TImber Species Grown
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF MAIN FINDINGS
7.1. PROPERTY NUMBERS AND SIZES
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF MAIN
Clayet al.(1994) state that large holders ofland are often more able than small-holders are, to maintain traditional fallowing practices and to set aside large areas for non-food uses that help control soil loss and fertility depletion. Small holders of land, which have lower production, are closer to the margin of financial failure and at greater risk should portions of their holdings fail to produce adequate yield. Small-holders often need more careful farm management with the related improvements in productivity. Although mean property size in the catchment has decreased, two large timber companies namely Sappi Forests (Pty) Ltd. and Mondi Ltd. have bought up many discrete properties that were adjacent to one another.
Together they own 26.2% of the catchment. These individual adjacent properties are farmed as large land-holdings, with land use and management accordingly being influenced. Large land- holdings are more resilient to change, because they are not dependent on single small-holdings for their income; they contain larger farmable areas and therefore it should be easier to set aside marginal or sensitive areas for conservation purposes; they have the benefit of shared farming resources and access to technological advancements. The large property sizes of 1944 exerted less pressure on the natural resources than the small property sizes of 1999. Many properties, which were usually adjacent to one another were owned by the same individual or members of the same family. Operational farm sizes were thus much bigger than those that were registered.
This had certain advantages such as the sharing of farming equipment and resources and the obvious fact of an increased area available for shared farming, allof which advantages has largely been lost today.
Legislation has also influenced farm size. In 1944 no legislation existed which regulated farm size(J.Milton, 2000, pers. comm).Farms were subdivided according to the requirements of the farm-owner and his family. Subdivision offarms was based mainly on the number of sons who were to inherit the property from their father(F.Marais, 1999, pers. comm.). This resulted in farm sizes becoming increasingly smaller with each new generation.Unusually small property sizes in 1944, such as those owned by Samual Stead, which are part of Lot 67, located to the north-west of the catchment, are thought to be the result of farm subdivisions of the Hackett Immigration Scheme of the 1840s and early 1850s. Samual Stead is reported to have ridden across these farms some time after the Hackett immigration, only to find most of them abandoned (Hattersley 1950). It is thought that Stead may have later purchased these properties.
Other small properties in 1944 were the result of subdivisions made in drawing up a will, or prior to death so as to ensure that family members did not quarrel over their inheritances. These properties, although shown as individual units, were nevertheless often managed as one farm.
Immediately prior to 1970 the demand for rural residential land (small-holdings) increased markedly, mainly because people at that time had become more affluent and wanted to move out ofthe big towns into the country, or wished to acquire second holiday homes.Land-owners took advantage of this opportunity to acquire capital by disposing of portion or even entire land-holdings, often at higher prices than would have been realised ifthe land had been solden bloc for agricultural purposes (Anon. 2000a). This led to the further creation of small farms.
This trend was perceived as a threat to the viability of commercial farms and thereby future national food security in South Africa, where fragmented land-holdings became too small to sustain the farmer, leading to over exploitation ofland (Anon. 1970). The promulgation of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) was intended to combat the creation of uneconomic farming units through subdivision, which in their turn, could give rise to over- utilisation of the land, resulting in higher levels of soil erosion (Fuggle& Rabie 1992).Itwas stipulated that agricultural land could not be subdivided unless the Minister of Agriculture consented to such subdivision (Anon. 1970). Applications for subdivision were evaluated on the basis of what constituted an economically viable unit so that farmers could secure an acceptable income from the farming operation (Anon. 2000a). The economic farming unit was determined by a number offactors such as: the farming activity, local farming conditions (soils, climate and vegetation), available arable land and economic viability (K.Camp, 1999b, pers.
comm). However, despite these requirements, in some districts the Subdivision of the Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) stipulated that the minimum farm size should be 20 acres. This was found to be problematic as most land units of this size or smaller, unless intensively farmed, are not economically viable and the legislation, although well intended, in many instances did not serve its intended purpose. Land within the Karkloof Catchment falls within the planning category of, 'Reserved for Agriculture'. This category applies to al1land not zoned for other uses in terms of the Natal Planning Ordinance 27 of 1949 as amended (M.
Puttick, 2000, pers.comm.).Thus the area was subject to the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970).
The repeal of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) is currently being proposed, primarily to promote farming among previously disadvantaged small-scale farmers.
Concern that this will result in a serious loss ofland of high agricultural value and conservation- worthyness has been expressed by numerous stakeholders (Anon.2000a). Though it has been stated that supplementary legislation in the form of the proposed Planning and Development Act and the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) will offer adequate legal protection against land degradation, the implementation of these Acts and the judgement values ofthose assessing applications may be of concern. Any further reduction in farm sizes will again influence the choice of land use and land management and may exert even greater pressure on natural resources.