"Jobs are Better than Water"

“Jobs are better than Water1”:

Afforestation, Community Members and the Environment in the Tembe Tribal

Area of Northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Daily water chores in Kwamakwakwa 2

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.............12

3.1. A Record of Woodlot Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area......................................12

3.2. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area…......14

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

Tembe Tribal Area Afforestation........................................................17

4.1. A record of Socio-Economic Consequences of Tembe’s Tribal Woodlots......................17

4.2. A Record of Socio-Economic Consequences of the Manzengwenya Plantation.............22

4.3. Environmental Consequences of Afforestation in the Tembe Tribal Area.....................26

4.4. A Record of Manzengwenya Plantation’s Changing Environment................................28

4.5. A record of the Changing Environment of Tribal Woodlots.........................................29

5. Conclusion - Tribal Systems Compromised?........................................32

6. Appendices (Contact Information):....................................................36

7. Appendices (Scans):.........................................................................37

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..............37

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...........................38

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.................39

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

locations of communities.......................................................................................40

8. Appendices (Photographs):...............................................................41

8.1. Photograph 01: 22 July 2005 – Meeting with the Induna of the KwaMahlungula Community

and some community members at the KwaMahlungula community hall....................41

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................41

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

seedlings that are ready to be planted...................................................................42

- 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...........................42

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

between Mfihlweni and Manguze............................................................................43

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................................................................43

9. Appendices (Primary Research - Process and Issues):.........................44

9.1. Primary Research Process........................................................................................44

9.2. The Sustainable Livelihoods framework and Linkages...............................................45

9.3. Primary Research Issues..........................................................................................45

9.4. Research Limitations...............................................................................................47

10. Bibliography and References.............................................................48

10.1. Primary Sources:...................................................................................................48

10.2. Secondary Sources and Bibliography:.....................................................................48

10.3. Electronic Sources:................................................................................................51

11. Thanks and Acknowledgements..........................................................................53

- 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 -


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 -


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 cultivation8 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 irrigated11. 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 -


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 unemployment of workforce (over 15 years of

age)53 %

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

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)

- 4 -


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

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.

17 (Project Grow Report, 2006)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 -


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 -


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 -

http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm


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 ANC44. 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 program45. 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 -


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 -


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 rights55. 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 -


essential for the social and economic reproduction of the ruling elites, in a Tribal Area61.

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’ farmers71 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 -


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 -


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 -


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.


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 -


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.


July, 2005.


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 -


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, 2005106 Thandizwa Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005107 Interview with Thengani B’s Induna, Saturday 23rd July, 2005

- 19 -


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 woodlot110. 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 Sappi112.

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)


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 -


been claiming the land set aside for communal woodlots for themselves117. 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 -


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 costs130.

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 -


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 -


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 -


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 Reserve146.

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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 past177. 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 -


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 plantations186. 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 money188. 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 income190.

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, 2005185 Tembe Community Meetings, July & December 2005186 (Versfeld, 1996)187 (Ojwang, 2000)188 Mfihlweni Community Meeting, Saturday 23rd July, 2005189 KwaMpuyisa Community Meeting, Wednesday 27th July, 2005190 KwaZibi Store Interview, Wednesday 27th July, 2005191 Interview with Jimmy Tembe, Thursday 21st July, 2005

- 31 -


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 -


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-Natal196. 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 -


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 -


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 IndunaEgazini Mr. TembeeMloli Mr. TembeKwaMakhanya Mr. Fikizolo MakhanyaKwaMasondo Mr. TembeKwaMpukane Mr. TembeKwaMshudu Mr. ZikhaliKwaMyayezi Mr. G. NseleKwaNyamazane Mr. MngomezuluKwaSonto Mr. Khomeni TembeKwazibi Mr. TembeMabibi Mr. MdletsheMahlungula Dr. Mshumayeli NgubaneMfihlweni Mr. NhlabathiMqobela Mr. TembeThandizwe Mr. MasingaThengane A Mr. J.M. NhlonziThengane 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.


- 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 -


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 -


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 5th 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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -


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 -

http://www.yale.edu/forestcertification/symposium/pdfs/southafrica_symposium.pdf

http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51982

http://www.plantseatco2.blogspot.com/

http://www.nri.org/NRET/policy2web.pdf

http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/news/thisweek?show=58509

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2001/010712145p1001.htm

http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/1995/forest.htm#top

http://www.iied.org/docs/flu/psf/stakes/PSF_SA_Chapt5.pdf

http://www.iied.org/docs/flu/psf/partnershipsbook/PSF_Partnerships_Sect3-4.pdf

http://www.frp.uk.com/dissemination_documents/R7285_-_Ethical_trade_-_small_growers_benefit.pdf

http://www.frp.uk.com/dissemination_documents/R7285_-_Ethical_trade_-_small_growers_benefit.pdf

http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/meetings/Huangshan_2001/Mayers_Partnerships_HS.pdf

http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/meetings/Huangshan_2001/Mayers_Partnerships_HS.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/outreach/cmop/intl/southafrica.html

http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Forestry/Forestry%20Policy/whitepap.html

http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Forestry/Default.asp

http://ftp-waldoek.boku.ac.at/sht/download/Smallholder-Company%20Forestry%20Partnerships%20-%20Mayers%20Nov%202004.pdf

http://ftp-waldoek.boku.ac.at/sht/download/Smallholder-Company%20Forestry%20Partnerships%20-%20Mayers%20Nov%202004.pdf


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 -

http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/Census96/HTML/default.htm

http://land.pwv.gov.za/restitution/BACKGROU.RES.htm

http://www.research.yale.edu/gisf/assets/pdf/tfd/poverty/SAPPI.%20Project%20Grow%20Report.pdf

http://www.research.yale.edu/gisf/assets/pdf/tfd/poverty/SAPPI.%20Project%20Grow%20Report.pdf

Thanks and Acknowledgements

11.Thanks and Acknowledgements

Family and Friends:

Ian & Mary Mardall - Father & MotherNadine & William Stein - Sister & Brother in LawThe Young Household - Accommodation and AccommodationTamlyn 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 ColleagueClaire Ichou – Friend and ColleagueFellow Post Graduates in the Economic History and Development Studies DepartmentThe Lecturers and staff at the School of Life and Environmental SciencesLliane Loots – Drama Department and Gender Activist “The Personal is Political”Mike Underwood – Programme Co-ordinator: Community ForestryLynne Phipson – Subject Librarian

The Valley Trust:

Richard Haigh – Rural project Co-ordinator

Sdangeni village:

The Mbanjwa Family – Home stay family in SdangeniThe Sabela Family – Neighbours of the Mbanjwa’s

Maputaland:

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

DWAF:

Chris Davel – Control TechnicianCameron Tylcoat – DCE: Water Utilisation & WARMSShaun Naidoo – GIS Specialist

The Lord, Goddess and the Ancestors

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

- 56 -

Documents

"Jobs are Better than Water"