Rural land use and agricultural production in Dinokana Village, Bophuthatswana

Abstract

In recent years geographers have researched the problems of many rural areas of the third world. However, analysis of rural and agricultural development in the Bantustans of South Africa has been conspicuously absent. Although mythically 'independent', the Bantustans have their own Departments of Agriculture, as well as parastatal bodies, which develop and implement agricultural policies. This paper examines agricultural policy in the Bophuthatswana Bantustan, which is largely based on increasing food production for 'national' self-sufficiency through the establishment of agricultural development projects. The effects of the implementation of this programme on a specific rural community, the village of Dinokana, are discussed. Two irrigation based projects were implemented in Dinokana in the early 1980's. The project planners did not seem to be concerned about the existence of an 'indigenous' irrigation system which had been the foundation for agricultural development at Dinokana for several decades, and which could have been revived and upgraded. This suggests that there is a need for agricultural planners to have a detailed historial knowledge of local African agriculture. Geographers could play a valuable role here, by uncovering the dynamics of past systems of African agricultural production, in particular focusing on patterns of rural resource management.

Learning from the local: Rural livelihoods in ditsobotla, north west province, South Africa

“…He wanted to be able to make the claim that the 'nation' was self-sufficient in food production and equated 'development' with large-scale mechanized farming. Agricor policy aimed to maximize 'national' food production, through the Ditsobotla Projects, through irrigation schemes and through the support given to large-scale commercial farmers (see Drummond 1995 for an analysis of irrigation schemes in Lehurutshe). Its ability to succeed in this aim depended on identifying and supporting productive, committed commercial farmers, on the 'progressive farmer' model that was common during the colonial period in Kenya and Zimbabwe.…”

Towards sustainable agriculture in post-apartheid South Africa

“…The development of capitalist and state agricultural projects in some of the former bantustans has further contributed to the degradation of the environment (De Wet 1990). Many of these projects are capital intensive, or are completely inappropriate to the local ecology (Drummond 1990), and they suffer from the problems associated with high input industrialised agriculture. While there are examples of indigenous methods of sustainable farming in the former bantustans (Taylor 1988;Auerbach 1990), the extremely uneven development and unsustainability of farming in South Africa's 'dumping grounds' has frequently left a legacy of environmental disaster.…”

The Demise of Territorial Apartheid: Re‐incorporating the Bantustans in a ‘New’ South Africa

“…Despite significant investment, Bantustan agricultural projects have generally not made meaningful contributions to alleviating poverty and promoting socio-economic development (Roodt 1984(Roodt , 1988. Indeed some projects have had negative impacts on Bantustan 340 communities (Drummond 1990). However, the majority of Bantustan villages have not even received these 'fruits' of 'independence' (Segar 1989).…”