NEW FORMS OF LAND DISPOSSESSIONS

The advent of a new democratic order on 27 April 2007 resulted in an effort to reverse the adverse inequalities in the land ownership patterns in our country. Such efforts were complemented by a plethora of laws and legislations to give effect to this noble yet complicated process.

However, such a process would not put a complete end to the process of dispossession, which was started by colonial conquest and now perpetuated by globalisation and neo- liberalisation.

The development of capitalism continues to pose threat to peoples tenure security and the competing demands on land by various powerful interest is intensifying and threatens the centrality of land and agrarian reforms globally. South Africa is neither exception nor immune to this process. The only difference between the former colonial dispossession and the new is the form that such dispossession takes.

Over the last 11 years, various powerful interests have asserted themselves and posed a challenge to land and agrarian reform. These constitute the mining, Estate housing, golfing courses and last by no means least the eco- tourism ventures which includes game farming. A dominant path seems to be the turning of land- lords into capitalist and with this is the conversion of large land away from farming into luxurious development. These contemporary development models are presented as a panacea for the building of the rural economy in particular and the urban generally.

Well-presented proposals of game farming ventures are sold to municipalities and new beneficiaries of land reform. Good economic scenarios are underlined with prospects for local revenues for municipalities and job opportunities for local people through tourism. The most cynical claim therefore has and continues to be that these initiatives would deliver the rural poor from rural unemployment and underdevelopment.

The critical question is have the economic benefits trickled down to the poor and municipalities and what has been the cost of these ventures on the land and livelihood of these communities.

At the risk of sounding counter reactionary, I argue that the intended beneficiaries have not benefited. In fact the experiences of the people of Tembe Elephant Park,  Thaka Game Reserve, Bhangazi and more recently Ndumo game reserve vindicates my point of argument.

In most instances such ventures have often led to the rural poor being relocated to give way to game lodges for, thus forcing them to part with arable land through which they sustain their livelihood. In all instances little attention is being paid to the future livelihood of the poor and their socio conditions.

Game Farms in particular have also led to unilateral reorganisation of community lives. Erection of fences which limits free movement around farms. Restrictions to access to water, firewood and traditional medicinal plants. The poor have been forced to reduce their grazing land as a result. Coupled with poor service, infrastructure and economic delivery on the side of governments, these ventures continues to fail the people they are meant to assist

Notwithstanding the fact that some job opportunities have been created, but such jobs have not been sustainable and the labour absorption of these ventures is limited.

In terms of joint ventures, these initiatives have not benefited communities in what was envisaged through public private partnership. Revenue sharing agreements have not delivered any results and the Mkhambathi game reserve in Cape, Bhangazi in KZN and Dwesa-Cwebe in Eastern Cape. In fact in the case of Dwesa-Cwebe the sea, which is a source of livelihood, has effectively been privatised.

Another worrying development in our province is the continue loss of prime agricultural land to golfing courses, housing estates and luxury development in the North Coast Corridor and in some parts of Natal- Midlands. Good agricultural land is being lost to these initiatives without any monitoring by the relevant department of the long- term implications that such initiatives will have on Agriculture.

Of major concern is the fact that there are no mechanisms in place to protect such land through zoning of agricultural and business land. As a result private especially foreign investors are amassing this land. Little is being done by relevant line function to arrest this situation.

If such trends continue, not only will the land redistribution programmes of government be negatively set back, but also the livelihood and food security of small producers will be wiped off. There is a need for a rethink on these contemporary development strategies. On the other hand it is reasonable to conclude that there is contribution of these initiatives to the economy, however a balancing act is needed. Perhaps we should not throw out the baby with bathwater.

The same applies with regard to mushrooming of game farming. There seems to be no regulation when it comes to conversion from livestock farming to game farming and this needs to be attended as a matter of urgency.

Local government also needs to play a much more critical role in terms of ensuring that initiatives like game farming do not result in the displacement of communities. So far local municipalities in their quest for local economic development, have understandable simply bought into these models without any engagement about their immediate and long terms impact.

Presently in KZN we are sitting with two game farming initiatives that will ultimately involve relocation of many communities. The first one is the Gongolo, which includes about 50.000 hectares of land to be converted into game farming and the building of golf courses, health hydros, eco-estates and hotels. The other one is proposed in the Greytown area and it includes the consolidation of many farms into one big reserve.

This article was written by Thabo Manyathi who works for AFRA (Association for Rural Advancement). Thabo is responsible for the Social Movement Support Focus Area of AFRA.