AN EVALUATION OF SMALL SCALE FORESTRY IN THE KWAMBONAMBI REGION OF KWAZULU-NATAL BOTSHABELO OTHUSITSE Submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the degree of Master of Science in the School of Environment and Development University of Natal Pietermaritzburg 1997 ABSTRACT South Afiica is a country poorly endowed with natural forests, which account for less than 1% ofthe total land area. Due to the increase in the demand for forest products in the 1970's and 1980's, which could not be met by the natural forests , the two South African pulp and paper giants, Sappi and Mondi, started the Project Grow and Khulanathi schemes respectively. One oftheir objectives was to encourage rural communities, through financial assistance, to plant trees on their farms for sale to the forestry companies. Planting oftrees by farmers on their own land for their economic, social and environmental (reafforestation) benefits is called social forestry . Social forestry should bring economic activity, capacity building and community empowerment. The benefits from social forestry are two dimensional. The growers benefit from the financial assistance and the readily available market provided by the company, while the company satisfiesits demand for timber (pulpwood). The primary objective ofthis study is therefore to identify factors that influence the choice of trees as a land use in communal areas, and to recommend ways of improving benefits accruing to the growers in particular and the community in general. The factors were determined through structured face to face interviews consisting' of both closed and open-ended questions. The results of the study show that the major motivating factor in tree planting is the perceived financial benefits while lack ofland is the major limiting factor. Even though tree planting contributes to social upliftment, it was found that there is 'insufficient capacity building, community empowerment and environmental awareness among growers. Cooperatives are recommended as institutions that will enhance growers' participation in tree planting and maximisethe grower benefits from trees . As institutions, cooperatives will be better placed to access relevant information in areas such as marketing and have more bargaining power than individual growers. It is further recommended that the afforestation permit system should be reformulated to include permits for communally owned areas. 1l PREFACE This research was carried out between August 1996 and August 1997 under the supervision ofJenny Mander, Nevil Quinn and Myles Mander. The field work described in this dissertation was carried out in Kwazulu-Natal, in the areas ofSokhulu, Mbonambi, eNgudwini and Mfekayi during November 1996. Unless otherwise specified, this study is the original work of the author. It has not been previously submitted in any form for any degree or diploma to any other University. Signed'~."""""". Botshabelo Othusitse III TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 1 PREFACE 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Vlll CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION . /" 1.1 Background and justification ofthe research . 1.2 Contribution offorestry to the national economy 2 1.3 The importance ofsocial forestry to the forestry companies 4 1.4 The role ofsocial forestry in rural development 4 1.5 Aims and Objectives 8 "CHAPTER2 : SOCIAL FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA. .. ...... .. 11 2.1 Background . ...... .. ... .. ..... .. .. ... ......... .. 11 2.2 Definitions ofsocial forestry 11 2.3 Social forestry as a land use option 14 2.4 Sappi and its Grow Scheme 15 2.5 ~ Mondi and the Khulanathi Scheme 19 , ..cHAPTER 3 : FACTORS INFLUENCING LANDUSE DECISION MAKING IN RURAL COMMUNITIES 24 3.1 Overview . .......... .. .. ........ .. ....... 24 3.2 Land availability 27 3.3 Land tenure and proprietorship 29 3.4 Institutional arrangements 31 3.5 Perception ofneighbours towards tree planting . .. .... .. .... 31 3.6 Communication / extension services 32 3.7 Perceived benefits 32 3.8 Alternative land uses 33 3.9 Economic status 33 3.10 Drought conditions 34 IV CHAPTER 4 : STUDY AREA OVERVIEW AND RESEARCH SURVEY METHODOLOGY35 4.1 Overview ofthe study area 35 4.2 Research question 37 4.3 Overview ofresearch methods 38 4.4 Rationale for adopting research methods used in this research 41 4.5 Methodology and constraints 41 4.6 Weaknesses ofthe research 44 A:HAPTER 5 : RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 45 5.1 Overview 45 5.2 Demographics 45 5.3 Biophysical factors 49 5.4 Social factors 50 5.5 Socio-economic factors 52 5.6 Agroforestry 56 5.7 Growers' reasons for planting trees " 58 5.8 Concerns among growers 59 CHAPTER 6 : DISCUSSION . .... ............. ........ .. .... ......... 62 6.1 Overview . .. .. .. .. ........ ........ ..... ...... .. 62 6.2 Economic incentives 62 6.3 Land availability and tenure . .. .. ....... .... ... 69 6.4 Income level 71 6.5 Education level and training ". 71 6.6 Extension services . ... ...... .... .. ... .. ... ...... .... ... 72 6.7 Rainfall condi loon . ". .. .... ........ 73 6.8 M'igranon. .. .. ... ... ..... .. ... ... ....... .. .... ...... 73 6.9 Traditionalleadership 74 6.10 Land use decision making ..... 74 6.11 Environmental issues 75 6.12 Defaulting to maximise benefits ".. 77 6.13 Assessing costs and benefits 78 6.14 Woodlot monitoring. .. .... .. ........ ... .. ... .. .. 80 6.15 Trees and rural development "..... .. .. ... ... .. ... 81 v CHAPTER 7 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAnONS 83 7.1 Land use decision making . .. .. .. ... 83 7.2 Environmental issues 86 7.3 Capacity building and community empowerment 87 7.4 Agroforestry 88 7.5 Assessment ofthe forestry schemes in the context ofsocial development 89 7.6 The way forward 91 REFERENCES 92 VI LIST OF TABLES Table 1 : Distinguishing features ofconventional planning and integrated planning . 8 Table 2 : Authors and key criteria used to describe social forestry . .. ... .. 14 Table 3 : Comparison of Sappi Grow and Khulanathi schemes . ... .. .. 21 Table 4 : Number ofgrowers in different locations who feel they have benefited or not benefited from tree planting . .. ..... .. .. 55 Table 5 : Growers' perceptions towards replanting their land with trees after harvest 55 Table 6 : Growers' participation in the production oftrees on their own land 56 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 : Schematic map ofthe study area .... .. ... ... .. .. .. .. 3 Figure 2 : Performance ofthe Project Grow scheme in Zululand in terms oftotal area planted and number ofgrowers in the scheme (1983 -1995) 17 Figure 3 : Income accruing to the growers as a percentage oftotal expenditure under the Sappi scheme 18 Figure 4 : Progression in Eucalyptus plantation in Zululand Area under the. KwaMbonambi office and as well as in the two study sites under the Khulanathi Scheme . .. .. ....... ... .. .... .... 20 Figure 5 : Income accruing to the growers under the Mondi scheme for the year 1995 21 Figure 6 : Graphical representation ofthe respondents age groups distribution in the study area . .. ........ ... ... .. ... .. .. .. 46 Figure 7 : Distribution ofgrowers and non-growers according to their education level 47 Figure 8 : Distribution of growers and non-growers according to household Income. " 48 Figure 9 : Distribution of growers and non-growers according to presence or absence ofadvanced planning indicators ... .. .. .. ... ... 48 vu Figure 10 : Relative proportions of growers and non-growers with and without commercial farm work experience . .. .. .. ... .. .. .. 49 Figure 11 : Proportion of growers and non-growers with and without forestry training . .. .. ...... .. .. 49 Figure 12 : Distribution ofgrowers by rainfall condition at the time ofplanting trees 50 Figure 13 : .Attitudes offamily members to the family planting trees, to the family replacing other land uses with trees and towards neighbours planting trees 51 Figure 14 : Qualitative comparison of general growers household income at and after tree planting : . .. ..... .. .. 52 Figure 15 : Growers' perceptions on the status of their level of income at tree planting and current income 53 Figure 16 : Linear relationship of total land area owned by growers and forestry area 54 Figure 17 : Various reasons given by respondents for separating gum trees from food crops 58 Figure 18 : Graphical representation offactors influencing community decisions in planting trees 59 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Research Questionnaire Appendix 2 : Summary ofthe Findings Appendix 3: Sappi Contract Appendix 4: Mondi Contract Vlll ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most indebted to my supervisor, Jenny Mander of the Institute of Natural Resources (INR), University ofNatal, Pietermaritzburg, whose tireless effort and enthusiastic guidance has made this research possible. Nevil Quinn and Myles Mander (eo-supervisors) were also very helpful and I sincerely wish to thank them. My deepest thoughts are sent to Siyabonga Makhaye who acted as a facilitator between me and the Zulu-speaking community in the study area. His good job as an interpreter made the interviews possible. I would like to thank Duncan Reavey for the financial support he so generously made available to me. Without such support, the fieldwork would not have been possible. I further extend my thanks to himfor his guidance during the write-up. His willingness to assist and timeous advice are duly acknowledged. I am grateful to Sappi and Mondi, particularly Mr Herbert Gumede and Mr Jock Boake respectively for their assistance in doing all the necessary preparations for interviews. Their cooperation and assistance made the fieldwork possible within financial and time constraints.