubidge, 2005) Interview with Piet Oosthuizen (Makhatini Agricultural Research Station), Makhatini, 12th April 2006.

21st July 2005.
9 10 11

-3-

An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

Tembe Tribal Area Demographics

12

Population Average number of persons per household Percentage of households earning less than R200 / month Percentage of households earning less than R500 / month Percentage of households earning less than R1000 / month Percentage unemployment of workforce (over 15 years of

503,874 7 38 % 60 % 74 %

53 % age) Percentage of houses with no (natural) water supply 59 % Percentage of households with no sanitation 86 % The fifty year old, forty nine thousand hectare13 Manzengwenya plantation (comanaged by DWAF and Sappi14) located in the South of the Tembe Tribal Area is a key environmental and socio-economic indicator and provides a striking contrast to those areas that are not currently afforested. During the 2005 research period both rivers and pans within the plantation were observed to be dry. These pans should be a characteristic year round wetland feature of this area. Prior to the afforestation of the Manzengwenya plantation in the 1950s, these pans and rivers were described by community members as an integral part of Manzengwenya’s landscape. Between the non-indigenous Pinus patula (pine trees) and Eucalyptus grandis (gum trees) along the road verges and within the observable portions of the Manzengwenya plantation undergrowth, alien species such as Chromaleana oderata (Triffid weed) and Lantana camara (Lantana) are highly prevalent. In the observable portions of the plantation from the roadway, where the plantations are free of alien vegetation, they are characteristically free of any and all undergrowth. Broad leaf herbicides and pesticides are regularly used in order to manage the plantation by killing both weeds and insects15 and as a result, the soil and leaf litter was observed to be in an undecomposed state. Although this is a useful management practice to prevent the spread of fire and disease, it also denies the indigenous fauna an ecological habitat suitable for reproduction and survival16. As a result, the Tribal woodlots and the Manzengwenya plantation exhibit low levels of wildlife and are a poor substitute ecological habitat. The Manzengwenya plantation and Project Grow woodlots in the Tembe Tribal area are dominated by a monocropped non-indigenous hybrid Eucalyptus grandis clone (gum tree), provided free to growers by Sappi17 (See appendices 9.3 and 9.5). These woodlots are predominately situated within the portion of the Tembe Tribal area adjacent to the
12 13

(Project Grow Report, 2006: pp - 8) Data received during interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005 (Manzengwenya Plantation Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26

Reg. No. 21156838. Applicant - DWAF).
14

July 2005.
15 16
17

Ibid. (Carson, 1962) (Project Grow Report, 2006)

-4-

An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

Indian Ocean. Denser concentrations of woodlots occur around Manguze and the Manzengwenya plantation to the south. Woodlots are also clearly evident, stretching from Manguze northwest to the village of Mfihlweni. In this area woodlots collectively take on the appearance of a substantial and uninterrupted plantation. Woodlots are less evident as one travels west from Mfihlweni inland toward the Pongola floodplain (see appendix 7.4). Gum trees are however a popular way of delineating boundaries of individual homesteads, because they are easy to acquire and are fast growers. Woodlots of one hectare and smaller can be found throughout the Tembe Tribal area, such as in the village of Mboza, which borders on the Pongola flood plain. Sappi’s Project Grow, woodlot community forestry model, is described in Institute for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry reports and Sappi documentation, as corporate driven ‘partnership’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘development’18. However, as established by Ferguson’s research into community forestry in 1980s Lesotho, hierarchically imposed development interventions of this type do not empower traditional communities fairly, sustainably or effectively. Ferguson finds instead that community elites are strengthened, at the expense of the broader community ‘being developed’19. Unmindful of Ferguson’s findings and Fanon’s 1961 insight into the seductive nature of capital for those who are new to governance20, the post-1994 ANC led South African government, has encouraged privatisation of South Africa’s natural resources (including state plantations such as Manzengwenya, Tribal areas and Tribal Communities21). As posited by this study, privatisation of the Manzengwenya plantation and Sappi’s Project Grow has led to an increase in the afforestation of the non-indigenous hybrid Eucalyptus grandis (gum tree) within the Tembe Tribal area. As a result tribal community members, who live near woodlots and/or are enclosed by plantations, are aware that their area’s socio-economic relations and environmental conditions have been altered in favour of Sappi and the elites within the community22.

18 19 20 21 22

(Ojwang, 2000)(Cairns, 2000)(Project Grow Report, 2006) (Ferguson, 1990) (Fanon, 1961) (Bond, 2005) Tembe Tribal area community Meetings, July & December 2005 & (Karumbidza, 2005)

-5-

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

2. Governance, Tribal Authority and Systems of Tenure

I do not believe people should be allowed to buy and sell land… The land is a gift from God to the People. It is not like a house. A house is made by man’s effort; land is not. That’s why the land should not be for sale23.

Prior to the advent

of democracy in 1994, South

African

governments

characteristically segregated different tribes and races. As a result, past racial segregation has provided the impetus for a number of societal issues that relate to contemporary tribal governance and tenure arrangements. According to a 2003 study by Cousins and Claasens24, pre-1994 governments contributed to the preservation of Tribal Authority and traditional communal land use systems. Post-1994 South Africa therefore exhibits both a legislated European form of titled land tenure and a Tribal form of communal land tenure25. The reason for this bifurcated26 contemporary system of land tenure and usage is evident when a historical context of the relevant legislative impacts pre and post-1994 is outlined. Pre-1994, South Africa’s white dominated governments used a variety of legislative processes and procedures to ensure their authority over both land and land use practices. The 1910-1947 Union government enacted ‘The Natives Land Act of 1913’, which prevented black people from purchase, ownership or rent of land outside designated ‘native’ Reserves. Natives would not be allowed to have land in the white mans territory… but natives would be allowed to enter European territory in order to earn a living there (General Hertzog quoted in the Star Newspaper, 14 Oct 1912)27 Black farmers were in effect forced to become labour tenants or farm labourers on white owned farms, if they wished to remain outside the Reserves. Reserves were characteristically divided along tribal lines, densely populated with people and their livestock and geographically isolated from one another. Living conditions in the Reserves were difficult and black people were not permitted to access the wider South African labour market. One of the few employment alternatives sanctioned by the government was to supply unskilled labour to the mining or industrial sectors located adjacent to or
23 24 25 26 27

(Chimhowu & Woodhouse, 2006: 348) (Cousins & Claasens, 2003) (Cousins (ed), 2000)(Ntsebeza, 2005)(Beall Mkhize & Vawda, 2005) (Bernstein, 1998) (Bunting, 1964: 21)

-6-

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

within urban centres such as Johannesburg’s gold mines or Durban’s port. However, the movement and urban settlement of these workers was rigorously monitored and controlled28. The ‘Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923’, further demarcated access to land according to racial classification. Coupled to this act were the early pass laws that were used to control the movements of migrant labourers between the native Reserves and the urban townships. For example, black men who worked in the mines and cities lived in demarcated adjoining single sex hostels. Their wives and families, confined to the Reserves, engaged in subsistence agriculture supplemented by their men’s remittances29. …Labour regulation was a major task of the state… the gold mines depended on the state for development, policing and everyday running of their migratory labour system…30. Post-1948 until the mid 1980s, the National Party’s Apartheid policies built on those of the previous Union government. The National Party exerted a style of authoritarian control over the people and landscape that relied heavily on a principle of balkanisation (or divide and rule)31. NP stalwart Dr. H.F. Verwoerd referred to the apartheid society as one in which people could seek their own authenticity, if they adhered to their racially determined boundaries32. Apartheid achieved notoriety, due to racist legislation enacted between 1948 and 1980, such as33: The Group Areas Act - Which demarcated race group areas at a municipal scale, to prevent interracial social contact and provide unskilled black labour for mines and manufactures.

The Homelands Policy - Further balkanising the Native Reserves, by recognising and financially supporting them as ‘independent’ Tribal ‘Homelands’. Apartheid was designed to sustain the ‘economic and political supremacy’ of white

South Africans. It attempted to secure a plentiful, poorly educated, unskilled and therefore cheap black labour supply, for the primary sector of the South African economy34. Due to Apartheid legislation, unlike white farmers, individual black farmers were unable to access large blocks of land and thereby benefit from economies of scale in agricultural production35. Shortage of capital and arable land in the Reserves meant
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

(Aliber, 2003) (Hendricks, 2001) (Greenberg, 2003) (Crush, Jeeves & Yudelman, 1991: 8 – 9) (Ntsebeza, 2005) (Aliber, 2003) (Hendricks, 2001) (McCarthy, 1990) (Thompson, 1985) & (Williams, 1988) (Peet, 1989) (Hendricks, 2001)

-7-

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

that few opportunities existed for black farmers to become active participants in the country’s agricultural sector. A sector dominated by large white owned farms, actively supported by the National Party government36. By the late 1970s, international support increased for South African anti Apartheid movements that were resisting the National Party government. Apartheid was however firmly imprinted in the socio-economic and employment landscape of South Africa, evidenced for example by white urban centres and black tribal homeland Reserves. By the early 1980s, black consciousness, economic sanctions and an international lack of demand for South African commodities, forced the National Party to rethink its political strategy. A period of conflict resulted during the mid to late 1980s between the National Party and those organisations it supported, such as the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and organisations wishing to overthrow them, such as the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). These organisations began to abandon the use of wholesale violence by 1990 and a public process of political negotiation followed37. With the abolition of racially based land acts in 1991, and the referendum in 1992, all South Africans became legally entitled to live, work and vote as they saw fit. Theoretically this meant that black people could now actively engage and participate in the country’s agrarian sector outside the Reserves. However, ideological remnants of Apartheid’s socio-economic and spatial constructs meant that black people were unable to do so on an equal footing. This was in no small part due to National Party government support for large scale white agriculture, to the exclusion of small scale black subsistence agriculture in the Tribal Reserves38. The attempt to correct the agrarian imbalance, redress questions of land ownership and create free and fair access to the South African economy, would present the post-1994 government with a significant problem. By 1994, the racially determined history of South African land usage meant that in terms of land holdings, there were approximately 1570 hectares for each white person and just over a hectare for each black person39. A graphic example of inequity, particularly when one considers that whites constituted less than 5% of the population in the 1996 census40. This complex period of South Africa’s history was compounded, according to Bernstein, by the fact that, “the ANC entered the ‘transition’ from 1990-1994 with no real analysis of the agrarian question and no agenda of agricultural restructuring and land redistribution”41. He ascribes this assertion to a number of factors; firstly that the resistance struggle was predominately urban based; secondly that the ANC was
36 37 38 39 40 41

(Aliber, 2003) (Ntsebeza, 2005) (Beall Mkhize & Vawda, 2005) (Aliber, 2003) (Hendricks, 2001) (Bernstein, 1998) (Hendricks, 2001) (http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm) (Bernstein, 1998: 4)

-8-

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

ignorant of the issues pertaining to land ownership and use; thirdly that the restrictions on Black people’s movements prevented widespread political organisation in the countryside; and fourthly that the ‘bifurcated state’, consisting of Tribal and European forms of land tenure arrangements, led to several differences of opinion between the ANC and the Tribally aligned Inkatha Freedom Party42. Hendricks contends that the evolution of South Africa’s post Apartheid land reform process is grounded in the land clause of the freedom charter, adopted by the ANC in 1955, which states that: The land shall be shared by those who work it. Restrictions of land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended and all the land re-divided among those who work it, to banish famine and land hunger. The state shall help the peasants with implements, seeds, tractors and dams to save the soil and assist the tillers…All shall have the right to occupy the land wherever they choose…43 Whether grounded in the Freedom Charter or not. Rural land reform presented a sizeable challenge to the newly elected 1996 ANC government, whose stated goal was to redistribute 30% of all agricultural land from white to black ‘ownership’ by 2010. A percentage attributed by Bernstein to the World Bank and not the ANC 44. In addition the motivation for the ANC’s first economic plan, the Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) could more accurately be described as an integrated rural poverty reduction framework and not merely a land reform program 45. Greenberg suggests that the ANC’s land and agrarian reform programs as laid out in the RDP, were designed within a World Bank style macroeconomic framework46. A pro-business framework advocating market led reform, privatisation of national assets (such as state forests) and security of tenure, as the cornerstone for further development47. By 2003, in an analysis of the ANC led land reform process, Attfield (et al) demonstrates that the ‘land crisis’ had not been resolved and further asserts that, “Instead of being a vehicle for justice and reconciliation, it is argued, land reform has proved to be a source of further inequality and conflict”48. This was nowhere more evident than in KwaZulu Natal, where the process of land reform became enmeshed in a struggle for political control of the province that, “… assumed the proportions of a civil war”49. This
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

(Bernstein, 1998) As quoted in (Hendricks, 2001: 294) (Bernstein, 1998) (Hendricks, 2001) (Greenberg, 2001) (Bernstein, 1998) (Attfield Hattingh & Matshabalala, 2003: 417) (Beall Mkhize & Vawda, 2005: 755)

-9-

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

was in no small part a consequence of the institutions of Government and Tribal Authority, struggling to find a mutually acceptable political interface in the newly integrated South African nation. This struggle and its outcome will be discussed in the following sub-section, with particular reference to structures of authority in KwaZuluNatal.

2.1.

Tribal Authority Prior to the arrival of Europeans in Southern Africa, the cohesion of the institution

of Tribal Authority was facilitated through a process linked to family ties, marriage, patronage, rituals and the redistribution of individual community members’ tributes. In the mid 1850s the colonial Shepstone administration strengthened the role of Tribal Authority in KwaZulu-Natal by officially recognising Tribal administration of land rights on Reserve land50. During the height of Apartheid a hundred years later, Tribal Authorities were co-opted and financially supported by the government. Tribal authorities effectively functioned as government in the Reserves during this period. Aspects of this function included the allocation of land, the management of immigration51 and the utilisation of appointed and traditional hereditary chiefs, as co-opted agents of government52. As a result of this history, according to Ntsebeza: The post-1994 state has inherited a system of administration that was based on the concentration of all power in these rural areas [Reserves] in the hands of unaccountable traditional authorities (chiefs and headmen)... Despite claims by the apartheid architects that this form of rule was based on precolonial African institutions, in reality, the ‘institution of traditional leadership’, in the form of apartheid created Tribal Authorities, was incorporated into the structures of government as an extended arm. Tribal Authorities were, in the mould of their apartheid creators, highly authoritarian and despotic53. Post-1994 the ANC led government attempted to introduce democratic

governance structures to the Tribal areas. As a result, the role and function of Tribal Authorities was thrown into a state of flux and tension. This was especially relevant in KwaZulu-Natal, where Tribal Authorities had become accustomed to a level of autonomous governance and control. Violence and poor co-operation between Tribal Authorities and local government structures resulted, with individual community
50 51 52 53

(Beal Mkhize and Vawda, 2005) (Ardington, 1984) (Beal Mkhize and Vawda, 2005) (Ntsebeza 2006: 14)

- 10 -

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

members bearing the consequences of a strained power dynamic. As attested to by a community member living in a tribal area in the eastern cape during the transition period: There is a struggle between TrepCs [transitional government councillors] and the headman [Tribal Authority]. The former brought electricity and telephones, but land is in the hand of the chiefs… Sometimes you may have spoken badly about the headman, and you end up bowing down to it, as it is often necessary that you get what you want. With chiefs and headmen it takes a few days to get what you want, whereas with rural councillors it takes months, and even then you end up not succeeding54. The Tribal Authority in Tembe as in other Tribal Areas of South Africa currently functions by administering a communal system of laws and property rights 55. Furthermore as an institution it is hereditary, hierarchical and fundamentally based on a system of patriarchy, whereby ownership of land is conferred on the male head of a household and women are excluded from the right to ‘own’ land56. These aforementioned principles are not democratic and run counter to the South African constitution, which paradoxically includes a section recognising Tribal Authority57. However, Tribal Authorities countrywide were officially recognised with the passing of two bills in 2003 ‘The Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill’ and the ‘Communal Land Rights Bill’. Ntsebeza claims that this occurred after protracted conflict in KwaZulu-Natal (what Beal, Mkhize and Vawda refer to as ‘a low level civil war’58) and as an ANC ‘concession’ to the power of the Tribal Authorities countrywide, who were capable of swaying political opinion within their communities (including migrant workers in the urban areas) prior to the 2004 elections59. The pre and post-1994 level of co-operation between local governance structures and Tribal Authorities in KwaZulu-Natal can best be described as tenuous, as each institution attempted to exert its own particular form of authority and control. In a situation of this type, Graziani and Burnham point out that ‘plural and conflicting legal principles’ (such as a system of land tenure sanctioned by government and a traditional system of land tenure sanctioned by a Tribal Authority) can lead to a malfunctioning bureaucracy and thereby a decentralisation of authority. They see this as a kind of ‘laissez faire’ condition that lends itself to the growth of private corporations outside government control60. In addition Ferguson claims that a malfunctioning bureaucracy is
54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Mr Jama Cala quoted in (Ntsebeza 2006: 13) (Ntsebeza, 2006) (Ntsebeza, 2006)(Mackenzie, 1995) (Ntsebeza, 2006) (Beal Mkhize and Vawda, 2005) (Ntsebeza, 2006) (Graziani & Burnham, 2005)

- 11 -

South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

essential for the social and economic reproduction of the ruling elites, in a Tribal Area 61. The Tembe Tribal Council was unwilling to discuss the institution and history of Tribal Authority in the Tembe Tribal area62. But it is likely that this ‘laissez faire’ condition has facilitated the ingress of private forestry interests and benefited the ruling elites in the Tembe Tribal Area in Northern KwaZulu-Natal, as attested to by the narrative offered in the following section.

61 62

(Ferguson, 1990) Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005 (Ntsebeza suggests that unwillingness of this type

stems from the sensitive and volatile nature of South Africa’s recent political history (Ntsebeza, 2006)).

- 12 -

A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

3. A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

With rural people constituting about 40% of the total population of South Africa, forestry contracting offered an important avenue for the creation of new black entrepreneurs63.

3.1.

A Record of Woodlot Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area Gum tree seedlings were first introduced to the Tembe area in 1973 by migrant

workers employed in government plantations to the south64. In 1976 The Tembe Tribal Council was approached by Mondi65 with a proposal to cultivate gum and pine trees in the Tembe Tribal area, which they rebuffed66. The seven year growth cycle was seen as a doubtful way of making money and the viability of trees as a crop came into question 67. In 1996, extension officers from Sappi’s Project Grow and the Department of Agriculture (DOA) convinced the Tribal Council that gum tree afforestation was economically profitable and would not affect agricultural productivity in the area68. Urged by the Tribal Council, the Izinduna (village headmen) encouraged the broader community to accept the planting of small five hectare woodlots by suggesting this would create local job opportunities69. The Tribal Council initially stipulated that woodlots were not to be located near homesteads, grazing land, cultivated fields, food gardens and open water. Since this initial stipulation, permission to substitute small (one hectare or less) woodlots for food gardens in land adjacent to homesteads has been granted unconditionally by the Tribal Council at the discretion of the local Induna. Providing that the woodlot is primarily for domestic use and consumption (such as a wind/sound break) it does not require a permit from the Tribal Council70. Project Grow is a self proclaimed community ‘partnership’ project, initiated by Sappi in 1983. It targets individual ‘subsistence’ farmers 71 with access to arable land in
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry cited in (Louw, 2004: 85-86). Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005. According to Cairns, Mondi Paper was established in 1966 by the Anglo American Corporation (Cairns, 2000). Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005. Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005. Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005. Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005. These farmers are provided with free Eucalyptus sp. seedlings, interest free loans and technical assistance. In

addition, Sappi provide an annual advance on the expected final return once the trees are harvested. The farmers are guaranteed a market with Sappi once the trees are felled (see appendices 7.2 and 7.3 for Sappi tabulations of projected Project Grow woodlot incomes in the Tembe area) (Project Grow Report, 2006).

- 13 -

A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Tribal areas in Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape, to promote afforestation with nonindigenous hybrid Eucalyptus sp. (gum tree species). Project Grow woodlots are predominately situated on tribal land, they are ostensibly owned by individual community members, or by the community collectively72. The Mfihlweni community however suggested that there were only really two woodlots in the Manguze area, woodlots owned by the Inkhosi (chief) and woodlots managed by Sappi for the Tribal Council and ‘the people’73. The inference of these comments seems to suggest that the benefits of these woodlots do not accrue to the broader community. The Tembe Tribal Council administers the woodlot permitting process and is adamant that woodlot afforestation has not impacted negatively on the lives of community members. Bulk afforestation permits are issued to the Council by DWAF, the DOA and KZN Ezemvelo, only after a careful study of the proposed area74. The Council contends that the local economy has benefited through local job creation and that community members are happy as a result75. The Council also indicate there have been no negative environmental impacts, no natural forests have been destroyed and that only uncultivated grassland has been afforested. However, after hearing complaints about water issues from community members during the 2000-2001 period, the Tribal Council became concerned that woodlot afforestation was impacting on the Tembe environment. Ecological impact assessments were conducted by DWAF, the DOA and Ezemvelo KZN, and new permitting conditions were introduced that prevented woodlot afforestation in areas where there was ‘insufficient’ surface water76. The Tembe Tribal Council, assisted by Sappi, have submitted two further water license applications to DWAF for a further 5000 hectares of bulk afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area. By 2004, permits to afforest 1200 hectares had been granted to the Tribal Council. On condition that planting did not exceed 500 hectares of staggered afforestation per year. Sappi have expressed a desire to afforest a further 15000 hectares in the Tembe area (approximately half the area of the Manzengwenya Plantation) if the hydrological potential exists. However in their own report they concede that ‘the water requirements’ of the natural rivers and wetlands limit the potential for further afforestation in the area, despite the evident desire of the community to do so77.

72 73 74 75

(Project Grow Report, 2006) Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005. Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005. Project Grow records indicate that there were approximately 653 farmers on 4,902 hectares of communal

76

land in the Umkhanyakude District during this period (Project Grow Report, 2006).
77

(Project Grow Report, 2006)

- 14 -

A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

According to Ojwang, the post-1994 government sees forestry companies like Sappi as key role players in the facilitation of socio-economic empowerment of rural communities through community partnerships78. Sappi administer the Project Grow community partnership through the use of contracts with growers. However, Cairns suggests that, “contract farming generates an elite in a very flat pyramid” 79. Furthermore, Ojwang’s critique of community-corporate afforestation partnerships, points out that contracts tend to be technical and one sided favouring the corporate partner and creating long term financial dependency on the part of the grower. This situation is argued to be exacerbated by the fact that individual growers are unable to negotiate timber prices. It is suggested that this power imbalance can lead to mistrust, contract violations and conflict80. Sappi evidently view the afforestation process in the area as part of a larger integrated development program, which is seen as ‘a real business opportunity’ for financial institutions, private companies and NGO’s81. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Afforestation in the Tembe

3.2.

Tribal Area… The arrival of a number of white farmers, settled in the Manzengwenya area by the NP government during the 1950s, coincided with the beginning of a series of community removals. Manzengwenya82 was a name that white farmers and the NP government used for the area; the community name was indicated to be ‘Vanzi’. Initially the white farmers planted peanuts, but after harvesting the nuts they began to plant pine trees, which caused the local pans to dry up. Although these white farmers promised jobs to the community, there were very few jobs for locals, only migrants (i.e. Xhosas and Swazis). The white farmers were unable to establish their tree farms without the NP government’s assistance; consequently the government stepped in and asked the surrounding communities for more land in order to establish a state plantation. The Tribal Authorities agreed because the community were promised employment and access to plantation resources, such as fuel-wood and building material. During this period people were removed from the newly enclosed Coastal Forest Reserve, while wild animals were relocated from the Manzengwenya area to the reserve83.

78 79 80 81 82

(Ojwang, 2000) (Cairns, 2000: x) (Ojwang, 2000) (Project Grow Report, 2006) The name Manzengwenya is a Zulu word meaning ‘Water of the Crocodiles’, it is a reference to the historical

landscape of the area that was characterised by wetlands and abundant wildlife.
83

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st

July, 2005.

- 15 -

A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

The 49000 hectare Manzengwenya plantation was established during the late 1950s by the NP government. The original communities from the area now occupied by the plantation were Mabibi, Mvelabusha, Chitomuzi, KwaMpukane and Hlabezimhlope. It was located in the Tembe Tribal area in an attempt to prevent the emigration of Tembe community members into towns, by providing local employment. Apart from the concurrent establishment of the Coastal Forest Reserve, there was very little concern for the local environment by the then Department of Forestry. The initial afforestation process was carried out like a large scale farming operation; the area was strip cleared and planted with pine seedlings. Local community members living where the plantation was located were displaced from their land. However, the plantation did provide local employment for those people that remained nearby84. Although the initial move to establish the state plantation was understood to be a government managed operation, by the mid 1960s Sappi began to be a role-player in the plantation’s management85. At this stage there were no roads and no infrastructural networks outside the plantation and people used footpaths to walk from one place to another. This mid 1960s was characterised by a severe drought that impacted heavily on local crops. Livestock were also drastically affected by the reduction in grazing land and the lack of drinking water. At the same time, indigenous trees utilised for fruit and raw material (i.e. Amawebe and Amaganu) were being removed and replaced by pine trees86. During the 1970s, many community members were employed in both the harvesting of pine trees and the glue making process87. As a result of the demand for workers during this period, immigration from other tribal areas occurred. In 1975 the KwaZulu government begin to inform the surrounding communities about the expansion of the plantation, as a result further removals and relocations of the KwaMpukane, Mabibi and Mvelabusha communities occurred. More local employment was however created and a reduction in migrant labour was observed. People from relocated communities were preferentially offered employment and the Izinduna selected work crews based on their levels of household poverty88. The plantation was seen to have had a very positive impact on the community during this period89.
84

Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26 Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26

July 2005.
85

July 2005.
86

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st

July, 2005.
87 88

Glue is manufactured by rendering resin, harvested while felling pine trees. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st

July, 2005.
89

Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005.

- 16 -

A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Between 1975 and 1980 water levels in the rivers and pans enclosed by the plantation were observed to drop far lower than during the preceding seasonal cycles. By the mid 1980s the large pan and river in the centre of the plantation was drying out, and fish were easily caught in the shallow and accessible waters. In 1987 the river stopped flowing and the pan almost completely dried out. In 1988 pine trees were harvested on a very large scale and the areas that were previously under pine were replanted with gum trees, which were understood to be introduced under Sappi’s management. By the end of the 1980s the plantation had stopped growing and a system of block rotation was established within Manzengwenya’s existing boundaries90. Although Manzengwenya was understood to be state owned at the time, management of the plantation was seen to be predominately carried out by Sappi executives from 1994 onward. As a consequence employment levels established during the 1970s were maintained until 1994, at which point local employment began to decline. The use of outside contractors (specialising in cutting, loading and transport) increased and access to the plantation’s resources became restricted. It was noted that although there had been retirements and deaths in the local community, no new full time employment had been offered locally since 1994. However, community members on the plantation fringes were assisted by Sappi with seedlings, fertilizers, implements and knowledge and encouraged to establish woodlots. These community members began to employ community members, but for very low rates of pay91. 2003 was indicated to be a bad year for the surrounding communities due to, a lack of rain, poor harvests and an ongoing reduction in local employment in the plantation. In 2004, during the pre-election period, ANC Land Affairs Minister, Thoko Didiza visited the community and promised to give community members their land back. This led to widespread celebrations within the broader Manzengwenya community. However, at the time of this study in 2005, no news from the ANC government in this regard was forthcoming92. As a result falling employment and unfulfilled promises, the ANC government’s management of the plantation has been widely criticised. According to one Mvelabusha community member, “we spoilt everything by voting”93.

90 91

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st

July, 2005.
92

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st

July, 2005.
93

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December.

- 17 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

4. A Historical Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation The post-1994 incidence of rural poverty in South Africa corresponds to the geographic location of the pre-1994 Reserves94. Census data collected in 1996 indicates that 46 % of 40.5 million surveyed citizens were resident in rural areas. In addition, 72 % of the lowest income earners lived in rural areas95. In a 1996 KwaZulu-Natal specific study by May; 63% of the rural population are categorised as poor; 62.5% of rural households are involved in agriculture; 47% of rural households rely on agriculture as a way of generating an income; and 6.8% of rural household income is generated by agricultural production. This seems to suggest that although access to land may not alleviate rural poverty and provide a sustainable livelihood that it does provide a central component of a diversified livelihood strategy. Agriculture plays a ‘dual role’ in rural KZN, both as an income earning activity and a food supply ‘safety net’ 96. Walker claims that after State Grants and wage labour remittances, agricultural production is a key livelihood tactic used by impoverished households97. In addition, access to communal land offers a variety of natural resources, such as grazing for livestock, fuel-wood, raw materials for building and traditional craftwork, traditional muthi plants, wild spinach and so on98.

4.1.

A record of Socio-Economic Consequences of Tembe’s Tribal Woodlots

If you want to register your woodlot with Sappi, you need to get the permit from the Tribal Authority99. Cairns suggests that Sappi’s Project Grow was initiated in 1983 as a ‘social responsibility’ program, ‘driven by welfarist and environmental concerns’, in response to the poor socio-economic conditions that existed in the rural areas. It was only when Project Grow farmers started to deliver ‘significant tonnages’ that the arrangement was formalised100. A 1999 Project Grow study of woodlot outgrowers throughout KwaZulu-Natal, demonstrated that 33 % of the selling price was retained by the grower as net profit after the costs of growing and transport had been covered. Depending on management of the woodlot and the age of the trees, this represented between 12 % and 45 % of the
94 95 96 97 98

(Aliber, 2003) (http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm) (May, 1996) (Walker, 2003) Tembe Community Meetings, July & December 2005. (Karumbidza, 2005) Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. (Cairns, 2000)

99

100

- 18 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

earnings that one average household would require for an income of approximately R 750.00101 a month102 (See the appendices 8.2 and 8.3 for tables that offer Sappi’s projections of a Tembe grower’s expected income and profit). Considering that according to Project Grow seven people per household in the Tembe Tribal area is an average statistic (see page 3 of this study), this relates to just over R 107.00 per person per month or just over R 3.50 per person per day. Arable land in the Tembe Tribal area is scarce, the area is water stressed and permits are limited. Woodlots could not be offered to every household in the Tembe Tribal area. However, Cairns would argue that Sappi consider Project Grow to be a process of broad socio-economic development or community upliftment103. Ojwang suggests this may not be the case: In essence, production related risks are transferred to the individual grower, while the company bears the risk of marketing. The private companies engage in a binding contract with individual farmers within the community and provide incentives such as loan advances and technical expertise. In return, the individual growers provide land and labour. This has largely been a business venture with the companies under no obligation to deliver social and economic rural development104. The KwaMsonto Induna indicated that the most pressing risk with respect to woodlots was the possibility of fires started by ‘people’. Sappi do not offer fire or any kind of insurance to woodlot owners105. Sappi pays woodlot owners a December bonus and yearly woodlot maintenance costs (although this is considered an interest free loan and deducted from Sappi’s purchase price when the timber is felled). The timber price is determined at the time of harvest by Sappi, who rigorously control the only market that growers in the Tembe Area are able to access106. Sappi’s payments are not perceived to be equitable, some woodlot owners are said to get more than others even if they started at the same time and have the same size woodlot. Woodlot growers are beginning to complain about the low rate of return from Sappi107.

101

The figure of R 750.00 corresponds to the 1999 amount a household would have received from one

individual’s old age or disability social welfare grant.
102 103 104
105 106 107

(Cairns, 2000) (Cairns, 2000) (Ojwang, 2000: 5) KwaMsonto Community meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005 Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005 Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005

- 19 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

According to Cairns, although some of the risk of woodlot afforestation is shared, the power dynamics within an outgrower scheme is heavily weighted toward timber companies like Sappi108. Ojwang suggests that partnerships based on outsourcing to Tribally Administered communal areas such as Project Grow, function as a corporate safeguard against tenure disputes and as a means of disinvestment from the land109. In the case of Project Grow for instance, a community member has to ask the Tribal Authority for the right to access land on which to plant a woodlot 110. In the Tembe Tribal area, DWAF, the DOA and KZN Ezemvelo (in consultation with Sappi) demarcate an area where afforestation can occur. The Tembe Tribal Council is then issued with a bulk afforestation permit. The Council are responsible for delineating the boundaries of woodlots within the demarcated area and managing the issuing of the permits for individual or community ownership. These permits111 cost R 300.00 per individual 5 hectare application and the woodlots are managed exclusively under contract to Sappi 112. Cairns argues that, “By requiring signatures from Tribal Authorities, the schemes may entrench Tribal Authority power…”113. In addition, every woodlot owner is obligated to give a share of their harvest income to the Tribal Council, at a rate of one rand per ton of felled timber. This is considered to be a cultural expression of ‘homage to the king’ (Insonyama Ukuhlenga)114. Members of the Mboza community indicated that independent growers, who had planted gum trees without obtaining permits from the Tribal Council, had so far been unable to sell their timber to Sappi115. As alluded to by the SLF diagram (see appendix 9.2), at least two things are necessary, in order for the Tribal Authority to a grant an individual community member the right to access a woodlot. The individual must have ‘human influence’ within the community and ‘financial influence’ in order to purchase a woodlot permit. In a 1993 KwaZulu-Natal study by Cairns, the majority of woodlot growers and owners of affiliated logging concerns were described as either members or ‘associates’ of the Tribal Authority, or wealthy landowners. This is analogous to the views expressed by Sen and Das in a 1993 study who posit that, “The benefits of community forestry projects are manipulated in favour of the elite, affecting the interest of downtrodden people116.” Accordingly, KwaMpuyisa community members complained that the Tribal Authority had

108 109 110 111
112 113 114 115 116

(Cairns, 2000) (Ojwang, 2000) Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. For a copy of a Tembe Tribal Council woodlot permit, see appendix 7.1. Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. (Cairns, 2000: x) Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005. Mboza Community Meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005. Sen & Das cited in (Ham & Theron, 1999: 73).

- 20 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

been claiming the land set aside for communal woodlots for themselves 117. Thandizwa’s Induna explained that there are only a few individuals that own woodlots, which he maintains are the asset of the ‘community’. The Induna owns several woodlots surrounding his homestead and he also controls the local shorthaul logging operations118. Thengani B’s Induna pointed out that woodlots have enabled the accumulation of assets by people in the area. His homestead was flanked by a one hectare gum woodlot and he indicated that he also had an eight hectare Project Grow woodlot near Mfihlweni119. Local ‘contractors’ at a logging yard south of Manguze, said they were working for an Induna who employs eight temporary workers to operate his shorthaul logging business120. In Mvelabusha although Project Grow woodlots were established to assist with the community’s ‘development’, community members said that they seemed to belong more to the chief121. As a result of inequity in the distribution of woodlot ownership, timber contractors in KwaZibi indicated that there was jealousy within the community toward those people who owned woodlots122. In 1991, jealousy of this sort resulted in the burning of 273 hectares of ‘community woodlots’ within a Tribal area near the Mbazwane plantation, to the south of the Tembe Tribal area. The Local youth responsible claimed that an inequitable allocation of woodlots in favour of the elders, the Tribal Authority and their ‘associates’, led to their action123. Cairns points out, that there are many Tribal areas where evidence of the ‘checks and balances’ and the ‘egalitarian’ nature of Tribal Authority is evident124. In this respect, Sappi literature suggests that the growers in the Tembe area include individuals who manage woodlots on behalf of the community and also provide employment for the community in a contracting process. Other growers include individuals who own woodlots and either use family labour, or contract local community members to assist them125. According to Cairns however, contracting is not a cure-all for local unemployment: While contractors have emerged, the nature of the work is too sporadic, and the payment rates set by companies are too low to achieve sustainable employment or economic linkages126.

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. D1843 Logging Yard Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005. KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. (Cairns, 2000) (Project Grow Report, 2006) (Cairns, 2000) (Vaughan, 1996 Cited in Cairns, 2000: 42)

- 21 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

Local ‘contractors’ at a Logging yard south of Manguze, explained that they were not from the Tembe Tribal area and would take any work they could get. The work was indicated to be extremely hard and physically taxing for a pay of R30.00 per day. These workers were anxious to join a union in order to improve their working conditions; however, no unions for timber contractors operate in this area127. KwaMpuyisa community members, described gum trees as being good for local employment, but complained about the poor local rate of pay128. Sappi contractors in KwaZibi, managing the local community woodlots on Sappi’s behalf, agreed that woodlots were creating local employment but that it amounted to no more than, “a lot of people working for very little”. They indicated that when freelancing for individual woodlot owners they earned approximately R20.00 per day and supplied their own equipment129. According to Cairns, gum trees appear to be an efficient crop for community members without necessitating large capital investments by the grower. By utilising local resources and cheap contract labour, woodlot growers are able to avoid these costs 130. Dr. Ngubane the Induna of Mahlungula and the chairman of the KwaNgwanase Farmers Union explained that gum trees were a good crop that would enable economic growth in the area131. Thandizwa community members agreed that gum trees were a good crop which created employment and that many community members were keen to grow132. In Mfihlweni gum trees were indicated to be very good cash crop, but access to employment in the woodlots was described as unfair, as relatives of ‘those’ who owned woodlots were most often employed. People also indicated that the work was difficult and inefficient, without expensive machinery like chainsaws and tractors133. The Tribal allocation of woodlots and the right to plant gum trees around the homestead is traditionally patriarchal in nature and restricted to the male head of household. Female KwaMpuyisa Community members complained that the Tribal Authority would not give them the permission to plant gum trees around their homesteads, which they would do if they could134. According to a study by Ojwang: Traditional Zulu culture prohibits women from obtaining land allocations directly from the Inkosi. User rights are normally acquired through male members. Single mothers, for instance may be allocated land through their
127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

D1843 Logging Yard Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. (Cairns, 2000) Dr. Ngubane, Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005. Thandizwa Community meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.

- 22 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

parents or brothers. This limits the freedom that women have in controlling their means of production. Since 1994, government has attempted to change customary law relating to marriages. However, it is still highly unusual for a woman to approach the Inkosi directly for land135. When the male head of a household passes away, both the household and the community can be thrown into a state of anxiety. It is customary for those community members that have a claim on the bereaved household to attempt to annex valuable possessions or property, such as a portion of a woodlot, at this time. It is also customary for either the firstborn son, or the brother of the deceased, to assume the role of household head. This situation often leads to the abuse of a widow’s labour and property, which has led widows to break tradition by arguing for ownership of the property for which they have laboured. A circumstance that Cairns has argued can and does lead to a condition of tension within a Tribal community136. Unfortunately, Ojwang suggests that the resolution of circumstances like this, do not always favour women: Women have been understood to be the losers when it comes to these decisions regarding the flow and use of benefits, yet studies indicate that they make a substantial contribution to household labour137. Tembe community members have a keen awareness of socio-economic issues related to woodlots. Community members are aware of the way in which those who are in positions of Tribal Authority or affiliated to them, are benefiting from the afforestation process. People within the community have noted the difference between their own standard of living and the standard of living of those who own woodlots in the community. As a result, community members tend to gravitate toward the promise of wealth offered by woodlot ownership. This response is however tinted with the consequences of afforestation by Mfihlweni community members, who when asked if woodlots should be planted from horizon to horizon, generally responded in one of two ways. The yes group explained that gum trees were worth a lot of money, brought employment and should be widely planted so everybody could benefit. The no group didn’t want to loose grazing, housing and farming land to gum trees. One community member added that gum trees, “were like a car that is moving right, but sometimes it is dangerous”138.

135 136 137 138

(Ojwang, 1999: 61-62) (Cairns, 2000) (Ojwang, 2000: 15) Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.

- 23 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

4.2.

A Record of Socio-Economic Consequences of the Manzengwenya

Plantation We didn’t have access to our land. Families were separated and every one was looking for a good area to cultivate. They just cut the land in pieces. Every one was affected and the worst part of it is that we weren’t compensated. We just started new homes from our own empty pockets and lack of natural resources. From then on, we were forced to buy our own natural resources from the game reserves139. It’s been a long time waiting to be compensated and even worse is the fact that many people have died without being compensated140.

When

asked

for

details

of

the

surrounding

communities,

the

current

Manzengwenya plantation head forester was unable to locate them, name them or indicate who the Izinduna were. But he did point out that Manzengwenya plantation constituted the largest single permit plantation in Southern Africa. His attitude is indicative of the lack of corporate social responsibility and institutional disconnection that powerful officials have for the immediate community, whose histories the plantation has radically altered141. It is therefore not surprising that the Induna of the Mvelabusha community, Jimmy Tembe, explained that the benefits from the plantation for the surrounding communities were no longer as good as they used to be142. After the forced removals in the 1950s, during the establishment of the plantation, surrounding community members found living conditions to be extremely difficult. The plantation was established on the most arable and fertile soils in the area, a ‘shock’ which led to starvation immediately after the forced removals143. Many members of the Mvelabusha community lost their livestock, grazing land and fields for their crops on which they depended144 and one community member said: They took our livestock if it entered their plantation. We lost some of our cattle because of our informal eviction to make way for the plantation. We were put in desert like areas where it’s quite difficult to live, compared to what we were used to. There was no water for our cattle and no grazing land. Our livestock
139 140 141

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26 Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.

July 2005.
142 143 144

- 24 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

were taken over by the planting of trees that absorb a lot of water, especially because cattle don’t cope well in a drought. All that is left far grazing, living and farming are the small spaces where the trees are not grown145. The marginal areas that community members were moved to forced people to farm on land that was not productive. The elders pointed out that prior to the plantation’s afforestation; there was never really a widespread shortage of food, natural resources or fertile land. In addition to cultivated crops, there were also seasonal wild indigenous fruits such as Amahlala, Iminwebe, Amabhonsi, Amakwakwa, Izindoni and Amabungwa and an abundance of wild spinach (Imifino). As the plantation grew, it removed and restricted access to both land and natural resources. Indigenous food sources, wood for fuel and home construction, grass and reeds for thatching and muthi plants (traditional medicine), became severely limited local natural resources. The only area where these resources were available in any substantial quantity was in the restricted Coastal Forest Reserve 146. In addition, community members historically supplemented their household diet with fish. As recently as the 1980s, fish were caught in the river and pans that subsequently dried up147. As a result of afforestation related changes, community members were forced to rely on the cash economy to source raw materials and foodstuffs to supplement their livelihoods. In order to pay for their purchases, community members sought after the few available paying positions in the plantation. Others, especially the youth, left (in what was described as a mass emigration) for Joburg and Durban, in order to do the same. Post-1994 the number of surrounding community members employed in the plantation decreased from approximately 500 to 100, due to large scale retrenchments in the Manzengwenya plantation148. These retrenchments coincided with the use of nonlocal skilled Sappi contractors within the plantation149. This situation caused some concern amongst the surrounding communities as the Mvelabusha community alone consists of some 300 households that are reliant on the Manzengwenya plantation for their livelihoods. Community members from the five communities surrounding Manzengwenya struggle to earn their livelihoods. Incomes within these communities are highly disparate150 and community members living on the Northern border of the plantation appear to be particularly impoverished151. Although Mvelabusha community members have always engaged in some form of food crop cultivation there is a shortage
145 146

Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Interview with Terry Furgason (Conservation Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Mqobela Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005. Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005.

Manager - KZN Ezemvelo), Coastal Forest Reserve, 21st July 2005.
147 148 149 150 151

- 25 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

of locally grown produce, which was suggested to be due to a water shortage. The Head Nurse at the Mvelabusha clinic explained that conditions in Mvelabusha were difficult and that many families have problems meeting their nutritional requirements. Having worked in other rural communities in the KwaZulu-Natal area, she pointed out that this area by comparison is quite bad152. The reason that the surrounding community members originally moved peacefully to make way for the state plantation, was due to an assurance that they would receive compensation from the NP government at the time153. When the Minister of Land Affairs and Forestry, Thoko Didiza, came in 2003 she said that either the land should be given back to the community or else the plantation owners should compensate the land owners. It would seem from her comments that the ANC government’s drive to privatise state resources has incorporated former tribal areas such as the land on which the Manzengwenya plantation was established. According to community members the ANC government seem to have relegated the task of rural development in the Tembe Tribal area to a private concern. As evidenced by the Ministers assertion that the plantation owners should employ people who lived in that area before. The Mvelabusha community are still waiting for what the Minister promised154. Community members stated that the plantation as it currently operates is no longer benefiting people like it did during the 1970s and 1980s155.

152 153 154 155

Interview with Mvelabusha Clinic’s Head Nurse, Thursday 21st July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.

- 26 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

4.3.

Environmental Consequences of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Tree Farming is just another form of land use, and as such should be compared to other land uses156. Trees differ from many agricultural crops in that a deep penetrating root system is required for both stability and extraction of the relatively large amounts of water and nutrients. Tree roots have no difficulty in penetrating to depths well in excess of 5 metres given a suitable soil environment157.

Manzengwenya plantation’s Head Forester explained that the environment was ever changing, so it was difficult to tell whether the local environment had changed due to the plantation being established there158. The Induna of Mahlungula, a member of the Tembe Tribal Council, claims that before woodlot afforestation occurred in the northern part of the Tembe Tribal area, there was less standing water than there currently is. He referred to a study by a Dr. Dan Taylor159, suggesting that gum trees could in fact be assisting in soil water retention and adding to groundwater levels160. Thengani B’s Induna said the Tembe Tribal Council are positive about gum trees and have applied to DWAF to expand the afforested Tribal areas161. Sappi contend that the afforestation of the Tembe Tribal area, has so far taken place on a limited scale and that government regulations and DWAF are hindering further ‘development’. They attribute this hindrance to the water requirements of Kosi Bay, Lake Sibaya and Lake St Lucia, as well as government interest in utilising the remaining conservation areas in the Coastal Forest Reserve for potential BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) ecotourism ventures (Project Grow Report, 2006). The Tembe Tribal area, including the Manzengwenya plantation, is located within a coastal savannah biome162 and is in the same DWAF delineated quaternary water catchment area (Quat W70A), as Kosi Bay and Lake Sibaya163. A study by Versfeld indicates that afforestation of a savannah biome does not improve water infiltration and
156 157 158

(Pott, 1997: 45) (Boden, 1991) Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26 The author was unable to locate a copy of this study by Dr. Dan Taylor. Dr. Ngubane, Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005. Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005. A biome is a geographically significant area that is characterised by a similar ‘assemblage of plants and

July 2005.
159 160 161 162

animals’. A biome characteristically functions as an integrated and systematic whole through a cyclical and ongoing interaction with the natural resources and climate of the area (Luhr, 2003).
163

Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005.

- 27 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

groundwater recharge. On the contrary, monocropped non-indigenous trees will both intercept rainfall and transpirate ‘soil-stored water’ out of the environment164. Ojwang uses a study by Warren and Le Roux to stress the point that extensive cultivation of nonindigenous trees like gum trees, will ‘significantly reduce’ the levels of running and standing open water165. A study by Dye and Poulter into the effects of non-indigenous afforestation of a riparian zone, alongside a seasonally affected flowing river, concluded that streamflow in such a circumstance was significantly affected166. As a result of increased rainfall interception by non-indigenous afforestation in Quat W70A, rivers leading to both Kosi Bay and Lake Sibaya have been directly impacted. DWAF consider the plantation and woodlots in the area to be a significant stream flow reduction activity and as a result, DWAF are currently rezoning and reducing the areas where afforestation can occur within Quat W70A167. DWAF are undertaking this process because it has implications for the long and the short term sustainability of Kosi Bay, Lake Sibaya and the local water supply in the Tembe Tribal area. The impact of afforestation on the environment’s ability to retain water is clearly evident. In addition, a biome is significantly affected when large areas are replaced by monocropped plantations. As suggested by Ojwang: Closely associated with vast tree plantations in South Africa are their negative impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. These include loss of natural grasslands, wetlands and indigenous forests. Consequently, these losses have interfered with indigenous bird, plant and animal species168. KwaMpuyisa community members explained that water birds were leaving the areas where pans had dried up and moving to the pans that still had water169. Mahlungula’s Induna confirmed that since the 1980s there had been a considerable reduction in bird numbers in the Tembe area. Conceding that there had been some negative impacts associated with the afforestation process, he attributed this reduction to the loss of suitable habitat that occurred due to afforestation in the area. For this reason he pointed out that the KwaNgwanase Farmer’s Union in Manguze, encourages the planting of indigenous trees and crops together with non-indigenous gum trees170. Manzengwenya’s Head Forester confirmed that the environment had been significantly disturbed within the plantation. He conceded that according to KZN Wildlife non164 165 166 167 168 169 170

(Versfeld, 1996) (Ojwang, 2000) (Dye and Poulter, 1995) Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005. (Ojwang, 2000: 6) KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005. Dr. Ngubane, Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.

- 28 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

indigenous gum trees were responsible for consuming groundwater, which was why foresters were not allowed to plant near wetland areas. Unfortunately, gum trees had in the past been planted in very close proximity to the local river and pans and as a result had caused damage to the wetland habitat surrounding them. The wetlands that were previously damaged by the plantation process were now being rehabilitated by removing the offending trees171. According to Armstrong (et al) negative environmental impacts of afforestation are cumulative over time (Armstrong et al, 1998). This is corroborated by Manzengwenya’s Head Forester who commented that although trees had grown well initially, Manzengwenya’s soils were now tired and would need to be intensely fertilised to remain viable for the growing of trees in the future172. Thus, a pattern of cumulative environmental change emerges when people who have lived in the area recount their past, one that in many ways corroborates published academic works. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Changing Environment Plantation workers explained that the name ‘Manzengwenya’ was a derivative of the Zulu names for water (Amanzi) and crocodiles (Ngwenya). The river and pan have dried-up subsequent to the establishment of the plantation, but the name is a reminder of the area’s rich ecological history173. Mvelabusha elders recounted that from the beginning of the 1960s, there have been three distinct periods of drought. During these droughts, water levels in the pans and Vanzi River running through the Manzengwenya plantation dried up significantly, an occurrence that was indicated not to have happened before the afforestation process began174. As attested to by elder Mvelabusha community members: Before the trees came, the river and pans always had water that supplied the community’s needs through the years. The first time it ran out during the 1960s, it was better than now because there was at least some water left. The second time during the 1980s was worse because the river and pans were dry. Currently, we are without water in the river and pans for a third time175. An elder community member who moved to the Mvelabusha area in the 1960s said that, “There used to be a lot of water, but that these trees consumed the water, even
171

4.4.

Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26 Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26 Female Plantation Workers, Manzengwenya Thursday 21st July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Induna of Mvelabusha, 8th December, 2005.

July 2005.
172

July 2005.
173 174 175

- 29 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

the pans are now gone”.

As an active farmer, she pointed out that when she was

younger and working the fields, there were more crops and fish than there are today176. A community member born in Mqobela in the 1960s indicated that there was now less standing water when it rained then there used to be. It was pointed out that all of the water in the local rivers in Mqobela came from the Manzengwenya plantation and that the rivers now had far less water in them than in the past 177. Since 2000, the pans in Mqobela have dried up and the local community have become reliant on water supplied by the local government from a borehole 2.5 km’s away178. Most indigenous trees were destroyed when areas were cleared to make way for the afforestation of the Manzengwenya plantation. As a result community members have been forced to travel long distances, in order to purchase forest products that were traditionally available locally179. Indigenous trees in communal areas provided community members with muthi (medicine), fruit and wood for a variety of household uses (e.g. uqoka wood was prized for wooden spoons)180. Wood was traditionally sourced from indigenous trees for building and fuelwood, for which purposes gum trees are inferior to the indigenous alternatives181. There are community members who would love to live like their forefathers and be able to utilise natural assets without terms and conditions. The Coastal Forest Reserve and the Manzengwenya plantation have taken people’s ancestral freedoms and land, “Outsiders took the land, cut out all the useful trees and planted alien trees that is gum and pine trees”182. Elders expressed the opinion that because the Manzengwenya plantation used a substantial portion of their fertile tribal land, indigenous resources and water, and they no longer benefited from it in terms of employment or access to resources. The Manzengwenya plantation was described by these elders as being by comparison more useless than the original coastal forest, grassland, pans and river would have been183. A record of the Changing Environment of Tribal Woodlots Post-1994 there has been a widespread process of woodlot afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area facilitated by Sappi’s Project Grow. Individual woodlots are small (in
176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

4.5.

Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005. Mqobela Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005. Mqobela Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005. Female Plantation Workers, Manzengwenya Thursday 21st July, 2005. Mboza Community Meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Mboza Community Meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005. Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.

- 30 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

the order of one to fifteen hectares) and individual trees are planted in spaced rows. Multiple woodlots are not usually established in one continuous block process of afforestation in close proximity to one another but are afforested in a fragmented manner. However, well established woodlots in certain of the Tembe tribal areas have come to resemble a sizeable plantation (i.e. at Mfihlweni, see appendix 7.4.). Bearing in mind that woodlots are by comparison to the Manzengwenya plantation, a relatively recent phenomenon in the Tembe Tribal area. Many of the environmental impacts discussed so far are common and have been noted by both DWAF184 and community members185. In a 1996 study of the woodlot afforestation model being utilised in the tribal areas of KwaZulu-Natal, Versfeld indicates that woodlots concentrated in a localised manner are likely to have consequences similar to those of plantations 186. Ojwang claims that for this reason, DWAF extended the definition of a Stream Flow Reduction Activity (SFRA) in 1997 to include outgrower woodlots like those encouraged by Project Grow187. The Mfihlweni community are in the heart of a designated woodlot growing area in the Tembe Tribal area; collectively these woodlots take on the appearance of a substantial plantation. Mfihlweni community members said that there was less water available for farming now, than before the gum trees were planted, a situation that seemed to be getting worse every year. But people also indicated that gum trees were useful to them as a way to earn money 188. In KwaMpuyisa, pans surrounded by woodlots were described as having been dried out, which was believed to be a good thing because these areas could now be used for pathways, planting and housing. When comparing the natural benefits of gum trees and indigenous trees, community members indicated that gum trees were more beneficial than indigenous trees because, “you can get money from gum trees to build houses and send your children to school”. Paradoxically, the same community members also complained about a shortage of water for both agriculture and household use189. Kwazibi community members told us that gum trees consumed a lot of water, but that they were also beneficial to their owners, as they brought in an income 190. When asked whether it was better to have rivers and pans or gum trees, the Induna of Mvelabusha said gum trees were better because they provided employment, “besides” he suggested, “there are some boreholes for water”191.

184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005 Tembe Community Meetings, July & December 2005 (Versfeld, 1996) (Ojwang, 2000) Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005 KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005 KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005 Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005

- 31 -

A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

Water is a cross cutting issue in the Tembe Tribal area. The widespread cultivation of gum trees has impacted on the area’s water resources. The lack of water has impacted on the natural functioning of the environment and altered the way in which the area’s rivers flow and wetlands operate. The reduced function of the natural environment has impacted on the Tembe Tribal community’s ability to diversify their livelihoods through agriculture. Predominately because water has become a scarce natural resource, but also because community members are no longer able to access traditionally utilised indigenous resources such as trees, reeds, and fish etc. Therefore community members are forced to rely on purchased goods. To access money, community members either attempt to grow a cash crop (like gum trees) in a natural environment with a reduced function, or sell their labour in a highly competitive job market for exploitative wages. In sum, community members are forced to face the daily consequences of an unsustainably extracted non-indigenous resource in return for a livelihood characterised by reduced diversity.

- 32 -

Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

5. Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

In spite of the superb aim of helping the people to become self reliant, the first thing the project did was to take their very good arable land. When the people protested about their fields being taken, the project promised them employment. That is how self reliant they would be… evidence shows that not all of those who lost land and wanted employment were absorbed… this is reasonable. Every ‘employer looks out for the best available workers. The project had promised people employment. It employed them… and dismissed them. Without their fields and without employment they may turn up to be very self reliant. It is rather hard to know192.

This study has focused on a history of institutional, economic, social and environmental issues related to non-indigenous afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area. Outlining how these issues have informed the historical process of afforestation has required a broad overview of the South African linkages between: human settlement; politics; historical tenure arrangements; the Tribal Authority as an institution; Sappi’s Project Grow; ecological issues; the rural economy, and rural livelihood strategies. By outlining these linkages it is hoped that the study’s accounts will illustrate that the Manzengwenya plantation, Sappi’s Project Grow and the attraction of individual wealth, have facilitated the exploitation of the Tembe Tribal area’s system of communal tenure, community members and the environment, through the institution of Tribal Authority. In this respect, this conclusion will highlight the preceding accounts and discussions and suggest the ways in which the consequences of the non-indigenous process of afforestation will affect the Tembe Tribal area’s inter and intra-generational livelihood sustainability. Key consequences of the afforestation of the Manzengwenya plantation are that early on in the afforestation process, community members were removed from their traditional homesteads and agricultural lands. Although the local community benefited from the afforestation process, community members who benefited the most were indicated to be powerful individuals within the community who were politically connected. Post-1994 the number of full time Manzengwenya employees drawn from the local communities, decreased from approximately five hundred to one hundred individuals. Therefore the local community no longer economically benefit to the same degree as they did prior to 1994. The Manzengwenya environment has been considerably affected by the afforestation process, land has been substantially transformed and the local
192

(A university student from a rural area in Lesotho, Sekhamane, 1981 cited in Ferguson, 1990: 243-244)

- 33 -

Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

availability of water has been dramatically reduced. There has been a substantial loss of communal land to the process of afforestation. Living conditions are said to be difficult and most of the surrounding community members who are unable to access employment in the plantation, rely on the provision of grants, remittances and the local environment for their livelihoods. The original communities who were forcefully removed by the pre1994 National Party government and promised compensation by the post-1994 African National Congress government, have to date not been compensated for the loss of their land. Key consequences of the Project Grow process of woodlot afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area are that woodlots appear to be an asset to those community members able to access land for this purpose, which was indicated by community members to be small elite percentage of the tribal community193. Sappi and the government Department of Water Affairs and Forestry appear to be endorsing the institution of Tribal Authority, by ceding to the Tembe Tribal Council the mandate to issue woodlot permits to community members194. These permits appear to operate as a system of patriarchal patronage that is closely coupled with the traditional system of apportioning land to community members. This provides the Tribal Authority with a means of disbursing favour and wealth while enabling a form of revenue collection within the Tembe Tribal Area. The large percentage of Tembe community members who can’t access woodlots or woodlot related employment, rely on the provision of grants, remittances and the environment for their livelihoods. Water tables have been adversely affected and a loss of communal land has occurred due to afforestation. The Tembe Tribal area does not appear to have the environmental capacity for every household to cultivate a woodlot195. According to Armstrong (et al), by 1997 afforestation had already transformed 20 % of the arable land in KwaZulu-Natal 196. The effects of this transformation have already had a significant impact on community members such as those in the Tembe Tribal area, who are located in a region of intense afforestation activity. More specific to the Tembe area, are the future implications for soil stored water if the afforestation process continues. According to Cairns, if the area became 50 % afforested, the Tembe area’s soil water table would be lowered by between two and five metres. Within larger agglomerations of woodlots and plantations, the soil water table would be lowered by eight metres197.
193

Although the author attempted to access Tribal records to verify this assertion, these records were not made This endorsement is not intrinsically a bad thing, but it has consequences for the way in which power and Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005. (Armstrong et al, 1998) (Cairns, 2000)

available.
194

authority is exercised by the Tribal Authority.
195 196 197

- 34 -

Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

Afforestation could substantially alter the Tembe Tribal area’s future socioeconomic relations and natural environment. This alteration begins with the establishment of a woodlot or plantation. Afforestation sets in motion a cyclical chain of events that can eventually lead to an outcome similar to the one suggested by the quote at the beginning of this section. Before an area is afforested, Tribal relations and institutions of authority are exploited by commercial interests in order to gain access to Tribal land. As a result, communal systems of tenure are affected and abused. As an area is afforested, indigenous and endemic trees, bushes, grasses and sedges are removed. In order to grow (like any tree) gum trees intercept sunlight and rainfall and utilise stored soil macro and micro-nutrients. Insecticides and herbicides which are applied in the Manzengwenya plantation and the woodlots make the land inaccessible to indigenous insects and animals. Due to the practice of monocropping, the chemical composition of the soil is altered, surrounding water tables are lowered and as a result, rivers no longer flow, pans dry up and the natural ecological functions are altered and disrupted. As a result of these induced ecological changes, non-woodlot owners could find it more difficult to engage in subsistence agriculture as crops become less productive. Because indigenous vegetation has been removed, there are few natural food sources available. Due to the establishment of woodlots on communal land, natural resources and grazing land are lost to the broader community. Non-woodlot households with a store of wealth in the form of cattle or other livestock may sell them while seeking local employment or migrant labour to access an income. For woodlot owners, the patriarchal nature of land tenure can lead to the exploitation of intra-household labour. Within the community, traditional communal relations of production may be exploited as community members seek local employment. People could then be forced to rely on their ability to sell their sole remaining commodity, their labour. As a result the rural areas might become depopulated when the disenfranchised youth and older community members migrate to the urban areas seeking employment. Urban migration may strain resources in the urban centres and contribute to competition in the urban job market. Wages are then possibly driven down, encouraging people to diversify their income streams by engaging in either informal legal or illegal activities. In the Tribal area, fewer locally grown foodstuffs become available to supplement insufficient labour related and remittance income. Family resources, relationships and traditions could become strained, as multiple household members lose access to an income. Household’s may become desperately poor, affecting people’s nutritional intake and thereby reducing the household’s capacity to manage if and when a household shock or crisis occurs (such as in the case of disease and weather related events).

- 35 -

Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

Households in the Tembe Tribal area, appear to be faced with a constrained package of agriculturally related economic activities at the expense of their local environment. Elite community members seem more concerned with accessing an income from the land, than about the negative environmental consequences of earning that income. This is a short term non-sustainable outlook, which does not bode well for either intergenerational or intragenerational equity. Afforestation may provide a limited number of ‘jobs’ in the short run, but these jobs are offered at a cost to both the broader community and the environment. At the same time, these jobs constrain long term communal livelihood choices by impacting on the land. According to Cairns once a woodlot has been established on arable land, the destumping costs are prohibitively expensive, thus effectively removing the choice of replacing the non-indigenous gum trees with a wider range of alternative crops198. In addition the afforestation process has a direct impact on the broader community’s ability to access water for both household consumption and agricultural use. Afforestation therefore exploits both Tribal members and their resources, which represents an externality that the timber industry appears to be exclusively exploiting for economic gain. Ferguson’s study of the role of community forestry interventions in Lesotho’s ‘development’ throughout the 1980s provides a prescient reminder for the way in which the hierarchical redistribution of wealth through the exploitative utilisation of a communal resource, can lead to the disenfranchisement of the people from their land. This is a particular risk, where as shown by Ferguson, the exploitation of the communal resource base is led by the Tribal institution that the community look toward for their leadership and to which community respect are traditionally accorded199. As capitalism takes root in the Tembe Tribal area there is evidence to suggest that the Tembe Tribal Council is seeking to benefit from it and that this may be occurring at the expense of the broader community. Furthermore, Thengani B’s Induna has noted a displacement of community members from their land by large agriculturally related companies. According to the Induna, Tribal land is being accessed by these companies through Tribal Council sanctioned land use arrangements that are facilitating lease agreements between individual landholders and the companies concerned200. It is therefore feasible that the individualistically ‘empowering’ economic processes of capitalism could undermine and eventually relegate the institution of Tribal Authority and the Tribal systems of tenure to the not too distant South African past.

198 199 200

(Cairns, 2000) (Ferguson, 1990) Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.

- 36 -

Appendices (Contact Information)

6. Appendices (Contact Information): Island Rock Coastal Reserve

KZN Ezemvelo: Mr. Terry Ferguson (+2735 574 8019)

Manguze
 

Mayor: Mr. G. Nsele (+2735 592 0680) KwaNgwanase Farmers Union Nursery: Tholakele (+2782 738 6057)

Manzengwenya Plantation
 

Head Forester: Mr. Mabika (+2782 885 8412) Sappi Extension Officer: Mr. Buthelezi (+2783 601 0971)

Tembe Tribal Council
 

Secretary: Mrs. Nikiwe (+2735 592 0628) Acting Inkosi: Mr. Msongi Tembe (+2735 574 8004) Induna Mr. Tembe Mr. Tembe Mr. Fikizolo Makhanya Mr. Tembe Mr. Tembe Mr. Zikhali Mr. G. Nsele Mr. Mngomezulu Mr. Khomeni Tembe Mr. Tembe Mr. Mdletshe Dr. Mshumayeli Ngubane Mr. Nhlabathi Mr. Tembe Mr. Masinga Mr. J.M. Nhlonzi Mr. Mthembu

Tribal Area Egazini eMloli KwaMakhanya KwaMasondo KwaMpukane KwaMshudu KwaMyayezi KwaNyamazane KwaSonto Kwazibi Mabibi Mahlungula Mfihlweni Mqobela Thandizwe Thengane A Thengane B

- 37 -

Appendices (Scans)

7. Appendices (Scans):
7.1.Document

01: June 2005 - Document granting permission to plant a five-hectare

community woodlot issued within the Tembe Tribal Authorities area of

administration201.

201

Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.

- 38 -

Appendices (Scans)

- 39 -

Appendices (Scans)

7.2.

Table 01: A Sappi Table demonstrating a grower’s annual income per hectare for caretaking a Eucalyptus sp Woodlot for eight years, in the Tembe Tribal Area202

202

(Project Grow, 2006: pp-7)

- 40 -

Appendices (Scans)

7.3.

Table 02: A Sappi Table demonstrating a grower’s projected profit for caretaking a 7.5 hectare Eucalyptus sp Woodlot for eight years, in the Tembe Tribal Area203.

203

(Project Grow, 2006: pp-7)

- 41 -

Appendices (Scans)

7.4.

Map 01: Composite Map of KwaZulu Natal, showing the Tembe Tribal area/Chiefdom and locations of communities204

204

(Davel, 2006) (Department of Traditional and Local Government Affairs, 2006).

- 42 -

Appendices (Photographs)

8. Appendices (Photographs):
8.1.Photograph

01: 22 July 2005 – Meeting with the Induna of the KwaMahlungula hall.

Community and some community members at the KwaMahlungula community

8.2.Photograph

02: 22 July 2005 – The KwaNgwanase Nursery in Manguze, the

farmers who grow Eucalyptus (Gum) trees in the area, get their seedlings from this nursery, who in turn get their seedlings from Nseleni Nursery, near Richards Bay to the South.

- 43 -

Appendices (Photographs)

8.3.Photograph

03: 22 July 2005 – The KwaNgwanase Nursery in Manguze, trays of

Eucalyptus seedlings that are ready to be planted.

8.4.Photograph

04: 23 July 2005 – Mfihlweni preparing to meet with the Induna’s

right hand man and some community members at their local gathering point.

- 44 -

Appendices (Photographs)

8.5.Photograph

05: 25 July 2005 – Eucalyptus seedlings at a Sappi Logging Yard

located between Mfihlweni and Manguze.

8.6.Photograph

06: 25 July 2005 – Eucalyptus logs being loaded by machinery onto

an articulated long haul truck, prior to transport to Richards Bay, at a Sappi Logging Yard located between Mfihlweni and Manguze.

- 45 -

Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

9. Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues): Primary Research Process This study was initiated in July 2005 and continued during subsequent visits to the area in August 2005 (Mboza and Ndumo), December 2005 (Manzengwenya Plantation – Mvelabusha), January 2006 (Mboza), February 2006 (Mboza) and March 2006 (Mboza, Ndumo and Manguze). The initial meetings were carried out with the assistance of four youth from Ndumo village; Nonhlanhla Nolazi, Sisana Mthembu, Sifiso Mandlenkosi Sibaya and Siboniso Sihle Mthembu. They were instructed in the use of participatory research tools such as the use of mental maps, timelines and ranking and scoring (Chambers, 2005). The fact that these youth were fluent in Zulu, and interested in learning more about their district, facilitated an easy and open dialogue between community members and the research team. The UKZN research team was lead by Dr Harald Witt and comprised of Dumisani Inyathi and James Mardall from the Department of Economic History at University of KwaZulu Natal, Howard College Campus. The initial two-week study in July 2005, identified the Tembe Tribal Council as an initial point of contact. A meeting with the Tribal Council, lead to five subsequent community meetings. These meetings were typically attended by the Induna and his advisor/s as well as, between five (KwaMsonto) and fifty (Mfihlweni), community members. The meetings were conducted using a participatory approach, where community members were encouraged to draw mental maps and construct timelines. The meetings lasted between one and three hours and were characterised by lively debate focused on issues around woodlots and in particular, Eucalyptus species (Gum) trees. Journeying to these meetings allowed the research team to identify additional areas of interest (for example, along route D1843 from Manguze to Manzengwenya). These areas were investigated using random and snowballing sampling techniques, which at the same time attempted to balance the respondent’s gender and age. The research team were also lucky enough to meet Jimmy Tembe, the Induna of the Mvelabusha community, during an early failed attempt to meet with the Manzengwenya head forester, Mr Mabika. (This meeting led to a subsequent workshop with four male elders from the Mvelabusha community in December 2005). In August 2005 the researchers attended the 5 th establishment committee meeting of ‘Imfunda Yophongolo’, a meeting designed to further the establishment of a local water user association on the Pongola floodplain. During August 2005 the Jozini Department of Agriculture (DOA) was also visited in order to determine what the department’s agricultural priorities are. These meetings led to follow on workshops in December 2005 with youth in Mboza Village and elders from Mvelabusha Village. These

9.1.

- 46 -

Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

workshops focussed on issues of change over time, the introduction of alien trees into the area and the environment. The youth from the Mboza village were identified using a random sampling approach, while the elders from Mvelabusha were chosen by the Induna, who did not make his sampling methodology clear to the researcher. It became clear during the workshop however that the elders were not directly related to him and were at times critical of his responses.
9.2.The

Sustainable Livelihoods framework and Linkages205

9.3.

Primary Research Issues The Tembe community is fundamentally traditional, therefore operating in the

area with the sanction of the Tribal Authority was fundamental to the research process. In addition, the presence of researchers creates a very real distraction for community members involved in their daily occupations, an issue that led to considerable debate. It therefore became a matter of respect for us to set up appointments with community members that we wanted to meet. Obtaining this permission was also an informative and rewarding process vis à vis the correct protocol for the area. The Tribal Council informed us that prior negative experiences with previous researchers (such as researchers observed in the woodlot areas removing tree clippings without prior consent) had made them wary of researchers. The Tribal Council also indicated that they were seldom informed of research findings, which raised their suspicions about the rationale for research206. The council also
205 206

(Cairns, 2000: 4) “Researchers come to the area to ‘help’ the community but distort the findings to suit themselves. This

inaccurate interpretation of findings is often at the expense of our trust and assistance in the research process. So as a governing structure we have the right and reason to question the intended purpose of your research and to ensure that you don’t sway community opinion to your expectations.” (Issue raised during a Tembe Tribal Council meeting in July 2005)

- 47 -

Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

raised their concerns around inaccurate reporting by researchers in the past, suggesting that there is a tendency for university students to be dishonourable. Most importantly, the Tribal Council were concerned that this study should not be one that in any way researched the history of the Tembe Tribal Authority. One of the Izinduna referred to this information as Tribal ‘secrets’, not for dissemination to researchers or the broader public. We were told to direct this study away from such issues and instead to focus on a history of social, environmental and economic factors. The Council were curious about our motives for doing research and our meeting took on the characteristics of an enquiry, during which we were asked several questions related to the focus of this study. We were asked to indicate the areas we would be researching and it was strongly suggested that we acquire the services of a Council approved guide, which we declined. Final Council approval and assistance was granted on the condition that we liaise with the Council and that we supply them with a copy of the study. The council supplied us with a contact list of the Izinduna we should consult for assistance and we were asked to fetch an official Tribal Council letter authorising the research, the following day. In juxtaposition to the Tribal Council, local government displayed a distinct lack of cooperation. Although we made several failed attempts to meet with the Umhlabuyalingana District Mayor and Manguze Councillor. This did not affect the research process and proved to be an unnecessary precondition for meeting with local community members. Because community members displayed perceptions of mistrust, suspicion and shyness, before research could commence, we formally introduced ourselves using the letter of authority from the Tribal Council. Importantly, a rapport had to be established before any issues could be discussed. Even after these introductions however, it is debatable whether or not the issues raised were being adequately covered and responded too. A reason for this may be that, researchers were said to view community members as local data banks of information and knowledge. Whereas community members perceive researchers to be ‘idea parasites’, accessing their knowledge without reciprocation. We were asked on a daily basis, “What are you going to do with this information?” In addition, one meeting207 highlighted the possible unintended consequences of operating through the Tribal Council. At this meeting although several community members were present, only the Induna raised and answered questions. The Induna was openly in favour of commercial forestry and this position dominated the discussion. Therefore the group was taken over by a dominant personality and it is likely that issues such as; gender equity (even though there were women present), equitable access to woodlots, environmental aspects and so on, were not adequately addressed. When
207

Meeting held at KwaMahlungula, 22nd July 2005.

- 48 -

Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

speaking with mixed gender groups of community members, men would often dominate the discussion, the views of women were therefore muted or as often as not, entirely unheard. In terms of young members of the community beyond school leaving age, there were very few members of this age group to be found amongst the community members. On reason given for this was that many of these youth were seeking work in the urban areas. Some Tembe community members are unfortunately all too familiar with research and development terminology. It is clear that they are comfortable with development ‘jargon’ and they use this knowledge to set the backdrop to their responses. These responses are compromised, because they are modelled on the kind of answers one would expect to hear as a researcher. In contrast, there are community members (young and old) who are completely unfamiliar with concepts such as non-indigenous trees and environmental impacts. In explaining these concepts, it is hoped that the explanation would provide enough information without unduly influencing each individual’s opinion of these concepts. Many of the community members were unable to converse in English however and in most cases they were encouraged to use their mother tongue, Zulu. Limitations to the study therefore include the fact that during translation, some of the conceptions, nuances and subtleties of language are lost. More so when there are no words in Zulu for concepts like ‘environmental degradation’, ‘non-indigenous’ and so on. The importance of travelling extensively through the area being researched cannot be underplayed. It enables one to get a feel for the landscape and an idea of the distribution and extent and impacts of afforestation. For instance, one thing that became evident during visits to the towns of Skemelele and Manguze was that gum poles had become an important building material replacement for the local trees. Paradoxically, interviews conducted with the owners of building material supply yards suggested that the gum poles they were selling, were legitimately purchased in bulk from Richards Bay. Whereas it was evident that there were several woodlots nearby, from which these gum poles could have been procured. The suggested reasons for this were that the police would regularly raid these outlets, searching for non certified gum poles ‘stolen’ from the neighbouring plantations. Research Limitations

9.4.

Styles of research are very different from person to person, in a team this can represent strength when approaching members of the community, but can also represent a qualitative weakness.

- 49 -

Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

Speaking to members of the community during a meeting arranged by the Tribal Authority usually meant that we would mostly only communicate with the Induna overseeing the meeting. It is worth bearing in mind that community members have a right to refuse to talk and answer questions that are asked of them.

- 50 -

Bibliography and References

10.Bibliography and References Primary Sources:

10.1.

Davel C., (2006), Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Control Technician, Interview held on 20th September, 2006. Department of Traditional and Local Pietermaritzburg, Tel: 033 309-2328. Government Affairs, KwaZulu Natal,

Underwood M., (2006), University of KwaZulu Natal Pietermaritzburg, Programme Coordinator - Community Forestry, Interview held on Wednesday 18th October, 2006. Tylcoat C., (2006), Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DCE: Water Utilisation & WARMS, Interview held on 20th September, 2006. Tembe Tribal Authority, (2005), Meeting with the Tembe Royal council (Tribal Authority), from 10h00 to 14h00 on Wednesday 20th July 2005.
10.2.

Secondary Sources and Bibliography:

Aliber M., (2003), ‘Chronic Poverty in South Africa: Incidence, Causes and Policies.’ World Development, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2003. Ardington E., (1984), ‘Poverty and Development in a Rural Community in KwaZulu’, Working Paper No. 9, Development Studies Unit, University of Natal, Durban. Armstrong A.J. Benn G. Bowland A.E. Goodman P.S. Johnson D.N. Maddock A.H. & ScottShaw C.R., (1998), ‘Plantation Forestry in South Africa and its Impact on Biodiversity’, South African Forestry Journal, No. 182. July 1998. Attfield R. Hattingh J. & Matshabalala M., (2004), ‘Sustainable Development, Sustainable Livelihoods and Land Reform in South Africa: a Conceptual and Ethical Enquiry’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, 2004. Beall J. Mkhize S. & Vawda S., (2005), ‘Emergent Democracy and ‘resurgent’ Tradition: Institutions, Chieftaincy and Transition in KwaZulu-Natal’, Journal of South African Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2005. Bernstein H,. (1998), ‘Social Change in the South African Countryside? Land and Production, Poverty and Power’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, July 1998, pp. 1-32, Frank Cass, London. Bernstein, H. (1996) ‘South Africa’s Agrarian Question: Extreme and Exceptional?’ Journal of Southern African Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2, 1996. Boden D.I. (1991), ‘The Relationship Between Soil Water Status, Rainfall and the Growth of Eucalyptus grandis’, South African Forestry Journal, No. 156, March 1991. Bond P. (ed), (2005), ‘Fanon’s Warning: A Civil Society Reader on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development’, second edition, Africa World Press Inc, Asmara. Bunting B., (1964), ‘The rise of the South African Reich’, Penguin Africa library, U.K. Cairns R. I., (2000), ‘Outgrower Timber Schemes In Kwazulu–Natal: Do they build sustainable rural livelihoods and what interventions should be made?’ Instruments

- 51 -

Bibliography and References

for sustainable private sector forestry, South Africa series, International Institute for Environment and Development and CSIR-Environmentek, London and Pretoria. Carson R., (1962), ‘Silent Spring’, Fawcett Publications, USA. Chambers R., (2005), ‘Ideas for Development’, Earthscan, U.K. & U.S.A. Chimhowu A. & Woodhouse P., (2006), ‘Customary vs. Private Property Rights? Dynamics and Trajectories of Vernacular Land Markets in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 6 No. 3, July 2006, pp. 346–371. Cousins B. & Claasens A., (2003), ‘Communal Land Tenure: Livelihoods Rights and Institutions’, Interfund Development Update: Piecemeal Reforms and Calls for Action, Land Reform in South Africa, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2003. Cousins B (ed), (2000), ‘At the Crossroads: Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa into the 21st Century’, Cousins, B. (ed), (PLAAS and National Land Committee), Does Land and Agrarian Reform In South Africa Have a Future? and if so, Who Will Benefit?, PLAAS and NLC, Belville and Braamfontein. Crush J., Jeeves A., & Yudelman D., (1991), ‘South Africa’s Labor Empire’, Westview Press, U.S.A. Dye P.J. & Poulter A.G., (1995), ‘A Field Demonstration of the Effect on Streamflow Reduction of Clearing Invasive Pine and Wattle Trees from a Riparian Zone’, South African Forestry Journal, No. 173, July 1995. Fanon F,. (1961), ‘The Wretched of the Earth’, New York, Grove Press. Ferguson J., (1990), ‘The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho’, Cambridge University Press, New York. Graziani M. & Burnham P., (2005), ‘Legal Pluralism in the Rain Forests of South-eastern Cameroon’, pp 177-197 in ‘ Rural Resources & Local Livelihoods in Africa’, Homewood K (ed), Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Greenberg S., (2001), ‘Political Stabilisation and Market Extension: Restructuring of Agriculture and its Impact on Food Security’, The Learning Curve: A Review of Government and Voluntary Sector Development Delivery from 1994, Development Update, July 2001. Greenberg S., (2003),‘Redistribution and Access in a Market Driven Economy.’ Greenberg, S. (ed). Interfund Development Update: Piecemeal Reforms and Calls for Action. Land Reform in South Africa. Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2003. Govere E.M., (1997), ‘Research, Extension and Training Needs for Agroforestry Development in Southern Africa’, Southern African Forestry Journal, No. 180, November 1997, South African Institute of Forestry, South Africa. Ham C. & Theron J.M., (1999), ‘Community Forestry and Woodlot Development in South Africa: The Past, Present and Future’, Southern African Forestry Journal, No. 184, March 1999. Hendricks F., (2001), ‘Land Policies and Democracy’, Coetzee J., Graaf J., Hendricks F., & Wood G., (eds), Development Theory, Policy and Practice, Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 2001. Homewood K. (ed), (2005), ‘Rural Resources & Local Livelihoods in Africa’, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

- 52 -

Bibliography and References

Karumbidza J.B., (2005), ‘A Study of the Social and Economic Impacts of Industrial Tree Plantations in the KwaZulu Natal Province of South Africa’, WRM Series on tree plantations No. 6, World Rainforest Movement, Brazil. KwaZulu-Natal Tourist Map, (2002), ‘Kingdom of the Zulu: South Africa’, Brabys Maps, South Africa. Luhr J.F. (ed in chief), (2003), ‘Earth’, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London. Mackenzie F., (1995), ‘Selective Silence: A Feminist Encounter with Environmental Discourse in Colonial Africa’, Routledge, London. May J., (1996), ‘Assets, Income and Livelihoods in Rural KwaZulu-Natal’, in Land, Labour and Livelihoods in Rural South Africa: Vol. 2. KwaZulu-Natal and Northern Province, Lipton Ellis & Lipton (eds), Indicator Press. McCarthy J., (1990), ‘The Divided City: Group Areas and Racial Segregation’, Printed in Opening the cities (Comparative perspectives in Desegregation), Indicator S.A. focus, a joint publication of Urban Foundation & Indicator project S.A. Issue. pp 8, September 1990. McCarthy T. & Rubidge B., (2005), ‘The Story of Earth & Life: A Southern African Perspective on a 4.6-Billion-Year Journey’, Struik Publishers, Capetown. Mueller-Dombois D., (1992), ‘Sustainable Forestry: The Role of Eucalypts and Lessons from Natural and Artificial Monoculture Systems’, South African Forestry Journal, No.162, September 1992. Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs. ‘Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development: a Sub-Programme of the Land Distribution Programme’. Final Draft Document Version 3. National Department of Agriculture. Pretoria, 2000. Neuworth R., (2005), ‘Shadow Cities’, Routledge, Great Britain. Ntsebeza L., (1999), ‘Traditional Authorities, Local Government and Land Rights’, pp 280305, in Cousins B (ed), (2000), ‘At the Crossroads: Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa into the 21st Century’, Cousins, B. (ed), (PLAAS and National Land Committee), Does Land and Agrarian Reform In South Africa Have a Future? and if so, Who Will Benefit?, PLAAS and NLC, Belville and Braamfontein. Ntsebeza L., (2006), ‘Democracy Compromised: Chiefs and the Politics of Land in South Africa’, HSRC Press, Cape Town. Ojwang A., (2000), ‘Community-company Partnerships in Forestry in South Africa: An Examination of Trends’, Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry, South Africa series, International Institute for Environment and Development and CSIREnvironmentek, London and Pretoria. Peet R., (1989), ‘New Models in Geography’, (Volume 2), Unwin Heyman Ltd, U.K.

Pilot State of The Forest Report, (2005), ‘A Pilot Report to test the National Criteria and Indicators’, Institute of Natural Resources, Investigational Report No. 253, March 2005. Pott R. McC., (1997), ‘Plantation Forestry in South Africa and its Impact on Biodiversity and Water’, Southern African Forestry Journal, No.180, November 1997.

- 53 -

Bibliography and References

Project Grow Report, (2006), 28 June 2006, Sappi, South Africa. Randall P., (1970), ‘Anatomy of Apartheid, Economics of Separate Development’, Folkey C.E., Johannesburg. Versfeld D.B., (1996), ‘Forestry and Water Resources - Policy Development for Equitable Solutions’, South African Forestry Journal, No. 176, July1996. Walker C., (2003), ‘Piety in the Sky? Gender Policy and Land Reform in South Africa’, Journal of Agrarian Change. Vol. 3 No. 1 and 2, January and April 2003. Williams G. & Hackland B., (1988), ‘The Dictionary of Contemporary politics of South Africa’, Routledge, U.K. Thompson L., (1985), ‘The political methodology of apartheid’, Yale University Press, U.S.A.
10.3.

Electronic Sources:

http://ftp-waldoek.boku.ac.at/sht/download/Smallholder-Company%20Forestry %20Partnerships%20-%20Mayers%20Nov%202004.pdf, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Forestry/Default.asp, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Forestry/Forestry%20Policy/whitepap.html, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.epa.gov/outreach/cmop/intl/southafrica.html, Site accessed 6 July 2006. http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/meetings/Huangshan_2001/Mayers_Partnerships_HS.pdf, accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.frp.uk.com/dissemination_documents/R7285_-_Ethical_trade__small_growers_benefit.pdf, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.iied.org/docs/flu/psf/partnershipsbook/PSF_Partnerships_Sect3-4.pdf, accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.iied.org/docs/flu/psf/stakes/PSF_SA_Chapt5.pdf, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/1995/forest.htm#top, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2001/010712145p1001.htm, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/news/thisweek?show=58509, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.nri.org/NRET/policy2web.pdf , Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.plantseatco2.blogspot.com/, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51982, Site accessed 6 July 2006. http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html, Site accessed 6 July 2005. http://www.yale.edu/forestcertification/symposium/pdfs/southafrica_symposium.pdf, accessed 6 July 2005. Site Site Site

- 54 -

Bibliography and References

http://www.research.yale.edu/gisf/assets/pdf/tfd/poverty/SAPPI.%20Project%20Grow %20Report.pdf, Site Accessed 19 October 2006. http://land.pwv.gov.za/restitution/BACKGROU.RES.htm. Department Background to Restitution, Site Accessed 1 May, 2005. of Land Affairs,

http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm, Statistics South Africa, Population Census 1996, Site Accessed 1 May, 2005.

- 55 -

Thanks and Acknowledgements

11.Thanks and Acknowledgements Family and Friends: Ian & Mary Mardall - Father & Mother Nadine & William Stein - Sister & Brother in Law The Young Household - Accommodation and Accommodation Tamlyn Young - Co-traveller UKZN: Dr. Harald Witt – Thesis Supervisor (Economic History & Development Studies) Dr. David Moore – Acting Head of Department (Economic History & Development Studies) Prof. Bill Freund – Head of Department (Economic History & Development Studies) Blessing Karumbidza – Lecturer (Economic History & Development Studies) Deborah Bobbett – Administrator (Economic History & Development Studies) Dumisani Inyathi – Friend and Colleague Claire Ichou – Friend and Colleague Fellow Post Graduates in the Economic History and Development Studies Department The Lecturers and staff at the School of Life and Environmental Sciences Lliane Loots – Drama Department and Gender Activist “The Personal is Political” Mike Underwood – Programme Co-ordinator: Community Forestry Lynne Phipson – Subject Librarian The Valley Trust: Richard Haigh – Rural project Co-ordinator Sdangeni village: The Mbanjwa Family – Home stay family in Sdangeni The Sabela Family – Neighbours of the Mbanjwa’s Maputaland: Tembe community members Nonhlanhla, Sisana, Siboniso and Sifiso – Research Assistants Mr. Msongi Tembe - Tembe Tribal Council (Acting Inkosi) The Izinduna of the Tembe Tribal Council Mrs. Nikiwe - Tembe Tribal Council (Secretary) Mr. Mabika - Manzengwenya Head Forester Mr. Terry Ferguson - KZN Ezemvelo (Island Rock) Mr. Jimmy Tembe – Mvelabusha’s Induna DWAF: Chris Davel – Control Technician Cameron Tylcoat – DCE: Water Utilisation & WARMS Shaun Naidoo – GIS Specialist

The Lord, Goddess and the Ancestors Thank you for this day, thank you for yesterday and thank you for tomorrow

- 56 -

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful