Land Reform, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods and Gender Relations a Case Study of Gallawater a Farm
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Land reform, sustainable rural livelihoods and gender relations A case study of Gallawater A farm SCHOOLof GOVERNMENT Volume one UNIVERSITY OF THE THE WESTERN CAPE Kgopotšo Mokgope Research Report No. 5 Research Report No. 5 Land reform, sustainable rural livelihoods and gender relations: A case study of Gallawater A farm Kgopotšo Mokgope Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies November 2000 Land reform, sustainable rural livelihoods and gender relations: A case study of Gallawater A farm By Kgopotšo Mokgope Published by the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535, telephone: 021 9593733/3961, fax: 021 9593732, email: [email protected] ISBN 1-86808-488-4 November 2000 Edited by Stephen Heyns Cover photograph by Kgopotšo Mokgope Layout by Rosie Campbell and Derek Patterson Typeset in Times Reproduction by Image Mix Printing by New Wave Contents Page List of figures ii List of tables ii Acknowledgements iii 1 Introduction: context and rationale 1 2 Key issues and concepts 14 3 Land reform, gender relations and rural livelihoods in South Africa 23 4 The history and context of Gallawater A farm 33 5 Livelihoods and livelihood resources on Gallawater A 49 6 Future prospects for Gallawater A farm 66 7 Conclusions and recommendations 73 Bibliography 81 i List of figures Figure 1: Eastern Cape location map 4 Figure 2: Magisterial districts of the Eastern Cape mentioned in this report 4 Figure 3: Farms and settlements surrounding Gallawater A 34 Figure 4: Gallawater A farm 38 Figure 5: Gallawater A farm (detail) 39 Figure 6: Case study: Enforcing rules in a complex web of social relations 63 Figure 7: Case study: A look into one household on Gallawater A 64 List of tables Table 1: Residence status of beneficiaries 42 Table 2: Size of beneficiary households by sex of household head 42 Table 3: Resident population 43 Table 4: Wealth ranking by sex of household head 44 Table 5: Primary sources of household cash income 53 Table 6: Households relying on pensions as a primary source of income 53 Table 7: Individual pensioners by sex of household head 54 Table 8: Arable fields used on Gallawater A and in broader Zweledinga by sex of household head 56 Table 9: Livestock carrying capacity and actual numbers of livestock on Gallawater A 57 Table 10: Livestock ownership by sex of household head 59 Table 11: Livestock numbers by sex of household head 59 Table 12: Livestock ownership by sex of individual owner 59 Table 13: Livestock numbers by individual owner 59 Table 14: Acquisition of livestock through purchase by sex of household head 59 Table 15: Acquisition of livestock through inheritance by sex of household head 59 Table 16: Acquisition of livestock through gifts/isahlulo by sex of household head 60 ii Acknowledgements .This research was made possible through fund- vided me with information and documents. In ing from the International Development Re- this regard I would like to acknowledge the search Centre of Canada (IDRC). I would like assistance of Sam Myandeki in particular. to thank Michelle Friedman for her supervi- I would also like to thank my colleagues, in sion and assistance, and for clearly showing particular Ben Cousins, Lungisile Ntsebeza and her dedication and commitment to the research. Zolile Ntshona, for their ongoing comments and Stephen Heyns provided much-appreciated assistance during the research and the writing editing and proofreading of the final draft of of the final report. The trust and co-operation the report. His patience and diligence is highly of the people of Gallawater A farm is grate- appreciated. I would also like to acknowledge fully appreciated and acknowledged. They the assistance offered by the Border Rural accepted me and shared with me their lives Committee staff members who provided com- and information. For that I am deeply grateful. ments on a draft of the report and also pro- Kgopotšo Mokgope October 2000 iii A case study of Gallawater A farm Chapter One: Introduction: Context and rationale The research project aimed to investigate the impact of land reform processes on sustainable rural livelihoods and on gender relations in South Africa by examining a case study in the Eastern Cape province. Specific focus of the research The sustainable rural livelihoods study framework In order to achieve the objective, the study Livelihoods set out to investigate a number of Livelihoods can be defined as the means interlinked issues: through which people obtain a secure 1. The importance of land-based natural living which meets their needs for food, resources to rural livelihoods, taking shelter, health, belonging and wellbeing into account the availability of such (PLAAS 1995:3). A livelihood comprises resources, changing trends in the avail- the capabilities, assets and activities re- ability of such resources, and the fac- quired for people to obtain a secure living tors that influence these changes, past which can meet their needs for food, and present. shelter, health, belonging and wellbeing 2. Non-land-based resources such as (Scoones 1998:5). economic, human, social and political Livelihood resources capital, taking into account the impor- People combine the resources that they tance of these resources in rural liveli- have access to and control over to create hoods and the interrelationships be- livelihoods. Four different types of liveli- tween these and land-based natural hood resources (‘capital’) can be identi- resources. fied: 3. Activities and resources associated with ! natural capital – natural resource stocks particular livelihood strategies. and environmental services from which 4. Differential access for women and men resource flows and services useful for to all kinds of livelihood resources. livelihoods are derived 5. Institutional frameworks that determine ! economic or financial capital – cash, access to and control over livelihood credit/debt, savings and other economic resources at household, community and assets, including basic infrastructure state levels, including: and production equipment and tech- ! the effect of such frameworks on nologies decisions on livelihood strategies ! human capital – skills, knowledge, ! changes within these frameworks ability to labour, good health and ! the gendered structure of institu- physical capability tional frameworks and gender rela- ! social capital – networks, social claims, tions within these. social relations, affiliations and associa- The sustainable rural livelihoods frame- tions. work of analysis has been used in this Access to resources and control over them study. is different for each individual and this has 1 Land reform, sustainable rural livelihoods and gender relations different implications (positive or negative) community and national levels may also on the pursuit of sustainable livelihoods have a positive or negative impact on (Scoones 1998:8). individuals. Livelihood strategies Different livelihood strategies are taken over different time scales, seasons and Livelihood strategies are determined by the years, and even within domestic cycles availability of resources, in terms of access depending on changes in dependency to and control over these resources, and as ratios, health conditions and other factors. determined by institutional frameworks This also occurs over longer periods such (Scoones 1998:7). With regard to rural as several generations where more sub- livelihoods three main ideal livelihood stantial shifts in combinations may occur, strategies are available: or where local and external conditions ! agricultural intensification or change. Socioeconomic differences which extensification (gaining more livelihood include asset ownership, income levels, from agriculture) gender, age, religious affiliation, caste, ! livelihood diversification (engaging in a social and political status exist within any range of off-farm activities) site and these also have a major impact on ! migrancy (moving elsewhere, temporar- the composition of livelihood portfolios ily, to make a living). (Scoones 1998:10–11). However, in most real situations, people engage in a combination of livelihood Institutional frameworks strategies. Within these strategies, people The term ‘institutional frameworks’ refers engage in various livelihood activities. For to social structures and processes through example, agriculture, small and micro which sustainable livelihoods are enterprise, wage labour, claiming against achieved. Institutions here can be broadly the state (social pensions and disability defined as ‘regularised practices (or pat- grants), claiming against the household terns of behaviour) structured by rules and and community members (remittances, norms of society which have persistent and work parties, outright charity), unpaid widespread use’ (Giddens, cited in domestic labour, illegitimate activities and Scoones 1998:12). Institutions may be non-monetised activities such as barter and formal or informal, often fluid and am- exchange (Carter & May 1997:7–9). biguous, and usually subject to multiple Rural livelihood strategies are often interpretations by different actors. Power heavily reliant on the natural resource base relations are embedded within institutional (Scoones 1998:11). The nature and charac- forms. Institutions are also dynamic, ter of livelihood strategies can be expected continually being shaped and reshaped to differ along natural resource endowment over time; they are thus part of a process gradients – some areas are more richly of social