How rich is our land? Re-valuing the communal areas of Southern Africa

How important is common land to rural people’s livelihoods? Are pooled resources a significant factor in household income? Why has communal land been so undervalued in recent studies?

Research in southern Africa by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), CSIR, Environmental Science at Rhodes University and the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape highlights the significance of shared agricultural goods and services for livelihood security, particularly for the poorest people. The report examines the reasons for the under-valuation of communal lands in the past. It challenges the assumption that the creation of labour reserve economies in southern Africa decreased rural people’s dependence on the natural resource base. It also disputes the claim that this acted as a disincentive for land-based activities.

Communal lands in southern Africa support the majority of the rural population, many of whom live below the poverty line. Recent studies have demonstrated that land and natural resources within these multiple-use communal systems play a significant role in the livelihoods and household economies of rural dwellers. However, little of this new knowledge has filtered through to governments, so that rural development, land reform and agricultural policies and practices often remain focused only on monetised activities.

Informal activities and non-marketed goods and services are often neglected when communal lands and their role in rural livelihoods are evaluated. This is due to a number of factors, such as:

• Conventional surveys of household income and expenditure do not present the diversity of rural livelihood strategies or include adequate data on the extent to which agricultural produce and natural resources are used by the people themselves, rather than marketed.
• Some of these resources are collected for everyday needs, such as wood for fuel, foods and medicines, whilst wood for construction and implements or craft materials are harvested to generate income or as inputs into other production systems.
• Rural research and development is often biased towards formally marketed goods and cash income and ignores strategies that reduce risk or diminish cash expenditures.
• The link between the use of resources and people’s livelihoods has been neglected due to a lack of multi-disciplinary research and a focus on certain sectors.
• The social dimensions of communal lands and land-based livelihood activities are rarely considered, such as their safety net function or their role in building social institutions and support systems.

Policy recommendations include:

• Public investment in increasing income from natural resources – including wild resources – in communal lands can be an effective means of promoting local economic development and diversification into non-farm income sources.
• Enhancing land-based livelihoods will require investment in improved infrastructure and government services.
• Redistributive land reforms which expand communal lands and their characteristic livelihood systems do not necessarily create ‘poverty traps’, and have the potential for significant economic development and poverty reduction.
• Policies enhancing security of land tenure in communal areas will assist in raising the contribution of natural resources to livelihoods.
• Increasing production of resources in a sustainable way can enhance both livelihood security and market participation.
• It is unrealistic to propose a stark ‘either/or’ choice between ‘commercial’ and ‘subsistence’ farming.

Source(s):
‘Re-valuing the Communal Lands of Southern Africa: New Understandings of Rural Livelihoods’, Natural Resource Perspectives #62, by Sheona Shackleton, Charlie Shackleton and Ben Cousins, November 2000 Full document.
‘The role of land-based strategies in rural livelihoods: the contribution of arable production, animal husbandry and natural resource harvesting in communal areas in South Africa’, Development Southern Africa, Vol 18, No 5: 581-604, C.M. Shackleton, S.E. Shackleton and B. Cousins, 2001 Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 1 July 2003

Further Information:
Sheona Shackleton
Environmental Science Programme
Rhodes University
Grahamstown 6140
South Africa

Contact the contributor: s.shackleton@ru.ac.za

Environmental Science Programme, Rhodes University, South Africa

Other related links:
'Managing common land: the Sahel experience'

'Democracy versus tradition: land and gender in rural South Africa'

'Death of land reform? New issues, new coalitions, venerable objectives'

'This land is your land. Rights and rural livelihoods in Southern Africa'

'Unfinished business: the politics of land reform in southern Africa'

SDDimensions focuses on Land Reform

See also the Land and Agriculture Policy Centre