Books and Book Chapters

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/10566/630

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 42

At the crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 1999) Cousins, Ben; Emmett, Natashiá; Campbell, Rosie; Heyns, Stephen
The land sector has always been characterised by lively and public arguments over policy, and some of the central and recurring themes of the previous five years of debate were expected to surface at the conference. One of these is whether or not the ANC has the political will to seek to radically alter agrarian power relations and the distribution of resources that underlies them. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) of 1994 called for a wide-ranging and redistributive land reform2, portrayed as the central driving force behind a large scale rural development programme. Since then the effective displacement of the RDP by the Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy (GEAR) and the derisory budget for land reform since 1994/ 95 (never more than one percent of the total budget) have called this commitment into question. Is government s oft-repeated statement that it intends to eliminate rural poverty (most recently in President Mbeki s state of the nation address of February 2000) only a rhetorical gesture?
At the crossroads: Land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), and National Land Committee (NLC), 2000) Cousins, Ben
These conference proceedings are published at a time of extraordinary fluidity and uncertainty as to the future of the ambitious programmes of land and agrarian reform1 initiated by the first democratic government in 1994. A number of fundamental questions are currently being asked within the sector: What is the future of land and agrarian reform in South Africa in the 21st century? Some observers assert that the African National Congress (ANC) government has effectively jettisoned land reform, without actually announcing this decision to the world at large. If .agrarian questions., including but not limited to questions as to the nature and distribution of land rights, are seen as marginal by those holding state power, then what are the implications for rural people, for land activists, and for the politics of land and agriculture in democratic South Africa? Alternatively, will land and agrarian reform be re-oriented so that its central focus is the fostering of a class of small, medium and largescale black commercial farmers? If so, will government attempt to alleviate rural poverty primarily through welfare programmes and expanded social services rather than through the transfer of productive assets and support for wealth-creating productive activity? If at least some elements of land and agrarian reform continue to be oriented to the needs of the rural poor, what lessons from the first five years need to inform the design and implementation of more effective policies and programmes? These are challenging questions, but important ones to seek answers to. The papers in this collection may assist in such efforts, despite significant shifts in the political context between the early months of 1999, when the papers were written, and March 2000, as these proceedings go to press. The most obvious difference, of course, is the appointment of a new Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs, Thoko Didiza (formerly Deputy Minister of Agriculture). However, the policy implications of this change in leadership are only just beginning to emerge, with the Minister announcing a major new policy thrust on 11 February 2000
Annual report 2000
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2001) PLAAS
The Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) focuses on the land restitution and redistribution programmes initiated by the post-apartheid democratic state; land tenure reform; emerging regimes of natural resource management; rural livelihoods and farm-household production systems; chronic poverty and rural development; and processes of institutional restructuring and reorientation in support of land and agrarian reform in South Africa. The main activities of PLAAS are research, support to national policy development, training, post-graduate teaching, commissioned evaluation studies, and advisory and facilitation services. The university’s mission statement commits it to ‘responding in critical and creative ways to the needs of a society in transition’, and to ‘helping build an equitable and dynamic society’– commitments taken very seriously by staff at PLAAS. The year 2000 saw our researchers beginning to engage with policy on land and local government reform in a more public manner than in the past (when they tended to do so in ‘backroom’ and advisory roles), and to adopt a more adversarial stance towards government.
Contested resources: Challenges to the governance of natural resources in Southern Africa
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2002) Benjaminsen, Tor Arve
Papers from the International Symposium on ‘Contested Resources: Challenges to Governance of Natural Resources in Southern Africa. Emerging perspectives from Norwegian-Southern African collaborative research’ held at The University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, 18–20 October 2000
Contested resources: Challenges to the governance of natural resources in Southern Africa
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2002) Benjaminsen, Tor Arve; Cousins, Ben; Thompson, Lisa; Campbell, Rosie; Heyns, Stephen
In this keynote address I wish to identify some important ideas and conclusions arising out of recent analyses of theory and practice on natural resource management. I use these in a preliminary attempt to argue that the centrality of power and meaning in processes of ‘governing natural resources’ is not sufficiently addressed in the currently favoured approaches of ‘common property theory’. My intention is to provide some food for thought as we consider together the specific cases presented in the symposium. I am personally committed to the intersection of scholarship or theory-building with practical action, including policy. Note that I say ‘intersection’ – I do not wish to conflate the academic work of theory-building with the practical work of applying theory to policy, but I also reject their total separation as neither possible nor desirable. It is the interface of ideas and action which interests me. I am particularly interested in the way certain ideas or approaches make their way into policy design and implementation, often with no attention being paid to their theoretical premises, and how quickly they become accepted as conventional wisdoms. Equally interesting is the question of why some ideas and approaches developed by thinkers and researchers do not make their way into policy debate. Today, I shall discuss some notions that currently dominate the realm of natural resource management so effectively that they exclude others that might be more appropriate guides.
Annual report 2001
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2002) PLAAS
PLAAS continues to grow and to take on new projects and staff. This presents a number of challenges, not least of which is the sustainability of such growth. The year 2001 saw the completion of a twelve month-long ‘organisational change process’ which addressed key issues of institutional sustainability. This resulted in new governance and management structures, revised salary scales and conditions of service in line with those of the university, and staff contracts that offer a degree of security of tenure despite the vicissitudes of external donor funding. By the end of the year most of the new systems and procedures were in operation, bringing a sense of solid foundations and greater stability. One of our innovations was to cluster researchers and projects into ‘focus areas’ co-ordinated by senior researchers. We hope that this will facilitate more effective links between individual projects, encourage coherence in our research, training and policy engagement, and facilitate strategic planning. The five focus areas are: land reform; agro-food regimes; community-based natural resource management (CBNRM); rural governance; and chronic poverty and development policy. A major new focus for PLAAS in 2001 was the post-graduate teaching programme. Twelve students registered for the Post-Graduate Diploma in Land and Agrarian Studies, eleven completed the year, and three qualified to proceed to the MPhil. The teaching programme is carried out in collaboration with a number of other institutions and university teaching departments, giving it a truly multi-disciplinary character.
Annual report 2002
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2003) PLAAS
The year 2002 was an extremely busy one for PLAAS staff, and saw the initiation of many new projects and activities, some of them qualitatively different to anything undertaken before. These included an in-depth, national review of the land reform programme, and the release of several media briefings that summarise research findings on poverty in the Western Cape. Others were the co-hosting of a continent-wide networking programme on land and resource rights, and lobbying and advocacy in relation to a proposed new law, the Communal Land Rights Bill. These indicate that PLAAS is only just beginning to realise its potential to combine rigorous academic research, effective communication of research findings, highly-focused policy advocacy, and effective networking in support of African research and policy advocacy. Research highlights of the year include the initiation of a project to evaluate national land and agrarian reform policies and their impacts since 1994. Ruth Hall and Dr Peter Jacobs were recruited to undertake this research and made impressive progress in relation to this ambitious and challenging task. Other important new projects that began in 2002 included Dr Thembela Kepe’s research on HIV/AIDS and land-based livelihoods, and the multi-disciplinary and international KNOWFISH project on the informational needs and institutional structures for effective fisheries co-management, co-ordinated by Dr Mafa Hara.
Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium recent developments in the debate around rangeland ecology and management
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2003) Bayer, Wolfgang; Hahn, Brian; Hiernaux, Pierre; Hoffman, Timm; Illius, Andrew; Kerven, Carol; O’Connor, Tim; Richardson, David; Sandford, Stephen; Vetter, Susanne; Ward, David; Waters-Bayer, Ann
The debate on equilibrium vs non-equilibrium dynamics in pastoral systems emerged in the early 1980s, when economists, ecologists and social scientists began to challenge the widespread claims of overgrazing and degradation in African rangelands and subsequent interventions based on rangeland succession theory and correct stocking rates (for example, Sandford 1982; 1983; Homewood & Rodgers 1987; Ellis & Swift 1988; Abel & Blaikie 1989; Westoby et al. 1989). The debate gained momentum in the early 1990s after two international workshops around emergent new paradigms in rangeland ecology and socio-economics (Woburn I and II), which resulted in the publication of two books, Range Ecology at Disequilibrium edited by Behnke et al. (1993) and Living with Uncertainty edited by Scoones (1994). The ‘new rangeland ecology’ argued that the traditional, equilibrium-based rangeland models did not take into account the considerable spatial heterogeneity and climatic variability of semi-arid rangelands, and that mobility, variable stocking rates and adaptive management were essential for the effective and sustainable utilisation of semi-arid and arid rangelands.
Annual report 2003
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2004) PLAAS
Applied social science researchers generally want to see their research influence policy and practice; those of a more activist bent seek to ‘change the world, not simply to interpret it’.1 In its mission statement PLAAS envisages a strong connection between its research projects and processes of policy development and advocacy. To this end we are guided by clear values and a commitment to ‘social change that empowers the poor, builds democracy and enhances sustainable development… gender equity is integral to these goals’ (PLAAS mission statement). It is relatively easy to reach agreement on a general statement of this kind, but applying and realising this vision is less straightforward. The macro- and micro-politics of policy making and programme implementation are complicated and often highly contested. In addition, PLAAS researchers do not always agree with one other on the content of policy recommendations or on strategies of engagement. They do, however, seek to learn from each other through discussion and debate on a rich and varied range of experiences.
Securing land and resource rights in Africa: Pan-African perspectives
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2004) Alinon, Koffi; Ayeb, Habib; Claassens, Aninka; Cousins, Ben; Greenberg, Stephen; Ismail, Abdel Mawla; Kameri-Mbote, Patricia; Marongwe, Nelson; Simo, John Mope; Ng’ong’ola, Clement; Odhiambo, Michael; Omoweh, Daniel; Ouédraogo, Hubert; Saruchera, Munyaradzi; Tawfic, Rawia; Wanjala, Smokin
Across the African continent the land and resource rights of the rural poor are threatened by inappropriate policies and institutions (including global treaties); unequal social, political and economic relations; the actions of powerful vested interests (wealthy national or local elites, international aid organisations, multinational corporations); and the weakness of grassroots organisations. It is against this background that the Pan-African Programme on Land and Resource Rights (PAPLRR) Network’s initiative to analyse, understand and engage with these issues was conceptualised by four African centres of excellence that subsequently developed the programme in 2001. The unique contributions Africa can make are seldom taken seriously in international natural resource policymaking debates. One reason could be that the African voice on land and resource rights is perhaps not as strong in international forums as it should be. By coming together in forums such as PAPLRR, Africans are able to share their concerns and develop capacity to articulate their opinions and influence outcomes in the international arena. Defining an agenda for advocacy and strategic engagement with governments, and building links across divides between scholars, practitioners and advocacy groups, is an emphasis of PAPLRR into the future. A key focus of the programme is the role of land and resource rights in the struggle against poverty, exploitation and oppression as well as their contribution in solving real world problems of African people, not as academic objects to be studied, but as key components of the struggle.
Annual report 2004
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2005) PLAAS
The wider context of our research and training, and the ultimate rationale for establishing and maintaining a centre such as PLAAS, is the key challenge of deeply entrenched poverty, as well as the inequality to which it is inextricably linked. A majority of citizens in South Africa, as in the wider southern African region, are subject to an on-going crisis of livelihood vulnerability, exacerbated by a raging HIV/Aids pandemic. These realities tend to empty formal democracy of substantive content. Poverty and vulnerability are deepest in rural areas where the majority of the region’s population still lives. The greatest concentrations of such poverty are in those areas previously designated exclusively for African settlement, the former ‘native reserves’, but poverty is also widespread in the commercial farming sector. This sector has always paid extremely low wages, but has been shedding jobs steadily for the past decade, and what jobs survive are largely casual or seasonal in character. Poverty in both contexts has its origins in colonial policies of land acquisition, settlement and economic development that dispossessed the indigenous majority of their land and created dual and highly unequal political, social, legal and economic regimes. A similar legacy is found in coastal communities in relation to unequal access to marine and coastal resources.
Annual report 2006-2007
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2008) PLAAS
Over the past two years the contradictions inherent in South Africa’s post-apartheid growth and development path have become increasingly evident. Growth has not managed to reduce very high levels of unemployment to a significant degree, and large numbers of people remain trapped in structural poverty. The emergence of a growing black middle class has helped reduce inter-racial inequality, but this is small consolation to those with insufficient and insecure incomes who scrape a living in low-wage jobs (sometimes called ‘the working poor’), engage in survivalist micro-enterprises in informal settlements and densely settled rural areas, or depend in large part on social grants. A key question for South Africa is thus: what policies can ensure more inclusive and poverty-reducing forms of economic development?
Another countryside? Policy options for land and agrarian reform in South Africa
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2009) Hall, Ruth
Land reform in South Africa is a political project that has foundered. For years, the process has been variously described as being ‘in crisis’, ‘at a crossroads’, ‘at an impasse’ or simply ’stuck’. This still seems as true as ever, as political pressure is mounting to find new solutions to old problems. In recent years, the issue of ‘delivery’, and how to speed it up, has taken centre stage and become a justificatory framework for arguments about how to reconfigure roles of the state and private sector in land reform. In the process, little attention has been given to the relationship between policy change and mobilisation from below. In the absence of sustained and organised pressure from rural people themselves, it appears that the shifts underway in land reform policy are not so much about ‘delivery’ as about reframing the entire project. Increasingly, the debates on land reform centre not so much on the mechanisms to be used, as on the vision that is to be pursued – something about which existing policy is remarkably silent. At stake is nothing less than what, and whom, land reform is for. South Africans are deeply divided on this question.
Another countryside? Policy options for land and agrarian reform in South Africa
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2009) Aliber, Michael; Andrews, Mercia; Baiphethi, Mompati; Cliffe, Lionel; Hall, Ruth; Jacobs, Peter; Jara, Mazibuko; Kleinbooi, Karin; Lahiff, Edward; Zamchiya, Phillan
Land reform in South Africa is a political project that has foundered. For years, the process has been variously described as being ‘in crisis’, ‘at a crossroads’, ‘at an impasse’ or simply ’stuck’. This still seems as true as ever, as political pressure is mounting to find new solutions to old problems. In recent years, the issue of ‘delivery’, and how to speed it up, has taken centre stage and become a justificatory framework for arguments about how to reconfigure roles of the state and private sector in land reform. In the process, little attention has been given to the relationship between policy change and mobilisation from below. In the absence of sustained and organised pressure from rural people themselves, it appears that the shifts underway in land reform policy are not so much about ‘delivery’ as about reframing the entire project. Increasingly, the debates on land reform centre not so much on the mechanisms to be used, as on the vision that is to be pursued – something about which existing policy is remarkably silent. At stake is nothing less than what, and whom, land reform is for. South Africans are deeply divided on this question.
Review of land reforms in Southern Africa, 2010
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2010) Kleinbooi, Karin
This book forms part of a learning programme on ‘Land Reform From Below: Decentralised Land Reform in Southern Africa’. Supported by the Austrian Development Agency, the programme was launched in 2007, and has since provided policymakers, development practitioners and those involved in local governance with a variety of regional platforms on which to share their experiences of decentralised land-reform processes and to derive lessons related to best practice that can inform and improve policy-making. This Review of Land Reform in Southern Africa 2010 reflects on countries’ experiences up to the first part of 2010, and highlights lessons for land policy and practice. It aims to follow on from the biennial Independent Review of Land Issues, in Eastern and Southern Africa produced by land-rights specialists, Robin Palmer and Martin Adams, in 2003, 2005 and 2007.
Review of land reforms in Southern Africa
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2010) Kleinbooi, Karin
Land, and access to land, is one of the most important assets for the poor in southern Africa, both rural and urban, and probably contributes more than any other factor to their economic survival and the quality of their lives. The countries of southern Africa share similar histories of colonialisation and dispossession, histories that continue to shape current patterns of land tenure and administration. Most of the countries in the region have been through a phase of liberalisation and market reforms, or market-related land redistribution programmes, and since the 1990s new land laws have been passed in several countries, which tend to have been relatively weakly implemented and enforced. While land issues in the region have been shaped by history, access to land in the subregion is currently characterised by: scarcity of arable land; increasing commercialisation of land; new land-use patterns; the expansion of agro-fuel plantations; gender inequalities; and land ownership being concentrated in the hands of an indigenous elite while labour tenants and farm workers are subject to evictions, displacement and deepening poverty.
Decentralised land governance: Case studies and local voices from Botswana, Madagascar and Mozambique
(Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2011) Kleinbooi, Karin; de Satgé, Rick; Tanner, Christopher
Decentralisation has been on the Southern African development agenda for a long time. It is a concept which appears deceptively simple. The principle of subsidiarity holds that decision making about local development priorities needs to take place as close to the people locally involved as possible. Decision making about land access and resource allocation is a key component of a broader decentralisation agenda. However, on closer examination, discourses around decentralisation are complex. They combine preand post colonial histories, changing development trajectories, and understandings about tenure and governance systems. They are set against major shifts in global and local balances of power and fast changing socio-economic relations which further marginalise the poor and deepen inequality.
Decentralised land governance: Case studies and local voices from Botswana, Madagascar and Mozambique
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2011) Kleinbooi, Karin; de Satgé, Rick; Tanner, Christopher
Decentralisation has been on the Southern African development agenda for a long time. It is a concept which appears deceptively simple. The principle of subsidiarity holds that decision making about local development priorities needs to take place as close to the people locally involved as possible. Decision making about land access and resource allocation is a key component of a broader decentralisation agenda. However, on closer examination, discourses around decentralisation are complex. They combine pre and post-colonial histories, changing development trajectories, and understandings about tenure and governance systems. They are set against major shifts in global and local balances of power and fast changing socio-economic relations which further marginalise the poor and deepen inequality.
Community response: decline of the Chambo in Lake Malawi's Southeast arm
(Springer, 2011) Hara, Mafaniso
Small-scale fisheries are a major source of food and employment around the world. Yet, many small-scale fishers work in conditions that are neither safe nor secure. Millions of them are poor, and often they are socially and politically marginalized. Macro-economic and institutional mechanisms are essential to address these poverty and vulnerability problems; however, interventions at the local community level are also necessary. This requires deep understanding of what poverty means to the fishers, their families and communities; how they cope with it; and the challenges they face to increase resilience and improve their lives. This book provides a global perspective, situating small-scale fisheries within the broad academic discourse on poverty, fisheries management and development. In-depth case studies from fifteen countries in Latin America, Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, demonstrate the enormously complex ecological, economic, social, cultural and political contexts of this sector. Conclusions for policy-making, formulated as a joint statement by the authors, argue that fisheries development, poverty alleviation, and resource management must be integrated within a comprehensive governance approach that also looks beyond fisheries.
Bringing marginalised livelihoods into focus, 2008-2011
(Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), 2012) Poniter, Rebecca

Browse

Browsing by Issue Date

Results Per Page

Sort Options