HOUSEHOLD POPULATION AND SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 Communities’ perceptions of benefit-sharing mechanisms for Forest-Based Land Reform Models in South Africa

ABSTRACT

One of the dominant challenges facing the South African forestry sector is the issue of land restitution. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the perception of beneficiaries of benefit- sharing modalities for forest-based land reform initiatives in their locality. A random sampling technique selected 140 and 175 households in Amabomvini and Cata communities in Kwazulu Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces, respectively.  The household beneficiaries have shown a lack of knowledge of the criteria used for the disbursement of the benefits. In addition, over 70.0% of household beneficiaries in Amabomvini, compared to far less than 70.0% in Cata, preferred using rental income for infrastructure development in their respective communities. The results further showed that the relationship between the responses of the respondents from both Amabomvini and Cata communities regarding their perception on the existence of the criteria established to share the  benefits,  was  statistically  significant  (χ²=34.452,  df=4,  p<0.005).  However,  a  lack  of transparency, trust and greed were among the factors that household beneficiaries identified as the root causes to the poor benefit-sharing mechanisms. Therefore, it is recommended that there should be political will and commitment from government in order to ensure the development and strengthening of existing benefit-sharing policies for the improvement of livelihoods of the land beneficiaries.
Keywords: Benefit-sharing, Land Reform, Community Trust, Community Property Association1

INTRODUCTION

The South African forestry sector plays a significant role in rural economic development (Clarke and Foy, 1997; Dlomo and Pitcher, 2003; Mabece, 2016; Anon, 2017). The strategic role of the forestry sector in sustainable rapid rural development has been widely acknowledged in various national and sectoral policy documents and plans (ANC, 2012). This includes the South Africa National Development Plan-Vision 2030, the accelerated and shared growth initiative for South Africa, and the long-term adaptation scenario for South Africa (National Planning Commission, 2013). However, the growth and sustainability of the forestry sector is plagued by many challenges (Makana, 2012), such as the issue of land restitution, which is a dominant social challenge (Mzinyane, 2011). This was born out of a need to address the injustices of the past where a vast majority of the black population were stripped of their land during apartheid (Clarke, 2008; Lahiff et al., 2008; Lahiff et al., 2012). The land restitution programme in the forestry sector has been implemented using various negotiated business-oriented settlement initiatives of government, the claimants and the industry (Mayers and Vermeulen, 2002; Nemaangani, 2011).   The strategic issues of concern in the land restitution programme in the forestry sector are: 1) how to ensure the continuity of forestry enterprises on afforested lands transferred to claimant communities, and 2) how to ensure sustainability and financial viability of forestry enterprises transferred to claimant communities (Forestry South Africa, 2015). Hence the growing interest of stakeholders, both government and non-governmental agencies, in assessing the performance of forestland businesses that have been transferred back to claimant communities (Deininger and May, 2000).
Many studies conducted in this regard have reported mixed performances of these businesses transferred  to  claimant  communities  both  in  terms  of  productivity  (Van  Loggerenberg  and Mandondo, 2008) and delivery of benefits to communal beneficiaries (Cotula and Leonard, 2010; Makhathini, 2010; Davis and Lahiff, 2011). Furthermore, some of these studies associated the poor performance of transferred forestland businesses to a lack of mutual agreements made between land beneficiaries and the private sector (Nawir and Santoso, 2005; Cotula and Leonard, 2010). A few  others have linked the poor performance of these forestland businesses to a lack of decisive post-settlement support from government (Hall, 2011) and unequal bargaining power amongst land claimant beneficiaries and private partners (Cundill et al., 2013). In the same vein, some studies   reported the challenge   of   limited and/or unclear benefit-sharing mechanisms in the management of transferred forestland businesses (Nawir and Santoso, 2005; Lahiff, 2007; Otsuka, 2007, Romano and Reeb, 2008; Davis and Lahiff, 2011).
The objective of this study was to assess the perceptions of community beneficiaries on benefit- sharing mechanisms for forest-based land reform (FBLR) initiatives in their locality. To answer this objective, the following research questions were asked: 1) Are the communities satisfied with the current arrangement on income generating approaches for the implemented FBLR initiative?,2) Are the communities satisfied with the benefit-sharing mechanisms of the FBLR initiative?, 3) Are there concerns communities have with respect to benefit-sharing mechanisms from FBLR models? and 4) What do people believe needs to be done so as to improve equity in benefit-sharing in their communities?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Description of the study areas

The study was conducted in the Amabomvini community situated in the Kranskop area in Kwa- Zulu-Natal (KZN) Province and the Cata community situated in the Keiskammahoek (along the Amathole mountain range) area in the Eastern Cape Province (Figure 3.1). These two communities were beneficiaries of the land transferred through restitution of the Land Rights Act, No. 22 of 1994. Furthermore, the two communities reclaimed their land within the framework of two distinct FBLR models. The Amabomvini community operates the Sales and Leaseback (SLB) model while the Cata community operated the Community Managed Enterprise (CME) model (coordinated through a non-governmental organization (NGO)) for a period of more than five years. The Amabomvini community received their land back in the year 2008, and subsequently reached an agreement to lease back the land to one of the private forestry companies for two 20-year rotations under the leadership of the community established Trust (Table 2.1).
The Amabomvini (Eyethu) Community Trust (CT) registered a company that was named Ingudle. As part of the sales and leaseback agreement between the Community Trust and the partnering company, Ingudle Company was contracted to manage all silvicultural operations in the plantation with mentorship provided by the partnering forest company. The Cata community received their land back in 2000, and subsequently opted to pursue the management of the land by themselves under the leadership of a Trust, which later was changed into a Community Property Association (CPA). However, the Cata community works closely with the Border Rural Committee (BRC), which is an NGO that provides mentorship and sources funding.

READ  ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE OF ADVENTITIOUS ROOTS IN SWEET POTATO

Sampling and data collection

In this study, a mixed-mode research design approach was used (Bhattacherjee, 2012). The choice of this approach was mainly to ensure that all responses were represented (Kelley et al., 2003), additionally, probability sampling was chosen to avoid sampling biases. Specifically, simple random sampling was used in both selected areas (Onwuegbuzie and Collins, 2007), while the sampling  size  determination  was  adopted  from  Krejcie  and  Morgan  (1970).  Accordingly, beneficiaries  from  140  heads  of  households  were  randomly  sampled  in  the  Amabomvini community and 175 in the Cata community. The total number of household beneficiaries, as captured in the beneficiaries’ register in each community, was used at a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval to determine the sample size required for the household surveys. In addition, considering that the total population or number of household beneficiaries was known, the following formula was used:
S =2 (1 −   )/2(   − 1) +   2   (1 −   )
Where S = Required Sample size, X = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level), N = Population Size, P = Population proportion (expressed as decimal) (assumed to be 0.5 (50%), d = Degree of accuracy (5%), expressed as a proportion (.05), it is margin of error. To identify the households that were to be interviewed, randomization was conducted using the beneficiaries register list provided by the Trust in the Amabomvini community and the CPA in the Cata community. This was intended to make sure that the households that participated in the survey actually represented the beneficiaries of the land.

Focus Group Discussion

Focus group discussions were conducted with the trustees in Amabomvini, and CPA committee members in Cata respectively, in order to harness beneficiaries’ perceptions of the FBLR models (Wong,  2008).  In  each  community,  the  focus  group  discussions  were  carried  out  with  six participants (Onwuegbuzie and Collins, 2007), with their selection considered due to their in-depth knowledge and understanding on the day-to-day operations of the partnership. The questions posed for the discussion during the focus group ranged from 1) whether participants believed benefit- sharing mechanisms existed or not owing to the FBLR partnership model implemented in their community, and 2) what obstacles affected benefits-sharing mechanisms in their community?

Household questionnaire

Beneficiaries, consisting of household heads in each community (Chirwa et al., 2015), were interviewed using a generic structured questionnaire (Sjetne et al., 2011). The questions explored the type of socioeconomic benefits that household beneficiaries in both communities received due to the FBLR partnership model adopted. The questionnaire was fourteen pages long with 43 individual  questions.  For  maintenance  of  originality and  understanding,  as  well  as  ease  of administration  (Boynton,  2004),  the  questionnaire  was  translated  into  both  isiZulu  for  the Amabomvini community and isiXhosa for the Cata community. In line with Nyariki (2009), the local enumerators were used for the administration of the questionnaire as well as for easy identification of households randomly selected. A five point Likert scale was used for most questions in this study. A pre-test of the questionnaire was carried out in the Ama-Hlongwa community in Kwa-Zulu Natal to ensure that the data collection process covered the scope intended for this study (Collins, 2003; Mathers et al., 2007; Nyariki, 2009).

Data analysis

The primary data obtained through the questionnaires were coded and analysed using the IBM Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) for windows, version 20.0 software package. The results were analysed using both descriptive statistics and inferential analysis. The descriptive statistics included frequencies and percentages, while inferential analysis used the chi-square test of independence (Anon, 2012) to test if there was a significant relationship between perceptions of the beneficiaries in Amabomvini and Cata households regarding benefit-sharing criteria in their implemented FBLR model.

DEDICATION 
DECLARATION 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SUMMARY
LIST OF TABLES 
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND JUSTIFICATION
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.4.1. Theoretical framework of the study
1.4.2. Conceptual framework of the study
1.5. THESIS STRUCTURE
CHAPTER 2  Study methodological framework and design
2.1. INTRODUCTION
2.2. Description of the study areas
2.2. HOUSEHOLD POPULATION AND SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
2.3. DATA COLLECTION
2.3.1. Household questionnaire
2.3.2. Focus group discussion
2.4. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 3  Communities’ perceptions of benefit-sharing mechanisms for Forest-Based Land Reform Models in South Africa
ABSTRACT
3.1. INTRODUCTION
3. 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.2.1. Description of the study areas
3.2.2. Sampling and data collection
3.2.3. Focus Group Discussion
3.2.4. Household questionnaire
3.2.5. Data analysis
3.3. RESULTS
3.3.2. Equity in benefit sharing from implemented forest-based land reform initiatives
3.3.3 Concerns with the benefit-sharing mechanisms of adopted forest-based land reform initiatives
3.3.4. Desired mechanisms for benefit-sharing
3.4. DISCUSSION
3.4.1. Benefit preferences of community beneficiaries
3.4.2. Perception of the availability of benefit-sharing mechanisms
3.4.3. Perceived factors affecting equity benefit-sharing amongst the beneficiaries
3.4.4. Desired benefit-sharing modalities by the community beneficiaries
3.5. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 Assessment of factors affecting participation of community beneficiaries in forest-based land reform public-private partnership models in South Africa 
ABSTRACT
4.1. INTRODUCTION
4.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.
4.3. Community beneficiaries’ awareness and participation
4.1. DISCUSSION
4.5. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 Are Communities Benefiting from Land Reform Models? Investigating Forest-Based Public-Private Partnerships in Selected Beneficiary Communities in South Africa 
ABSTRACT
5.1. INTRODUCTION
5.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.3. RESULTS
5.4. DISCUSSION
5.5. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 Future forestry development and land claims in South Africa 
6.1. INTRODUCTION
6.2. THE STATUS OF FORESTRY AND LAND CLAIMS IN SOUTH AFRICA
6.3. LINKING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO THE STUDY KEY FINDINGS
6.4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF BENEFIT-SHARING MECHANISMS OF FBLR MODELS
6.5. LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION
6.6. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
REFERENCES 
APPENDIX
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts