![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Through investigating the reactions of commercial farmers to land and water reforms in the Trichardtsdal-Ofcolaco area, Limpopo Province, Olifants Basin, South Africa, from 1997 to 2006, it is shown that water claims are key to land redistribution processes, and that commercial farmers make strategic use of arguments for nature conservation and ecological stewardship to defend their claims to water. Given these observations, caution is warranted with respect to the implementation of land and water reforms as separate policy packages; it may be more effective to design water and conservation policies as an integral part of land reform programmes.
Notes
1. The apartheid system classified people into racial groups called “black”, “white”, “Indian” and “coloured”. In the research area, historically disadvantaged individuals and commercial farmers (still) used the terms “black” and “white” during interviews when explaining their perspective on land and water reforms. In respect of their views, and to differentiate between the perspectives of “black” and “white” commercial farmers in the area, the terms “Black” and “White” are used in this text as perceived categories of people. The intention is not to use the terms in a derogatory manner.
2. The sample constituted about 90% of the commercial farmers in the Trichardtsdal-Ofcolaco area and approximately 50% of all the farmers in the adjacent Leydsdorp area. There were hardly any female respondents during field research. There were conversations with wives and daughters of the commercial farmers, but they pointed to their husbands for discussing farming practices and matters of land and water reform. Some women expressed that commercial farming entails a lifestyle in the White farmers’ community that is associated more positively with ideals and stereotypes of men than of women. They explained that men, more than women, nurture the motivation to pursue commercial farming operations.
3. In total, 9 out of 24 commercial farmers also kept livestock, mainly cattle for beef production, dairy cows and chickens.
4. Agri South Africa (AgriSA), originally established in 1904 as the South African Agricultural Union, is a federal agricultural trade organization in South Africa. AgriSA promotes, on behalf of its members, the development, profitability, stability and sustainability of commercial agriculture in South Africa by means of its involvement and input on national and international policy level (see http://www.agrisa.co.za).
5. Information obtained from an old brochure of the Ofcolaco Farmers’ Association (dated approximately 1930).
6. Information obtained from a letter of the FATO sent to the Minister of Environment and Water Affairs (dated 8 March 1990). Copy obtainable from the lead author.
7. Information obtained from a press release by the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning (dated 12 August 1985) and an announcement by the state president (dated 14 August 1985) in connection with the consolidation decisions with respect to the national state of Lebowa, as well as from a letter of the Agricultural Union of Letaba District to the local farmers’ association about the “Trichardtsdal consolidation” (dated 20 August 1987).
8. Correspondingly, a database held by the DWAF showed a steep increase in borehole installations in this period (1987–1992) (Chapman Citation2006).
9. Some farms in the vicinity of the research area were redistributed under the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) programme launched in 2001 (see Hall Citation2010 for background on the LRAD).
10. The names of the properties have been made anonymous. The farms with a number in the name (Farms Zero through Eleven) fall within or on the border of the area under the jurisdiction of the SRIB. The farm with a letter in the name (Farm X) falls outside this area.
11. In strategic partnership schemes, 50% of the shares are held by an operation company (investors and often White farmers/managers), 48% by a communal property association (usually Black beneficiaries), and 2% by a labourers’ trust (for those who work on the farms).
12. The National Water Act of 1998 describes four categories of water use authorizations: (1) Schedule 1 for small volumes of water for household use; (2) General Authorizations for larger volumes of water for any specific type of water use and/or any category of user; (3) Existing Lawful Use (see main text); and (4) Licensed Water Use for water use authorized in terms of a license issued under the National Water Act. All categories of water use, except under Schedule One, are subject to water use registration, and should be registered in the Water Authorisation Registration Management System (WARMS). Water use by the commercial farmers in the research area has been subject to water use registration (see main text), which implies that it is considered to fall under the definition of Existing Lawful Use, because the other categories are not applicable for their situation.
13. Minutes of a meeting (dated 31 July 1990) between the then Department of Water Affairs and the farmers reveal that farmers wanted to register water use even then.
14. See explanation in Note 12.
15. What was the DWAF prior to 2009 is now the Department of Water Affairs (DWA), falling under the Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs.
16. A letter of the FATO to the government (dated 11 June 1987) reveals that farmers had already approached the state in 1987, requesting that it build a dam in the LNR for better water supply. These plans were taken up again in a letter to the DWAF (dated 21 September 2005) after an invitation from the DWAF for “water storage and usage proposals”.
17. Farmers in the adjacent Leydsdorp area were not consulted in the process, although their farms were located in the (lower) catchment of the Selati River. The boundaries of the new WUA jurisdiction area were not extended downstream, hence the name “Upper Selati WUA” rather than “Selati WUA”. Apparently, the concerns of SRIB farmers to secure water resources outweighed opportunities to strengthen a new WUA with more White farmers as members.
18. Information obtained from various letters and proposals from the FATO in 1998 (among others, dated 26 March 1998 and 7 September 1998), concerning Farm Three and the CFA, and Farm X and Madiba Trust.
19. Information obtained from a letter of the Department of Agriculture, Land and Environment (dated 21 April 1998), sent to the FATO in response to their objections about “rent-a-crowd” practices.
20. Information obtained from a letter of the FATO (dated 9 February 1998), sent to the Department of Agriculture, Land and Environment, and other letters sent in 1998 to various departments.
21. Information obtained from an untraceble local newspaper article (dated 4 October 1998), “Landbou was te haastig” (Agriculture was too hasty). Copy obtainable from the lead author.
22. The same local newspaper article (see Note 21) mentions that irrigation equipment was destroyed in a bush fire shortly after transfer of Farm Three and that no new equipment was provided by the government.
23. Information obtained from the minutes of the FATO (dated 15 March 2001).
24. Information obtained from the minutes of the FATO (dated 22 March 2002). We assume that the amount of one billion ZAR was available in the equivalent of USD, approximately 89 million USD. The USD equivalent was calculated using the exchange rate of 22 March 2002 (11.27 ZAR per unit USD).
25. Minutes of the meetings reveal that claimants, among others, were committed to pursuing their claims for Farm Zero because the property contained grave sites and other ritual places sacred to the claimants’ communities.
26. The minutes of this meeting (dated 4 June 2003) reveal that the first title deeds in the area date from 1899, and that a first mapping of the area took place in 1904. Without mapping and title deeds, it is impossible to precisely designate the Lekgalameetse as a “nature reserve”. Other documents show that the Lekgalameetse area obtained a conservation status in the mid-1980s (see Note 7).
27. The minutes of this meeting (dated 4 June 2003) reveal that the farmers offered nine productive farms in the Trichartsdal/Ofcolaco area, together with a business plan for present owners to remain and assist new owners.