You are on page 1of 59

“Jobs are better than Water1”:

Afforestation, Community Members and the Environment in the Tembe Tribal


Area of Northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

2
Daily water chores in Kwamakwakwa

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an honours degree in


Economic History and Development Studies, at the University of KwaZulu-Natal
by
James G.T. Mardall
November 2006

1
A statement made by an Mqobela community member who requested anonymity (Tuesday 26th July, 2005).
For this reason, community members will not be referred to by name in this study.
2
Water is a scarce local resource in the Tembe Tribal area, particularly during the rainless winter months
between May and August. Families predominately collect their water from communal water points some
distance from their homesteads (Wednesday, 27th July, 2005).

Cover Page
Contents

Contents Page

1. An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area...................1

2. Governance, Tribal Authority and Systems of Tenure ..........................6

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

3. A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area...............13

3.1. A Record of Woodlot Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area .................................13

3.2. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area… 15

4. A Historical Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of


Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation ....................................................18

4.1. A record of Socio-Economic Consequences of Tembe’s Tribal Woodlots....................18

4.2. A Record of Socio-Economic Consequences of the Manzengwenya Plantation...........24

24

4.3. Environmental Consequences of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area..................27

4.4. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Changing Environment..............................29

4.5. A record of the Changing Environment of Tribal Woodlots.......................................30

5. Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised? .........................................33

6. Appendices (Contact Information):......................................................37

7. Appendices (Scans):...........................................................................38

7.1. Document 01: June 2005 - Document granting permission to plant a five-hectare
community woodlot issued within the Tembe Tribal Authorities area of administration.38

7.2. Table 01: A Sappi Table demonstrating a grower’s annual income per hectare for
caretaking a Eucalyptus sp Woodlot for eight years, in the Tembe Tribal Area..........40

7.3. Table 02: A Sappi Table demonstrating a grower’s projected profit for caretaking a 7.5
hectare Eucalyptus sp Woodlot for eight years, in the Tembe Tribal Area.................41

7.4. Map 01: Composite Map of KwaZulu Natal, showing the Tembe Tribal area/Chiefdom and
locations of communities.........................................................................................42

8. Appendices (Photographs):.................................................................43

8.1. Photograph 01: 22 July 2005 – Meeting with the Induna of the KwaMahlungula Community
and some community members at the KwaMahlungula community hall. ..................43

8.2. Photograph 02: 22 July 2005 – The KwaNgwanase Nursery in Manguze, the farmers who
grow Eucalyptus (Gum) trees in the area, get their seedlings from this nursery, who in turn
get their seedlings from Nseleni Nursery, near Richards Bay to the South................43

8.3. Photograph 03: 22 July 2005 – The KwaNgwanase Nursery in Manguze, trays of Eucalyptus
seedlings that are ready to be planted....................................................................44

-i-
Contents

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

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

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

9. Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues):...........................46

9.1. Primary Research Process.....................................................................................46

9.2. The Sustainable Livelihoods framework and Linkages .............................................47

9.3. Primary Research Issues........................................................................................47

9.4. Research Limitations..............................................................................................49

10. Bibliography and References.............................................................51

10.1. Primary Sources:..................................................................................................51

10.2. Secondary Sources and Bibliography:...................................................................51

10.3. Electronic Sources:...............................................................................................54

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

- ii -
An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

1. An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

This study explores the socio-economic and environmental impacts of a half


century process of afforestation with non-indigenous trees, within the Tembe Tribal area
of Northern KwaZulu-Natal. The study highlights circumstances where tribal elites and
Sappi, have benefited from the extraction of surplus value from communally owned
natural assets in the Tembe Tribal area. The study will recount how an Apartheid era
state plantation and Sappi’s3 Project Grow woodlot4 model have facilitated socio-
economic and environmental exploitation within a Tribal system of communal tenure.

The study will be presented as follows. The introductory section presents the
general scope and methodology of the study, and a description of the Tembe Tribal area.
Section two provides a review of the historical institutions of governance and authority
informing the current land tenure arrangements in the Tribal Areas of South Africa.
Section three outlines a historical record of afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area.
Section four recounts a community record of the socio-economic and environmental
consequences of the historical process of afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area.
Focussing on Sappi’s Project Grow, the Tembe Tribal Authority, the Manzengwenya
plantation and related community issues captured during a process of primary research.
This account will be augmented and contextualised by relevant secondary sources.
Section five concludes the study by recapping and highlighting key aspects of the
preceding sections, and suggesting how the Tembe Tribal area is being affected by the
process of afforestation.

Initiated in 2005, this study focuses on the Tembe Tribal area of Northern
KwaZulu-Natal, incorporating the town of Manguze and the Manzengwenya plantation.
The study seeks to provide community narrative of a process of timber related change
that has occurred in the Tembe Tribal area. The primary research process (See appendix
9.1), although carried out at a limited scale, was strongly qualitative and reliant on
participant and non-participant observation. The primary research portion of this study
has been strongly informed by a form of Rapid Rural Appraisal, qualified through the use
of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF), as popularised by Robert Chambers5 (See
appendix 9.2). This study utilises the SLF to assist in the recognition of the ongoing
tensions and contradictions in the relationship between individuals, community assets
and the broader socio-economic and environmental factors, where they relate to

3
South African Pulp and Paper Industry, a public company founded by the Union Corporation mining house in
1936 (Cairns, 2000).
4
Small (between 1 and 15 hectares) community owned/managed/operated area, planted with Eucalyptus sp.
(gum trees).
5
(Chambers, 2005)

-1-
An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

livelihood sustainability6. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is a dynamic,


conceptual toolkit that makes it possible to disaggregate some of the core issues relating
to life in a rural community. This toolkit uses a participatory approach to identify five
forms of capital assets available to a community, namely: physical, financial, natural,
social and human. Physical assets could for example consist of farming implements and
cell phones; financial assets could include social grants and remittances; Natural assets
could describe rivers, pans, fish and wild fruits; Social assets could encompass, extended
family connections and tribal hierarchies; and Human assets could refer to an individual’s
health, skills, nutrition and emotional outlook. The research approach is designed to be
mutually beneficial, so that researchers and community members can both be informed
by the process. In addition, secondary data gathering, in the form of a literature review of
issues relating to plantations and the emergence of woodlots in KwaZulu-Natal, was
carried out. Secondary sources were focussed on KwaZulu-Natal, but broadly grouped
into the following categories: afforestation and development; historical accounts of
KwaZulu Natal’s economic growth; land tenure arrangements in South Africa; woodlots,
plantations and forestry; Traditional Authority; and the socio-economic and environmental
impacts of forestry. Secondary research was carried out subsequent to the primary
research process and augments the findings of the primary research.

The Tembe Tribal area falls within the Umkhanyakude (DC 27) District Municipality
of the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province of South Africa. It extends from Mozambique’s
border in the north, to the Lake Sibaya Complex in the south; and from the Pongola River
in the west, to the Indian Ocean in the east (see appendix 7.4). Administratively, the
Tembe Tribal area is a characterised by overlapping grey areas. The Tembe Tribal Council
(uBhukhosi) headquartered in the town of Manguze; oversee the role and function of the
Tembe Tribal Authority, comprised of chiefs (amaKhosi) and headmen (izInduna). The
Tribal Authority administers the communal system of rules and tenure within the Tribal
areas surrounding the towns. Local government structures headquartered at Manguze
and Jozini administer and maintain the towns, freehold areas, infrastructure and public
amenities. The provincial Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and the
private timber company Sappi, manage the Manzengwenya plantation to the south.
DWAF, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
(DEAT), manage, safeguard and protect the various conservation areas, wetlands and
Coastal Forest Reserve7 areas. DWAF are the blanket issuing authority for the permits
that since 1997 are a legal requirement for the afforestation process in this water
stressed environment.

6
(Chambers, 2005)
7
The Coastal Forest Reserve is a conservation area that was established in conjunction with the Manzengwenya
plantation by the Department of Forestry during the 1950s, it is located adjacent to the Indian Ocean (see
appendix 7.4.).

-2-
An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

The area is situated in a savannah biome that is the result of centuries of human
intervention. Fifteenth century Portuguese traders, sailing past what they called the
‘Maputaland’ coastline, referred to the area as ‘Terra del Fumo’ which translates as ‘Land
of smoke’. This is a historical reference to the Bantu ancestors of the Tembe people, who
annually used fire, to rejuvenate grassland pastures for livestock and cultivation 8 before
the spring/summer rains. The climate is humid and exhibits a high mean temperature,
with a summer rainfall pattern that has become increasingly erratic in the last few
decades9. Winters are historically rain free, dry and normally conclude with a period of
strong warm wind followed by annual spring inundation. The soils in the area are made
up of ancient alluvial deposits10 and are therefore deep, sandy and low in humic content.
This soil type allows for good drainage and therefore poor surface moisture retention.
Soils situated near the flood plains and pans exhibit more clay like characteristics and
good water retention but are susceptible to salination when incorrectly irrigated 11. Land
adjacent to the flood plains and pans is considered to be highly fertile and there is a
greater agricultural demand for this land. The sandy soils require increased levels of
agricultural inputs to remain viable and productive, but allow for good root penetration.
Land that is inaccessible and unutilised because it is far from water and deemed to be
unproductive, is covered by indigenous grassland, scrub and trees that are a
characteristic of a savannah biome. Invasive alien vegetation, such as Triffid weed
(Chromaleana oderata) and Lantana (Lantana camara), is both evident and widespread.

As observed during the primary research process and confirmed by secondary


data (see the table below) the area described by this study exhibits a visible inter
household economic stratification. At one end of the spectrum are a small number of
large brick and plaster homesteads that are connected to tarred roads and serviced by
municipal amenities and infrastructure. At the other end are a larger number of
traditional wattle and daub homesteads, tenuously connected to sand roads by a foot
path. Apart from the more densely populated town and suburbs of Manguze, homesteads
in the broader Tembe Tribal area are widely dispersed. There are usually small kitchen
gardens in close proximity to the homesteads. Larger fields allocated by the Induna are
within walking distance and situated in productive soil near a year round wetland feature
such as a river or pan. Typically there are also fruit trees such as mango or banana
situated near the homestead.

8
Interview with Terry Furgason (Conservation Manager - KZN Ezemvelo), Island Rock, Coastal Forest Reserve,
21st July 2005.
9
Conversation with Mr Jobe (Farmer), Mboza, July 2005.
10
(McCarthy & Rubidge, 2005)
11
Interview with Piet Oosthuizen (Makhatini Agricultural Research Station), Makhatini, 12th April 2006.

-3-
An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

Tembe Tribal Area Demographics 12

Population 503,874
Average number of persons per household 7
Percentage of households earning less than R200 / month 38 %
Percentage of households earning less than R500 / month 60 %
Percentage of households earning less than R1000 / month 74 %
Percentage unemployment of workforce (over 15 years of
53 %
age)
Percentage of houses with no (natural) water supply 59 %
Percentage of households with no sanitation 86 %
The fifty year old, forty nine thousand hectare13 Manzengwenya plantation (co-
managed by DWAF and Sappi14) located in the South of the Tembe Tribal Area is a key
environmental and socio-economic indicator and provides a striking contrast to those
areas that are not currently afforested. During the 2005 research period both rivers and
pans within the plantation were observed to be dry. These pans should be a characteristic
year round wetland feature of this area. Prior to the afforestation of the Manzengwenya
plantation in the 1950s, these pans and rivers were described by community members as
an integral part of Manzengwenya’s landscape. Between the non-indigenous Pinus patula
(pine trees) and Eucalyptus grandis (gum trees) along the road verges and within the
observable portions of the Manzengwenya plantation undergrowth, alien species such as
Chromaleana oderata (Triffid weed) and Lantana camara (Lantana) are highly prevalent.
In the observable portions of the plantation from the roadway, where the plantations are
free of alien vegetation, they are characteristically free of any and all undergrowth. Broad
leaf herbicides and pesticides are regularly used in order to manage the plantation by
killing both weeds and insects15 and as a result, the soil and leaf litter was observed to be
in an undecomposed state. Although this is a useful management practice to prevent the
spread of fire and disease, it also denies the indigenous fauna an ecological habitat
suitable for reproduction and survival16. As a result, the Tribal woodlots and the
Manzengwenya plantation exhibit low levels of wildlife and are a poor substitute
ecological habitat.

The Manzengwenya plantation and Project Grow woodlots in the Tembe Tribal area
are dominated by a monocropped non-indigenous hybrid Eucalyptus grandis clone (gum
tree), provided free to growers by Sappi17 (See appendices 9.3 and 9.5). These woodlots
are predominately situated within the portion of the Tembe Tribal area adjacent to the
12
(Project Grow Report, 2006: pp - 8)
13
Data received during interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005 (Manzengwenya Plantation
Reg. No. 21156838. Applicant - DWAF).
14
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
15
Ibid.
16
(Carson, 1962)
17
(Project Grow Report, 2006)

-4-
An Introduction to Afforestation and the Tembe Tribal Area

Indian Ocean. Denser concentrations of woodlots occur around Manguze and the
Manzengwenya plantation to the south. Woodlots are also clearly evident, stretching from
Manguze northwest to the village of Mfihlweni. In this area woodlots collectively take on
the appearance of a substantial and uninterrupted plantation. Woodlots are less evident
as one travels west from Mfihlweni inland toward the Pongola floodplain (see appendix
7.4). Gum trees are however a popular way of delineating boundaries of individual
homesteads, because they are easy to acquire and are fast growers. Woodlots of one
hectare and smaller can be found throughout the Tembe Tribal area, such as in the
village of Mboza, which borders on the Pongola flood plain.

Sappi’s Project Grow, woodlot community forestry model, is described in Institute


for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry reports and Sappi documentation, as corporate
driven ‘partnership’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘development’18. However, as established by
Ferguson’s research into community forestry in 1980s Lesotho, hierarchically imposed
development interventions of this type do not empower traditional communities fairly,
sustainably or effectively. Ferguson finds instead that community elites are strengthened,
at the expense of the broader community ‘being developed’19. Unmindful of Ferguson’s
findings and Fanon’s 1961 insight into the seductive nature of capital for those who are
new to governance20, the post-1994 ANC led South African government, has encouraged
privatisation of South Africa’s natural resources (including state plantations such as
Manzengwenya, Tribal areas and Tribal Communities21). As posited by this study,
privatisation of the Manzengwenya plantation and Sappi’s Project Grow has led to an
increase in the afforestation of the non-indigenous hybrid Eucalyptus grandis (gum tree)
within the Tembe Tribal area. As a result tribal community members, who live near
woodlots and/or are enclosed by plantations, are aware that their area’s socio-economic
relations and environmental conditions have been altered in favour of Sappi and the
elites within the community22.

18
(Ojwang, 2000)(Cairns, 2000)(Project Grow Report, 2006)
19
(Ferguson, 1990)
20
(Fanon, 1961)
21
(Bond, 2005)
22
Tembe Tribal area community Meetings, July & December 2005 & (Karumbidza, 2005)

-5-
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

2. Governance, Tribal Authority and Systems of Tenure

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

Prior to the advent of democracy in 1994, South African governments


characteristically segregated different tribes and races. As a result, past racial
segregation has provided the impetus for a number of societal issues that relate to
contemporary tribal governance and tenure arrangements. According to a 2003 study by
Cousins and Claasens24, pre-1994 governments contributed to the preservation of Tribal
Authority and traditional communal land use systems. Post-1994 South Africa therefore
exhibits both a legislated European form of titled land tenure and a Tribal form of
communal land tenure25. The reason for this bifurcated26 contemporary system of land
tenure and usage is evident when a historical context of the relevant legislative impacts
pre and post-1994 is outlined.

Pre-1994, South Africa’s white dominated governments used a variety of


legislative processes and procedures to ensure their authority over both land and land
use practices. The 1910-1947 Union government enacted ‘The Natives Land Act of 1913’,
which prevented black people from purchase, ownership or rent of land outside
designated ‘native’ Reserves.

Natives would not be allowed to have land in the white mans territory… but
natives would be allowed to enter European territory in order to earn a living
there (General Hertzog quoted in the Star Newspaper, 14 Oct 1912)27

Black farmers were in effect forced to become labour tenants or farm labourers on
white owned farms, if they wished to remain outside the Reserves. Reserves were
characteristically divided along tribal lines, densely populated with people and their
livestock and geographically isolated from one another. Living conditions in the Reserves
were difficult and black people were not permitted to access the wider South African
labour market. One of the few employment alternatives sanctioned by the government
was to supply unskilled labour to the mining or industrial sectors located adjacent to or
23
(Chimhowu & Woodhouse, 2006: 348)
24
(Cousins & Claasens, 2003)
25
(Cousins (ed), 2000)(Ntsebeza, 2005)(Beall Mkhize & Vawda, 2005)
26
(Bernstein, 1998)
27
(Bunting, 1964: 21)

-6-
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

within urban centres such as Johannesburg’s gold mines or Durban’s port. However, the
movement and urban settlement of these workers was rigorously monitored and
controlled28. The ‘Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923’, further demarcated access to land
according to racial classification. Coupled to this act were the early pass laws that were
used to control the movements of migrant labourers between the native Reserves and
the urban townships. For example, black men who worked in the mines and cities lived in
demarcated adjoining single sex hostels. Their wives and families, confined to the
Reserves, engaged in subsistence agriculture supplemented by their men’s remittances29.

…Labour regulation was a major task of the state… the gold mines depended
on the state for development, policing and everyday running of their
migratory labour system…30.

Post-1948 until the mid 1980s, the National Party’s Apartheid policies built on
those of the previous Union government. The National Party exerted a style of
authoritarian control over the people and landscape that relied heavily on a principle of
balkanisation (or divide and rule)31. NP stalwart Dr. H.F. Verwoerd referred to the
apartheid society as one in which people could seek their own authenticity, if they
adhered to their racially determined boundaries32. Apartheid achieved notoriety, due to
racist legislation enacted between 1948 and 1980, such as33:

 The Group Areas Act - Which demarcated race group areas at a municipal scale,
to prevent interracial social contact and provide unskilled black labour for mines
and manufactures.
 The Homelands Policy - Further balkanising the Native Reserves, by recognising
and financially supporting them as ‘independent’ Tribal ‘Homelands’.

Apartheid was designed to sustain the ‘economic and political supremacy’ of white
South Africans. It attempted to secure a plentiful, poorly educated, unskilled and
therefore cheap black labour supply, for the primary sector of the South African
economy34. Due to Apartheid legislation, unlike white farmers, individual black farmers
were unable to access large blocks of land and thereby benefit from economies of scale
in agricultural production35. Shortage of capital and arable land in the Reserves meant

28
(Aliber, 2003) (Hendricks, 2001)
29
(Greenberg, 2003)
30
(Crush, Jeeves & Yudelman, 1991: 8 – 9)
31
(Ntsebeza, 2005)
32
(Aliber, 2003) (Hendricks, 2001)
33
(McCarthy, 1990) (Thompson, 1985) & (Williams, 1988)
34
(Peet, 1989)
35
(Hendricks, 2001)

-7-
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

that few opportunities existed for black farmers to become active participants in the
country’s agricultural sector. A sector dominated by large white owned farms, actively
supported by the National Party government36.
By the late 1970s, international support increased for South African anti Apartheid
movements that were resisting the National Party government. Apartheid was however
firmly imprinted in the socio-economic and employment landscape of South Africa,
evidenced for example by white urban centres and black tribal homeland Reserves. By
the early 1980s, black consciousness, economic sanctions and an international lack of
demand for South African commodities, forced the National Party to rethink its political
strategy. A period of conflict resulted during the mid to late 1980s between the National
Party and those organisations it supported, such as the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and
organisations wishing to overthrow them, such as the African National Congress (ANC)
and the Pan African Congress (PAC). These organisations began to abandon the use of
wholesale violence by 1990 and a public process of political negotiation followed37.

With the abolition of racially based land acts in 1991, and the referendum in 1992,
all South Africans became legally entitled to live, work and vote as they saw fit.
Theoretically this meant that black people could now actively engage and participate in
the country’s agrarian sector outside the Reserves. However, ideological remnants of
Apartheid’s socio-economic and spatial constructs meant that black people were unable
to do so on an equal footing. This was in no small part due to National Party government
support for large scale white agriculture, to the exclusion of small scale black subsistence
agriculture in the Tribal Reserves38. The attempt to correct the agrarian imbalance,
redress questions of land ownership and create free and fair access to the South African
economy, would present the post-1994 government with a significant problem.

By 1994, the racially determined history of South African land usage meant that in
terms of land holdings, there were approximately 1570 hectares for each white person
and just over a hectare for each black person39. A graphic example of inequity,
particularly when one considers that whites constituted less than 5% of the population in
the 1996 census40. This complex period of South Africa’s history was compounded,
according to Bernstein, by the fact that, “the ANC entered the ‘transition’ from 1990-1994
with no real analysis of the agrarian question and no agenda of agricultural restructuring
and land redistribution”41. He ascribes this assertion to a number of factors; firstly that
the resistance struggle was predominately urban based; secondly that the ANC was

36
(Aliber, 2003)
37
(Ntsebeza, 2005) (Beall Mkhize & Vawda, 2005)
38
(Aliber, 2003) (Hendricks, 2001) (Bernstein, 1998)
39
(Hendricks, 2001)
40
(http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm)
41
(Bernstein, 1998: 4)

-8-
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

ignorant of the issues pertaining to land ownership and use; thirdly that the restrictions
on Black people’s movements prevented widespread political organisation in the
countryside; and fourthly that the ‘bifurcated state’, consisting of Tribal and European
forms of land tenure arrangements, led to several differences of opinion between the ANC
and the Tribally aligned Inkatha Freedom Party42.
Hendricks contends that the evolution of South Africa’s post Apartheid land reform
process is grounded in the land clause of the freedom charter, adopted by the ANC in
1955, which states that:

The land shall be shared by those who work it. Restrictions of land ownership
on a racial basis shall be ended and all the land re-divided among those who
work it, to banish famine and land hunger. The state shall help the peasants
with implements, seeds, tractors and dams to save the soil and assist the
tillers…All shall have the right to occupy the land wherever they choose…43

Whether grounded in the Freedom Charter or not. Rural land reform presented a
sizeable challenge to the newly elected 1996 ANC government, whose stated goal was to
redistribute 30% of all agricultural land from white to black ‘ownership’ by 2010. A
percentage attributed by Bernstein to the World Bank and not the ANC 44. In addition the
motivation for the ANC’s first economic plan, the Reconstruction and Development
Program (RDP) could more accurately be described as an integrated rural poverty
reduction framework and not merely a land reform program 45. Greenberg suggests that
the ANC’s land and agrarian reform programs as laid out in the RDP, were designed
within a World Bank style macroeconomic framework46. A pro-business framework
advocating market led reform, privatisation of national assets (such as state forests) and
security of tenure, as the cornerstone for further development47.

By 2003, in an analysis of the ANC led land reform process, Attfield (et al)
demonstrates that the ‘land crisis’ had not been resolved and further asserts that,
“Instead of being a vehicle for justice and reconciliation, it is argued, land reform has
proved to be a source of further inequality and conflict”48. This was nowhere more evident
than in KwaZulu Natal, where the process of land reform became enmeshed in a struggle
for political control of the province that, “… assumed the proportions of a civil war”49. This

42
(Bernstein, 1998)
43
As quoted in (Hendricks, 2001: 294)
44
(Bernstein, 1998)
45
(Hendricks, 2001)
46
(Greenberg, 2001)
47
(Bernstein, 1998)
48
(Attfield Hattingh & Matshabalala, 2003: 417)
49
(Beall Mkhize & Vawda, 2005: 755)

-9-
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

was in no small part a consequence of the institutions of Government and Tribal


Authority, struggling to find a mutually acceptable political interface in the newly
integrated South African nation. This struggle and its outcome will be discussed in the
following sub-section, with particular reference to structures of authority in KwaZulu-
Natal.

2.1. Tribal Authority

Prior to the arrival of Europeans in Southern Africa, the cohesion of the institution
of Tribal Authority was facilitated through a process linked to family ties, marriage,
patronage, rituals and the redistribution of individual community members’ tributes. In
the mid 1850s the colonial Shepstone administration strengthened the role of Tribal
Authority in KwaZulu-Natal by officially recognising Tribal administration of land rights on
Reserve land50. During the height of Apartheid a hundred years later, Tribal Authorities
were co-opted and financially supported by the government. Tribal authorities effectively
functioned as government in the Reserves during this period. Aspects of this function
included the allocation of land, the management of immigration51 and the utilisation of
appointed and traditional hereditary chiefs, as co-opted agents of government52. As a
result of this history, according to Ntsebeza:

The post-1994 state has inherited a system of administration that was based
on the concentration of all power in these rural areas [Reserves] in the hands
of unaccountable traditional authorities (chiefs and headmen)... Despite
claims by the apartheid architects that this form of rule was based on pre-
colonial African institutions, in reality, the ‘institution of traditional leadership’,
in the form of apartheid created Tribal Authorities, was incorporated into the
structures of government as an extended arm. Tribal Authorities were, in the
mould of their apartheid creators, highly authoritarian and despotic53.

Post-1994 the ANC led government attempted to introduce democratic


governance structures to the Tribal areas. As a result, the role and function of Tribal
Authorities was thrown into a state of flux and tension. This was especially relevant in
KwaZulu-Natal, where Tribal Authorities had become accustomed to a level of
autonomous governance and control. Violence and poor co-operation between Tribal
Authorities and local government structures resulted, with individual community
50
(Beal Mkhize and Vawda, 2005)
51
(Ardington, 1984)
52
(Beal Mkhize and Vawda, 2005)
53
(Ntsebeza 2006: 14)

- 10 -
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

members bearing the consequences of a strained power dynamic. As attested to by a


community member living in a tribal area in the eastern cape during the transition period:

There is a struggle between TrepCs [transitional government councillors] and


the headman [Tribal Authority]. The former brought electricity and telephones,
but land is in the hand of the chiefs… Sometimes you may have spoken badly
about the headman, and you end up bowing down to it, as it is often
necessary that you get what you want. With chiefs and headmen it takes a
few days to get what you want, whereas with rural councillors it takes months,
and even then you end up not succeeding54.

The Tribal Authority in Tembe as in other Tribal Areas of South Africa currently
functions by administering a communal system of laws and property rights 55. Furthermore
as an institution it is hereditary, hierarchical and fundamentally based on a system of
patriarchy, whereby ownership of land is conferred on the male head of a household and
women are excluded from the right to ‘own’ land56. These aforementioned principles are
not democratic and run counter to the South African constitution, which paradoxically
includes a section recognising Tribal Authority57. However, Tribal Authorities countrywide
were officially recognised with the passing of two bills in 2003 ‘The Traditional Leadership
and Governance Framework Bill’ and the ‘Communal Land Rights Bill’. Ntsebeza claims
that this occurred after protracted conflict in KwaZulu-Natal (what Beal, Mkhize and
Vawda refer to as ‘a low level civil war’58) and as an ANC ‘concession’ to the power of the
Tribal Authorities countrywide, who were capable of swaying political opinion within their
communities (including migrant workers in the urban areas) prior to the 2004 elections59.

The pre and post-1994 level of co-operation between local governance structures
and Tribal Authorities in KwaZulu-Natal can best be described as tenuous, as each
institution attempted to exert its own particular form of authority and control. In a
situation of this type, Graziani and Burnham point out that ‘plural and conflicting legal
principles’ (such as a system of land tenure sanctioned by government and a traditional
system of land tenure sanctioned by a Tribal Authority) can lead to a malfunctioning
bureaucracy and thereby a decentralisation of authority. They see this as a kind of
‘laissez faire’ condition that lends itself to the growth of private corporations outside
government control60. In addition Ferguson claims that a malfunctioning bureaucracy is

54
Mr Jama Cala quoted in (Ntsebeza 2006: 13)
55
(Ntsebeza, 2006)
56
(Ntsebeza, 2006)(Mackenzie, 1995)
57
(Ntsebeza, 2006)
58
(Beal Mkhize and Vawda, 2005)
59
(Ntsebeza, 2006)
60
(Graziani & Burnham, 2005)

- 11 -
South African Governance, Tribal Authority & Systems of Tenure

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

61
(Ferguson, 1990)
62
Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005 (Ntsebeza suggests that unwillingness of this type
stems from the sensitive and volatile nature of South Africa’s recent political history (Ntsebeza, 2006)).

- 12 -
A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

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

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

3.1. A Record of Woodlot Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Gum tree seedlings were first introduced to the Tembe area in 1973 by migrant
workers employed in government plantations to the south64. In 1976 The Tembe Tribal
Council was approached by Mondi65 with a proposal to cultivate gum and pine trees in the
Tembe Tribal area, which they rebuffed66. The seven year growth cycle was seen as a
doubtful way of making money and the viability of trees as a crop came into question 67. In
1996, extension officers from Sappi’s Project Grow and the Department of Agriculture
(DOA) convinced the Tribal Council that gum tree afforestation was economically
profitable and would not affect agricultural productivity in the area68. Urged by the Tribal
Council, the Izinduna (village headmen) encouraged the broader community to accept the
planting of small five hectare woodlots by suggesting this would create local job
opportunities69. The Tribal Council initially stipulated that woodlots were not to be located
near homesteads, grazing land, cultivated fields, food gardens and open water. Since this
initial stipulation, permission to substitute small (one hectare or less) woodlots for food
gardens in land adjacent to homesteads has been granted unconditionally by the Tribal
Council at the discretion of the local Induna. Providing that the woodlot is primarily for
domestic use and consumption (such as a wind/sound break) it does not require a permit
from the Tribal Council70.

Project Grow is a self proclaimed community ‘partnership’ project, initiated by


Sappi in 1983. It targets individual ‘subsistence’ farmers 71 with access to arable land in

63
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry cited in (Louw, 2004: 85-86).
64
Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.
65
According to Cairns, Mondi Paper was established in 1966 by the Anglo American Corporation (Cairns, 2000).
66
Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005.
67
Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
68
Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005.
69
Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.
70
Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005.
71
These farmers are provided with free Eucalyptus sp. seedlings, interest free loans and technical assistance. In
addition, Sappi provide an annual advance on the expected final return once the trees are harvested. The
farmers are guaranteed a market with Sappi once the trees are felled (see appendices 7.2 and 7.3 for Sappi
tabulations of projected Project Grow woodlot incomes in the Tembe area) (Project Grow Report, 2006).

- 13 -
A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Tribal areas in Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape, to promote afforestation with non-
indigenous hybrid Eucalyptus sp. (gum tree species). Project Grow woodlots are
predominately situated on tribal land, they are ostensibly owned by individual community
members, or by the community collectively72. The Mfihlweni community however
suggested that there were only really two woodlots in the Manguze area, woodlots owned
by the Inkhosi (chief) and woodlots managed by Sappi for the Tribal Council and ‘the
people’73. The inference of these comments seems to suggest that the benefits of these
woodlots do not accrue to the broader community.

The Tembe Tribal Council administers the woodlot permitting process and is
adamant that woodlot afforestation has not impacted negatively on the lives of
community members. Bulk afforestation permits are issued to the Council by DWAF, the
DOA and KZN Ezemvelo, only after a careful study of the proposed area74. The Council
contends that the local economy has benefited through local job creation and that
community members are happy as a result75. The Council also indicate there have been
no negative environmental impacts, no natural forests have been destroyed and that only
uncultivated grassland has been afforested. However, after hearing complaints about
water issues from community members during the 2000-2001 period, the Tribal Council
became concerned that woodlot afforestation was impacting on the Tembe environment.
Ecological impact assessments were conducted by DWAF, the DOA and Ezemvelo KZN,
and new permitting conditions were introduced that prevented woodlot afforestation in
areas where there was ‘insufficient’ surface water76.

The Tembe Tribal Council, assisted by Sappi, have submitted two further water
license applications to DWAF for a further 5000 hectares of bulk afforestation in the
Tembe Tribal area. By 2004, permits to afforest 1200 hectares had been granted to the
Tribal Council. On condition that planting did not exceed 500 hectares of staggered
afforestation per year. Sappi have expressed a desire to afforest a further 15000 hectares
in the Tembe area (approximately half the area of the Manzengwenya Plantation) if the
hydrological potential exists. However in their own report they concede that ‘the water
requirements’ of the natural rivers and wetlands limit the potential for further
afforestation in the area, despite the evident desire of the community to do so77.

72
(Project Grow Report, 2006)
73
Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
74
Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005.
75
Tembe Tribal Council Meeting, Wednesday 20th July, 2005.
76
Project Grow records indicate that there were approximately 653 farmers on 4,902 hectares of communal
land in the Umkhanyakude District during this period (Project Grow Report, 2006).
77
(Project Grow Report, 2006)

- 14 -
A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

According to Ojwang, the post-1994 government sees forestry companies like


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

3.2. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Afforestation in the Tembe


Tribal Area…

The arrival of a number of white farmers, settled in the Manzengwenya area by


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

78
(Ojwang, 2000)
79
(Cairns, 2000: x)
80
(Ojwang, 2000)
81
(Project Grow Report, 2006)
82
The name Manzengwenya is a Zulu word meaning ‘Water of the Crocodiles’, it is a reference to the historical
landscape of the area that was characterised by wetlands and abundant wildlife.
83
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st
July, 2005.

- 15 -
A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

The 49000 hectare Manzengwenya plantation was established during the late
1950s by the NP government. The original communities from the area now occupied by
the plantation were Mabibi, Mvelabusha, Chitomuzi, KwaMpukane and Hlabezimhlope. It
was located in the Tembe Tribal area in an attempt to prevent the emigration of Tembe
community members into towns, by providing local employment. Apart from the
concurrent establishment of the Coastal Forest Reserve, there was very little concern for
the local environment by the then Department of Forestry. The initial afforestation
process was carried out like a large scale farming operation; the area was strip cleared
and planted with pine seedlings. Local community members living where the plantation
was located were displaced from their land. However, the plantation did provide local
employment for those people that remained nearby84.

Although the initial move to establish the state plantation was understood to be a
government managed operation, by the mid 1960s Sappi began to be a role-player in the
plantation’s management85. At this stage there were no roads and no infrastructural
networks outside the plantation and people used footpaths to walk from one place to
another. This mid 1960s was characterised by a severe drought that impacted heavily on
local crops. Livestock were also drastically affected by the reduction in grazing land and
the lack of drinking water. At the same time, indigenous trees utilised for fruit and raw
material (i.e. Amawebe and Amaganu) were being removed and replaced by pine trees86.

During the 1970s, many community members were employed in both the
harvesting of pine trees and the glue making process87. As a result of the demand for
workers during this period, immigration from other tribal areas occurred. In 1975 the
KwaZulu government begin to inform the surrounding communities about the expansion
of the plantation, as a result further removals and relocations of the KwaMpukane, Mabibi
and Mvelabusha communities occurred. More local employment was however created
and a reduction in migrant labour was observed. People from relocated communities were
preferentially offered employment and the Izinduna selected work crews based on their
levels of household poverty88. The plantation was seen to have had a very positive impact
on the community during this period89.

84
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
85
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
86
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st
July, 2005.
87
Glue is manufactured by rendering resin, harvested while felling pine trees.
88
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st
July, 2005.
89
Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005.

- 16 -
A Historical Record of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Between 1975 and 1980 water levels in the rivers and pans enclosed by the
plantation were observed to drop far lower than during the preceding seasonal cycles. By
the mid 1980s the large pan and river in the centre of the plantation was drying out, and
fish were easily caught in the shallow and accessible waters. In 1987 the river stopped
flowing and the pan almost completely dried out. In 1988 pine trees were harvested on a
very large scale and the areas that were previously under pine were replanted with gum
trees, which were understood to be introduced under Sappi’s management. By the end of
the 1980s the plantation had stopped growing and a system of block rotation was
established within Manzengwenya’s existing boundaries90.

Although Manzengwenya was understood to be state owned at the time,


management of the plantation was seen to be predominately carried out by Sappi
executives from 1994 onward. As a consequence employment levels established during
the 1970s were maintained until 1994, at which point local employment began to decline.
The use of outside contractors (specialising in cutting, loading and transport) increased
and access to the plantation’s resources became restricted. It was noted that although
there had been retirements and deaths in the local community, no new full time
employment had been offered locally since 1994. However, community members on the
plantation fringes were assisted by Sappi with seedlings, fertilizers, implements and
knowledge and encouraged to establish woodlots. These community members began to
employ community members, but for very low rates of pay91. 2003 was indicated to be a
bad year for the surrounding communities due to, a lack of rain, poor harvests and an
ongoing reduction in local employment in the plantation. In 2004, during the pre-election
period, ANC Land Affairs Minister, Thoko Didiza visited the community and promised to
give community members their land back. This led to widespread celebrations within the
broader Manzengwenya community. However, at the time of this study in 2005, no news
from the ANC government in this regard was forthcoming92. As a result falling
employment and unfulfilled promises, the ANC government’s management of the
plantation has been widely criticised. According to one Mvelabusha community member,
“we spoilt everything by voting”93.

90
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December.
91
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st
July, 2005.
92
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005 & Female Plantation Workers, Thursday 21st
July, 2005.
93
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December.

- 17 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

4. A Historical Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of


Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

The post-1994 incidence of rural poverty in South Africa corresponds to the


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

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

If you want to register your woodlot with Sappi, you need to get the permit
from the Tribal Authority99.

Cairns suggests that Sappi’s Project Grow was initiated in 1983 as a ‘social
responsibility’ program, ‘driven by welfarist and environmental concerns’, in response to
the poor socio-economic conditions that existed in the rural areas. It was only when
Project Grow farmers started to deliver ‘significant tonnages’ that the arrangement was
formalised100.

A 1999 Project Grow study of woodlot outgrowers throughout KwaZulu-Natal,


demonstrated that 33 % of the selling price was retained by the grower as net profit after
the costs of growing and transport had been covered. Depending on management of the
woodlot and the age of the trees, this represented between 12 % and 45 % of the
94
(Aliber, 2003)
95
(http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm)
96
(May, 1996)
97
(Walker, 2003)
98
Tembe Community Meetings, July & December 2005. (Karumbidza, 2005)
99
Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
100
(Cairns, 2000)

- 18 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

earnings that one average household would require for an income of approximately R
750.00101 a month102 (See the appendices 8.2 and 8.3 for tables that offer Sappi’s
projections of a Tembe grower’s expected income and profit). Considering that according
to Project Grow seven people per household in the Tembe Tribal area is an average
statistic (see page 3 of this study), this relates to just over R 107.00 per person per
month or just over R 3.50 per person per day.

Arable land in the Tembe Tribal area is scarce, the area is water stressed and
permits are limited. Woodlots could not be offered to every household in the Tembe Tribal
area. However, Cairns would argue that Sappi consider Project Grow to be a process of
broad socio-economic development or community upliftment103. Ojwang suggests this
may not be the case:

In essence, production related risks are transferred to the individual grower,


while the company bears the risk of marketing. The private companies engage
in a binding contract with individual farmers within the community and
provide incentives such as loan advances and technical expertise. In return,
the individual growers provide land and labour. This has largely been a
business venture with the companies under no obligation to deliver social and
economic rural development104.

The KwaMsonto Induna indicated that the most pressing risk with respect to
woodlots was the possibility of fires started by ‘people’. Sappi do not offer fire or any kind
of insurance to woodlot owners105. Sappi pays woodlot owners a December bonus and
yearly woodlot maintenance costs (although this is considered an interest free loan and
deducted from Sappi’s purchase price when the timber is felled). The timber price is
determined at the time of harvest by Sappi, who rigorously control the only market that
growers in the Tembe Area are able to access106. Sappi’s payments are not perceived to
be equitable, some woodlot owners are said to get more than others even if they started
at the same time and have the same size woodlot. Woodlot growers are beginning to
complain about the low rate of return from Sappi107.

101
The figure of R 750.00 corresponds to the 1999 amount a household would have received from one
individual’s old age or disability social welfare grant.
102
(Cairns, 2000)
103
(Cairns, 2000)
104
(Ojwang, 2000: 5)
105
KwaMsonto Community meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005
106
Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005
107
Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005

- 19 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

According to Cairns, although some of the risk of woodlot afforestation is shared,


the power dynamics within an outgrower scheme is heavily weighted toward timber
companies like Sappi108. Ojwang suggests that partnerships based on outsourcing to
Tribally Administered communal areas such as Project Grow, function as a corporate
safeguard against tenure disputes and as a means of disinvestment from the land109. In
the case of Project Grow for instance, a community member has to ask the Tribal
Authority for the right to access land on which to plant a woodlot 110. In the Tembe Tribal
area, DWAF, the DOA and KZN Ezemvelo (in consultation with Sappi) demarcate an area
where afforestation can occur. The Tembe Tribal Council is then issued with a bulk
afforestation permit. The Council are responsible for delineating the boundaries of
woodlots within the demarcated area and managing the issuing of the permits for
individual or community ownership. These permits111 cost R 300.00 per individual 5
hectare application and the woodlots are managed exclusively under contract to Sappi 112.
Cairns argues that, “By requiring signatures from Tribal Authorities, the schemes may
entrench Tribal Authority power…”113. In addition, every woodlot owner is obligated to
give a share of their harvest income to the Tribal Council, at a rate of one rand per ton of
felled timber. This is considered to be a cultural expression of ‘homage to the king’
(Insonyama Ukuhlenga)114. Members of the Mboza community indicated that independent
growers, who had planted gum trees without obtaining permits from the Tribal Council,
had so far been unable to sell their timber to Sappi115.

As alluded to by the SLF diagram (see appendix 9.2), at least two things are
necessary, in order for the Tribal Authority to a grant an individual community member
the right to access a woodlot. The individual must have ‘human influence’ within the
community and ‘financial influence’ in order to purchase a woodlot permit. In a 1993
KwaZulu-Natal study by Cairns, the majority of woodlot growers and owners of affiliated
logging concerns were described as either members or ‘associates’ of the Tribal
Authority, or wealthy landowners. This is analogous to the views expressed by Sen and
Das in a 1993 study who posit that, “The benefits of community forestry projects are
manipulated in favour of the elite, affecting the interest of downtrodden people116.”
Accordingly, KwaMpuyisa community members complained that the Tribal Authority had

108
(Cairns, 2000)
109
(Ojwang, 2000)
110
Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
111
For a copy of a Tembe Tribal Council woodlot permit, see appendix 7.1.
112
Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
113
(Cairns, 2000: x)
114
Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.
115
Mboza Community Meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005.
116
Sen & Das cited in (Ham & Theron, 1999: 73).

- 20 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

been claiming the land set aside for communal woodlots for themselves 117. Thandizwa’s
Induna explained that there are only a few individuals that own woodlots, which he
maintains are the asset of the ‘community’. The Induna owns several woodlots
surrounding his homestead and he also controls the local shorthaul logging operations118.
Thengani B’s Induna pointed out that woodlots have enabled the accumulation of assets
by people in the area. His homestead was flanked by a one hectare gum woodlot and he
indicated that he also had an eight hectare Project Grow woodlot near Mfihlweni119. Local
‘contractors’ at a logging yard south of Manguze, said they were working for an Induna
who employs eight temporary workers to operate his shorthaul logging business120. In
Mvelabusha although Project Grow woodlots were established to assist with the
community’s ‘development’, community members said that they seemed to belong more
to the chief121.

As a result of inequity in the distribution of woodlot ownership, timber contractors


in KwaZibi indicated that there was jealousy within the community toward those people
who owned woodlots122. In 1991, jealousy of this sort resulted in the burning of 273
hectares of ‘community woodlots’ within a Tribal area near the Mbazwane plantation, to
the south of the Tembe Tribal area. The Local youth responsible claimed that an
inequitable allocation of woodlots in favour of the elders, the Tribal Authority and their
‘associates’, led to their action123. Cairns points out, that there are many Tribal areas
where evidence of the ‘checks and balances’ and the ‘egalitarian’ nature of Tribal
Authority is evident124. In this respect, Sappi literature suggests that the growers in the
Tembe area include individuals who manage woodlots on behalf of the community and
also provide employment for the community in a contracting process. Other growers
include individuals who own woodlots and either use family labour, or contract local
community members to assist them125. According to Cairns however, contracting is not a
cure-all for local unemployment:

While contractors have emerged, the nature of the work is too sporadic, and
the payment rates set by companies are too low to achieve sustainable
employment or economic linkages126.

117
KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
118
Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
119
Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
120
D1843 Logging Yard Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
121
Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.
122
KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
123
(Cairns, 2000)
124
(Project Grow Report, 2006)
125
(Cairns, 2000)
126
(Vaughan, 1996 Cited in Cairns, 2000: 42)

- 21 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

Local ‘contractors’ at a Logging yard south of Manguze, explained that they were
not from the Tembe Tribal area and would take any work they could get. The work was
indicated to be extremely hard and physically taxing for a pay of R30.00 per day. These
workers were anxious to join a union in order to improve their working conditions;
however, no unions for timber contractors operate in this area127. KwaMpuyisa community
members, described gum trees as being good for local employment, but complained
about the poor local rate of pay128. Sappi contractors in KwaZibi, managing the local
community woodlots on Sappi’s behalf, agreed that woodlots were creating local
employment but that it amounted to no more than, “a lot of people working for very
little”. They indicated that when freelancing for individual woodlot owners they earned
approximately R20.00 per day and supplied their own equipment129.

According to Cairns, gum trees appear to be an efficient crop for community


members without necessitating large capital investments by the grower. By utilising local
resources and cheap contract labour, woodlot growers are able to avoid these costs 130.
Dr. Ngubane the Induna of Mahlungula and the chairman of the KwaNgwanase Farmers
Union explained that gum trees were a good crop that would enable economic growth in
the area131. Thandizwa community members agreed that gum trees were a good crop
which created employment and that many community members were keen to grow132. In
Mfihlweni gum trees were indicated to be very good cash crop, but access to employment
in the woodlots was described as unfair, as relatives of ‘those’ who owned woodlots were
most often employed. People also indicated that the work was difficult and inefficient,
without expensive machinery like chainsaws and tractors133.

The Tribal allocation of woodlots and the right to plant gum trees around the
homestead is traditionally patriarchal in nature and restricted to the male head of
household. Female KwaMpuyisa Community members complained that the Tribal
Authority would not give them the permission to plant gum trees around their
homesteads, which they would do if they could134. According to a study by Ojwang:

Traditional Zulu culture prohibits women from obtaining land allocations


directly from the Inkosi. User rights are normally acquired through male
members. Single mothers, for instance may be allocated land through their

127
D1843 Logging Yard Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
128
KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
129
KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
130
(Cairns, 2000)
131
Dr. Ngubane, Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.
132
Thandizwa Community meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
133
Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
134
KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.

- 22 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

parents or brothers. This limits the freedom that women have in controlling
their means of production. Since 1994, government has attempted to change
customary law relating to marriages. However, it is still highly unusual for a
woman to approach the Inkosi directly for land135.

When the male head of a household passes away, both the household and the
community can be thrown into a state of anxiety. It is customary for those community
members that have a claim on the bereaved household to attempt to annex valuable
possessions or property, such as a portion of a woodlot, at this time. It is also customary
for either the firstborn son, or the brother of the deceased, to assume the role of
household head. This situation often leads to the abuse of a widow’s labour and property,
which has led widows to break tradition by arguing for ownership of the property for
which they have laboured. A circumstance that Cairns has argued can and does lead to a
condition of tension within a Tribal community136. Unfortunately, Ojwang suggests that
the resolution of circumstances like this, do not always favour women:

Women have been understood to be the losers when it comes to these


decisions regarding the flow and use of benefits, yet studies indicate that they
make a substantial contribution to household labour137.

Tembe community members have a keen awareness of socio-economic issues


related to woodlots. Community members are aware of the way in which those who are in
positions of Tribal Authority or affiliated to them, are benefiting from the afforestation
process. People within the community have noted the difference between their own
standard of living and the standard of living of those who own woodlots in the
community. As a result, community members tend to gravitate toward the promise of
wealth offered by woodlot ownership. This response is however tinted with the
consequences of afforestation by Mfihlweni community members, who when asked if
woodlots should be planted from horizon to horizon, generally responded in one of two
ways. The yes group explained that gum trees were worth a lot of money, brought
employment and should be widely planted so everybody could benefit. The no group
didn’t want to loose grazing, housing and farming land to gum trees. One community
member added that gum trees, “were like a car that is moving right, but sometimes it is
dangerous”138.

135
(Ojwang, 1999: 61-62)
136
(Cairns, 2000)
137
(Ojwang, 2000: 15)
138
Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.

- 23 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

4.2. A Record of Socio-Economic Consequences of the Manzengwenya


Plantation

We didn’t have access to our land. Families were separated and every one was
looking for a good area to cultivate. They just cut the land in pieces. Every one
was affected and the worst part of it is that we weren’t compensated. We just
started new homes from our own empty pockets and lack of natural resources.
From then on, we were forced to buy our own natural resources from the game
reserves139.

It’s been a long time waiting to be compensated and even worse is the fact that
many people have died without being compensated140.

When asked for details of the surrounding communities, the current


Manzengwenya plantation head forester was unable to locate them, name them or
indicate who the Izinduna were. But he did point out that Manzengwenya plantation
constituted the largest single permit plantation in Southern Africa. His attitude is
indicative of the lack of corporate social responsibility and institutional disconnection that
powerful officials have for the immediate community, whose histories the plantation has
radically altered141. It is therefore not surprising that the Induna of the Mvelabusha
community, Jimmy Tembe, explained that the benefits from the plantation for the
surrounding communities were no longer as good as they used to be142.

After the forced removals in the 1950s, during the establishment of the plantation,
surrounding community members found living conditions to be extremely difficult. The
plantation was established on the most arable and fertile soils in the area, a ‘shock’ which
led to starvation immediately after the forced removals143. Many members of the
Mvelabusha community lost their livestock, grazing land and fields for their crops on
which they depended144 and one community member said:

They took our livestock if it entered their plantation. We lost some of our cattle
because of our informal eviction to make way for the plantation. We were put in
desert like areas where it’s quite difficult to live, compared to what we were
used to. There was no water for our cattle and no grazing land. Our livestock
139
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
140
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
141
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
142
Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005.
143
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
144
Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.

- 24 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

were taken over by the planting of trees that absorb a lot of water, especially
because cattle don’t cope well in a drought. All that is left far grazing, living and
farming are the small spaces where the trees are not grown145.

The marginal areas that community members were moved to forced people to
farm on land that was not productive. The elders pointed out that prior to the plantation’s
afforestation; there was never really a widespread shortage of food, natural resources or
fertile land. In addition to cultivated crops, there were also seasonal wild indigenous fruits
such as Amahlala, Iminwebe, Amabhonsi, Amakwakwa, Izindoni and Amabungwa and an
abundance of wild spinach (Imifino). As the plantation grew, it removed and restricted
access to both land and natural resources. Indigenous food sources, wood for fuel and
home construction, grass and reeds for thatching and muthi plants (traditional medicine),
became severely limited local natural resources. The only area where these resources
were available in any substantial quantity was in the restricted Coastal Forest Reserve 146.
In addition, community members historically supplemented their household diet with fish.
As recently as the 1980s, fish were caught in the river and pans that subsequently dried
up147. As a result of afforestation related changes, community members were forced to
rely on the cash economy to source raw materials and foodstuffs to supplement their
livelihoods. In order to pay for their purchases, community members sought after the few
available paying positions in the plantation. Others, especially the youth, left (in what was
described as a mass emigration) for Joburg and Durban, in order to do the same.

Post-1994 the number of surrounding community members employed in the


plantation decreased from approximately 500 to 100, due to large scale retrenchments in
the Manzengwenya plantation148. These retrenchments coincided with the use of non-
local skilled Sappi contractors within the plantation149. This situation caused some
concern amongst the surrounding communities as the Mvelabusha community alone
consists of some 300 households that are reliant on the Manzengwenya plantation for
their livelihoods. Community members from the five communities surrounding
Manzengwenya struggle to earn their livelihoods. Incomes within these communities are
highly disparate150 and community members living on the Northern border of the
plantation appear to be particularly impoverished151. Although Mvelabusha community
members have always engaged in some form of food crop cultivation there is a shortage

145
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
146
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005. Interview with Terry Furgason (Conservation
Manager - KZN Ezemvelo), Coastal Forest Reserve, 21st July 2005.
147
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
148
Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005.
149
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
150
Mqobela Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.
151
Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005.

- 25 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

of locally grown produce, which was suggested to be due to a water shortage. The Head
Nurse at the Mvelabusha clinic explained that conditions in Mvelabusha were difficult and
that many families have problems meeting their nutritional requirements. Having worked
in other rural communities in the KwaZulu-Natal area, she pointed out that this area by
comparison is quite bad152.

The reason that the surrounding community members originally moved peacefully
to make way for the state plantation, was due to an assurance that they would receive
compensation from the NP government at the time153. When the Minister of Land Affairs
and Forestry, Thoko Didiza, came in 2003 she said that either the land should be given
back to the community or else the plantation owners should compensate the land
owners. It would seem from her comments that the ANC government’s drive to privatise
state resources has incorporated former tribal areas such as the land on which the
Manzengwenya plantation was established. According to community members the ANC
government seem to have relegated the task of rural development in the Tembe Tribal
area to a private concern. As evidenced by the Ministers assertion that the plantation
owners should employ people who lived in that area before. The Mvelabusha community
are still waiting for what the Minister promised154. Community members stated that the
plantation as it currently operates is no longer benefiting people like it did during the
1970s and 1980s155.

152
Interview with Mvelabusha Clinic’s Head Nurse, Thursday 21st July, 2005.
153
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
154
Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.
155
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.

- 26 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

4.3. Environmental Consequences of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area

Tree Farming is just another form of land use, and as such should be compared
to other land uses156.

Trees differ from many agricultural crops in that a deep penetrating root system
is required for both stability and extraction of the relatively large amounts of
water and nutrients. Tree roots have no difficulty in penetrating to depths well
in excess of 5 metres given a suitable soil environment157.

Manzengwenya plantation’s Head Forester explained that the environment was


ever changing, so it was difficult to tell whether the local environment had changed due
to the plantation being established there158. The Induna of Mahlungula, a member of the
Tembe Tribal Council, claims that before woodlot afforestation occurred in the northern
part of the Tembe Tribal area, there was less standing water than there currently is. He
referred to a study by a Dr. Dan Taylor159, suggesting that gum trees could in fact be
assisting in soil water retention and adding to groundwater levels160. Thengani B’s Induna
said the Tembe Tribal Council are positive about gum trees and have applied to DWAF to
expand the afforested Tribal areas161. Sappi contend that the afforestation of the Tembe
Tribal area, has so far taken place on a limited scale and that government regulations
and DWAF are hindering further ‘development’. They attribute this hindrance to the water
requirements of Kosi Bay, Lake Sibaya and Lake St Lucia, as well as government interest
in utilising the remaining conservation areas in the Coastal Forest Reserve for potential
BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) ecotourism ventures (Project Grow Report, 2006).

The Tembe Tribal area, including the Manzengwenya plantation, is located within a
coastal savannah biome162 and is in the same DWAF delineated quaternary water
catchment area (Quat W70A), as Kosi Bay and Lake Sibaya163. A study by Versfeld
indicates that afforestation of a savannah biome does not improve water infiltration and

156
(Pott, 1997: 45)
157
(Boden, 1991)
158
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
159
The author was unable to locate a copy of this study by Dr. Dan Taylor.
160
Dr. Ngubane, Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.
161
Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.
162
A biome is a geographically significant area that is characterised by a similar ‘assemblage of plants and
animals’. A biome characteristically functions as an integrated and systematic whole through a cyclical and
ongoing interaction with the natural resources and climate of the area (Luhr, 2003).
163
Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005.

- 27 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

groundwater recharge. On the contrary, monocropped non-indigenous trees will both


intercept rainfall and transpirate ‘soil-stored water’ out of the environment164. Ojwang
uses a study by Warren and Le Roux to stress the point that extensive cultivation of non-
indigenous trees like gum trees, will ‘significantly reduce’ the levels of running and
standing open water165. A study by Dye and Poulter into the effects of non-indigenous
afforestation of a riparian zone, alongside a seasonally affected flowing river, concluded
that streamflow in such a circumstance was significantly affected166.

As a result of increased rainfall interception by non-indigenous afforestation in


Quat W70A, rivers leading to both Kosi Bay and Lake Sibaya have been directly impacted.
DWAF consider the plantation and woodlots in the area to be a significant stream flow
reduction activity and as a result, DWAF are currently rezoning and reducing the areas
where afforestation can occur within Quat W70A167. DWAF are undertaking this process
because it has implications for the long and the short term sustainability of Kosi Bay, Lake
Sibaya and the local water supply in the Tembe Tribal area. The impact of afforestation
on the environment’s ability to retain water is clearly evident. In addition, a biome is
significantly affected when large areas are replaced by monocropped plantations. As
suggested by Ojwang:

Closely associated with vast tree plantations in South Africa are their negative
impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. These include loss of natural
grasslands, wetlands and indigenous forests. Consequently, these losses have
interfered with indigenous bird, plant and animal species168.

KwaMpuyisa community members explained that water birds were leaving the
areas where pans had dried up and moving to the pans that still had water169.
Mahlungula’s Induna confirmed that since the 1980s there had been a considerable
reduction in bird numbers in the Tembe area. Conceding that there had been some
negative impacts associated with the afforestation process, he attributed this reduction
to the loss of suitable habitat that occurred due to afforestation in the area. For this
reason he pointed out that the KwaNgwanase Farmer’s Union in Manguze, encourages
the planting of indigenous trees and crops together with non-indigenous gum trees170.
Manzengwenya’s Head Forester confirmed that the environment had been significantly
disturbed within the plantation. He conceded that according to KZN Wildlife non-

164
(Versfeld, 1996)
165
(Ojwang, 2000)
166
(Dye and Poulter, 1995)
167
Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005.
168
(Ojwang, 2000: 6)
169
KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005.
170
Dr. Ngubane, Mahlungula Community Meeting, Friday 22nd July, 2005.

- 28 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

indigenous gum trees were responsible for consuming groundwater, which was why
foresters were not allowed to plant near wetland areas. Unfortunately, gum trees had in
the past been planted in very close proximity to the local river and pans and as a result
had caused damage to the wetland habitat surrounding them. The wetlands that were
previously damaged by the plantation process were now being rehabilitated by removing
the offending trees171.

According to Armstrong (et al) negative environmental impacts of afforestation are


cumulative over time (Armstrong et al, 1998). This is corroborated by Manzengwenya’s
Head Forester who commented that although trees had grown well initially,
Manzengwenya’s soils were now tired and would need to be intensely fertilised to remain
viable for the growing of trees in the future172. Thus, a pattern of cumulative
environmental change emerges when people who have lived in the area recount their
past, one that in many ways corroborates published academic works.

4.4. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Changing Environment

Plantation workers explained that the name ‘Manzengwenya’ was a derivative of


the Zulu names for water (Amanzi) and crocodiles (Ngwenya). The river and pan have
dried-up subsequent to the establishment of the plantation, but the name is a reminder of
the area’s rich ecological history173. Mvelabusha elders recounted that from the beginning
of the 1960s, there have been three distinct periods of drought. During these droughts,
water levels in the pans and Vanzi River running through the Manzengwenya plantation
dried up significantly, an occurrence that was indicated not to have happened before the
afforestation process began174. As attested to by elder Mvelabusha community members:

Before the trees came, the river and pans always had water that supplied the
community’s needs through the years. The first time it ran out during the 1960s,
it was better than now because there was at least some water left. The second
time during the 1980s was worse because the river and pans were dry.
Currently, we are without water in the river and pans for a third time175.

An elder community member who moved to the Mvelabusha area in the 1960s
said that, “There used to be a lot of water, but that these trees consumed the water, even

171
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
172
Interview with Mr Mabika (Manzengwenya Head forester - DWAF), Manzengwenya Plantation Head Office, 26
July 2005.
173
Female Plantation Workers, Manzengwenya Thursday 21st July, 2005.
174
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
175
Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Induna of Mvelabusha, 8th December, 2005.

- 29 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

the pans are now gone”. As an active farmer, she pointed out that when she was
younger and working the fields, there were more crops and fish than there are today176. A
community member born in Mqobela in the 1960s indicated that there was now less
standing water when it rained then there used to be. It was pointed out that all of the
water in the local rivers in Mqobela came from the Manzengwenya plantation and that the
rivers now had far less water in them than in the past 177. Since 2000, the pans in Mqobela
have dried up and the local community have become reliant on water supplied by the
local government from a borehole 2.5 km’s away178.

Most indigenous trees were destroyed when areas were cleared to make way for
the afforestation of the Manzengwenya plantation. As a result community members have
been forced to travel long distances, in order to purchase forest products that were
traditionally available locally179. Indigenous trees in communal areas provided community
members with muthi (medicine), fruit and wood for a variety of household uses (e.g.
uqoka wood was prized for wooden spoons)180. Wood was traditionally sourced from
indigenous trees for building and fuelwood, for which purposes gum trees are inferior to
the indigenous alternatives181.

There are community members who would love to live like their forefathers and be
able to utilise natural assets without terms and conditions. The Coastal Forest Reserve
and the Manzengwenya plantation have taken people’s ancestral freedoms and land,
“Outsiders took the land, cut out all the useful trees and planted alien trees that is gum
and pine trees”182. Elders expressed the opinion that because the Manzengwenya
plantation used a substantial portion of their fertile tribal land, indigenous resources and
water, and they no longer benefited from it in terms of employment or access to
resources. The Manzengwenya plantation was described by these elders as being by
comparison more useless than the original coastal forest, grassland, pans and river would
have been183.

4.5. A record of the Changing Environment of Tribal Woodlots

Post-1994 there has been a widespread process of woodlot afforestation in the


Tembe Tribal area facilitated by Sappi’s Project Grow. Individual woodlots are small (in

176
Mvelabusha Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.
177
Mqobela Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.
178
Mqobela Community Meeting, Tuesday 26th July, 2005.
179
Female Plantation Workers, Manzengwenya Thursday 21st July, 2005.
180
Mboza Community Meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005.
181
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.
182
Mboza Community Meeting, Monday 25th July, 2005.
183
Manzengwenya Plantation Focus Group, 8th December, 2005.

- 30 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

the order of one to fifteen hectares) and individual trees are planted in spaced rows.
Multiple woodlots are not usually established in one continuous block process of
afforestation in close proximity to one another but are afforested in a fragmented
manner. However, well established woodlots in certain of the Tembe tribal areas have
come to resemble a sizeable plantation (i.e. at Mfihlweni, see appendix 7.4.). Bearing in
mind that woodlots are by comparison to the Manzengwenya plantation, a relatively
recent phenomenon in the Tembe Tribal area. Many of the environmental impacts
discussed so far are common and have been noted by both DWAF184 and community
members185. In a 1996 study of the woodlot afforestation model being utilised in the tribal
areas of KwaZulu-Natal, Versfeld indicates that woodlots concentrated in a localised
manner are likely to have consequences similar to those of plantations 186. Ojwang claims
that for this reason, DWAF extended the definition of a Stream Flow Reduction Activity
(SFRA) in 1997 to include outgrower woodlots like those encouraged by Project Grow187.

The Mfihlweni community are in the heart of a designated woodlot growing area in
the Tembe Tribal area; collectively these woodlots take on the appearance of a
substantial plantation. Mfihlweni community members said that there was less water
available for farming now, than before the gum trees were planted, a situation that
seemed to be getting worse every year. But people also indicated that gum trees were
useful to them as a way to earn money 188. In KwaMpuyisa, pans surrounded by woodlots
were described as having been dried out, which was believed to be a good thing because
these areas could now be used for pathways, planting and housing. When comparing the
natural benefits of gum trees and indigenous trees, community members indicated that
gum trees were more beneficial than indigenous trees because, “you can get money from
gum trees to build houses and send your children to school”. Paradoxically, the same
community members also complained about a shortage of water for both agriculture and
household use189. Kwazibi community members told us that gum trees consumed a lot of
water, but that they were also beneficial to their owners, as they brought in an income 190.
When asked whether it was better to have rivers and pans or gum trees, the Induna of
Mvelabusha said gum trees were better because they provided employment, “besides”
he suggested, “there are some boreholes for water”191.

184
Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005
185
Tembe Community Meetings, July & December 2005
186
(Versfeld, 1996)
187
(Ojwang, 2000)
188
Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005
189
KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005
190
KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005
191
Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005

- 31 -
A Record of Socio-Economic and Environmental Consequences of Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation

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

- 32 -
Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

5. Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

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

This study has focused on a history of institutional, economic, social and


environmental issues related to non-indigenous afforestation in the Tembe Tribal area.
Outlining how these issues have informed the historical process of afforestation has
required a broad overview of the South African linkages between: human settlement;
politics; historical tenure arrangements; the Tribal Authority as an institution; Sappi’s
Project Grow; ecological issues; the rural economy, and rural livelihood strategies. By
outlining these linkages it is hoped that the study’s accounts will illustrate that the
Manzengwenya plantation, Sappi’s Project Grow and the attraction of individual wealth,
have facilitated the exploitation of the Tembe Tribal area’s system of communal tenure,
community members and the environment, through the institution of Tribal Authority. In
this respect, this conclusion will highlight the preceding accounts and discussions and
suggest the ways in which the consequences of the non-indigenous process of
afforestation will affect the Tembe Tribal area’s inter and intra-generational livelihood
sustainability.

Key consequences of the afforestation of the Manzengwenya plantation are that


early on in the afforestation process, community members were removed from their
traditional homesteads and agricultural lands. Although the local community benefited
from the afforestation process, community members who benefited the most were
indicated to be powerful individuals within the community who were politically connected.
Post-1994 the number of full time Manzengwenya employees drawn from the local
communities, decreased from approximately five hundred to one hundred individuals.
Therefore the local community no longer economically benefit to the same degree as
they did prior to 1994. The Manzengwenya environment has been considerably affected
by the afforestation process, land has been substantially transformed and the local

192
(A university student from a rural area in Lesotho, Sekhamane, 1981 cited in Ferguson, 1990: 243-244)

- 33 -
Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

availability of water has been dramatically reduced. There has been a substantial loss of
communal land to the process of afforestation. Living conditions are said to be difficult
and most of the surrounding community members who are unable to access employment
in the plantation, rely on the provision of grants, remittances and the local environment
for their livelihoods. The original communities who were forcefully removed by the pre-
1994 National Party government and promised compensation by the post-1994 African
National Congress government, have to date not been compensated for the loss of their
land.

Key consequences of the Project Grow process of woodlot afforestation in the


Tembe Tribal area are that woodlots appear to be an asset to those community members
able to access land for this purpose, which was indicated by community members to be
small elite percentage of the tribal community193. Sappi and the government Department
of Water Affairs and Forestry appear to be endorsing the institution of Tribal Authority, by
ceding to the Tembe Tribal Council the mandate to issue woodlot permits to community
members194. These permits appear to operate as a system of patriarchal patronage that is
closely coupled with the traditional system of apportioning land to community members.
This provides the Tribal Authority with a means of disbursing favour and wealth while
enabling a form of revenue collection within the Tembe Tribal Area. The large percentage
of Tembe community members who can’t access woodlots or woodlot related
employment, rely on the provision of grants, remittances and the environment for their
livelihoods. Water tables have been adversely affected and a loss of communal land has
occurred due to afforestation.

The Tembe Tribal area does not appear to have the environmental capacity for
every household to cultivate a woodlot195. According to Armstrong (et al), by 1997
afforestation had already transformed 20 % of the arable land in KwaZulu-Natal 196. The
effects of this transformation have already had a significant impact on community
members such as those in the Tembe Tribal area, who are located in a region of intense
afforestation activity. More specific to the Tembe area, are the future implications for soil
stored water if the afforestation process continues. According to Cairns, if the area
became 50 % afforested, the Tembe area’s soil water table would be lowered by between
two and five metres. Within larger agglomerations of woodlots and plantations, the soil
water table would be lowered by eight metres197.

193
Although the author attempted to access Tribal records to verify this assertion, these records were not made
available.
194
This endorsement is not intrinsically a bad thing, but it has consequences for the way in which power and
authority is exercised by the Tribal Authority.
195
Interview with C. Tylcoat, DWAF, Thursday 26th October, 2005.
196
(Armstrong et al, 1998)
197
(Cairns, 2000)

- 34 -
Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

Afforestation could substantially alter the Tembe Tribal area’s future socio-
economic relations and natural environment. This alteration begins with the
establishment of a woodlot or plantation. Afforestation sets in motion a cyclical chain of
events that can eventually lead to an outcome similar to the one suggested by the quote
at the beginning of this section. Before an area is afforested, Tribal relations and
institutions of authority are exploited by commercial interests in order to gain access to
Tribal land. As a result, communal systems of tenure are affected and abused. As an area
is afforested, indigenous and endemic trees, bushes, grasses and sedges are removed. In
order to grow (like any tree) gum trees intercept sunlight and rainfall and utilise stored
soil macro and micro-nutrients. Insecticides and herbicides which are applied in the
Manzengwenya plantation and the woodlots make the land inaccessible to indigenous
insects and animals. Due to the practice of monocropping, the chemical composition of
the soil is altered, surrounding water tables are lowered and as a result, rivers no longer
flow, pans dry up and the natural ecological functions are altered and disrupted.

As a result of these induced ecological changes, non-woodlot owners could find it


more difficult to engage in subsistence agriculture as crops become less productive.
Because indigenous vegetation has been removed, there are few natural food sources
available. Due to the establishment of woodlots on communal land, natural resources and
grazing land are lost to the broader community. Non-woodlot households with a store of
wealth in the form of cattle or other livestock may sell them while seeking local
employment or migrant labour to access an income. For woodlot owners, the patriarchal
nature of land tenure can lead to the exploitation of intra-household labour. Within the
community, traditional communal relations of production may be exploited as community
members seek local employment. People could then be forced to rely on their ability to
sell their sole remaining commodity, their labour. As a result the rural areas might
become depopulated when the disenfranchised youth and older community members
migrate to the urban areas seeking employment. Urban migration may strain resources in
the urban centres and contribute to competition in the urban job market. Wages are then
possibly driven down, encouraging people to diversify their income streams by engaging
in either informal legal or illegal activities. In the Tribal area, fewer locally grown
foodstuffs become available to supplement insufficient labour related and remittance
income. Family resources, relationships and traditions could become strained, as multiple
household members lose access to an income. Household’s may become desperately
poor, affecting people’s nutritional intake and thereby reducing the household’s capacity
to manage if and when a household shock or crisis occurs (such as in the case of disease
and weather related events).

- 35 -
Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?

Households in the Tembe Tribal area, appear to be faced with a constrained


package of agriculturally related economic activities at the expense of their local
environment. Elite community members seem more concerned with accessing an income
from the land, than about the negative environmental consequences of earning that
income. This is a short term non-sustainable outlook, which does not bode well for either
intergenerational or intragenerational equity. Afforestation may provide a limited number
of ‘jobs’ in the short run, but these jobs are offered at a cost to both the broader
community and the environment. At the same time, these jobs constrain long term
communal livelihood choices by impacting on the land. According to Cairns once a
woodlot has been established on arable land, the destumping costs are prohibitively
expensive, thus effectively removing the choice of replacing the non-indigenous gum
trees with a wider range of alternative crops198. In addition the afforestation process has a
direct impact on the broader community’s ability to access water for both household
consumption and agricultural use. Afforestation therefore exploits both Tribal members
and their resources, which represents an externality that the timber industry appears to
be exclusively exploiting for economic gain.

Ferguson’s study of the role of community forestry interventions in Lesotho’s


‘development’ throughout the 1980s provides a prescient reminder for the way in which
the hierarchical redistribution of wealth through the exploitative utilisation of a communal
resource, can lead to the disenfranchisement of the people from their land. This is a
particular risk, where as shown by Ferguson, the exploitation of the communal resource
base is led by the Tribal institution that the community look toward for their leadership
and to which community respect are traditionally accorded199. As capitalism takes root in
the Tembe Tribal area there is evidence to suggest that the Tembe Tribal Council is
seeking to benefit from it and that this may be occurring at the expense of the broader
community. Furthermore, Thengani B’s Induna has noted a displacement of community
members from their land by large agriculturally related companies. According to the
Induna, Tribal land is being accessed by these companies through Tribal Council
sanctioned land use arrangements that are facilitating lease agreements between
individual landholders and the companies concerned200. It is therefore feasible that the
individualistically ‘empowering’ economic processes of capitalism could undermine and
eventually relegate the institution of Tribal Authority and the Tribal systems of tenure to
the not too distant South African past.

198
(Cairns, 2000)
199
(Ferguson, 1990)
200
Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.

- 36 -
Appendices (Contact Information)

6. Appendices (Contact Information):

Island Rock Coastal Reserve

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

Manguze

 Mayor: Mr. G. Nsele (+2735 592 0680)


 KwaNgwanase Farmers Union Nursery: Tholakele (+2782 738 6057)

Manzengwenya Plantation

 Head Forester: Mr. Mabika (+2782 885 8412)


 Sappi Extension Officer: Mr. Buthelezi (+2783 601 0971)

Tembe Tribal Council

 Secretary: Mrs. Nikiwe (+2735 592 0628)


 Acting Inkosi: Mr. Msongi Tembe (+2735 574 8004)

Tribal Area Induna


Egazini Mr. Tembe
eMloli Mr. Tembe
KwaMakhanya Mr. Fikizolo Makhanya
KwaMasondo Mr. Tembe
KwaMpukane Mr. Tembe
KwaMshudu Mr. Zikhali
KwaMyayezi Mr. G. Nsele
KwaNyamazane Mr. Mngomezulu
KwaSonto Mr. Khomeni Tembe
Kwazibi Mr. Tembe
Mabibi Mr. Mdletshe
Mahlungula Dr. Mshumayeli Ngubane
Mfihlweni Mr. Nhlabathi
Mqobela Mr. Tembe
Thandizwe Mr. Masinga
Thengane A Mr. J.M. Nhlonzi
Thengane B Mr. Mthembu

- 37 -
Appendices (Scans)

7. Appendices (Scans):

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


community woodlot issued within the Tembe Tribal Authorities area of

administration201.

201
Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005.

- 38 -
Appendices (Scans)

- 39 -
Appendices (Scans)

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

202
(Project Grow, 2006: pp-7)

- 40 -
Appendices (Scans)

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

203
(Project Grow, 2006: pp-7)

- 41 -
Appendices (Scans)

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

204
(Davel, 2006) (Department of Traditional and Local Government Affairs, 2006).

- 42 -
Appendices (Photographs)

8. Appendices (Photographs):

8.1.Photograph 01: 22 July 2005 – Meeting with the Induna of the KwaMahlungula
Community and some community members at the KwaMahlungula community
hall.

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


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

- 43 -
Appendices (Photographs)

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


Eucalyptus seedlings that are ready to be planted.

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

- 44 -
Appendices (Photographs)

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


located between Mfihlweni and Manguze.

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

- 45 -
Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

9. Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues):

9.1. Primary Research Process

This study was initiated in July 2005 and continued during subsequent visits to the
area in August 2005 (Mboza and Ndumo), December 2005 (Manzengwenya Plantation –
Mvelabusha), January 2006 (Mboza), February 2006 (Mboza) and March 2006 (Mboza,
Ndumo and Manguze). The initial meetings were carried out with the assistance of four
youth from Ndumo village; Nonhlanhla Nolazi, Sisana Mthembu, Sifiso Mandlenkosi Sibaya
and Siboniso Sihle Mthembu. They were instructed in the use of participatory research
tools such as the use of mental maps, timelines and ranking and scoring (Chambers,
2005). The fact that these youth were fluent in Zulu, and interested in learning more
about their district, facilitated an easy and open dialogue between community members
and the research team. The UKZN research team was lead by Dr Harald Witt and
comprised of Dumisani Inyathi and James Mardall from the Department of Economic
History at University of KwaZulu Natal, Howard College Campus.

The initial two-week study in July 2005, identified the Tembe Tribal Council as an
initial point of contact. A meeting with the Tribal Council, lead to five subsequent
community meetings. These meetings were typically attended by the Induna and his
advisor/s as well as, between five (KwaMsonto) and fifty (Mfihlweni), community
members. The meetings were conducted using a participatory approach, where
community members were encouraged to draw mental maps and construct timelines.
The meetings lasted between one and three hours and were characterised by lively
debate focused on issues around woodlots and in particular, Eucalyptus species (Gum)
trees. Journeying to these meetings allowed the research team to identify additional
areas of interest (for example, along route D1843 from Manguze to Manzengwenya).
These areas were investigated using random and snowballing sampling techniques, which
at the same time attempted to balance the respondent’s gender and age. The research
team were also lucky enough to meet Jimmy Tembe, the Induna of the Mvelabusha
community, during an early failed attempt to meet with the Manzengwenya head
forester, Mr Mabika. (This meeting led to a subsequent workshop with four male elders
from the Mvelabusha community in December 2005).

In August 2005 the researchers attended the 5 th establishment committee


meeting of ‘Imfunda Yophongolo’, a meeting designed to further the establishment of a
local water user association on the Pongola floodplain. During August 2005 the Jozini
Department of Agriculture (DOA) was also visited in order to determine what the
department’s agricultural priorities are. These meetings led to follow on workshops in
December 2005 with youth in Mboza Village and elders from Mvelabusha Village. These

- 46 -
Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

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

9.2.The Sustainable Livelihoods framework and Linkages205

9.3. Primary Research Issues

The Tembe community is fundamentally traditional, therefore operating in the


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

The Tribal Council also indicated that they were seldom informed of research
findings, which raised their suspicions about the rationale for research206. The council also

205
(Cairns, 2000: 4)
206
“Researchers come to the area to ‘help’ the community but distort the findings to suit themselves. This
inaccurate interpretation of findings is often at the expense of our trust and assistance in the research
process. So as a governing structure we have the right and reason to question the intended purpose of your
research and to ensure that you don’t sway community opinion to your expectations.” (Issue raised during a
Tembe Tribal Council meeting in July 2005)

- 47 -
Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

raised their concerns around inaccurate reporting by researchers in the past, suggesting
that there is a tendency for university students to be dishonourable. Most importantly,
the Tribal Council were concerned that this study should not be one that in any way
researched the history of the Tembe Tribal Authority. One of the Izinduna referred to this
information as Tribal ‘secrets’, not for dissemination to researchers or the broader public.
We were told to direct this study away from such issues and instead to focus on a history
of social, environmental and economic factors.
The Council were curious about our motives for doing research and our meeting
took on the characteristics of an enquiry, during which we were asked several questions
related to the focus of this study. We were asked to indicate the areas we would be
researching and it was strongly suggested that we acquire the services of a Council
approved guide, which we declined. Final Council approval and assistance was granted on
the condition that we liaise with the Council and that we supply them with a copy of the
study. The council supplied us with a contact list of the Izinduna we should consult for
assistance and we were asked to fetch an official Tribal Council letter authorising the
research, the following day. In juxtaposition to the Tribal Council, local government
displayed a distinct lack of cooperation. Although we made several failed attempts to
meet with the Umhlabuyalingana District Mayor and Manguze Councillor. This did not
affect the research process and proved to be an unnecessary precondition for meeting
with local community members.

Because community members displayed perceptions of mistrust, suspicion and


shyness, before research could commence, we formally introduced ourselves using the
letter of authority from the Tribal Council. Importantly, a rapport had to be established
before any issues could be discussed. Even after these introductions however, it is
debatable whether or not the issues raised were being adequately covered and
responded too. A reason for this may be that, researchers were said to view community
members as local data banks of information and knowledge. Whereas community
members perceive researchers to be ‘idea parasites’, accessing their knowledge without
reciprocation. We were asked on a daily basis, “What are you going to do with this
information?”

In addition, one meeting207 highlighted the possible unintended consequences of


operating through the Tribal Council. At this meeting although several community
members were present, only the Induna raised and answered questions. The Induna was
openly in favour of commercial forestry and this position dominated the discussion.
Therefore the group was taken over by a dominant personality and it is likely that issues
such as; gender equity (even though there were women present), equitable access to
woodlots, environmental aspects and so on, were not adequately addressed. When

207
Meeting held at KwaMahlungula, 22nd July 2005.

- 48 -
Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

speaking with mixed gender groups of community members, men would often dominate
the discussion, the views of women were therefore muted or as often as not, entirely
unheard. In terms of young members of the community beyond school leaving age, there
were very few members of this age group to be found amongst the community members.
On reason given for this was that many of these youth were seeking work in the urban
areas.

Some Tembe community members are unfortunately all too familiar with research
and development terminology. It is clear that they are comfortable with development
‘jargon’ and they use this knowledge to set the backdrop to their responses. These
responses are compromised, because they are modelled on the kind of answers one
would expect to hear as a researcher. In contrast, there are community members (young
and old) who are completely unfamiliar with concepts such as non-indigenous trees and
environmental impacts. In explaining these concepts, it is hoped that the explanation
would provide enough information without unduly influencing each individual’s opinion of
these concepts. Many of the community members were unable to converse in English
however and in most cases they were encouraged to use their mother tongue, Zulu.
Limitations to the study therefore include the fact that during translation, some of the
conceptions, nuances and subtleties of language are lost. More so when there are no
words in Zulu for concepts like ‘environmental degradation’, ‘non-indigenous’ and so on.

The importance of travelling extensively through the area being researched


cannot be underplayed. It enables one to get a feel for the landscape and an idea of the
distribution and extent and impacts of afforestation. For instance, one thing that became
evident during visits to the towns of Skemelele and Manguze was that gum poles had
become an important building material replacement for the local trees. Paradoxically,
interviews conducted with the owners of building material supply yards suggested that
the gum poles they were selling, were legitimately purchased in bulk from Richards Bay.
Whereas it was evident that there were several woodlots nearby, from which these gum
poles could have been procured. The suggested reasons for this were that the police
would regularly raid these outlets, searching for non certified gum poles ‘stolen’ from the
neighbouring plantations.

9.4. Research Limitations

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

- 49 -
Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues)

 Speaking to members of the community during a meeting arranged by the Tribal


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

- 50 -
Bibliography and References

10.Bibliography and References

10.1. Primary Sources:

Davel C., (2006), Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Control Technician, Interview
held on 20th September, 2006.

Department of Traditional and Local Government Affairs, KwaZulu Natal,


Pietermaritzburg, Tel: 033 309-2328.

Underwood M., (2006), University of KwaZulu Natal Pietermaritzburg, Programme Co-


ordinator - Community Forestry, Interview held on Wednesday 18th October, 2006.

Tylcoat C., (2006), Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DCE: Water Utilisation &
WARMS, Interview held on 20th September, 2006.

Tembe Tribal Authority, (2005), Meeting with the Tembe Royal council (Tribal Authority),
from 10h00 to 14h00 on Wednesday 20th July 2005.

10.2. Secondary Sources and Bibliography:

Aliber M., (2003), ‘Chronic Poverty in South Africa: Incidence, Causes and Policies.’ World
Development, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2003.

Ardington E., (1984), ‘Poverty and Development in a Rural Community in KwaZulu’,


Working Paper No. 9, Development Studies Unit, University of Natal, Durban.

Armstrong A.J. Benn G. Bowland A.E. Goodman P.S. Johnson D.N. Maddock A.H. & Scott-
Shaw C.R., (1998), ‘Plantation Forestry in South Africa and its Impact on Biodiversity’,
South African Forestry Journal, No. 182. July 1998.

Attfield R. Hattingh J. & Matshabalala M., (2004), ‘Sustainable Development, Sustainable


Livelihoods and Land Reform in South Africa: a Conceptual and Ethical Enquiry’, Third
World Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, 2004.

Beall J. Mkhize S. & Vawda S., (2005), ‘Emergent Democracy and ‘resurgent’ Tradition:
Institutions, Chieftaincy and Transition in KwaZulu-Natal’, Journal of South African
Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2005.

Bernstein H,. (1998), ‘Social Change in the South African Countryside? Land and
Production, Poverty and Power’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, July
1998, pp. 1-32, Frank Cass, London.

Bernstein, H. (1996) ‘South Africa’s Agrarian Question: Extreme and Exceptional?’ Journal
of Southern African Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2, 1996.

Boden D.I. (1991), ‘The Relationship Between Soil Water Status, Rainfall and the Growth
of Eucalyptus grandis’, South African Forestry Journal, No. 156, March 1991.

Bond P. (ed), (2005), ‘Fanon’s Warning: A Civil Society Reader on the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development’, second edition, Africa World Press Inc, Asmara.

Bunting B., (1964), ‘The rise of the South African Reich’, Penguin Africa library, U.K.

Cairns R. I., (2000), ‘Outgrower Timber Schemes In Kwazulu–Natal: Do they build


sustainable rural livelihoods and what interventions should be made?’ Instruments

- 51 -
Bibliography and References

for sustainable private sector forestry, South Africa series, International Institute for
Environment and Development and CSIR-Environmentek, London and Pretoria.

Carson R., (1962), ‘Silent Spring’, Fawcett Publications, USA.

Chambers R., (2005), ‘Ideas for Development’, Earthscan, U.K. & U.S.A.

Chimhowu A. & Woodhouse P., (2006), ‘Customary vs. Private Property Rights? Dynamics
and Trajectories of Vernacular Land Markets in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Journal of
Agrarian Change, Vol. 6 No. 3, July 2006, pp. 346–371.

Cousins B. & Claasens A., (2003), ‘Communal Land Tenure: Livelihoods Rights and
Institutions’, Interfund Development Update: Piecemeal Reforms and Calls for Action,
Land Reform in South Africa, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2003.

Cousins B (ed), (2000), ‘At the Crossroads: Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa into
the 21st Century’, Cousins, B. (ed), (PLAAS and National Land Committee), Does Land
and Agrarian Reform In South Africa Have a Future? and if so, Who Will Benefit?,
PLAAS and NLC, Belville and Braamfontein.

Crush J., Jeeves A., & Yudelman D., (1991), ‘South Africa’s Labor Empire’, Westview
Press, U.S.A.

Dye P.J. & Poulter A.G., (1995), ‘A Field Demonstration of the Effect on Streamflow
Reduction of Clearing Invasive Pine and Wattle Trees from a Riparian Zone’, South
African Forestry Journal, No. 173, July 1995.

Fanon F,. (1961), ‘The Wretched of the Earth’, New York, Grove Press.

Ferguson J., (1990), ‘The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and


Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho’, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Graziani M. & Burnham P., (2005), ‘Legal Pluralism in the Rain Forests of South-eastern
Cameroon’, pp 177-197 in ‘ Rural Resources & Local Livelihoods in Africa’,
Homewood K (ed), Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Greenberg S., (2001), ‘Political Stabilisation and Market Extension: Restructuring of


Agriculture and its Impact on Food Security’, The Learning Curve: A Review of
Government and Voluntary Sector Development Delivery from 1994, Development
Update, July 2001.

Greenberg S., (2003),‘Redistribution and Access in a Market Driven Economy.’ Greenberg,


S. (ed). Interfund Development Update: Piecemeal Reforms and Calls for Action. Land
Reform in South Africa. Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2003.

Govere E.M., (1997), ‘Research, Extension and Training Needs for Agroforestry
Development in Southern Africa’, Southern African Forestry Journal, No. 180,
November 1997, South African Institute of Forestry, South Africa.

Ham C. & Theron J.M., (1999), ‘Community Forestry and Woodlot Development in South
Africa: The Past, Present and Future’, Southern African Forestry Journal, No. 184,
March 1999.

Hendricks F., (2001), ‘Land Policies and Democracy’, Coetzee J., Graaf J., Hendricks F., &
Wood G., (eds), Development Theory, Policy and Practice, Cape Town: Oxford
University Press, 2001.

Homewood K. (ed), (2005), ‘Rural Resources & Local Livelihoods in Africa’, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.

- 52 -
Bibliography and References

Karumbidza J.B., (2005), ‘A Study of the Social and Economic Impacts of Industrial Tree
Plantations in the KwaZulu Natal Province of South Africa’, WRM Series on tree
plantations No. 6, World Rainforest Movement, Brazil.

KwaZulu-Natal Tourist Map, (2002), ‘Kingdom of the Zulu: South Africa’, Brabys Maps,
South Africa.

Luhr J.F. (ed in chief), (2003), ‘Earth’, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London.

Mackenzie F., (1995), ‘Selective Silence: A Feminist Encounter with Environmental


Discourse in Colonial Africa’, Routledge, London.

May J., (1996), ‘Assets, Income and Livelihoods in Rural KwaZulu-Natal’, in Land, Labour
and Livelihoods in Rural South Africa: Vol. 2. KwaZulu-Natal and Northern Province,
Lipton Ellis & Lipton (eds), Indicator Press.

McCarthy J., (1990), ‘The Divided City: Group Areas and Racial Segregation’, Printed in -
Opening the cities (Comparative perspectives in Desegregation), Indicator S.A. focus,
a joint publication of Urban Foundation & Indicator project S.A. Issue. pp 8,
September 1990.

McCarthy T. & Rubidge B., (2005), ‘The Story of Earth & Life: A Southern African
Perspective on a 4.6-Billion-Year Journey’, Struik Publishers, Capetown.

Mueller-Dombois D., (1992), ‘Sustainable Forestry: The Role of Eucalypts and Lessons
from Natural and Artificial Monoculture Systems’, South African Forestry Journal,
No.162, September 1992.

Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs. ‘Land Redistribution for Agricultural
Development: a Sub-Programme of the Land Distribution Programme’. Final Draft
Document Version 3. National Department of Agriculture. Pretoria, 2000.

Neuworth R., (2005), ‘Shadow Cities’, Routledge, Great Britain.

Ntsebeza L., (1999), ‘Traditional Authorities, Local Government and Land Rights’, pp 280-
305, in Cousins B (ed), (2000), ‘At the Crossroads: Land and Agrarian Reform in
South Africa into the 21st Century’, Cousins, B. (ed), (PLAAS and National Land
Committee), Does Land and Agrarian Reform In South Africa Have a Future? and if
so, Who Will Benefit?, PLAAS and NLC, Belville and Braamfontein.

Ntsebeza L., (2006), ‘Democracy Compromised: Chiefs and the Politics of Land in South
Africa’, HSRC Press, Cape Town.

Ojwang A., (2000), ‘Community-company Partnerships in Forestry in South Africa: An


Examination of Trends’, Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry, South
Africa series, International Institute for Environment and Development and CSIR-
Environmentek, London and Pretoria.

Peet R., (1989), ‘New Models in Geography’, (Volume 2), Unwin Heyman Ltd, U.K.

Pilot State of The Forest Report, (2005), ‘A Pilot Report to test the National Criteria and
Indicators’, Institute of Natural Resources, Investigational Report No. 253, March
2005.

Pott R. McC., (1997), ‘Plantation Forestry in South Africa and its Impact on Biodiversity
and Water’, Southern African Forestry Journal, No.180, November 1997.

- 53 -
Bibliography and References

Project Grow Report, (2006), 28 June 2006, Sappi, South Africa.

Randall P., (1970), ‘Anatomy of Apartheid, Economics of Separate Development’, Folkey


C.E., Johannesburg.

Versfeld D.B., (1996), ‘Forestry and Water Resources - Policy Development for Equitable
Solutions’, South African Forestry Journal, No. 176, July1996.

Walker C., (2003), ‘Piety in the Sky? Gender Policy and Land Reform in South Africa’,
Journal of Agrarian Change. Vol. 3 No. 1 and 2, January and April 2003.

Williams G. & Hackland B., (1988), ‘The Dictionary of Contemporary politics of South
Africa’, Routledge, U.K.

Thompson L., (1985), ‘The political methodology of apartheid’, Yale University Press,
U.S.A.

10.3. Electronic Sources:

http://ftp-waldoek.boku.ac.at/sht/download/Smallholder-Company%20Forestry
%20Partnerships%20-%20Mayers%20Nov%202004.pdf, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Forestry/Default.asp, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Forestry/Forestry%20Policy/whitepap.html, Site accessed 6 July


2005.

http://www.epa.gov/outreach/cmop/intl/southafrica.html, Site accessed 6 July 2006.

http://www.forest-
trends.org/documents/meetings/Huangshan_2001/Mayers_Partnerships_HS.pdf, Site
accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.frp.uk.com/dissemination_documents/R7285_-_Ethical_trade_-
_small_growers_benefit.pdf, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.iied.org/docs/flu/psf/partnershipsbook/PSF_Partnerships_Sect3-4.pdf, Site
accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.iied.org/docs/flu/psf/stakes/PSF_SA_Chapt5.pdf, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/1995/forest.htm#top, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2001/010712145p1001.htm, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/news/thisweek?show=58509, Site accessed 6 July


2005.

http://www.nri.org/NRET/policy2web.pdf , Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.plantseatco2.blogspot.com/, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51982, Site accessed 6 July 2006.

http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html, Site accessed 6 July 2005.

http://www.yale.edu/forestcertification/symposium/pdfs/southafrica_symposium.pdf, Site
accessed 6 July 2005.

- 54 -
Bibliography and References

http://www.research.yale.edu/gisf/assets/pdf/tfd/poverty/SAPPI.%20Project%20Grow
%20Report.pdf, Site Accessed 19 October 2006.

http://land.pwv.gov.za/restitution/BACKGROU.RES.htm. Department of Land Affairs,


Background to Restitution, Site Accessed 1 May, 2005.

http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm, Statistics South Africa,


Population Census 1996, Site Accessed 1 May, 2005.

- 55 -
Thanks and Acknowledgements

11.Thanks and Acknowledgements

Family and Friends:

Ian & Mary Mardall - Father & Mother


Nadine & William Stein - Sister & Brother in Law
The Young Household - Accommodation and Accommodation
Tamlyn Young - Co-traveller

UKZN:

Dr. Harald Witt – Thesis Supervisor (Economic History & Development Studies)
Dr. David Moore – Acting Head of Department (Economic History & Development
Studies)
Prof. Bill Freund – Head of Department (Economic History & Development Studies)
Blessing Karumbidza – Lecturer (Economic History & Development Studies)
Deborah Bobbett – Administrator (Economic History & Development Studies)
Dumisani Inyathi – Friend and Colleague
Claire Ichou – Friend and Colleague
Fellow Post Graduates in the Economic History and Development Studies
Department
The Lecturers and staff at the School of Life and Environmental Sciences
Lliane Loots – Drama Department and Gender Activist “The Personal is Political”
Mike Underwood – Programme Co-ordinator: Community Forestry
Lynne Phipson – Subject Librarian

The Valley Trust:

Richard Haigh – Rural project Co-ordinator

Sdangeni village:

The Mbanjwa Family – Home stay family in Sdangeni


The Sabela Family – Neighbours of the Mbanjwa’s

Maputaland:

Tembe community members


Nonhlanhla, Sisana, Siboniso and Sifiso – Research Assistants
Mr. Msongi Tembe - Tembe Tribal Council (Acting Inkosi)
The Izinduna of the Tembe Tribal Council
Mrs. Nikiwe - Tembe Tribal Council (Secretary)
Mr. Mabika - Manzengwenya Head Forester
Mr. Terry Ferguson - KZN Ezemvelo (Island Rock)
Mr. Jimmy Tembe – Mvelabusha’s Induna

DWAF:

Chris Davel – Control Technician


Cameron Tylcoat – DCE: Water Utilisation & WARMS
Shaun Naidoo – GIS Specialist

The Lord, Goddess and the Ancestors


Thank you for this day, thank you for yesterday and thank you for tomorrow

- 56 -