The effects of land tenure change on sustainability: human security and environmental change in southern African savannas

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

The effects of land tenure change on sustainability: human security and environmental change in southern African savannas J. Clover a, S. Eriksen b,* a b

Independent researcher, Nairobi, Kenya Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern, NO-0317 Oslo, Norway

article info

abstract

Published on line 25 December 2008

Using a human security perspective, we investigate how the history of land tenure changes has driven sustainability in southern African savannas. The paper examines four coun-

Keywords:

tries—Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Two research questions are

Human security

addressed: first, how has colonial land tenure and distribution affected people’s options and

Land tenure

capacity to end, mitigate or adapt to risks to their human, environmental and social rights,

Savannas

and what have been the related effects on land uses and degradation? Second, to what

Sustainability

extent have post-independence land reforms addressed threats to human security and

Southern Africa

political causes of land degradation? The inequitable distribution of land and colonial legacy of dual or pluralistic systems of tenure are found to be at the root of many agrarian and environmental problems. Post-independence land reforms have largely failed to address these fundamental issues, sometimes even reinforcing threats to social, economic and environmental sustainability. The skewed distribution of land and resources, insecure rights, and the marginalisation and restriction of savanna livelihood systems have persisted, undermining human security and environmental integrity in the region as well as leading to mounting conflict and insecurity. # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Land is central to the rural development and environmental challenges facing the southern Africa region. As a principal source of natural capital and for earning a living, it is one of the most vital assets for millions of poor people in southern Africa. Land tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land and associated natural resources, including water, trees, minerals and wildlife. It can be defined as the terms and conditions on which land is held, used and transacted, determining who can use what resources for how long, and under what conditions (FAO, 2002). Changes to land tenure

have been among the major social and environmental transformations facing the southern African region over the past century. Land reform is planned change in the terms and conditions on which land is held, used and transacted. Its goal is to enhance people’s land rights and thus provide tenure security and it has commonly been aimed at redistribution of land to the rural poor (Adams et al., 1999b). It is widely acknowledged to be necessary for building sustainable development and security in the region (Clover, 2007; Amanor, 2008a). Nevertheless, it cannot be assumed that such changes in themselves will strengthen human security and environmental integrity. Land policies can act as catalysts for social and economic change, but actual changes in land tenure are

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22844728. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Eriksen). 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.012

54

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

often driven by a country’s economic and development considerations, such as macro-economic growth, sometimes at the expense of social sustainability and rights of the poor (AU/ADB/ECA, 2006). Weak institutions of governance are often responsible for the failure to address land access and tenure problems, but equally important are the use of normative discourses and the way the social and political contexts interact with economic factors in determining issues of access, distribution, security of tenure, and management of land. This paper examines the links between changing land tenure and social, economic and environmental sustainability in southern African savannas. Two periods are examined: early occupation/colonialism and the impact this had on land rights; and post-independence land reform, which includes privatisation trends and land redistribution. We focus on the four SAVI/Savannas project case study countries (Eriksen and Watson, 2009), Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, using a human security approach to frame analysis of land tenure and environmental change transformation as evident in existing data and studies as well as in recent reporting from organisations operating in the region. We show how historical inequity has caused both poverty and environmental change, and how subsequent land reforms intended to heal the divisions and injustices of the past have in turn affected environmental, social and economic sustainability, not always in a positive way. Land inequities and tenure change have also contributed to significant levels of conflict, the most extreme example being Zimbabwe.

2. The role of land in environmental, social and economic sustainability Land and agricultural production have been highlighted as critical for economic growth and poverty reduction. It has been emphasised, for example, that most African economies are heavily reliant on agriculture and natural resources for a significant share of GDP, national food needs, employment and export revenue (Mutangadura, 2007). Table 1 shows that land and agricultural production are important in the four case study countries, especially in the two poorest countries, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

Agricultural growth, and in particular economic efficiency and productivity of the commercial sector, has often been seen as a precondition for economic growth through creating increased rural purchasing power and eventual growth of nonfarm economic activities. This relationship has been questioned, however (Jayne et al., 2003; Benjaminsen et al., 2006). Instead, the close relationship between inequity in land distribution and poverty has been highlighted. For example, a relatively egalitarian distribution of assets and land is required to strengthen multiplier effects and generate growth (Moyo, 2005). Households with small landholdings and limited access to other resources are constrained in their potential to diversify or embark on commercial agriculture as a means to break out of poverty (Jayne et al., 2003). Land forms part of complex livelihood systems with multiple objectives, with implications for how we understand economic growth in the rural sector. Anseeuw and Laurent (2007) highlight the importance of ‘‘pluriactivity’’, off-farm activities as an additional source of income, especially in cases where there is a discrepancy between available resources and the resources needed to develop commercial farming activities. Land also has multiple environmental, social and economic functions. Despite a process often described as deagrarianisation, or a tendency that agriculture may be decreasing in importance among rural households in a context of changing livelihoods towards on-farm and off-farm diversification, such as wage labour, remittances from urban workers and state pensions (Bryceson, 1996; Rigg, 2005), agriculture continues to play a critical role in diverse livelihoods and in household food security (Ellis and Allison, 2004). Access to land remains fundamental to most family asset bases and to social sustainability, in terms of food security, as capital and buffer against external shocks and as a safety net (Quan, 2005). Many of the multiple strategies in which rural peoples engage in pursuit of livelihood security are based on access to ecologically diverse land, whether to ensure a harvest in the face of variable rainy seasons or to rear livestock and poultry or collect forest products to make handicraft such as brooms or mats for sale (Pitcher, 1999; Shackleton et al., 2008; Eriksen and Silva, 2009). Furthermore, rights to land are the basis for social relationships and cultural values, and a source of prestige and often power and political status (FAO, 2002; AU/ ADB/ECA, 2006). Hence, the poorest and most vulnerable in

Table 1 – Importance of the rural sector in case study countries.

Total population 2004 (millions) GDP per head US$ 2006 Rural population (percent of total) Agriculture (percent of GDP) Employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing (percent)3 Colonial land rights

Botswana

Mozambique

South Africa

1.8 6457 48 5.5 44

19 356 63 22 80

45 5386 42 8 6

131 320 65 17 602

Non-settled; some higher potential areas given to settlers

Non-settled; some higher potential areas given to settlers

Settled; highly skewed land distribution

Settled; highly skewed land distribution

Sources: FAO (2006); EIU (2007). This is a World Bank estimate, however, 2002 government census estimates are 11.6 million (EIU, 2007). 2 In 2000 the agriculture sector accounted for 26% of total formal employment but this dropped to 15.5% in 2004 (EIU, 2007). 3 Employment refers to both formal and informal employment. 1

Zimbabwe

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

particular remain highly reliant on access to natural resources, whether based primarily on ‘agriculture’ in its narrow sense or not. The way that land tenure arrangements promote or inhibit on-farm and off-farm diversification as well as political and social rights to land has important implications for human security and sustainability. In addition to equitable distribution of land, security of tenure emerges as critical for sustainability. Roth (2002) explains that land tenure security comprises a full set of use and transfer rights, vested in communities, groups, households, or individuals. Whether formal or informal, secure tenure implies being able to enforce those rights against the claims of others, as well as having ownership of the land over a sufficiently long period of time to benefit from the labour and capital invested in it. Tenure security is widely acknowledged as critical for people’s rights and livelihoods, for gaining access to credit, for intensifying agricultural production and as a powerful incentive for sustainable land management practices and investments (Adams et al., 1999b; Mutangadura, 2004; AU/ADB/ECA, 2006). However, the introduction of an individualised formal title does not equate with tenure security and has indeed in some cases made land access less secure, especially where customary and non-individualised land tenure forms have been disregarded or adapted (Adams et al., 1999a; Moyo, 2005; Mutangadura, 2007). The introduction of individualised titles has been known to benefit powerful private interests, opening up opportunities for the concentration of land in the hands of political and other elites (Clover, 2007). With few safeguards for the non-formalised land rights of rural communities, a formal, market-based system shifts power relations so that the more powerful are able to take advantage of new forms of land registration (Moyo, 2005; Wily, 2006).

3. The link between human security and sustainability The relationship between human security and sustainability is particularly evident where land is concerned, through issues such as land distribution, natural resource management and rights, land use practices, degradation and poverty. Political history has shaped the parallel socio-economic relationships between people and the land in southern Africa. The central tenets of sustainable development are that not only will efforts to protect nature fail unless they simultaneously advance the cause of human betterment; in addition, efforts to better the lives of people will also fail unless they enhance, or at the very least conserve, environmental resources (Khagram et al., 2003). More specifically, the definition of sustainability used in this paper, following Eriksen and Watson (2009), incorporates three elements: environmental, social and economic sustainability. This means that in addition to the conservation of natural resources, economic activities need to be viable and poverty and inequality reduced in order for sustainability to be achieved. The nature of the linkages between the environmental and human elements is understood in two very different ways in sustainable development discourse, however. Amanor (2008a)

55

identifies two paradigms of direct relevance to the land question in southern Africa: a neoliberal or technocratic paradigm; and a political ecology and social justice based paradigm. Neoliberal discourses of sustainable development focus on economic growth and the preservation of the environment in order to financially make the most out of nature and resources, and to sustain capital (Escobar, 1996). Poverty and inappropriate practices are seen the main threats to sustainable development. Sustainability is a technocratic governance issue and a question of effective policy implementation, where various forms of institutional innovation, including land tenure reform giving security of ownership and investment in the land as well as community participation, are envisaged to ensure introduction of technology to the poor and hence sustainable development (Amanor, 2008a). In the political ecology and social justice based paradigm, exploitative relations of production and inequitable distribution of resources, in particular land, is at the root unsustainable development. Poverty is here a product of unsustainable development rather than vice versa and challenging the systems of accumulation of capital and related power structures, social relations and institutions, such as through the redistribution of land to the poor, is required in order to achieve sustainable development. According to this perspective, then, the underlying political and economic causes of environmental degradation are as important as the land use practices leading to degradation. As such, the perspective draws on approaches that explain ‘‘ecology’’ as politics in terms of critically examining the political, social and economic content of seemingly physical and ‘apolitical’ measures in land ‘management’ and analysing the political implications of different approaches to ecological explanation (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Forsyth, 2003). Closely linked to this second sustainability paradigm is the view that land and other natural resources cannot be seen in isolation of each other and of social structures integral to nature (Adger, 2006). In understanding the notion of the ‘environment’ to include humans (Shellenberger and Nordhaus, 2004), the way we define problems alters. Instead of environmental betterment taking prominence over the other elements of sustainability (where unsustainable social and economic development is viewed as an ill because they drive environmental degradation), all three elements of sustainability are viewed as interrelated and equally important. Environmental sustainability and access to resources are critical for the livelihoods of poor populations, for example, as well as providing opportunities for the realisation of basic rights, and increased human capabilities (Khagram et al., 2003). Amanor (2008a) argues that the issue of land highlights the need to define sustainable development in terms of environmental and social justice and in particular to examine the link between social sustainability, often the focus of political ecology and radical approaches, and economic and ecological sustainability, often the focus of neoliberal approaches. Here, we examine these linkages through a human security lens. This approach relates to the political ecology and social justice based paradigm, viewing environmental change (and hence the issue of sustainability) as a transformation involving co-occurring environmental, social and economic

56

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

processes, including conflicts and the spread of infectious disease, as well as changes in the biophysical environment (O’Brien, 2006). Human security is a ‘‘condition when and where individuals and communities have the options necessary to end, mitigate or adapt to risks to their human, environmental, and social rights; have the capacity and freedom to exercise these options; and actively participate in attaining these options’’ (O’Brien, 2006, p. 1). Human security as a condition can be considered as an outcome closely related to social sustainability and hence as a component of sustainability. More important for this study, however, is the perspective on environmental change and human–environment relations that emerges from a focus on well-being and individuals’ and communities’ capacity to respond to social and environmental change through their social and environmental rights. For example, which options are available to whom and who has the capacity to exercise those options? What are socially differentiated outcomes from environmental and social transformations? Social and economic sustainability are considered not just as functions or drivers of environmental integrity or ecosystem services but as important components in themselves. Changes to the three are closely interconnected and take place concurrently, determining outcomes for both humans and the environment. Implicit in this understanding is the need to manage the environment for the equal benefit of all people and future generations, as well as for its value in its own right (Elliot, 1998; Barnett, 2001). The human security perspective is particularly relevant in societies confronted by multiple processes of change, such as land tenure and environmental change, and where poverty and inequity are key concerns, as is certainly the case in rural arid, semi-arid and moist areas comprising southern African savannas (ECA-SA-SRDC, 1999; O’Brien et al., 2009). A focus on savanna areas is useful because it comprises a large eco-social system whose functioning depends on particular features, including mobility, diversity and dynamic livelihoods which vary and interact across ecological gradients and with temporal climatic variations (Scoones et al., 1996). Land tenure systems have a fundamental effect on these features. Savannas are also the subject of diverse strong interests, including biodiversity conservation, tourism, commercial production, rights of indigenous groups, rural livelihoods, and poverty reduction. Tenure and land policies are at the crux of which particular interests are prioritised and which conflicts of interests emerge (Homewood, 2004; Amanor, 2008a). Our focus on savannas does not mean that we treat these areas as a region or system operating in isolation; instead, linkages to other areas, including towns and high rainfall areas, as well as to economic and political processes at national and international levels, are critical to outcomes for sustainability. In this paper, we examine how the history of various land tenure changes has affected inequity, poverty, agricultural productivity and ecosystems, driving human insecurity and environmental degradation in savanna areas. We examine this issue by addressing two research questions: first, how have colonial land tenure and distribution affected people’s options and capacity to end, mitigate or adapt to risks to their human, environmental and social rights, and what have been

the effects on land uses and degradation? Second, to what extent have post-independence land reforms addressed threats to human security and political causes of land degradation?

4. Changes to land tenure: The impact of colonial rule on land rights and access Colonisation had a devastating effect on land use patterns in southern African countries. Prior to this period, landholdings were based on the laws and culture of different language groups and on dominant land use patterns. Such communal ownership or tenure implied a corporate entity (tribe, village, extended family), which exercised joint ownership over lands shared by multiple users for grazing and for gathering products. Under colonial rule, a minority held granted rights of occupancy in terms of a statutory land regime, while the majority held land under the deemed rights of occupancy, with marked difference in what these two interests offered their holders (Adams et al., 1999a). Colonial legislation surrounding natural resources, particularly land, water and wild resources, created an individualist system of allocation of rights that sought to privilege white settlers at the expense of the indigenous populations. This rights regime was largely sustained by a legal structure that undermined, disregarded and criminalised the traditional claims of rights to access and use of natural resources (SLSA, 2003). The best agricultural areas were largely assigned to European commercial farmers and formal private tenure, while a dispossessed African rural population was confined to ecologically marginal and overcrowded land under customary tenure, labelled ‘communal areas’.1 A strong relationship is evident between this pattern and environmental degradation and human insecurity on these lands. The extent of settler land expropriation varied (Moyo, 2005) and differences in how land is managed can be seen today between the states sharing a history of colonial occupation and skewed land distribution systems – Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe – and those countries in which the colonising nation did not permanently settle the colonial territory—Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zambia (Mamdani, 1996; Chabal, 2001). In this paper, we examine two countries that were permanently settled as well as two that were not (Table 1). The long-term effects of extreme skewed land distribution on the social, economic and environmental sustainability of savannas are particularly well illustrated by the cases of South Africa and Zimbabwe. In South Africa, where the largest scale of white settler land expropriation occurred, colonialism, then Afrikaner nationalism and the creation of black ‘homelands’ under apartheid, had profound implications for sustainability. In 1913 the Natives Land Act restricted black land ownership to 7 percent of the area of South Africa and permitted only customary, not freehold, tenure. By 1936 South Africa’s black population was 1

The term ‘communal’ is still commonly used in Zimbabwe and South Africa. As it denotes areas under customary tenure that may in practice be both communal and private in nature, the term is used here in inverted commas.

57

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

Table 2 – Distribution of land in Mfolozi Catchment, South Africa. Characteristic Soils

Rainfall Seasonal temperature range Savanna vegetation

Communal land

Commercial land

50.6 percent highly erodible soils (Dwyka tillite geology type) 12.5 percent erosion resistant soils (Natal group sandstone geology type)

3.6 percent highly erodible soils (Dwyka tillite geology type)

Poor rainfall, mild sub-arid to sub-arid High temperature range, upland and lowland hot to cold Short and medium thicket

Good rainfall, humid to sub-humid Highlands mild to cold

41.9 percent erosion resistant soils (Natal group sandstone geology type)

Forest to short and medium thicket

Sources: Phillips (1973); Liggitt and Fincham (1989).

Table 3 – Distribution of land, population and woodland area in Zimbabwe in the 1990s. Characteristic

Land tenure category Communal land

Resettlement land

Commercial land

Land area in million hectare Land area as percent of total Farming potential Rainfall

16.36 42 Poor farmland Generally poor rainfall areas

3.79 8 Mixed Spread over areas of different rainfall levels

Population Population density Percent of rural population Woodland in million hectare Percent of total woodland

5,352,304 32/sq km 74 10 43

12.45 31 Good farmland Spread over areas of different rainfall levels, generally good rainfall areas 1,346,753 10/sq km 19 7 30

426,687 11/sq km 6 n.a. n.a.

State land 6.97 18 Poor farmland Generally poor rainfall areas 38,806 <2/sq km <1 6 26

Source: adapted from Nhira et al. (1998).

6.6 million, 45 percent of whom lived in separate reserves, 34 percent on white-owned farms and the remaining 21 percent in urban areas (Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001). Between 1948 and 1994 these ‘reserves’ were consolidated into homelands through apartheid based land reform. When apartheid ended in 1994, around 15 million people or 83 percent of the rural population, lived in ‘communal’ areas which constituted 13 percent of the land, while approximately 2.9 million or 16 percent lived on commercial farms, making up 85 percent of total land (DFID, 2003; Thwala and Khosa, 2008). Millions of black South Africans were forced onto some of the country’s least productive and ecologically sensitive areas, some 15 percent of which was potentially arable (Moyo, 2005). Similarly in Zimbabwe, the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 reserved 51 percent of land, located in the most fertile parts of the country with the most favourable climatic conditions and water resources, for some 50,000 European settlers (Moyo, 2005); set aside 30 percent for African Reserve Areas (for about 1 million Africans), and the remainder for commercial companies and the colonial government (Sachikonye, 2003a). At independence in 1980, 6000 white commercial farmers owned 15.5 million hectares of land, while 8500 small-scale African farmers had 1.4 million hectares. The rest, 700,000 households under customary tenure, eked out an insecure existence on 16.4 million hectares or 50 percent of the land, most of which was in the drier and less fertile areas (Sachikonye, 2003b; DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007). An examination of existing studies in various locations in savanna areas illustrates that unequal land distribution still

persists in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. Table 2 demonstrates how land distribution in Mfolozi Catchment in southeastern South Africa is skewed towards better soils and climatic conditions for commercial land and generally poorer soils and climatic conditions for ‘communal’ lands. Similarly, Table 3 shows the marked differences in quality of land and population densities between ‘communal’ and commercial areas in Zimbabwe up until the 1990s, with ‘communal’ land being generally poor farmland and low rainfall areas supporting three times as high population concentrations as commercial land, which is generally good farmland in mostly good rainfall areas. An examination of data regarding erosion on the same lands described in Tables 2 and 3 shows that the ecologically marginal ‘communal’ land supporting high population concentrations experience more severe physical erosion than the higher potential commercial lands supporting fewer people. Table 4 compares severity of erosion in commercial and ‘communal’ areas for Zimbabwe and for the Mfolozi and other case study areas in savannas in South Africa. In order to be able to compare relative differences in erosion between the commercial and ‘communal’ areas, erosion levels in commercial areas are set as one and erosion in ‘communal’ areas as a factor of the severity of erosion in the different commercial areas. The levels of erosion may also vary between the geographic areas but erosion categories and measurements used in different studies are not directly comparable in absolute values and are not the focus of analysis here. Table 5, based on a study using interview techniques, confirms findings from the physical measurement

58

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

Table 4 – Erosion in commercial and communal areas in South Africa (case study areas) and Zimbabwe (national), comparison by factor. Study area

Erosion type

Commercial

Communal

Source

Tugela catchment, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

General

1.00

1.49

Broderick (1987); Garland and Broderick (1992)

Yellowoods catchment, Eastern Cape, South Africa

General

1.00

1.27

Weaver (1988)

Sheet Severe gully Very severe gully

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.09 3.00 7.00

Sheet/rill

1.00

1.30

Gullies Potential erosion

1.00 1.00

1.36 22.88

Extensive Very extensive

1.00 1.00

9.90 28.33

Mfolozi catchment, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Zimbabwe (national survey)

studies portrayed in Table 4, showing that erosion has generally been higher in ‘communal’ than in commercial areas, particularly in cultivated and settlement areas. Erosion is less only in those areas designated for nature conservation. According to DeGeorges and Reilly (2007), soil loss continues to be a major problem in Zimbabwe, especially in the ‘communal’ areas. The examination above indicates that high soil erosion on ‘communal’ lands is related to ecological marginality and high population concentrations. The representation of land degradation generally and soil erosion more specifically in southern Africa is highly contested, however. In a broad sense, degradation refers to the impoverishment of land, taking the form of soil degradation, soil erosion, reduced or altered vegetation cover, loss of biodiversity, and increased vulnerability to drought (Swift, 1996; DEAT, 2004). Human activities such as shortening of fallow periods, over-grazing, cutting of forest, and poor irrigation practices are often presented as the most proximate causes of land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid savanna (Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001). Alternative explanations of degradation emphasise that vegetation changes are mainly driven by climatic fluctuations and that degrading land use practices are caused by a complex set of factors, including land distribution, demography and settlement, in addition to economic and political processes at national and regional levels, such as land use policy, trade liberalisation, and privatisation of resources (Swift, 1996; Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001; Msangi, 2004). Hence, some question observations of higher soil erosion on customary tenure land compared to private commercial

Table 5 – Soil degradation per land use type1, savanna districts in South Africa, comparison by factor. Land use type Cropland Veld Conservation Settlements

Commercial districts

Communal land

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Source: Garland et al. (1999). Land use types relevant to savannas selected.

1

3.94 2.34 0.50 6.67

Berjak et al. (1986); Liggitt (1988); Liggitt and Fincham (1989)

Whitlow (1988)

land (Dahlberg, 2000; Dougill, 2002). Since degradation implies a loss of biological and economic productivity or ability to sustain farmer livelihoods (Mortimore, 1998), the interpretation of what constitute desirable economic activities influences perceptions of what constitutes degradation. Benjaminsen et al. (2006) argue that differences in environmental status between ‘communal’ and commercial land in a study site in South Africa are due to their differences in production systems. For ‘communal’ farmers, keeping a higher quantity of livestock for multiple objectives, rather than a lower quantity of high quality for commercial sale, has been integral to household livelihoods. In contrast, government grants have subsidised stock reductions and measures to combat drought losses on privately owned farms (Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001). With objectives and stocking rates being so different, it is not surprising that the vegetation cover and species composition should differ; however, Benjaminsen et al. (2006) contend that this difference does not necessarily mean that ‘communal’ areas are degraded. Instead, their management maximise the multiple production objectives and vegetation cover and species composition have remained stable over time. Other studies from the region suggest that stocking densities are in themselves seldom related to higher soil and degradation rates (Ward, 2004), indicating that ecological marginality and the totality of different resource uses may be critical factors causing degradation in ‘communal’ areas. Instead of attributing blame for environmental degradation to peasant farmer practices, some authors argue that the main focus should be on how livelihoods were restricted and made economically unviable by the colonial land rights and policies (Benjaminsen et al., 2006; Rohde et al., 2006). They identify a ‘modernising’ discourse that has prevailed since colonial times in southern Africa, and South Africa in particular, and which has promoted the view that large-scale specialised forms of farming are more economically efficient and environmentally sustainable than peasant farming. Following this discourse, ‘communal’ forms of livestock keeping, for example, have been described as degrading soils and vegetation due to overstocking and overgrazing, leading to low economic output. However, small landholdings are not necessarily less economically sustainable than large-scale

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

commercial farms (Jayne et al., 2003; Amanor, 2008a). Benjaminsen et al. (2006), argue that it was actually the colonial and apartheid policies favouring white commercial farmers that restricted the ability of farmers in ‘communal’ areas to survive on agricultural activity alone. Both in Zimbabwe and South Africa, farms in the peasant sector became so small and were on such poor soils that farming became economically unviable and the tribal reserves and homelands effectively served as reservoirs for cheap migratory labour reserves for towns and commercial farms (Moyo and Matondi, 2008). As argued by Aliber (2001, p. 6), the prohibition on Africans from acquiring, owning, and renting land in the latter limited their ‘‘economic options so severely as to compel many to sell their labour to the mines and white farms’’. Peasant agriculture was reduced to an unimportant activity complementing other livelihood activities and based on low inputs of capital and labour. At the same time, colonial discourses describing peasant cultivator practices as technologically backward and degrading of the environment have served as a justification to appropriate land and to introduce restrictions on peasant activities, thus strengthening political control over resources and populations (Amanor, 2008a). Poverty has a ‘communal’ and rural face in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. Today the provinces with large rural populations in former homelands (Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Northern Province) have the highest level of poverty in the country (DFID, 1998; Adams et al., 1999b). Similarly, in Zimbabwe, the majority of the rural poor are found in the low rainfall and drought prone areas where the majority are compressed, that is in agro-ecological regions III, IV and V (Munro, 2003; DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007; Moyo and Matondi, 2008). Even if the severity and causes vary, land degradation nevertheless further reinforces food insecurity and livelihood failures (Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001). The skewed land distribution, therefore, constitutes a threat both to livelihoods as well as to the environmental integrity in many areas, and environmental degradation in turn has further undermined livelihoods. The result of these processes is human insecurity, in terms of inability to secure economic options and political rights, and ensuing poverty. Unlike South Africa and Zimbabwe, the extreme concentration of people on small lands and ensuing pressure on the land were not created in Botswana and Mozambique. Even if not equally pronounced in all countries, however, the modernisation view and economic inequity have nevertheless been pervasive in the region. The alienation of some of the higher potential areas for commercial agriculture and the creation of conservation areas have restricted smallholder farmer and livestock keepers’ access to land in different ecological gradients, and hence mobility under different climatic conditions and access to key livelihood resources. The states of Botswana and Mozambique, which predominantly faced indirect colonial rule, received European farmers at a much smaller scale, although here too, some of the higher potential lands were assigned to white farmers, excluding uses by the indigenous population (Thomas, 2002; Moyo, 2005). In Botswana, 6 percent of the country is freehold tenure and is largely land originally granted to white settler commercial livestock farmers (Molomo, 2008). Large plantations were also started by the Portuguese in Mozambique. Some of these

59

inequalities still exist as Portuguese farms were turned into state farms at independence and have since mostly reverted to companies or large-scale farmers (Bowen et al., 2003). In addition to the inequalities created by the favouring of settlers’ and commercial agriculture, the drive to ‘modernise’ agriculture through individualised tenure has also disrupted or replaced existing land ownership systems, hence influencing sustainability of savannas in yet another, fundamental way. Different forms of increased state control that sometimes involved the co-opting of customary institutions, altering the role and responsibilities of customary leaders, were introduced during the colonial era, even among the states that were not settled. In Mozambique, for example, the Portuguese colonial administration supported and hired local chieftaincies, which then became a tool to control natural resources and to ensure a supply of forced labour for work in colonial farms, companies and projects (Black and Watson, 2006). These chiefs have traditionally played a role in distribution of land, communicating with spirits and ancestors regarding rules for use of natural resources. They have also been central in mediating between households in disputes over land and resources. Their co-option by colonial administration had a lasting impact on institutional structures in Mozambique, in particular in terms of undermining the legitimacy of customary institutions, duplication of institutional systems, and uncertain land rights. Bowen et al. (2003) observes that this has hampered land management and undermined environmental sustainability. In Botswana, the land was similarly communally held and its allocation vested in chiefs and sub-chiefs (Molomo, 2008). During British rule, land was given distinct boundaries and defined as belonging to particular tribes. The lasting effect has been the marginalisation of tribal groups that do not have a centralised political structure nor permanent physical settlement that can identify territorial claims, such as the nomadic Basarwa. In other countries too, such as Zimbabwe and Malawi, the powers of the traditional leaders who oversee environmental and resource management were eroded during colonial rule, and their legitimacy has continued to be undermined and tensions with statutory law increased (Shumba, 2001; Kanyongolo, 2008). In conclusion, land rights under colonial rule in the region eroded human security and threatened environmental integrity. Land and agricultural policies introduced by colonial administrations in southern Africa reflected a bias marginalising customary tenure and livelihood systems that remains pervasive to natural resource management and land tenure systems up until today. The most important components of human security that were affected relate to economic options and rights, through the highly inequitable distribution of assets and incomes, as well as ability to secure political rights, such as local control and management of natural resources. These processes have undermined both social and economic sustainability, as well as threatening environmental sustainability. The argument promoted by political ecological based paradigms is, hence, that rather than being a neutral and irrefutable measure of incomes, economic outputs and investment potential, economic sustainability is the crux of the matter of sustainability of savannas, through gross inequities in systems of economic and technical support as

60

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

well as access to land, markets, capital and labour. These inequities marginalise smallholders in ‘communal’ areas in turn perpetuating poverty and income inequalities and shaping patterns of natural resource management, hence social and environmental sustainability. Rather than poverty or a lack of social sustainability automatically leading to environmental unsustainable practices, responses reflect efforts to manage resources as economically and environmentally sustainable as possible.

5.

Land reform in the post-independence era

Since independence, the impetus has grown for land reform, in terms of tenure reform and land redistribution. Land tenure reform here signifies the changes made to the rules of tenure, including legal recognition of customary tenure rights and strengthening the rights of tenants. Land redistribution includes redistributing private farmland and state land to landless and poor as well as restitution of land rights to those dispossessed during the colonial or apartheid era. However, as the examination above indicates, and as underwritten by other observations, land reform requires fundamental political, not just governance or technical changes (Amanor, 2008b). Fortin (2005, p. 2) argues that: ‘‘[l]and reform is fundamentally about recognising and changing a certain distribution of power over land and resources represented by that land’’. In other words, land reforms that are to address the inequities created by colonial land rights need to substantively change property relations to safeguard social and environ-

Table 6 – Land tenure system (percentage of land area). Country

Botswana Zimbabwe South Africa Mozambique

Customary Statutory private/ Statutory land freehold/leasehold state land and other 70 50 14 80

5 112 72 6

25 391 14 14

Sources: ECA (2003, p. 3), Marongwe (2003, p. 3–4), Mutangadura (2007, p. 177). 1 State land - 24.8%; resettlement areas - 14.0% (EIU, 2007, p. 35). 2 Commercial areas declined from 12.4 million hectare in 1996 or 37.4% of total to 3.6 million hectare in 2007 or 10.8% of total (EIU, 2007, p. 35).

mental interests over commercial sector interests (Kanyongolo, 2008). Several countries in eastern, central and southern Africa are currently reforming their land policies and laws. New national land policies (and in some cases draft laws) have been adopted in Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland, South Africa and Zimbabwe. The existing land tenure systems and land tenure reforms are summarised for the four case study countries in Tables 6 and 7. Despite these efforts, however, land reform has not successfully addressed social and environmental justice and land insecurity is still widespread in southern Africa (Amanor, 2008b). Several issues can be identified. First, post-colonial governments have made limited progress in addressing the historically skewed land distribution (Fortin, 2005); second, focus has shifted from poverty

Table 7 – Land tenure reforms in study countries. Country

Initiative

Botswana

Tribal Land Act of 1968, amended in 1993. A system of 12 decentralised ‘tribal’ Land Boards since 1970 (under the Ministry of Lands). Draft Land Policy pending since 2005.

Land boards managed to introduce some democracy; policy is addressing land alienation, tenure insecurity of women, minority groups and the poor. Freehold constitutes less than 5% of the total land and is diminishing as it is purchased by the State.

Mozambique

Land Policy of 1995; Land Law of 1997. New legislation aimed at harmonising the rules on urban land tenure with the needs of urban expansion and development in the pipeline (2007).

State land ownership enshrined in the constitution. Customary land tenure legally reinforced through demarcation and titling of community lands. Definition and recognition of representatives of local communities land administration; establishment of local land tribunal system accepting oral testimony; women land rights granted. Protects small-holder farmer rights—greater leasehold security. Public-private partnerships require investors to negotiate with communities to acquire land use rights.

South Africa

Three principal components for improving land tenure security: land redistribution; restitution of land to those who were dispossessed, and tenure reform to bring about security within a variety of tenure systems. A number of acts passed between 1994 and 2004. Land Policy of 1997.

Secures the rights for those without formal documentary rights, pending the long-term law; transfer of title from the state to communities; registered, legally protected and enforceable rights of occupation. Inadequate protection for the rights of labour tenants on privately owned farms. Acts have failed to address inequities of access, confusion and chaos that surround land rights and administration in ‘communal’ areas.

Zimbabwe

Land Acquisition Act of 1992; Draft National Land Policy of 1998. Fast-Track Land Reform Programme initiated (FTLRP) 2000.

Right to land for the indigenous population guaranteed. Very rapid and seemingly chaotic land reform programme—seemingly erratic farm invasions; corruption; multiple farm ownership, usually by elite.

Sources: ECA (2003); AU/ADB/ECA (2006); Wily (2005).

Impact/purpose

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

alleviation to privatisation; third, there is mounting conflict related to land rights.

5.1.

Limited progress of land reform

The complexity of land tenure issues, and the high political investment as well as financial and human resources required by implementation have resulted in the slow progress of land reform in southern Africa. Confused, weak, and sometimes corrupt systems of land administrative also hamper land redistribution (Chigumira, 2006; Adams and Palmer, 2007). Today in all countries where there is a history of large-scale, historical expropriation of land rights, a dual, racially based system of land rights introduced by colonial regimes continues to prevail (AU/ADB/ECA, 2006). It is effectively a hybrid system of both private tenure and customary law, with elements of competing jurisdictions of customary and statutory systems constituting a critical divide. There is often duplication of customary and statutory land rights, leading to unclear and conflicting land rights (Thwala and Khosa, 2008). Amanor (2008a) points out that there has been decentralisation of administration as part of forms of popular participation in management of resources in southern Africa; however, neither redistribution to poor groups nor the power and social structures creating inequalities have been the focus of land reforms. Policies have more often than not ignored existing customary and local institutions, and disregarded the distributive issues underlying tenure security (Cotula et al., 2004). Where customary institutions have at least to some extent been integrated in new land policies, such as Mozambique and Botswana, these do not always address the politics creating inequalities at the local level. In Botswana the current land laws are accused of perpetuating the colonial bias towards certain ethnic groups to the detriment of others (Molomo, 2008). This failure is prevalent elsewhere in the region too. In Swaziland, for example, land lost through alienation to settlers has been returned and Swazis hold two thirds of the land, yet some 80 percent of the population are actually living as landless peasants under chiefs (Adams et al., 1999a). Tenure reform in the former homelands in South Africa has been especially slow; land tenure remains legally insecure and uncertain and in recent years land administration has become increasingly chaotic and contested (Turner, 2001). The inability of tenure reform to significantly address the extreme inequalities in South Africa has led to the continued overcrowding of poor people in former homelands (Thwala and Khosa, 2008). The initial target of the Reconstruction and Development Program of transferring 25-million hectares or 30 percent of agricultural land by 2000 has failed, and much of the land that has been transferred is of a low quality. Although 1.2 million people have benefited from the land reform programme in South Africa, with 3.3 million hectares transferred through all aspects of the land reform as of September 2006 (Adams and Palmer, 2007), in 2007 roughly 80 percent of agricultural land was still held by whites, who comprise 9 percent of the population (Thwala and Khosa, 2008). The target year was adjusted under the Integrated Programme of Land Redistribution and Agricultural Development program (IPLRAD) to 2015 but only 4.3 percent has been redistributed with the government programme since 2004

61

(Benjaminsen et al., 2006; Toulmin, 2006). In October 2007 the SA government announced that a newly created unit is to redistribute 5-million hectares to 10,000 new black farmers in the next 2 years. Should the target be met, the outstanding balance of 17 million hectares will be transferred at a rate of 3.5 million hectares each year from 2009. The ambitious new strategy is to cost R16 billion in 2 years and there is serious – and justified – concern that there is a mismatch between the intended scale of the reform process and the actual resources, policies and systems available to support it. A marked disparity still remains between mainly white commercial farms and households living on ‘communal’ land in other settled countries in the region, as well. In Zimbabwe, there have recently been dramatic and violent land tenure changes, fast-track resettlement land totalling 8 million hectares by 2007 and large-scale commercial farms reduced to 3.8 million hectares of land (Moyo and Matondi, 2008). The effects of these particular changes on human security and environmental degradation are discussed in a separate section. In Namibia, progress has been slow since independence, with only 201 commercial farms purchased for the purpose of resettling landless communities, accommodating 1561. In 2004 compulsory acquisition for land redistribution was introduced, but by the end of 2006 only three farms had been acquired—the drawn-out legal process involved has been suggested as the reason for slow expropriation (Adams and Palmer, 2007). The inability to address a history of unequal land distribution has led to racial and political tensions, and hampered economic development in southern Africa (AU/ ADB/ECA, 2006).

5.2. Shifting goals from poverty alleviation to economic efficiency A second issue of general concern in the region is that land reforms have in reality increasingly focused on privatisation rather than redistribution. Trends towards privatisation and enclosure are pronounced in resource rich areas, but are also evident in savanna areas (AU/ADB/ECA, 2006). When donor support for land reforms fell away during the era of structural adjustment, emphasis shifted towards the consolidation of privately held land rights and land markets in order to create the conditions under which private sector led development could prosper (Quan et al., 2003; SARPN, 2003). Donors urged a number of governments into a policy of land titling (individualisation of tenure), on the grounds that customary rights would never be able to provide sufficient basis for agricultural development (Toulmin and Quan, 2000; Fortin, 2005). In South Africa, the initial target group for redistribution was adjusted under the IPLRAD from landless poor and tenant farm workers to emergent commercial farmers. Under this programme, grants were offered to beneficiaries able to raise R5000 or more themselves, hence excluding the poorest (Thwala and Khosa, 2008). The pressure to scale up delivery and spending could lead to prioritising large agribusinesses projects at the expense of poor people who may want to farm on a small-scale. Benjaminsen et al. (2006) and Lebert and Rohde (2007) observe that in Namaqualand in South Africa, emergent farmers who comprise the local elite use the grant system as a stepping stone to acquiring private farms of their

62

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

own as well as the capture of new commons, often to the exclusion of the poorest. The policy has in some cases led to individualisation and privatisation of communal land. Views inherent in policies and agricultural department functionaries that ‘modern’ individualised commercial production constitutes economic and environmental sustainability have in practice taken precedence over livelihood security and poverty alleviation. Critically, reforms in southern Africa have failed to provide resources and measures to ensure that small-scale agriculture becomes economically viable, and hence address one of the main structural inequalities created by colonial and apartheid land policies. Redistributive programmes too often overlook how important it is that policies are based on a thorough understanding of livelihood strategies, and that it is critical to link land access and reform with programmes to deliver basic infrastructure, services, plus technical and marketing support. In both South Africa and Zimbabwe there have been accusations of the lack of integration between transfer of land and provision of support services critical for emerging farmers. As argued by Adams et al. (1999b, p. 3) for the cases of South Africa and Zimbabwe - ‘‘[s]o dominant is the imperative to repossess land, that insufficient attention has been devoted to post-settlement planning and support. Thus the livelihoods and the land rights of incoming settlers have too often remained insecure’’. Transferred land also often has low agricultural potential and does not offer a variety of ecological resource areas that can support diverse livelihood strategies (Andrews et al., 2003). The lack of institutional support for land management has sometimes resulted in the degradation of these resources (Turner, 2001); in other words, land reform also has consequences for environmental sustainability in addition to social and economic sustainability. Similar processes are occurring throughout the region; both in Malawi and Namibia, the economic and environmental sustainability of efforts to resettle the landless poor is undermined by the lack of expertise among the resettled to farm formerly commercial farms. The poor resettled are also to afford expensive agricultural inputs at the same time as they are excluded from accessing improved farming techniques, credit and markets (Sherbourne, 2003; UNIrin, 2005; Kanyongolo, 2008). At the same time, land reform has struggled to target vulnerable groups. Land redistribution programmes have largely failed to target women as potential beneficiaries. In southern Africa, more than 60 percent of women are dependent on land for their livelihoods and it is women who are primarily tasked with harnessing land for food security, for development and for the upkeep of the environment. Yet they are still often discriminated against in their land rights both under customary and statutory tenure (Mutangadura, 2004; Cotula et al., 2004). It is common for use rights only to be granted to women, based on the labour they provide to the lineage, and rights of possession do not pass to a spouse but to the male progeny on their marriage (Fortin, 2005). The introduction of title deeds and private ownership have often served to aggravate women’s dispossession, stringent legalities and costs deterring the obtaining of title deeds (Mutangadura, 2004; Cotula et al., 2005; MeinzenDick and Mwangi, 2006). The strengthening of women’s rights

under the constitution, family and inheritance law has not kept pace with land reform to achieve actual equality, especially under the commercialisation of land. Insecurity of farm workers and farm labour tenants also remains a major problem. In South Africa nearly a million farm dwellers were evicted between 1993 and 2003, often to prevent farm dwellers to establish a length of stay that would give them land rights at the expense of farm owners under the new legislation (Adams and Palmer, 2007).

5.3.

Mounting competition and conflict

In addition to the threats to sustainability posed by the failure of formal changes to land tenure and distribution to provide social and environmental justice, ambiguities in land rights have not been addressed and instead often been used for the ends of patronage and power. Malfunctioning, inappropriate and exploitative land administrative practices observed in all case study countries (Turner, 2001; Mutangadura, 2004; Moyo, 2005; Clover, 2007) provide ample environment for abuse by the powerful elite in land acquisition. Even where new legal frameworks protect existing local land rights, security of tenure for many individuals and communities is also currently threatened by ‘opportunistic’ land grabbing by elite groups (Daniel, 2001; IFAD, 2006). Land grabbing and the enclosure of customary lands by powerful indigenous elites and corporations, often in alliance with international capital is on the rise in most countries in southern Africa (Moyo, 2005; Palmer, 2008). Mounting competition and conflict over land and landed resources are occurring especially close to towns and cities and in productive, high value areas, but also in drier savanna areas (Clover, 2007). In a post-war environment in particular, the scramble for access to the assets necessary to re-establish livelihoods for large numbers of people, as well as the pursuit of land access by large-scale commercial interests who capitalise on a fluid land tenure situation to acquire resources, lead to land quickly becoming a potential source of tension and even conflict (Daudelin, 2003; Unruh, 2004). In Angola, and to a lesser degree in Mozambique, lucrative and rising values of pasture and commercial farming land, of territory for nature tourism (coastal and wildlife areas), and of prime urban land are being captured by elites, depriving poor communities of a crucial capital base (Moyo, 2005). Despite Mozambique’s new Land Law from 1997 winning wide acclaim for being democratic and progressive in scope, there are still trends towards land concentration that are likely to fuel conflicts over resources in the future. There is a real threat that some of the successes in terms of its pro-poor objectives could be reversed if current trends for the development of a land market provide the excuse for further land grabs by the elite (Tanner, 2005). The acquisition of land by investors capitalising on environmentally rich biodiverse regions has led to conflicts with communities while little attention has been paid to protection of the environment (Moyo, 2005; Clover, 2007). Loss of access to natural resources by poor communities, conflicts over unlawful land parcelling, as well as threats to flora and fauna have resulted from economic interests in game-based tourism and eco-tourism tourism (ROSA, 2006). Tanner (2005) notes that community interests have been neglected by the public

63

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

sector in the interests of fast tracking private sector applications for new land use rights. It results in land concentration that carries the seeds for low-grade conflicts and poses a challenge to poverty alleviation (Negra˜o, 2002). The process has so far mainly been observed along the resource rich coast of Mozambique and has been much less studied in typical inland savanna areas. Here, national parks are being rehabilitated and new national parks created such as the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park along the Mozambique/South Africa/Zimbabwe, leading to resettlement of at least 6000 people and cutting people off from important livelihood options such as labour migration (GLTP, 2004; Eriksen and Silva, 2009). Another concern is that land reform that fails to address local power structures may fuel conflicts instead of strengthening sustainability. Mozambique has made impressive efforts to include the poor at all levels of the development of the Land Law and in the management of land and natural resources. However, Clover (2007) shows that the strong leadership evident in community based natural resource management and eco-tourism through the establishment of Management Councils is in danger of being undermined by the revival of Traditional Authorities. Responsibilities and intentions of institutions governing natural resources have been unclear, with the chieftaincies first abolished by the postindependence administration, then reinstituted once it was realised that they still had widespread influence locally. There is now often duplication and struggles over legitimacy between different chiefs and between chiefs and the local government administration, hampering both tenure security and effective natural resource management. The management councils being put in place are generally selected personally by the Chief and not elected, for example (Clover, 2007). Black and Watson (2006) also argue that the resulting jostling for political influence and control over current natural resources institutions by the competing chiefs and institutions can reinforce local inequalities since the scramble makes securing material benefits or influence with politically powerful figures, government or external development funding institutions more important than fair distribution of resources and accountability to the local population. Botswana has a well-conceived land policy and supporting legislation (Adams and Palmer, 2007), acknowledged for its adherence to the rule of law. Traditional tenure is also integrated with a modern system of land administration for both customary and commercial forms of land use (Adams et al., 1999a). Nevertheless, it does not necessarily follow that there will be good governance in implementing these policies, nor can it be assumed that the distributive issues (such as the social structures creating inequalities underlying tenure security) have been addressed. Botswana has land-related tensions and localised conflicts, many of which are closely tied to issues of ethnicity. Since independence, the modern land tenure systems have been based on the customary institutions through chiefs and Tribal Land Boards. This ethnic based land rights system has disadvantaged ethnic minorities and been instrumental in post-independence social dislocation and dispossession. In combination with the drive to ‘modernise’ people into settled communities with social and physical infrastructure such as schools, health centres and water provision, the poor land rights have led to hunter-gatherers being more or less

forcibly settled in new areas, losing their livelihoods and often suffering poverty and alcohol abuse (Molomo, 2008). A highly profiled case is that of the Basarwa (San or Bushmen) who have lived in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve for thousands of years. Living traditionally as hunter-gatherers they have never been seen as having land of their own and have gradually lost their customary land areas to settlers, cattle farmers, natural parks and game reserves (Clover, 2006). Since 1996 relocations of the Basarwa to government established settlements, where they live in squalid conditions, have increased—a response to water being cut off and the termination of special game licenses. These moves culminated in the most recent and better known cases of a land conflict in 2002 when the government forcibly evicted the Basarwa from their ancestral lands. A long-running court case followed and in a landmark decision in December 2006, they won their case in which they accused the government of illegally moving them from their land. The case, nevertheless, was inconclusive as subsequently they were urged not to return and the government was not obliged to restore the facilities inside the reserves (Molomo, 2008). The Botswana policy of communal rangeland enclosure, that is, the seizing of communal land to develop TGLP farms (the Tribal Grazing Land Policy introduced in 1975) and Wildlife Management Areas further illustrates how conflicts arise in the interface between customary and statutory tenure (Mpotokwane, 2005). An estimated 20,000 people, including smallholders, persons without stock and hunter-gatherers, have lost their rights to utilise or occupy the land (Mutangadura, 2007). Commercialisation of the arable and livestock industries since the early 1970s has resulted in ranches being demarcated and given to individuals and groups and land being fenced (Molomo, 2008). This has led to environmental threats through intensified livestock concentration in small areas, the inhibiting of wildlife movement, and the sinking of closely spaced boreholes (Thomas et al., 2000). Conflicts have also risen when TGLP farms were demarcated on land already inhabited: TGLP farmers enjoy dual grazing rights on both their ranches and the customary tenure rangelands while multiple users, such as fuel wood harvesters and other users of savanna products are often denied access to land. With almost 35 percent of its total area set aside for wildlife conservation, intrusion conflicts, predation conflicts and transmission conflicts (where there is a risk of disease, such as foot and mouth, being transmitted from wildlife to livestock) have also arisen (Mpotokwane, 2005). Such problems are not unique to Botswana; in southern Africa as a whole, conservation areas cover 25 percent of the land area (see Table 8 and O’Brien et al., 2009).

Table 8 – State protected areas, game/wildlife management areas and freehold areas under wildlife in southern Africa (Cumming, 2004). Country Botswana Mozambique South Africa Zimbabwe Southern Africa

Percentage of land under protected status 37.5 6.7 18.5 17.8 25.3

64

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

The examination above shows that land reforms can threaten human security through both creating conflicts and undermining equality and social sustainability. This is partly because even where customary institutions and local representation are included, the reform processes fails to address duplicate and unclear rights, creating space for existing political relations of natural resource control to be reinforced through informal mechanisms. Processes that displace people from their land have hence persisted after independence. Colonial and apartheid land rights threatening sustainability of savannas have been reinforced by post-independence land reforms that have perpetuated inequalities at the local level, undermining traditional rights, local control over resources and livelihood options. This trend is leading to localised conflicts over land, exacerbating threats to human security.

5.4.

Zimbabwe: The contradictions of land redistribution

Problems of inequitable land distribution, insecure rights and brewing conflicts exist across the region; however, the implementation of the fast-track land reform programme in Zimbabwe has demonstrated tensions over land reform at levels never seen before. Widely criticised internationally for failing to adhere to property rights and the rule of law, international funding has dried up, many banks have collapsed, and commercial farmland has lost massive aggregate value. The factors contributing to declining security are, however, far more complex than tenure changes alone. The unfolding events in Zimbabwe over the past decade highlight the negative impacts on human security when land tenure changes are radicalised and used for political ends (Chigumira, 2006) that are disconnected from issues of justice and building sustainable livelihoods for the poorest. Land reform in the country over the last 25 years has had mixed results. The liberation war in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) was fought in part over land injustices, the liberation fighters known as Vana Venhu or ‘children of the soil’ (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007). Shortly after gaining independence in 1980, Zimbabwe introduced a series of agrarian reform measures but the government’s land distribution efforts were restrained by the Lancaster House Agreements, which required purchase of commercial land only on a ‘willing-buyer–willing-seller’ basis, and payment in foreign currency (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007). During this period, most of the land (over 70 percent) acquired through the market was agro-ecologically marginal and located mainly in the drier, more climatically erratic, southern regions, while the bulk of the prime land in the three Mashonaland provinces remained untouched. Furthermore, the land offered to the state was geographically scattered, thus moving settlers to isolated farms in small groups, which proved both expensive and logistically inefficient (LRAN, 2003). Despite the slow pace of reform up until then, evidence does point to the successful role that land redistribution can play in alleviating poverty. In their study of income dynamics in the resettlement areas of Zimbabwe between 1983 and 1996, Gunning et al. (2000) found that land distribution had played a successful role in alleviating poverty, strengthening incomes and assets and reducing economic inequality. Other studies confirm that both production levels and productivity rose in

some areas following resettlement (Chiremba and Masters, 2003) and that settlers acquired access to potable water, diptanks, marketing depots and schools (Raftopoulos, 2004). It is important to note, however, that in the early 1980s beneficiaries received exceptional levels of supporting services (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007) and that these were stopped after the introduction of structural adjustment programmes in the late 1980s. In general, however, the poor did not benefit as expected—by 1990 the black elite had acquired 8 percent of commercial farmland, little of which was put into production (Moyo, 2005). Progress was slow in the 1990s, despite the introduction of the Land Acquisition Act of 1992 enacted to speed up the process. By 1997 the number of resettled households totalled 71,000, considerably less than the original target of 162,000 households (Sachikonye, 2003b). Speculation increased of a growing threat to civil disorder and in 1997 the government resorted to compulsory land acquisition methods using new expropriation laws. Despite endorsement by donors in 1998 and the promise of funds to help purchase farms, the government failed to follow through; by 2000, after 20 years of land reform, whites who made up 1 percent of the population owned 28 percent of all land and accounted for 60 percent of Zimbabwe’s exports (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007). In early 2000, politically motivated land occupations began with the War Veterans association invading white-owned farmlands after the ruling ZANU-PF party was defeated by the newly formed Movement for Democratic Change in a referendum on the new constitution. Since then, land invasions have increased, with accusations of politicians and the military making up many of the new would-be owners and of government thinking shifting from radical reforms to alleviate poverty and needs, to making land available for an indigenous middle class (Adams and Palmer, 2007). Although land access for some of the poor has been enhanced, the programme is riddled with inconsistencies. A dualistic system of agriculture prevails, divided between a land market and communal areas. The A1 model (which consists of ‘family plots’, the users issued with ‘offer permits’ and which are inheritable but non-marketable) implemented under the fasttrack programme was primarily aimed at the poor and the landless from the ‘communal’ areas. However, many beneficiaries lack the farm management skills and knowledge to do much more than engage in subsistence agriculture. Furthermore, Chimhowu and Woodhouse (2008) point to evidence of widespread commoditisation of land through sale and rental arrangements in the A1 areas. This undermines rather that protects the livelihoods of the rural poor. Again, with the A2 model (which allocates commercial farms with 99 year leases), the beneficiaries have not always been those for whom it was intended – those with farming skills, experienced and start-up capital – but rather the wellconnected members of the ruling elite. Some are people sitting in urban areas, commonly referred to as ‘the cell phone farmers’, indicative of a practice widespread already in the 1990s, described by Koch et al. (2001) as ‘‘giving ‘redistribution’ land to government ministers and ruling party officials, rather than addressing the problem of landlessness’’ (p. 130). Many of these farms are now lying idle because of a lack of expertise, capital and the cost of inputs. Issues of social differentiation

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

and equity especially in relation to the interests of the poorest of the poor, women and farm workers, have been largely ignored (Sachikonye, 2003a). Furthermore, the private land market that until the late 1990s was redistributing land to black emerging farmers, including women, has collapsed (Roth, 2003).

5.5. Zimbabwe: Costs to environmental integrity and human security Despite the stated intent of addressing some of the problems of overcrowding and inequality, land reform in Zimbabwe has paradoxically failed to address overcrowding and resource scarcity on marginal lands and instead precipitated new ecological, social and economic challenges (Hill and Katarere, 2002; Chigumira, 2006; Chagutah, 2007). Land reforms have contributed to a loss of livelihood options and human security, and savanna environments have become the centre of struggles for political rights, as well as livelihoods, hence threatening environmental integrity. Since 2000, the economy has spiralled out of control with massive unemployment and inflation levels in the thousands, threatening economic sustainability in Zimbabwe generally and in savannas specifically. There has been a severe loss of employment in the (wildlife) tourist sector which in the late 1990s was grossing some US$30 million a year (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007). The destruction of the trophy hunting programme has also deprived impoverished rural communities of a significant source of income, much of which went into common property benefits such as schools and clinics. The largest drop in employment since 2000 has been in the agricultural sector: in 2000 the agricultural sector accounted for 26 percent of total employment, but in 2004 it accounted for only 15.5 percent (EIU, 2007). In addition, while intended to equalise land and uplift those in poverty, farmworkers who are among the most impoverished and vulnerable, have suffered greatly from farm invasions. Most of the farm workers in Zimbabwe, who together with their families constituted a population of about 1.5 million (Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, 2001), were ejected from commercial farms and were not only out of work but had nowhere to live. Most are third generation Zimbabweans of Mozambican, Malawian and Zambian descent, and have no right to farm in the customary tenure lands (UNIrin, 2005). A presidential land review carried out in 2004 found that less than one percent of workers had been resettled as part of the programme, the majority migrating to urban settlements where many have also recently faced injustices such as forced removals and destruction of homes and businesses. Massive declines in agricultural productivity have increased vulnerability of the poorest and threatened food security and social sustainability. Seven years after the government launched its fast-track land reform programme, total agricultural output in Zimbabwe had declined by 44 percent, with commercial production reduced by 55 percent and small-scale production by 22 percent (EIU, 2007). About 50 percent of the population were dependent on food aid in 2002 and 2003 (Sachikonye, 2005). In the 2004/5 growing season, 82 percent of districts in Zimbabwe reported widespread crop failure, which were attributed in part to poor rains, but

65

primarily to poor policy choices related to the reform programme (UNIrin, 2005). In the 2007 season there was a maize deficit of 891,000MT (the staple crop) leaving less than half needed to feed the country; in 2008 the shortfall was expected to be even higher (FewsNet, 2008). The beef and dairy industry has also decreased substantially since resettlement (Chigumira, 2006). Farmers were facing shortages and high prices for key inputs, including fertilizer, seed, fuel, and tillage power (FAO/GIEWS, 2008). In early 2008 humanitarian agencies scaled up food aid to vulnerable households, supporting 4.1 million people in the face of the limited and ever diminishing purchasing power of the poor and deficits of staple cereals. A reduction in livelihoods based solely on agricultural production has led to diversification into off-farm activities that exploit the natural environment (Chigumira, 2006) such as wildlife poaching, stream bank gold panning, deforestation and other environmentally unsustainable practices (Chagutah, 2007). Environment and natural resource use has tended to be unregulated in the resettled lands, and efforts to improve the management of various natural resources in the customary tenure lands minimalist. Environmental management policy and legal provisions were being severely fragmented even before 2000 (Nhamo, 2003), and financial and human resources allocated to natural resource management advisory agencies have since been reduced (Shumba, 2001). A recent report reveals that ‘‘(at least initially), settlers are ‘asset strippers’, cutting down trees, hunting wild animals and exploiting other natural resources so as to open up new lands for agriculture, reduce competition and protect their livestock from predation, but also to source capital to invest in their new agriculture enterprise’’ (Murombedzi, 2005, p. 4). The elimination of wildlife by the invaders has also been described as ‘a form of eco-retribution’, or a way of protesting against the historical loss of land where every black African was stereotyped as a potential poacher and every white man a land robber. It has been estimated that wildlife has declined by 80 percent in conservancies and games farms and by 60 percent in national parks; in addition, wildlife has been displaced by the opening up of virgin land for agriculture outside these areas (DeGeorges and Reilly, 2007). Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform programme has disempowered people through loss of jobs, rising unemployment, loss of education, health facilities, and rising food insecurity. It has undermined basic rights as well as social and economic sustainability and precipitated a new and potentially catastrophic environmental challenge, as witnessed in the negative impacts on food production, wildlife, and the macro-economy. Zimbabwe illustrates the close relationships between changes to land tenure and sustainability, and the dramatic and potentially long-term consequences of a lack of social and environmental justice in land tenure change processes for human security and environmental integrity.

6.

Conclusion

This investigation has found that social, economic and environmental sustainability are closely interconnected in southern African savannas, where decline of one can reinforce

66

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

loss of other components of sustainability. Land tenure changes have fundamentally affected all three components, in particular through the loss of political, economic and social rights of the majority of the population. A strong relationship is seen between the inequitable pattern of land access created by colonial land systems concentrating people on marginal lands, and environmental degradation and human insecurity on these lands. The gross inequities in systems of economic and social support as well as access to markets, capital and labour further restrict agricultural livelihoods and make these economically unsustainable for the majority of savannas populations. Resulting patterns of natural resource management have in combination with other factors in some cases exacerbated environmental degradation, which further undermines livelihoods. Post-independence land reforms have not successfully addressed the major threats to social, economic and environmental sustainability created by colonial systems of land rights; in some cases land reform has even exacerbated the threats. There has been limited progress in redistributing land to reduce inequalities, especially in South Africa. The focus of reforms has also shifted from reducing poverty to privatisation of land. Fundamental threats to sustainability persist across the region, even in the countries not settled by colonial states, essentially because environmental and social justice have been ignored: the prioritising of economic efficiency of commercial farmers over the economic sustainability of the livelihoods of the majority, has been at the crux of declining social and environmental sustainability in savannas. Inequality, at least at local levels, has increased through formal and informal processes of privatisation of land. Individualisation of land titles and policies that favour private sector led development, with macro-economic agendas and political interests taking priority, have contributed to the growing number of land enclosures. Tenure security, which is a precondition for intensifying agricultural production as well as a basis for political rights of resource control, has been weak. The disruption of customary rules of tenure by colonial land rights and persistence of dual and unclear forms of land rights have opened up the growing number of opportunities for land grabs and concentration of land in the hands of powerful elite and private investors. Where customary institutions are integrated in land reform, national and local relations of resource control have been ignored, often reinforcing the political relations that have created inequality in the first place. In Botswana, this is evident in the loss of communal land rights of poorer stock keepers and hunter-gatherers. These trends have led to increasing landlessness in the region of the poor and marginalising of vulnerable groups such as women, indigenous groups and farm labourers. In addition, inequalities in policy attention and investment have persisted, with millions in ‘communal’ and resettlement areas eking out an existence on the basis of exceptionally low-yielding, uncapitalised agriculture (Palmer, 2008). Hence restrictions on savanna livelihood systems have continued after independence. When land reform is disconnected from issues of social justice and the building of sustainable livelihoods for the poorest, it becomes open to corruption and widespread abuses by elite and the politically connected, and leads to new threats to environmental sustainability. As observed by Moyo (2005),

the putative economic efficiency of ‘privatised’ resources has provided a pretext for the powerful to exclude marginal groups of the population while less significance has been accorded to issues of equity, social justice, poverty reduction or environmental concerns. The loss of economic and political rights and options associated with human security is leading to mounting conflict, of which Zimbabwe is an extreme example, but which is widespread at a smaller scale across the region. In Zimbabwe, the impact on livelihoods has been devastating, resulting in the rapid deterioration of agricultural productivity, growing food insecurity, and agrarian job losses but also creating a whole new sets of challenges to human security and environmental integrity through violence, poverty and assetstripping. Instead of delivering political change, such as altered property relations, required to achieve sustainable development, post-independence land reforms have perpetuated inequalities and undermined traditional rights, local control over natural resources and livelihood options. As a result, declining human security may lead to further threats to the sustainability of savannas. This conclusion has several important policy implications. In order to address social, economic and environmental sustainability, tenure reform must be rooted in an appreciation of the livelihood strategies of the intended beneficiaries and cannot be based on uniform land policies focused on macro-economic goals only (Palmer, 2008). Land reforms that do not effectively target landlessness, inequality and overcrowding nor deliver supporting services may threaten livelihood security and carry risks to the environment. The insight that land rights are important in solving poverty and strengthening human security implies that land policies need to be well integrated into the wider social, economic and environmental planning in order to strengthen the sustainability of savannas. Without justice and equity, clarity and security of land rights and an efficient land administration, resource use cannot be effectively managed in a manner that ensures environmental, social and economic sustainability.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Helen Watson for assistance in analysing soil erosion data and three reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of the paper. We are also grateful for comments and discussions with Astrid Skatvedt and Elin Selboe during revisions of the paper. Part of the research was funded through a grant from SAVI (Southern African Vulnerability Initiative).

references

Adams, M., Sibanda, S., Turner, S., 1999a. Land tenure reform and rural livelihoods in Southern Africa. In: Natural Resource Perspectives 39, Overseas Development Institute, London. Adams, M., Cousins, B., Manona, S., 1999b. Land tenure and economic development in Rural South Africa: constraints and opportunities. Working Paper 125, Overseas Development Institute, London.

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

Adams, M., Palmer, R. (Eds.), 2007. Eastern and Southern Africa, Independent Review of Land Issues 3. http:// www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0002625/index.php (accessed 3/2/2008). Adger, N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16 (3), 268–281. AU, ADB, ECA - African Union, African Development Bank, Economic Commission for Africa, 2006. Land policy in Africa. Conference proceedings on Land Policy in Africa: A Framework of Action to Secure Land Rights, Enhance Productivity and Secure Livelihoods, 27–29 March. 6th UN Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa. Aliber, M., 2001. Study of the incidence and nature of chronic poverty and development policy in South Africa: an overview. PLAAS/Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies University of the Western Cape, Cape Town. Amanor, K.S., 2008a. Introduction: land and sustainable development issues in Africa. In: Amanor, K.S., Moyo, S. (Eds.), Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 1–32. Amanor, K.S., 2008b. Conclusion: transforming sustainable development. In: Amanor, K.S., Moyo, S. (Eds.), Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 184–216. Andrews, M., Anslie, A., Shackleton, C., 2003. Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa. Land and Livelihoods 8. PLAAS/Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, 42 pp. Anseeuw, W., Laurent, C., 2007. Occupational paths towards commercial agriculture: the key role of farm pluriactivity and the commons. Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4), 659– 671. Barnett, J., 2001. The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in The New Security Era. Zed Books, London. Benjaminsen, T.A., Rohde, R., Sjaastad, E., Wisborg, P., Lebert, T., 2006. Land reform, range ecology, and carrying capacities in Namaqualand, South Africa. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3), 524–540. Berjak, M., Fincham, R.J., Liggitt, B., Watson, H.K., 1986. Temporal and spatial dimensions of gully erosion in Northern Natal, South Africa. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 26, 283–593. Black, R., Watson, E., 2006. Local community, legitimacy, and cultural authenticity in postconflict natural resource management: Ethiopia and Mozambique. Environment and Planning D–Society & Space 24 (2), 263–282. Blaikie, P., Brookfield, H., 1987. Land Degradation and Society. Routledge, London and New York. Bowen, M.L., Chilundo, A., Tique, C.A., 2003. Social differentiation, farming practices and environmental change in Mozambique. In: Bassey, T.J., Crummey, D. (Eds.), African Savannas: Global Narratives & Local Knowledge of Environmental Change. James Currey, Oxford, pp. 225–247. Broderick, D.M., 1987. An examination of changes in the extent of erosion in agricultural areas in the Tugela Basin. MA Thesis, University of Natal, Durban. Bryceson, D.F., 1996. Deagrarianisation and rural employment in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 24 (1), 97–111. Chabal, P., 2001. Angola and Mozambique: the weight of history. Portugese Studies 17 (1), 216–232. Chagutah, T., 2007. Communicating environmental sustainability in the Zimbabwean press, http:// www.envirocom.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ communicating-environmental-sustainability-in-thezimbabwean-press.pdf/ (accessed 20/5/2008). Chigumira, E., 2006. An appraisal of the impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme on land use practices, livelihoods

67

and the natural environment at three study areas in Kadoma District, Zimbabwe. MSc Thesis, Rhodes University. Chimhowu, A., Woodhouse, P., 2008. Tenure and rural poverty: land transactions in Svosve Communal Areas, Zimbabwe. Development and Change 39 (2), 285–308. Chiremba, S., Masters, W., 2003. The experience of resettled farmers in Zimbabwe. African Studies Quarterly 7, 2–3. http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v7/v7i2a5.htm (accessed 6/5/ 2005). Clover, J., 2006. The case of the Basarwa: strengthening land and resource rights. ISS Today, 21 September 2006. www.issafrica.org (accessed 12/12/2007). Clover, J., 2007. Framing issues of environmental security in Angola & Mozambique–the nexus of land, conflicts and sustainable livelihoods in post-conflict situations. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Cotula, L., Toulmin, C., Hesse, C., 2004. Land Tenure and Administration in Africa: Lessons of Experience and Emerging Issues. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Cotula, L., Toulmin, C., Hesse, C., 2005. Land Rights in Africa: Protecting the Interests of Vulnerable Groups. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Cumming, D., 2004. Performance of parks in a century of change. In: Child, B. (Ed.), Parks in Transition. Biodiversity, Rural Development and the Bottom Line. Earthscan, London, pp. 105–120. Dahlberg, A.C., 2000. Interpretations of environmental change and diversity: a critical approach to indications of degradation–the case of Kalakamate, northeast Botswana. Land Degradation and Development 11 (6), 549–562. Daniel, J., 2001. Lowlands and liquor: gender, mateka and cash crops in Mueda District, Capo Delgado Province. In: Waternouse, R., Wifhuizen, C. (Eds.), Strategic Women, Gainful Men. Gender, Land and Natural Resources in Different Rural Contexts in Mozambique. Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry Engineering, Maputo, pp. 179–198. Daudelin, J., 2003. Land and Violence in Post-Conflict Situations. Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. DEAT–Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Republic of South Africa, 2004. National Action Programme: Combating Land Degradation to Alleviate Rural Poverty. Government of South Africa, Pretoria. DeGeorges, A., Reilly, B., 2007. Politicization of land reform in Zimbabwe: impacts on wildlife, food production and the economy. International Journal of Environmental Studies 64 (5), 571–586. DFID–Department for International Development, 1998. South Africa: country strategy paper. DFID, London. DFID–Department for International Development Southern Africa, 2003. Land issues scoping study: communal land tenure areas. DFID, London. Dougill, A., 2002. Ecological change in Kalahari rangelands: permanent or reversible. In: Sporton, D., Thomas, D. (Eds.), Sustainable Livelihoods in Kalahari Environments. Contributions to Global Debates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 91–110. ECA - Economic Commission for Africa, 2003. Land tenure systems and sustainable development in Southern Africa, Report ECA/SA/EGM.Land/2003/2. Sub-regional Office for Southern Africa, Lusaka. ECA-SA-SRDC - Economic Commission for Africa, Southern African Subregional Development Center, 1999. Poverty reduction in Southern Africa: a subregional brief, East and Southern Africa. Paper presented at a Subregional Followup Conference to the World Social Summit, 15–17 March,

68

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

Nairobi, Kenya, http://www.uneca.org/eca_resources/ Major_ECA_Websites/summit/okello.htm (accessed 5/7/ 2006). EIU–Economic Intelligence Unit, 2007. Country profile 2007: Zimbabwe. EIU, London. Elliot, L., 1998. The Global Politics of the Environment. Macmillan Press Ltd., London. Ellis, F., Allison, E., 2004. Livelihood diversification and natural resource access, Livelihood Support Programme, Working Paper 9. Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia, Norwich. Eriksen, S., Silva, J., 2009. The effect of market integration on household vulnerability to drought in Mozambique: empirical evidence of multiple stressors. Environmental Science and Policy. Eriksen, S., Watson, H.K., 2009. The dynamic context of Southern African savannas: investigating emerging threats and opportunities to sustainability. Environmental Science and Policy 12 (1), 5–12. Escobar, A., 1996. Constructing nature: elements for a poststructuralist political ecology. In: Peet, R., Watts, M. (Eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Routledge, London, pp. 46–68. FAO - Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, 2002. Land tenure and rural development. Land Tenure Studies 3, Rome. FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006. Compendium of Food and Agriculture Indicators, prepared by ESSGA, November 2006. http://www.fao.org/ES/ess/ compendium_2006/ (accessed 8/9/2008). FAO/GIEWS Global Watch, 2008. Zimbabwe 2007/08 agricultural season update, 9 April 2008. UNFAO, Rome. FewsNet Zimbabwe, 2008. Zimbabwe food security update, February 2008. FEWS NET, Washington. Forsyth, T., 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. Routledge, London. Fortin, E., 2005. Reforming land rights: the World Bank and the globalisation of agriculture. Social and Legal Studies 14 (2), 147–177. Garland, G.G., Broderick, D., 1992. Changes in the extent of erosion in the Tugela Catchment, 1944–1981. South African Journal of Science 74 (2), 45–48. Garland, G.G., Hoffman, M.T., Todd, S.W., 1999. Chapter 6: Soil degradation. In: Hoffmann, T., Ashwell, A. (Eds.), A National Review of Land Degradation in South Africa. Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, pp. 69–107. GLTP–Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, 2004. Great Limpopo: talk of the transfrontier. Official Newsletter of the GLTP, October–December 2004. www.greatlimpopopark.com (accessed 11 June 2008). Gunning, J.W., Hoddinott, J., Kinsey, J., Owens, T., 2000. Revisiting Forever Gained: Income Dynamics in the Resettlement Areas of Zimbabwe 1983–1996. University of Oxford, Oxford. Hill, R., Katarere, Y., 2002. Colonialism and inequity in Zimbabwe. In: Matthew, R., Halle, M., Switzer, J. (Eds.), Conserving the Peace: Resources, Livelihoods and Security, IISD/IUCN, Manitoba, pp. 247–272. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/ 2002/envsec_conserving_peace.pdf (accessed 8/10/08). Hoffman, T., Ashwell, A., 2001. Nature Divided: Land Degradation in South Africa. University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town. Homewood, K.M., 2004. Policy, environment and development in African rangelands. Environmental Science and Policy 7 (3), 125–143. IFAD–International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2006. Land tenure security for poverty reduction in Eastern and Southern Africa. Report on Kampala Workshop, 27–29 June. IFAD, Rome.

Jayne, T.S., Yamano, T., Weber, M.T., Tscirley, D., Benfica, R., Chapoto, A., Zulu, B., 2003. Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies. Food Policy 28 (3), 253–275. Kanyongolo, F.E., 2008. Land, law and sustainable development in Malawi. In: Amanor, K.S., Moyo, S. (Eds.), Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 83–99. Khagram, S., Clark, W.C., Firas Raad, D., 2003. From the environment and human security to sustainable security and development. Journal of Human Development 4 (2), 289–313. Koch, E., Massyn, P.J., van Niekerk, A., 2001. The fate of land reform in Southern Africa: the role of the state, the market and civil society. In: Ghimire, K.B. (Ed.), Whose Land? Civil Society Perspectives on Land Reform and Rural Poverty Reduction. International Land Coalition, Rome, pp. 129–164. Lebert, T., Rohde, R.F., 2007. Land reform and the new elite: exclusion of the poor from communal land in Namaqualand, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 70 (4), 818–833. Liggitt, B., 1988. An investigation into soil erosion in the Mfolozi catchment. MSc Thesis, University of Natal, Durban. Liggitt, B., Fincham, R.J., 1989. Gully erosion—the neglected dimension in soil erosion research. South African Journal of Science 85 (1), 18–20. LRAN - Land Research Action Network, 2003. Backgrounder– land and agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. www.landaction.org (accessed 28/7/2006). Mamdani, M., 1996. Citizen and Subject: Decentralised Despotism and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Marongwe, N., 2003. Land and resource rights in southern Africa. Paper presented at The Pan-African Programme on Land and Resource Rights (PAPLRR) Workshop, Cape Town. Meinzen-Dick, R., Mwangi, E., 2006. Securing Land Rights in Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Molomo, M.G., 2008. Sustainable development, ecotourism, national minorities and land in Botswana. In: Amanor, K.S., Moyo, S. (Eds.), Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 159–183. Mortimore, M., 1998. Roots in the African Dust: Sustaining the Drylands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moyo, S., Matondi, P.B., 2008. Interrogating sustainable development and resource control in Zimbabwe. In: Amanor, K.S., Moyo, S. (Eds.), Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 55–82. Moyo, S., 2005. Land question and land reform in southern Africa. Paper presented at a RSA land Summit, 28 July–1 August. www.land.pwv.gov.za/publications/ (accessed 20/7/2006). Mpotokwane, M.A., 2005. Contradiction, reforms and challenges of Botswana’s land policy. Paper presented at Southern Africa and the Crisis in Zimbabwe: A Comparative Study of Land Policy in Constitutional, Liberation and PostLiberation Regimes Conference, Pretoria. Msangi, J.P., 2004. Drought hazard and desertification management in the drylands of Southern Africa. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 99 (1–3), 75–87. Munro, W.A., 2003. Ecological ‘crisis’ and resource management policy in Zimbabwe’s communal lands. In: Bassey, T.J., Crummey, D. (Eds.), African Savannas–Global Narratives & Local Knowledge of Environmental Change. James Currey, Oxford, pp. 178–204. Murombedzi, J.C., 2005. Environment and sustainable development in Zimbabwe, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). www.iucnrosa.org.zw/ news/sus_zimbabwe.pdf (accessed 11/11/2005), p. 4.

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

Mutangadura, G., 2004. Women and land tenure rights in Southern Africa: a human rights-based approach. Paper presented at conference on Land in Africa: Market Asset, or Secure Livelihood?, 8–9 November, London. Mutangadura, G., 2007. The incidence of land tenure insecurity in Southern Africa: policy implications for sustainable development. Natural Resources Forum 31, 176–187. Negra˜o, J., 2002. Land in Africa–An indispensable element towards increasing the wealth of the poor. Southern African Regional Poverty Network, Hatfield. http://www.sarpn.org/ documents/d0000101/P107_Negrao.pdf (accessed 8/7/2004). Nhamo, G., 2003. Institutional and legal provisions for environmental management in Zimbabwe. AJEAM-RAGEE 7, 14–20. Nhira, C., Baker, S., Gondo, P., Mangono, J.J., Marunda, C., 1998. Contesting Inequality in Access to Forests. Policy that Works for Forests and People Series no. 5. Centre for Applied Social Services and Forestry, London. O’Brien, K.L., 2006. Are we missing the point? Global environmental change as an issue of human security. Global Environmental Change 16 (1), 1–3. O’Brien, K.L., Quinlan, T., Ziervogel, G., 2009. Vulnerability interventions in the context of multiple stressors: lessons from the Southern Africa Vulnerability Initiative (SAVI). Environmental Science and Policy 12 (1), 23–32. Palmer, R., 2008. Land Reform in the broader context of southern Africa. Paper presented at workshop on Land Reform from Below: Decentralised Land Reform in Southern Africa. Johannesburg. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/ learning/landrights/south.html (accessed 03/05/2008). Phillips, J., 1973. The Agricultural & Related Development of the Tugela Basin and Its Influence Surrounds. Rep. 19. Town & Regional Planning Commission, Pietermaritzburg, 1–299. Pitcher, M.A., 1999. What’s missing from ‘‘What’s Missing?’’ A reply to C. Cramer and N. Pontara, poverty alleviaton in Mozambique: what’s missing from the debate?. The Journal of Modern African Studies 37 (4), 697–709. Quan, J., 2005. Land access in the 21st century: issues, trends, linkages and policy options. Paper prepared for the Land Tenure Service, Rural Development Division–FAO http:// www.icarrd.org/fr/icard_doc_down/others_Quan2005.pdf (accessed 4/10/2007). Quan, J., Lahiff E., Tan, S.F., 2003. Assessing the impact of major land reforms on livelihood opportunities for the poor. Southern African Regional Poverty Network, Hatfield. http:// www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000961/P1058-QuanLand_reform_Poor.pdf (accessed 15/5/2005). Raftopoulos, B., 2004. Current politics in Zimbabwe: confronting the crisis. In: Harold-Barry, D. (Ed.), Zimbabwe: The Past is the Future. Weaver Press, Harare, pp. 1–18. Rigg, J., 2005. Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: rethinking the links in the rural South. World Development 34 (1), 180–202. Rohde, R.F., Moleele, N.M., Mphale, M., Allsopp, N., Chanda, R., Hoffman, M.T., Magole, L., Young, E., 2006. Dynamics of grazing policy and practice: environmental and social impacts in three communal areas of southern Africa. Environmental Science and Policy 9 (3), 302–316. ROSA–Rede de ONG’s/Associac¸o˜es Servic¸o de Agricultura e Seguranc¸a Alimentar, 2006. Attaining food and nutritional security in Mozambique. Paper presented at the International Conference on Agricultural Reforms and Rural Development (ICARRD 2006/CS/5), Brazil, 7–10 March 2006. Roth, M., 2002. Integrating land issues and land policy with poverty reduction and rural development in Southern Africa. http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0000021/ Land_Issues_Sept2002.pdf (accessed 5/4/2004).

69

Roth, M., 2003. Delivering land and securing rural livelihoods: synthesis and way forward. In: Roth, M., Gonese, F. (Eds.), Delivering Land and Securing Rural Livelihoods: PostIndependence Land Reform and Resettlement in Zimbabwe. Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe and Land Tenure Centre, University of Wisconsin-Madison, pp. 457–472. Sachikonye, L.M., 2003a. The situation of commercial farm workers after land reform in Zimbabwe. Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe Report, March. www.zimbabwesituation.com (accessed 18/08/2005). Sachikonye, L.M., 2003b. Zimbabwe’s land question. Review of African Political Economy 30 (96), 227–240. Sachikonye, L., 2005. The land is the economy: revisiting the land question. African Security Review 14 (3), 31–46. SARPN - Southern African Regional Poverty Network, 2003. Seeking ways out of the impasse on land reform in Southern Africa. Notes from SARPN ‘Think Tank’ meeting, March, Hatfield, p. 3. Scoones, I., with Chibudu, C., Chikura, S., Jeranyama, P., Machaka, D., Machanja, W., Mavedzenge, B., Mombeshora, B., Mudhara, M., Mudziwo, C., Murimbarimba, F., Zirereza, B., 1996. Hazard and Opportunities: Farming Livelihoods in Dryland Africa: Lessons from Zimbabwe. Zed Books and International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Lotz-Sisitka, H., Shackleton, C., 2008. Links between the local trade in natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of South Africa. World Development 36 (3), 505–526. Shellenberger, M., Nordhaus, T., 2004. The death of environmentalism: global warming politics in a postenvironmental world. http://www.thebreakthrough.org (accessed 19/5/2005). Sherbourne, R., 2003. A Rich Man’s Hobby. IPPR Opinion no. 11. Institute for Public Policy Research, Windhoek. Shumba, E.M., 2001. Zimbabwe, Forestry Outlook Studies in Africa (FOSA). Zimbabwe Forestry Commission, Harare. http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/ index.cfm?uNewsID=65760 (accessed 16/6/2006). SLSA–Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa, 2003. Rights talk and rights practice: challenges for southern Africa. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape, Bellville. Swift, J., 1996. Desertification: narratives, winners & losers. In: Leach, M., Mearns, R. (Eds.), The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment. Heinemann and James Currey, Portsmouth and Oxford, pp. 73–90. Tanner, C., 2005. Land rights and enclosures: implementing the Mozambican land law in practice. Paper presented at The Changing Politics of Land in Africa: Domestic Policies, Crisis Management and Regional Norms Conference, Pretoria. Thomas, D.S.G., 2002. Sand, grass, thorns, and . . . cattle: the modern Kalahari environment. In: Sporton, D., Thomas, D. (Eds.), Sustainable Livelihoods in Kalahari Environments– Contributions to Global Debates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21–38. Thomas, D.S.G., Sporton, D., Perkins, J., 2000. The environmental impact of livestock ranches in the Kalahari, Botswana: natural resource use, ecological change and human resource in a dynamic dryland system. Land Degradation and Development 11 (4), 327–341. Thwala, W.D., Khosa, M., 2008. Land and sustainable development in South Africa. In: Amanor, K.S., Moyo, S. (Eds.), Land and Sustainable Development in Africa. Zed Books, London and New York, pp. 33–54. Toulmin, C., 2006. Securing Land Rights for the Poor in Africa– Key to Growth, Peace and Sustainable Development. High

70

environmental science & policy 12 (2009) 53–70

Level Commission on the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, New York. Toulmin, C., Quan, J., 2000. Evolving Land Rights, Tenure and Policy in sub-Saharan Africa. DFID/IIED/NRI, London. Turner, S., 2001. Sustainable development: what’s land got to do with it? PLAAS Policy Brief 2, November 2001, pp. 4. UNIrin–United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, 2005. Zimbabwe: new report assesses impact of fast-track land reform. www.irinnews.org (accessed 30/5/ 2005). Unruh, J.D., 2004. Post-conflict land tenure: using a sustainable livelihoods approach. In: Livelihood Support Programme (LSP), working paper 18, Access to Natural Resources SubProgramme. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. Ward, D., 2004. The effects of grazing on plant biodiversity in arid ecosystems. In: Shachak, M., Gosz, J., Pickett, S.T.A., Perevolotsky, A. (Eds.), The Biodiversity in Drylands: Towards a Unified Framework. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 217–235. Weaver, A. van B., 1988. Changes in landuse and soil erosion in South African and Ciskeian portions of the Yellowwoods Drainage Basin between 1975 and 1984. Earth Science Reviews 25 (5–6), 501–507. Whitlow, J.R., 1988. Potential versus actual erosion in Zimbabwe. Applied Geography 8, 87–100. Wily, L., 2005. The commons and customary law in modern times: rethinking the orthodoxies, policy brief for workshop on Land Rights for African Development: From Knowledge to Action, CAPRi Policy Brief, CGIAR/UNDP/ILC, 31 October–3 November, CAPRi, Washington, DC, pp 17–20. Wily, L.A., 2006. Land rights reform and governance in Africa: how to make it work in the 21st Century? Discussion Paper,

United Nations Development Programme, New York. http:// www.energyandenvironment.undp.org/undp/ indexAction.cfm?module=Library&action=GetFile& DocumentAttachmentID=2031 (accessed 4/8/2008). Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, 2001. Political violence report, August 2001. www.hrforumzim.com (accessed 15/5/ 2005). Jenny Clover has a PhD in environmental sciences from the University of the Witwatersrand, which examined land governance and environmental security in countries emerging from protracted conflicts. She has a background in the political economy of development with 15 years research experience, first in the fields of conflict and early warning in Africa and then in the governance of natural resources and the environment. She also has 10 years experience as a development practitioner. She is interested in the role of natural resources in providing opportunities for building human security, the socio-political and economic processes governing natural resources, and the implications of global environmental change for sustainable development. Siri Eriksen is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Sociology and Human Geography at the University of Oslo. She has a PhD in Environmental Sciences from University of East Anglia. For the past 12 years, she has investigated household level vulnerability and adaptation to climate variability and change in Africa, focusing on the role of natural resource use in household drought responses. Recent projects examine the impact of conflict on vulnerability to climate change among dryland populations in Kenya; the effect of market integration on household responses to droughts and floods in Mozambique; and identifying critical linkages between adaptation and poverty reduction efforts in development policy.