We argue that this narrow focus undermines the goals of equitable and sustainable land reform. We explored the options and implications of thinking more broadly about land reform planning beyond agricultural solutions.
Land provides more than just food. For example, flowering plants facilitate crop pollination, wetlands help purify water, and trees take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thus play an important role in mitigating climate change. Natural land is also important to SA’s significant ecotourism sector.
For many, land is the cornerstone of their identity. It provides a sense of belonging, an attachment to a place that’s “home” and associated with their culture.
The multiple possible benefits derived from land suggest multiple possible uses. Beneficiaries of a land reform programme may be able to use land in ways other than farming. The state has explicitly emphasised maintaining agricultural productivity and food security during the land reform process. This limits the function land should provide, especially in the land redistribution models. The state should support a variety of livelihood options, especially on land with low agricultural potential.
As recognised by a recent report from the presidential advisory panel on land reform and agriculture, access to water may not be equal on all properties. This may severely undermine agricultural potential. Policies need to acknowledge other characteristics of land potential, such as soil fertility, topography and rainfall, as well as cultural importance.
Land with high aesthetic appeal, for example, may be more suited to ecotourism while land close to urban centres could provide rental income.
This diversity of benefits serves not only the people who have access to the land, but also the broader society. Changes to land use alter the extent or variety of these benefits.
For example, if land is geared towards intensive commercial farming with high water requirements, downstream water users could have less and lower quality drinking water. If the land is used for intensive commercial farming, it constrains other benefits, such as those from tourism or ceremonial uses, and excludes many smallholder farmers.
If restituted land remains within a national park, it conserves the environment for future generations. But that’s traded off against financial, cultural and spiritual losses of previous landowners.
Land potential also varies over time. Past land management may have degraded the land’s potential to support agricultural production. Current mismanagement of land has the potential to disadvantage future generations reliant on that land. Discussions on what land should be redistributed have mentioned “unused” or “underutilised” land, which may be unused precisely because it’s not suitable for agriculture.
Future land benefits will also be affected by climate change. It’s predicted that most of SA will become warmer and drier. This is problematic for land beneficiaries who want to farm.
The ways of using the land, including current farming practices, will have to adapt to ensure current and future equity and sustainable livelihoods.
Land reform is more than hectares distributed
Land reform strategies need to consider each land parcel’s ecological potential and socio-economic context to ensure equitable distribution beyond just land hectarage. Land reform programmes thus need to be highly context-sensitive and localised. Specialists must determine land potential given the context, and take into account what beneficiaries want and can do.
Practically, the state extension services that support landowners need to be given the capacity to provide information and support beyond agriculture. A tall order, but ignoring the connections between people and nature will ultimately result in social justice failure.
Climate change, biodiversity loss and land degradation form the backdrop against which land reform is happening. Yet, ecological collapse and the repercussions for human well-being are not included in the land reform debate. Such policies will undermine benefits to future generations, and ecological collapse on marginal land can entrench disadvantage.
A broad consideration of equitable benefits needs to go beyond simply who has access to the land.
• Mograbi, De Vos, Shackleton and Bezerra are with Rhodes University; Clements and Maciejewski are with Stellenbosch University; and Coetzer is with Wits University.
• This article was first published by The Conversation
Comments
Post a Comment