negotiations
Thembela Kepe, Lungisile Ntsebeza and Ben Cousins
Despite the depth of the problems faced by the Wild Coast spatial development initiative (SDI), it has a great deal of positive potential – and it is not too late to correct the mistakes.
However, the defensive response to our article (”Tempers flare on Wild Coast”, May 8 to 14) by project manager Vuyo Mahlati (”Nothing wild about SDI strategy”, May 15 to 21) suggests that the problems may be ignored – which can only heighten the tensions which exist.
Mahlati states that communities are demanding economic development and jobs, not more consultation, and that our call for democratic decision-making ”smacks of narrow [or private] agendas”. She asserts that community consultation and participation are ongoing, and implies that a ”broad consensus” around strategy has been created by the SDI.
However, our field work indicates that in Mkambati and Coffee Bay no such consensus exists. Many people within the communities affected by the SDI are angry over the way they are being treated. They do want jobs, and investment in development is welcomed, but a central issue is the terms on which that takes place.
Local people want to be involved in the planning of development projects because they see themselves as the holders of property rights. This should see them benefiting from these projects as partners in development – not just as wage earners (although it certainly includes jobs as well).
The strong emphasis on employment as the chief form of benefits in Mahlati’s reply is misleading and patronising, and suggests she does not fully appreciate the thrust of the government’s land-tenure reform policy.
The depth of the felt need to assert underlying rights to the land on which the SDI projects will be based should not be underestimated. This is why it is so important to resolve the conflicting claims to land rights in Mkambati and Coffee Bay.
Mahlati’s assertion that the dispute at Mkambati is ”newly arisen” is misleading. Competing claims have been on the books for almost two years, and severe tensions arose in June 1997. In response to these, she and land affairs officials commissioned a mediation process, which resulted in clear agreements – which were then not implemented. This failure is a major cause of the current crisis.
To state that this conflict demonstrates ”the dynamism of community-centred development” is to completely misrepresent the dangerous stalemate which persists in the area.
The stalemate is also the result of inadequate follow-through by government departments such as land affairs. Policies aiming to confirm people’s underlying land rights sometimes create the perception that in tenure-reform or land-restitution cases ”the winner takes all”. This can exacerbate conflict.
In Mkambati it is imperative that the Department of Land Affairs propose a framework which creates incentives for claimants with legitimate interests to begin negotiating.
The authors work in the programme for land and agrarian studies at the University of the Western Cape