Val Payn

Those who favour mining along the Wild Coast often portray the debate as being a dispute between ‘greenies’ who are opposed to ‘development’, and those who would bring ‘development’ and ‘economic opportunity’.

Yes, there are many grave environmental concerns about the mining venture.

But to reduce the debate into a simplistic ‘greenies’ versus ‘economic development’ issue is to avoid other key considerations. These embody deeper issues about land rights, suitable and meaningful consultation, the appropriateness of economic development agenda’s within the local context, the appropriate use of natural resources, the distribution of wealth obtained from these, how to create opportunities for the improved livelihoods of rural communities that are poorly skilled to take advantage of industrial development agenda’s, and what it means to develop in a sustainable manner. These are complex issues that South Africa as a whole is grappling with.

Key amongst these for rural communities is the land question.

In the Eastern Cape, communal land is largely held ‘in trust’ for community by the state, with ‘trusteeship’ being represented by the Department of Land Affairs.  This is a residue of political policy that had its roots in the colonial conquest of Africa, and of the traditional African view of land as being a ‘common’ good. That is, a common communal resource that all should be able to benefit from.

The 1876 annexure of Transkei Territories by British authorities saw the appointment of colonial magistrates as officers over tribal land which began a dual system of land governance, subsequently enforced by a host of regulations, which increasingly eroded the traditional system which had invested tribal chiefs as arbitrators over land, in favour of state appointed officials. While eroding the traditional system of land oversight, colonial land policy simultaneously prevented the statutory ownership of communal land by the rural tenants who lived and worked the land, often for generations. This situation has changed little for rural communal land tenants since post-apartheid 1994.

In many areas of rural Eastern Cape, government, through the Eastern Cape Development Corporation, is attempting to drive an aggressive policy of industrial economic development based on the neo-liberal economic development policies of GEAR and ASGISA, rooted in export specialization, industrialization, foreign investment concessions and privatization. The Wild Coast mining proposal, as well as the N2 Wild Coast ‘toll road’ proposal, fits snugly within this neo –liberal rationale of economic growth fuelled by industrial driven development, export trade, and ‘public –private partnerships’. Other mooted developments that would see public- private partnerships using rural communal land for industrial agricultural production include the establishment of commercial timber plantations, maize for bio-fuels, and other agricultural export crops. The economic rationale is that by partnering with the wealth and skills of the private sector, an economic boost will be created that has positive ‘trickle down’ effects for the impoverished in the form of employment and other business opportunities.

Yet without legal rights to the land they occupy, communal land occupants are seriously disadvantaged to participate in a neo-liberal development agenda.

Without legal title to the land they work, communal land dwellers cannot use the land as collateral in order to finance improvements to the land. It also means communal land dwellers find themselves at the mercy of state officials and corporate agenda’s when it comes to decisions about land use. Ironically, private corporations, recognized as legal entities in law, are able to gain access to necessary capital to finance ventures. The system thus compels communal land dwellers to collaborate with state or private partnerships in order to obtain the finance for land development, opening these communities to the vulnerability of exploitation and manipulation by those who are eager to gain access to the land and the natural resources that the poor are dependent upon, for private capital gain.

Factions pushing for the industrial or agri-business ‘development’ of communal land often point to an ‘underutilization’ of communal land as a rationale for taking this land over for ‘development’. Yet these seldom seem to question whether the policies in place support the optimal utilization of land by communal dwellers, or consider the extent to which so –called ‘under utilized’ land augments rural livelihoods.

Far too often the so called ‘under –ulilization’ of rural communal land is blamed on ‘peasants ineptitude’, rather than asking whether the economic and political systems in place lend themselves in support of the improved livelihoods of the peasantry and of the socio –cultural context of land which many communal land dwellers still value. In these terms, land is not simply an economic commodity, but is closely bound to a communal sense of identity.

In theory, the law requires that the permission of communal land dwellers must be sought by the state before decisions about land use are taken. Yet without a statutory right to the land, and with a dual system of land oversight in place, what passes for ‘suitable consultation with community’ easily becomes open to abuse and conflict, as in the case of the Wild Coast Mining debacle.

Community permission for development on communal land is often obtained through the promise of infrastructure development or other benefits to community, or the setting up of so called ‘community trusts’ which supposedly hold a share in the partnership. But a spate of recent news reports suggests that communal land dwellers often do not see the reimbursements promised by corporate development agenda’s.

In Makopane, Ga-Pila and Ga-Puka in the Limpopo, communal land dwellers protest they have not seen benefits promised by the mining giant Anglo- Platinum. Maandagshoek community members are upset at the destructive practices to their livelihoods of Modikwa Platinum Mine, and Genorah and Nkwe Platinum. On the Wild Coast, Pondoland King Justice Mpondombini Sigcau maintains local community have seen little benefit from a lease agreement to communal land signed between the state and  Sun International in the 1980’s for casino rights. (Sunday Tribune, August 9, 2008).

The 1997 United Nations Human Development Report recognized that poverty relief measures went hand in hand with reversing ‘environmental degradation’, securing ‘sustainable livelihoods’, improving employment prospects and creating ‘an enabling environment for small scale agriculture, microenterprises and the informal sector’.

For most rural communal land dwellers, the question of security of land tenure, access to capital, and a lack of appropriate policies and institutional support structures that take into account the needs and skills of rural communal land dwellers, are a great impediment toward achieving these goals.

Val Payn, Box 44 Harding 4680,  vallieb@gmail.com , cell 083 4416961.

Posted on September 9th, 2008
Filed under: Articles