Contested institutions: Traditional authorities and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

James Bennett, A. Ainslie, J. Davis

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    15 Citations (Scopus)
    24 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The South African government has endeavoured to strengthen property rights in communal areas and develop civil society institutions for community-led development and natural resource management. However, the effectiveness of this remains unclear as the emergence and operation of civil society institutions in these areas is potentially constrained by the persistence of traditional authorities. Focusing on the former Transkei region of Eastern Cape Province, three case study communities are used examine the extent to which local institutions overlap in issues of land access and control.

    Within these communities, traditional leaders (chiefs and headmen) continue to exercise complete and sole authority over land allocation and use this to entrench their own positions. However, in the absence of effective state support, traditional authorities have only limited power over how land is used and in enforcing land rights, particularly over communal resources such as rangeland. This diminishes their local legitimacy and encourages some groups to contest their authority by cutting fences, ignoring collective grazing decisions and refusing to pay ‘fees’ levied on them. They are encouraged in such activities by the presence of democratically elected local civil society institutions such as ward councillors and farmers’ organisations, which have broad appeal and are increasingly responsible for much of the agrarian development that takes place, despite having no direct mandate over land. Where it occurs at all, interaction between these different institutions is generally restricted to approval being required from traditional leaders for land allocated to development projects. On this basis it is argued that a more radical approach to land reform in communal areas is required, which transfers all powers over land to elected and accountable local institutions and integrates land allocation, land management and agrarian development more effectively.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)27-38
    JournalLand Use Policy
    Volume32
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

    South Africa
    civil society
    land rights
    land reform
    property rights
    required area
    development projects
    rangeland
    development project
    fences
    land management
    natural resource management
    leader
    province
    land access
    land
    Africa
    collective decision
    rangelands
    resource management

    Keywords

    • Communal land
    • Rangeland
    • Local institutions
    • Land access
    • Land control
    • Accountability

    Cite this

    Contested institutions: Traditional authorities and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. / Bennett, James; Ainslie, A.; Davis, J.

    In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 32, 2013, p. 27-38.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{7abd9452aa66492ea66130a9648d749f,
    title = "Contested institutions: Traditional authorities and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa",
    abstract = "The South African government has endeavoured to strengthen property rights in communal areas and develop civil society institutions for community-led development and natural resource management. However, the effectiveness of this remains unclear as the emergence and operation of civil society institutions in these areas is potentially constrained by the persistence of traditional authorities. Focusing on the former Transkei region of Eastern Cape Province, three case study communities are used examine the extent to which local institutions overlap in issues of land access and control.Within these communities, traditional leaders (chiefs and headmen) continue to exercise complete and sole authority over land allocation and use this to entrench their own positions. However, in the absence of effective state support, traditional authorities have only limited power over how land is used and in enforcing land rights, particularly over communal resources such as rangeland. This diminishes their local legitimacy and encourages some groups to contest their authority by cutting fences, ignoring collective grazing decisions and refusing to pay ‘fees’ levied on them. They are encouraged in such activities by the presence of democratically elected local civil society institutions such as ward councillors and farmers’ organisations, which have broad appeal and are increasingly responsible for much of the agrarian development that takes place, despite having no direct mandate over land. Where it occurs at all, interaction between these different institutions is generally restricted to approval being required from traditional leaders for land allocated to development projects. On this basis it is argued that a more radical approach to land reform in communal areas is required, which transfers all powers over land to elected and accountable local institutions and integrates land allocation, land management and agrarian development more effectively.",
    keywords = "Communal land, Rangeland, Local institutions, Land access, Land control, Accountability",
    author = "James Bennett and A. Ainslie and J. Davis",
    year = "2013",
    doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.011",
    language = "English",
    volume = "32",
    pages = "27--38",
    journal = "Land Use Policy",
    issn = "0264-8377",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Contested institutions: Traditional authorities and land access and control in communal areas of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

    AU - Bennett, James

    AU - Ainslie, A.

    AU - Davis, J.

    PY - 2013

    Y1 - 2013

    N2 - The South African government has endeavoured to strengthen property rights in communal areas and develop civil society institutions for community-led development and natural resource management. However, the effectiveness of this remains unclear as the emergence and operation of civil society institutions in these areas is potentially constrained by the persistence of traditional authorities. Focusing on the former Transkei region of Eastern Cape Province, three case study communities are used examine the extent to which local institutions overlap in issues of land access and control.Within these communities, traditional leaders (chiefs and headmen) continue to exercise complete and sole authority over land allocation and use this to entrench their own positions. However, in the absence of effective state support, traditional authorities have only limited power over how land is used and in enforcing land rights, particularly over communal resources such as rangeland. This diminishes their local legitimacy and encourages some groups to contest their authority by cutting fences, ignoring collective grazing decisions and refusing to pay ‘fees’ levied on them. They are encouraged in such activities by the presence of democratically elected local civil society institutions such as ward councillors and farmers’ organisations, which have broad appeal and are increasingly responsible for much of the agrarian development that takes place, despite having no direct mandate over land. Where it occurs at all, interaction between these different institutions is generally restricted to approval being required from traditional leaders for land allocated to development projects. On this basis it is argued that a more radical approach to land reform in communal areas is required, which transfers all powers over land to elected and accountable local institutions and integrates land allocation, land management and agrarian development more effectively.

    AB - The South African government has endeavoured to strengthen property rights in communal areas and develop civil society institutions for community-led development and natural resource management. However, the effectiveness of this remains unclear as the emergence and operation of civil society institutions in these areas is potentially constrained by the persistence of traditional authorities. Focusing on the former Transkei region of Eastern Cape Province, three case study communities are used examine the extent to which local institutions overlap in issues of land access and control.Within these communities, traditional leaders (chiefs and headmen) continue to exercise complete and sole authority over land allocation and use this to entrench their own positions. However, in the absence of effective state support, traditional authorities have only limited power over how land is used and in enforcing land rights, particularly over communal resources such as rangeland. This diminishes their local legitimacy and encourages some groups to contest their authority by cutting fences, ignoring collective grazing decisions and refusing to pay ‘fees’ levied on them. They are encouraged in such activities by the presence of democratically elected local civil society institutions such as ward councillors and farmers’ organisations, which have broad appeal and are increasingly responsible for much of the agrarian development that takes place, despite having no direct mandate over land. Where it occurs at all, interaction between these different institutions is generally restricted to approval being required from traditional leaders for land allocated to development projects. On this basis it is argued that a more radical approach to land reform in communal areas is required, which transfers all powers over land to elected and accountable local institutions and integrates land allocation, land management and agrarian development more effectively.

    KW - Communal land

    KW - Rangeland

    KW - Local institutions

    KW - Land access

    KW - Land control

    KW - Accountability

    U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.011

    DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.011

    M3 - Article

    VL - 32

    SP - 27

    EP - 38

    JO - Land Use Policy

    JF - Land Use Policy

    SN - 0264-8377

    ER -