CHAPTER THREE: FORESTRY AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3.4 SMALL-SCALE COMMUNAL FORESTRY GROWERS
3.4.5 Forest Models for Community Forestry
168 | P a g e
cutting sector and rural communities are dependent on the environment, the DRDLR also has a role to play in achieving Outcome 10.
The outputs of Outcome 10 are as follows:
i. Enhanced quality and increased quantities of water resources;
ii. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the mitigation of climate change impacts and improved atmospheric quality;
iii. Sustainable environmental management; and iv. Protected biodiversity.
169 | P a g e
respect of land available for forestry as most had been subject to land disputes (Clarke, 2006). In fact, the Pulp and Paper International Report (2008) indicated that more than half of the national timber estate was subject to land claims. Even currently, most of the land on which forest companies operate is subject to land claims. In 2016, for example, about 61% of SAFCOL forestland was under claim (SAFCOL, 2018).
According to Clarke (2007), the potential for the land transfers achieved through restitution and redistribution is to change the patterns of forest resource ownership and management and to contribute to the development of impoverished communities is great. The forestry industry has developed generic models to address the forestland under land claims. These models were designed to empower and transfer skills to future forestry claimants. Since the industry’s intention has been to achieve growth in this sector, most policies have been developed as incentives to investment in the sector and can assist those involved in managing and working towards a much- needed long-term horizon in decision-making (Cruz, 2010).
In their quest to address the land issue, the timber companies have approached the land issue in different ways. Generally, the models that they have presented have been formulated in such a way that they have been able to consider the livelihoods and development of the community members, and thus to positively impact on the economy.
As mentioned, land reform in South Africa is aimed at transforming the discrepancies in land ownership and achieving the more equitable distribution of productive land (Lahiff and Cousins, 2005). According to Meinzen-Dick et al. (2008), one of the main objectives of land reform is to give community members the right to own the existing forest on the land that is under a claim. Clarke (2008) estimated that about 40% of privately owned plantations are subject to land claims, while approximately 70% of the state-owned plantations are either under claim or have well-established agreements in place that recognise the rights of the local communities to ownership. Makhatini (2010) stated that in 2010, there were only 10 claims to privately owned forests that had been settled by Mondi. Makhatini (2010) added that the problems that had to be addressed included the settlement of land restitution on 40% (100 000 ha) of the Mondi plantations.
170 | P a g e
To this end, this research places emphasis on the need to reassess the proposed approaches and objectives listed in the forestry models in the light of their socio- economic impact on communities. The section below provides an overview of the main generic models used.
3.4.5.1 Joint Venture
This model recognises the right of the community to contribute the land and Komatiland Forests (KLF) (a SAFCOL subsidiary) to contribute the trees. After this process, the specifics of the joint venture are formulated. The operating company usually establishes collectives to represent the community’s interests and to operate the business. The idea with a joint venture is that incomes, skills training, and empowerment will transfer to the community members. In that it owns the land, the community in this model has leverage in the partnerships that it takes on (Mamba, 2013; Lahiff et al., 2012; Ojwang, 2000).
3.4.5.2 Resumption Lease
This model involves the ownership of the land by the community and the leasing of the land on a rotational basis to the forest company. At maturity, the plantations are harvested by the forestry company. This is when the community can decide whether to continue with the leasing of the land for forestry purposes or to use it for other purposes. In the case of the resumption lease, the community has the option to lease the land to another company. This particular model favours the community more than it does the forest company. Its advantages are that the supply is certain for one rotation. Thus, communities are able to see at first-hand the benefits of using the land for forestry. Furthermore, for the duration of the arrangement, rentals from land leases provide a regular income to the community. The disadvantage of this model involves uncertainty in the long term in terms of the supply of the resource (Mamba, 2013;
Lahiff, 2008).
171 | P a g e 3.4.5.3 Total Package
In this model, the Land Claims Commission (LCC) buys the land, as well as the trees, on behalf of the community. The claimants gain full ownership and can sell the timber on the open market. However, if the business has not been well supported by a strategic partner (i.e., SAPPI / MONDI / DAFF/ SAFCOL/KLF) and the costs incurred by the state (MONDI, 2014) are also high, the risk of failure would be high. These two aspects would then be considered to be disadvantages of the model.
3.4.5.4 Funded Purchase of Trees
This model involves the ownership of the land and the purchasing of the trees by the community. An institution funding the purchase of the trees and a forestry company managing the plantation are both set in place to represent the interests of the community. The advantage of this model is that the claimants receive full ownership and could sell timber on the open market. However, the disadvantage here is that the acquisition of trees is funded ─, to the effect that the claimants would then have to pay interest on these purchases. According to Mamba, (2013), this practice is detrimental to tree growers in that they lose the benefit of being part of a large company (e.g., KLF).
3.4.5.5 Conventional Lease
This type of lease refers to a community owning the land and leasing it back to the forest company. The LCC buys the land, while the forest company retains ownership of the trees and pays a rental at market rates for the use of the land. In this type of lease, the claimants receive a guaranteed annual income for the rental. Such a lease could be extended through offers of employment, skills training and thus of the empowerment of the local community, as well as the socio-economic development for the area. This model is lacking in that its potential to offer empowerment to the community is limited ─ unless a well-structured programme is in place. Furthermore, there is usually little involvement of the community in the operations, unless this aspect is well structured (Mamba, 2013).
172 | P a g e 3.4.5.6 Sale and Lease Back
This model involves the transfer of land ownership to the claimant communities.
Initially, the South African government pays the market price for the land, but subsequently transfers ownership to the claimant community. Subsequently, on the basis of a contract brokered between a forestry company and the community, the company then leases the land from the claimant community. This model is chosen because it is able to respond to the aspirations of the negotiating parties and the government. It is then up to the claimants to resettle the land. Factors to consider include the geographic location of the claimant community, the need to continue the business, the extent of the land claimed, the nature of the plantation, the real needs of the claimant community, the issue of land as an emotional issue, the claimant community’s business capacity, and the levels of skills and sophistication (SAFCOL, 2018).
3.4.5.7 Business Model
In this model a community owns the land on which trees are planted, but the company retains ownership of the trees. The advantage of this model is that land that is unsuitable for forestry (e.g., fallow and non-arable land within the forest plantation) can be used by the community members for activities such as the grazing of their cattle. However, such use must follow forestry regulations. In addition, the community is obliged to refrain from disrupting the operations in the forests. In this case, where the forestry business operation is in fact owned by the forestry company, the use of the services of the community in the forestry operations also proves to be advantageous (Mamba, 2013).
3.4.5.8 Out-growers Scheme
This is a model that refers to the situation when a forest company enters partnership arrangements with growers who have access to the land where timber can be grown.
In their turn, landowners provide the land and the labour, whereafter the trees are sold to the processing company at a market-related price. In this model, the forest company provides technology in the form of improved genetic seedlings or clones/hybrids. Also,
173 | P a g e
provided by the forestry company are aids such as technical advice, cash loans in the form of advances against completed silvicultural operations, and the creation of local timber collection points for the delivery of timber by the local growers, as well as for sales transactions (Mamba, 2013; Makhathini, 2010; Ojwang, 2000).
3.4.5.9 Projects Grow
This is an existing programme to support smallholder tree farming, where money earned from the sale of trees is paid to individual farmers. It usually includes technical assistance, the provision of free seedlings, interest-free payments for silviculture work completed prior to harvest, and a guaranteed market. In return, the community signs an agreement committing the harvest to SAPPI, which pays market-related prices for the timber (SAPPI, 2008).
3.4.5.10 Plantation Management Plan
This model involves the community’s ownership of land and trees. Since the members of the community have no management skills, expertise, nor the financial resources to manage the forest enterprise, the forest company manages the plantations. This it does on behalf of the community for a minimum period of one rotation, at a fee that has been agreed upon (Mamba, 2013).
3.4.5.11 Management Assistant Plan
In this model, the assumption is that the community owns the land and the timber, as well as having the expertise and business management skills to manage the plantation. In this case, the forestry company provides only the technical assistance.
If necessary, the company will provide seedlings for the community, and source markets for the community timber growers. The company may also provide financial assistance at an arranged payback period (Mamba, 2013).
174 | P a g e 3.4.5.12 Timber Supply Agreement
In this model, the community has access to technical assistance but needs access to more advanced business methods and resources and sufficient funding. In this case, the forestry company will enter into a business agreement with the members of the community by agreeing to purchase their produce. If there is a need for it, the company then provides technical assistance and in terms of a long-term arrangement, supplies the community with the necessary inputs, such as, amongst others, seedlings, for their forestry enterprises (Mamba, 2013; Makhathini, 2010).
3.4.5.13 Lease Agreement
In this type of lease agreement, the land commissioner purchases the land for the community. The forestry company then enters into a lease agreement with the community for at least two rotations, with lease fees ranging from six percent (6%) to 10% of the value of the leased land. The community also receives a risk-free, annual lease income. The community members are then considered to be eligible to use the open spaces on the plantation for several different land-use activities (Mamba, 2013).
To conclude this section, it is in the interests of the stakeholders from industry to ensure that timberland is transferred to the claimant communities and that its management is geared to sustainability and productivity.