Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)

Permanent URI for this community

https://hdl.handle.net/10566/18

The Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) engages in research, training, policy development and advocacy in relation to land and agrarian reform, rural governance and natural resource management. It is committed to social change that empowers the poor, builds democracy and enhances sustainable livelihoods.

News

For the latest news from PLAAS click here.

Browse

Browsing by Author "Andrew, Maura"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Commercial biofuel land deals & environment and social impact assessments in Africa: Three case studies in Mozambique and Sierra Leone
    (Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2011) Andrew, Maura; Van Vlaenderen, Hilde
    The rapid increase in attempts by foreign investors to acquire large tracts of land in Africa for biofuel developments has generated substantial concern about their potential negative impact on the communities living in the targeted areas. This includes concerns about the impact on local residents’ livelihoods, their access to land, natural resources and labour, and their food security. This paper examines three case studies of proposed biofuel developments in Mozambique and Sierra Leone in terms of their social displacement impacts and the extent to which such impacts can be avoided or minimised. The case studies show that even in areas with low population densities and settlements concentrated in villages where it is easier to minimise displacement impacts, livelihood displacement impacts still cannot be entirely avoided due to communal and scattered land use in most rural areas. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) processes have changed the location, size and boundaries of developments to reduce displacement impacts, but more mitigation measures — such as outgrower schemes and land dedicated to food production — can provide further livelihood restitution and avoid food security impacts. The three biofuel ventures also highlight the influence of tenure security for local land right holders in determining the nature of the land deals and the consultation processes: cases where land leases are made with central government seem to provide fewer incentives for developers to negotiate directly with local communities and provide them with lower levels of compensation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa : Land use and livelihoods
    (Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2003) Andrew, Maura; Ainslie, Andrew; Shackleton, Charlie
    This paper addresses how land reform can contribute to enhancing land-based livelihoods. South African agriculture is often characterised as being divided into two types: freehold tenure/ commercial agriculture vs. communal tenure/ subsistence agriculture. Subsistence uses of land are generally viewed as wasteful, destructive and economically unproductive in comparison to commercial production systems. It is not surprising therefore that land redistribution programmes which transfer land to subsistence producers are often viewed with disdain. Such views inform recent land reform policy shifts aimed at enhancing ‘commercial’ agricultural production for the market rather than subsistence production. There is also an emphasis on ‘full-time’ farming on larger portions of land to generate substantial agricultural incomes. These dualistic stereotypes are inappropriate and misleading. This dualism ignores the many cases where small-scale producers in communal areas are currently involved in production for the market (along with self-provisioning) as well as the more numerous historical examples of such involvement. We also challenge the characterisation of subsistence land uses as ‘wasteful, destructive and economically unproductive’. There is considerable evidence that land-based livelihoods have been significantly undervalued. This is not to say that there is no room for improvement. Most poor rural households encounter considerable constraints to production that limit their land-based livelihoods to a survivalist mode. The challenge for South Africa’s land and agrarian reform programme is to alleviate the constraints to production and, in so doing, to enhance land-based livelihoods amongst the poor majority beyond the survivalist mode and to facilitate commercial production for the market amongst the elite. This dualistic characterisation of South African agriculture should be replaced by a ‘continuum of farmers’ approach that recognises and supports a broad range of large and small-scale, full-time and part-time, as well as commercial, peasant and subsistence farmers. To justify the need for this ‘continuum of farmers’ approach, this paper highlights the wide variety of productive uses of land and natural resources amongst residents of communal areas and land reform beneficiaries, and the significant value of these uses. However, we also draw attention to the constraints to land-based livelihoods in general and amongst land reform beneficiaries in particular. The lack of land is one of these constraints but it is not the only one. It is on this basis that we highlight the need for a broader agrarian reform programme aimed at alleviating these constraints.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Land use and rural livelihoods: Have they been enhanced through land reform?
    (Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2003) Andrew, Maura; Shackleton, Charlie; Ainslie, Andrew
    It is often assumed that transferring land to rural households will provide people with valuable assets that can be productively used to enhance their livelihoods. Unfortunately, few rural people or land reform beneficiaries are perceived to be using land produc- tively because they do not engage in significant commercial production for the market. Transferring land to subsistence users is therefore seen as a waste of resources. However, an examination of land use in communal areas and amongst land reform beneficiaries indicates that resource-poor rural people do use land productively and resourcefully, but the constraints to production and participation in agricultural markets they encounter limit their livelihoods to survivalist mode. Land reform can enhance rural livelihoods beyond this survivalist mode if it is integrated into a broader rural development programme aimed at providing subsistence land users with the support they need to overcome the constraints to production, and to connect them to the markets.