Geodournal

22.3 3 3 5 - 3 4 3 © 1990 (November) by Kluwer Academic Publishers

335

Rural Land Use and Agricultural Production in Dinokana Village, Bophuthatswana Drummond, J. H., University of Bophuthatswana, Department of Geography, P. Bag X2046, Mmabatho 8681, South Africa and University of the Witwatersrand, Department of Geography, PO Wits 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa 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.

Introduction T h e p r e s e n t study is l o c a t e d within the b r o a d field of research on A f r i c a n agricultural policy and p r o d u c t i o n which has b e e n r e v i e w e d in d e p t h b y H i n d e r i n k and S t e r k e n b u r g (1983a; 1983b; 1985; 1987). A m a j o r concern of g e o g r a p h e r s , as well as o t h e r social scientists, in recent years has b e e n the analysis of the p r o b l e m s of A f r i c a ' s rural areas a n d its so-called agricultural crisis. A f a v o u r e d solution to this crisis is the d e v e l o p m e n t of irrigation schemes which are often seen as one w a y of p r o m o t i n g agricultural c o m m e r c i a l i s a t i o n , agricultural p r o d u c t i o n , f o o d security and rural d e v e l o p m e n t . G e o graphers have c o n t r i b u t e d to studies of irrigation develo p m e n t in Africa, including the analysis of large-scale irrigation schemes, which in g e n e r a l have not b e e n as successful as a n t i c i p a t e d (Briggs 1978; A d a m s 1982; A d a m s a n d G r o v e 1984; A d a m s 1988) and the consequent r e - o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d s samll-scale irrigation ( A d a m s and C a r t e r 1987), particularly w h e r e this builds on indigenous irrigation systems ( A d a m s a n d A n d e r s o n 1988). O n e of the aims of this p a p e r is to a p p l y this

literature in a South A f r i c a n context, specifically to the analysis of rural and agricultural d e v e l o p m e n t in the socalled ' h o m e l a n d s ' or Bantustans. Just as H i n d e r i n k and S t e r k e n b u r g (1987) have a d d r e s s e d the historical literature relating to their m a i n t h e m e of agricultural c o m m e r c i a l i s a t i o n so this p a p e r will argue that, especially in the Bantustans of South Africa, a historical perspective is essential to u n d e r s t a n d the n a t u r e of contemporary agricultural collapse. T h e r e is a rich multi-disciplinary literature, including historical perspectives, which can b e u s e d to analyse agricultural d e v e l o p m e n t in S o u t h e r n Africa. H o w e v e r , g e o g r a p h e r s in South A f r i c a have b e e n slow to apply this literature to the study of the g e o g r a p h y of agricultural d e v e l o p m e n t in the Bantustans. It is a r g u e d that a g e o g r a p h y which e m p l o y s b o t h historical and political e c o n o m y a p p r o aches, and m o r e o v e r focuses on micro-level case-studies which t a k e account of local resource m a n a g e m e n t strategies, w o u l d be a valuable contribution to d e b a t e s on the n a t u r e of past, p r e s e n t and future agricultural developm e n t in the Bantustans.

Geodournal 22.3/1990

336

South African Geography Recent reviews of the writings of geographers in South Africa reveal a burgeoning literature on the social and 'inhuman' geography of apartheid (Rogerson and Browett 1986; Rogerson and Beavon 1988; Rogerson and Parnell 1989). This research has focused in particular on the making of the urban apartheid landscape, embracing historical analysis, while industrial geography and humanistic writings have also been prominent. Much of this social geography has been influenced by the development of social history (Rogerson and Browett 1986). However, whereas the links between social geography and social history are apparent in the urban setting, as yet there have been few attempts to extend the work of social historians in the context of the geography of the rural areas of South Africa. A geography which Rogerson and Beavon (1988) claim should be of relevance to the 'common people' of South Africa must address itself to the people of South Africa's rural areas and Bantustans; the migrant workers, subsistence farmers, farmworkers and the 'surplus people' of apartheid - the elderly, women and children. The Bantustans contain roughly half the African population of South Africa on 13% of its land. This means that there is inadequate land and other agricultural resources to provide self-sufficiency in food. Population pressure and extreme poverty have ted to overgrazing, massive soil erosion and serious deforestation. Although the conditions apparent in South Africa's rural areas should feature high on the research agenda of South African geography, the field of rural and agricultural geography is one that has been comparatively neglected. Beyond a suite of studies on rural poverty and rural 'development' in Lebowa (Rogerson and Letsoalo 1981, 1985; Letsoalo 1982; Letsoalo and Rogerson 1982), and some diverse contributions on aspects of African agriculture in Bophuthatswana, Transkei and post-apartheid South Africa, the fabric of research is threadbare (Freeman 1984, 1988; Daniel and Webb 1980; Daniel 1981; Letsoalo 1987; MaNn 1988; Mashile 1988; Weiner 1988). Thus it is of vital importance that geographers take up the challenge of studying the making of the rural apartheid landscape as well as the analysis of contemporary black (and white) rural communities.

Agricultural Policies One feature of the wider geographical literature which has not been represented in South African geography is the analysis of agricultural commercialisation and government policy on rural and agricultural development, which in the African context has been interrogated by Hinderink and Sterkenburg (1983a; 1983b; 1985; 1987). Despite variations in ideology, in practice

there have been few differences between African countries with respect to the general characteristics of agricultural policy (Hinderink and Sterkenburg 1987). A common feature of African agricultural policies is that they are directed towards production increases. Often their declared aims are related to achieving self-sufficiency in food through increased agricultural production, which may or may not improve the living conditions of agricultural producers themselves. It is argued that this situation has obvious parallels with agricultural development in Bophuthatswana. The aim of comparing Bophuthatswana's agricultural policies with those of independent African countries is not to imply any legitimacy or 'de jure' recognition of Bophuthatswana as an 'independent state'. The rationale for comparing Bophuthatswana's agricultural policies with those of independent African countries is that these comparisons have been made by the agricultural policy makers of Bophuthatswana at and since 'independence'. From their point of view Bophuthatswana was and is an independent African country and their brief has been partly to construct agricultural policies which would promote this 'independence'. The aim was and is to break away from the 'colonial power' of South Africa (Beuster 1985), and by implication encourage self-reliance, promote 'independence' and thereby lend support to Bopbuthatswana's campaign for international recognition.

Bophuthatswana To understand how the 'state' of Bophuthatswana came into being it is necessary to give brief attention to the history of the land issue in South Africa. Bophuthatswana is comprised of seven units of land which are spread over the Northern Cape, Western Transvaal and Northern Transvaal, as well as an enclave of territory in the Orange Free State (Fig 1). In pre-colonial times large parts of this area were occupied by the Tswana people. With Afrikaner occupation of the highveld, a basic racial division in the allocation of land was established. This was formalised by the Native Land Acts, No. 27 of 1913 and No. 13 of 1936, which allocated 15,1 million hectares (approximately 13% of South Africa) to Africans. The occupation of land by Africans was thus confined to the 'native reserves' in the rural areas and to urban 'locations' (townships). With the rise of grand apartheid in the 1950's and 1960's, the former native reserves came to be viewed by the South African government as the 'traditional homelands' of the African people. The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, No. 46 of 1959, recognised eight ethnic groups which led to the eventual demarcation of ten 'homelands' or 'national states'. These areas were to be developed to the point where they could become fully 'independent' states whose population would be entitled to vote for their own leaders and government. The corollary of this

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

337

i

/ ~ ,.-/ eDINOKANA b

(

~

/

/

/

~

'

\

"~,k't,k

~A

~

C3

Kur~'man-~"''f'~

0

=i

-

~'

I \

~'~

~I~ _

eMMABATHO .j~

j""-iY

~

/ eT"aang

\ -'1__._,7

\

eWinterveld . ;))

~ ,Lichtenburg

"JOHANNESBURG

I\ I\

~

lo,% l../j _ /

/

Fig 1

k

/

,Vryburg

/

W SunCity ~ ,..---....~e~--~-~ \ \\

l

I \

i ]

~r L

~

~

\-,

/

L._

/

1",,2q

~/

--, i

/

I

Dinokana- location map

was that Africans would be disenfranchised in South Africa - which would be a 'white' country. From the 1950's the reserves came to be known as 'Bantustans' or 'homelands'. The terminology of apartheid evolved and by the 1970's the reserves had become 'national states' or 'independent states'. Bophuthatswana (the designated homeland of the Tswana people) was granted 'independence' by South Africa in 1977.

Bophuthatswana Agriculture One of the ways in which Bophuthatswana tried to proclaim its 'independence' was to promote agricultural policies which would lead to self-sufficiency in food production. The Department of Agriculture in the Bophuthatswana Legislative Assembly (the constitutional forerunner of Bophuthatswana), had been set up in 1972 and was responsible specifically for agricultural planning, betterment schemes and extension. At 'independence' this became the Bophuthatswana Department of Agriculture. To pursue the aim of 'national' self-sufficiency, a second agricultural body was established in 1978, the para-statal Agricultural Development Corporation of Bophuthatswana (Agricor), "originally with the primary goal of feeding the Nation in the shortest possible time

from its own resources" (Agricor 1984). Furthermore Agricor aimed to improve the quality of life of the people living in the rural areas. This found expression in the formation of Agricor's general development concept which it called Temisano, meaning 'farming together'. This strategy had four major components: Agricultural Production, Community Development, Training and Agro-Business. Starting with agricultural production, and building on the work done by the Department of Agriculture, the goal of Temisano was to promote broadly-based economic and social development in rural communities, the initial basis of which would be economically viable agricultural projects. By 1984 Agricor had established over 20 Temisano projects throughout Bophuthatswana, which demanded a capital investment of R 65 million (April 1990 1 US $ = R 2.60). This had increased to a capital investment of R 121 million in 29 projects by 1988 (Agricor 1988). In those rural areas selected to host 'development' in the form of agricultural projects, traditional patterns of land use and resource allocation were often radically transformed. One such area was Dinokana in the Lehurutshe district, the home of the Hurutshe people, which before 'independence' was known as Moiloa's Reserve (Fig 1). This area was chosen for agricultural development in the early 1980's by both the Department

338

of Agriculture and Agricor, primarily because of its rich groundwater resources, which could be harnessed for irrigation schemes. This was in spite of the fact that there was a network of irrigation furrows, first developed in the 1840's, which ran through the villagers' gardens and fields. It is interesting to note the influence of the President of Bophuthatswana, L. M. Mangope, whose home area is close to Dinokana, in the establishment of the projects. In 1981 agricultural production in Dinokana was in severe disarray and Mangope recommended that the Bophuthatswana Department of Agriculture devise an agricultural project using the water for irrigation. At that time, Bophuthatswana was soliciting ties with Taiwan, and invited a number of agricultural advisors to Bophuthatswana. Subsequently rice production got underway at three locations, one of which was Dinokana; chosen because of the availability of water from the Dinokana 'eye' (a fountain or spring with an average yield of 352 litres per second). The initial aim of the project was to make Bophuthatswana self-sufficient in rice production. To this end the Dinokana project became operational on an experimental basis in December 1981 and by 1983, 120 farmers were organised on a co-operative basis to farm rice and vegetables under Taiwanese guidance on an area of 48 hectares. The site chosen was immediately adjacent to the village, close to the groundwater spring, and was on an area of tribal land, which had been intensively cultivated by the villagers up to the 1970's. Initially there were difficulties with the crop, but by 1983 the project farmers "were encouraged and had much confidence in the rice plantation" according to the project manager (Chang 1983, p. 1). The rice was successfully marketed locally in Bophuthatswana and in other parts of South Africa, while neighbouring Botswana also proved to be a very important market. The project was strongly supported by the local extension officers and by the Department of Agriculture officials at head office. To date, the project has been regarded as fairly successful by those involved with it, and has the enthusiastic support of the members of the farmers co-op (Jordan 1988). Nevertheless, the rice project has not always been seen in such a positive light by the villagers and the tribal council. They have expressed some resentment against the project believing that it uses 'too much water' (Montshosi 1987). However, the villagers seem to have identified the wrong culprit. Primacy of access to the waters of the Dinokana eye is accorded to the nearby growing settlement of Lehurutshe and a second irrigation project established by Agricor in 1984 called the Lehurutshe Irrigation Scheme. Although at this stage Agricor's agricultural development strategy was in full operation, the intervention of President Mangope was crucial in the decision by this organisation to establish the Lehurutshe Irrigation Scheme concurrent with the Department of Agriculture's rice project. Under political pressure, Agricor rushed

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

through established planning procedures and within nine months set up the vegetable growing project. The aim of the President, it seems, was to have a project which would supply cheap vegetables for the people of Bophuthatswana; a laudable enough aim. However, Agricor could not plan the project in detail quickly enough. They therefore hired managing agents, the Israeli agribusiness company Agri-Carmel, which recommended the installation of an expensive computer controlled drip irrigation (and fertigation) system, which was Israeli-built. This represents an interesting example of the links between agribusiness and Bantustan agriculture which have been tentatively explored by Keenan (1984) and Roodt (1984; 1985). The capital costs of the project were R 2.3 million and Agricor officials have acknowledged that this figure was too high for the project to be financially successful in the short term. In the first season Agricor stuck to the President's brief and planted popular and cheap vegetables such as cabbages, onions, carrots and beetroot. Although production was excellent, Agricor could not make enough profit from the sale of cheap vegetables to cover the capital costs of the project. Agricor, not given to altruism, decided after one season to switch production to high value crops such as green and red peppers and watermelons to try to improve profits and the financial viability of the project. Very quickly the aim of the project was abandoned, as villagers could not afford the prices of peppers and melons, and instead Agricor openly competed on the South African produce markets. These markets fluctuate greatly and Agricor has had severe problems with timing, harvesting and delivery of the crops to markets while prices are high. Consequently, the project has been plagued by financial troubles and has still not recovered its initial outlay (Agricor 1988). In terms of meeting Agricor's national strategy of agricultural development to make Bophuthatswana self-sufficient in food, the project may be seen as successful in that the actual production of food is considerable. However, the water needs of this project are substantial as a computerised drip irrigation system is used on 48 ha, and the more wasteful system of sprinkler irrigation is used on 50 ha of land. This has a negative effect on Dinokana village, since the supply of water running through the village irrigation furrows has been vastly reduced. Water is only allowed to run down the furrows on certain days of the week. In the era before this project was commissioned, an unlimited supply of water was available to the villagers. Agricultural production in the village itself has therefore declined (Montshosi 1987).

Historical Review of Agriculture in Dinokana

In order to get a clear picture of the reasons why it was felt necessary to establish projects in Dinokana in the early 1980's, it is useful to reconstruct a picture of

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

the changing agricultural landscape up to this period. The dominant view of contemporary South African social historians who are concerned with the development of African agriculture is that the reserves were deliberately underdeveloped in order to encourage Africans to sell their labour on the mines, factories and farms of an industrialising South Africa (Wolpe 1972; Legassick 1977). It is often argued that the South African peasantry at first responded to the opportunities created by this economic development by increasing their production for the market (roughly the period from the 1880's to the 1920's). However by the 1930's, it is generally held that a fully fledged and independent peasantry no longer existed in South Africa (Bundy 1988). This argument has been challenged by Simkins (1981) who has analysed the statistics of agricultural production and concluded that the rapid decline and disintegration of the South African peasantry only set in during the late 1950's. Available evidence from Dinokana would tend to support this view. The precolonial system of agricultural production was modified by the arrival of missionaries among the Tswana. In 1843, David Livingstone of the London Missionary Society (LMS) established a mission station at Mabotsa, on the Manwane stream near Gopane, about 15 km N of Dinokana. Under the direction and guidance of Livingstone the local people developed a network irrigation system for agriculture. One of Livingstone's biographers, Blaikie (1903, p. 56), records that Livingstone, writing to his father on 27 April 1844, about a lion attack at Mabotsa, told how the attacks of the lions "drew the people of Mabotsa away from the irrigating operations they were engaged in" (my emphasis). That the Tswana quickly realised the advantage of this technique is not in question. This can be seen from the writings of Livingstone himself who, writing of an irrigation scheme under the Tswana chief Bubi, recalled: The doctor and the rainmaker among these people are one and the same person. As I did not like to be behind my professional brethren, I declared I could make rain too, not however by enchantments like them, but by leading out their river for irrigation. The idea pleased mightily, and to work we went instanter. Even the chief's own doctor is at it, and works like a good fellow, laughing heartily at the cunning of the 'foreigner' who can make rain . . . This is, I believe, the first instance in which Bechuanas have been got to work without wages. It was with the utmost difficulty the other missionaries got them to do anything (Blaikie 1903, p.37). The reason for the Tswana working without wages is that in all likelihood they immediately realised the advantages of building irrigation canals for their agricutural prospects. From Mabotsa, knowledge of irrigation quickly spread to Dinokana, either through the Hurutshe copying the system at Mabotsa or through the influence of one of Livingstone's fellow missionaries named Inglis.

339

The missionaries of the London Missionary Society were expelled in 1852, and replaced by those of the German Hermannsburg Missionary Society (HMS), who set to work in Moiloa's Reserve in 1859. That the Hurutshe continued with their irrigation works in the absence of the LMS missionaries is apparent from the observations of the HMS missionary Zimmerman who on his arrival at Dinokana in 1859 observed: Linokana is surrounded by many large vegetable gardens. The Bahurutshi already know how to irrigate. The Bahurutshi are generally well off, some even really wealthy, because they have their cattle farming as well as many good lands. They have bought many wagons and ploughs (emphasis added) (Manson 1990, p. 30). In 1859 the Hurutshe were competent in the use of irrigation and were keen to expand their agricultural production through the adoption of new technology such as the plough (Reimer 1987). That the people of Moiloa's Reserve had many wagons also indicates that they were in fact involved in trading networks and were producing for markets (Manson 1990). The Hurutshe continued to expand their agricultural production throughout the latter half of the 19th century. In particular, they boosted production to take advantage of the new markets created by the diamond discoveries at Kimberley in 1867 and the opening of the Witwatersrand gold fields in 1886~ Evidence to support this is provided by the observations of contemporary travellers and writers of the period. Emil Holub, a Czech traveller, visited Dinokana in March 1874 and April 1875. On his first visit Holub reported that the Hurutshe "have become the most thriving agriculturalists of all the Transvaal Bechuanas" (Holub 1881, vol 1, p. 416). This prosperity was based on irrigation, as can be seen from Holub's account that: the people have turned the Matebe springs to good account; not only have they conducted the water into the town so as to ensure a good supply for domestic purposes, but they have cut trenches through their fields and orchards, thereby securing a thorough irrigation (Holub, 1881 vol 1, p. 418). Moreover, passing through Dinokana after harvest time in 1875, Holub noted that: the Bahurutshe in Linokana gathered in as much as 800 sacks of wheat, each containing 200 lbs., and every year a wider area of land is being brought under cultivation. Besides wheat, they grow maize, sorghum, melons and tobacco, selling what they do not require for their own consumption in the markets of the Transvaal and the diamond fields (Holub 1881, vol II, p. 22). By 1875, the Hurutshe had quite clearly responded to new opportunities in agriculture. They had adopted irrigation and the plough, and were growing a number of cash crops for sale on the markets of the diamond fields and the Transvaal. In this the Hurutshe were not unique.

340

It has been demonstrated by Bundy (1988) that the South African peasantry as a whole responded to the opening of markets by increasing agricultural production. However, whereas Bundy (1988) suggests that the independent peasantry no longer existed by the 1930's, Dinokana seems to have been an exception to this rule. Although there would have been booms and slumps in agricultural production, associated with climatic factors, agriculture in Dinokana seems to have remained fairly stable and productive throughout much of the twentieth century. The general health and relatively prosperous position of Dinokana in the first decade of the century, when infant industrialisation was taking place, can be judged by the contemporary observation that: placed in the centre of a great amphitheatre of hills is Dinokana (the place of many waters). It is very fertile and there are seven streams. Where the land can be irrigated the people grow tobacco, figs, fruit of all sorts, melons and so on and it seemed to be a most fertile and well cared for place (Drummond 1988, p. 10) The continued fertility and productivity of Dinokana in the era up to the Second World War can also be gauged from an examination of the relevant archival material. For example, in 1930 the Moiloa Reserve Local Council applied for and received a grant of £ 1550 from the Minister of Native Affairs for agricultural improvements. These measures included the construction of dams and irrigation furrows, the erection of a dairy hut to facilitate the marketing of cream, the purchase of stud bulls, the provision of a fumigation outfit to protect citrus trees against disease, and the sinking of a number of boreholes, as well as the maintenance of roads in the reserve. Commenting on these developments the local Native Commissioner stated that the "Reserve bids in a fair way to become a model native area" (Manson and Drummond 1990, p. 5). Further, in 1936 the Moiloa Reserve Local Council (Dinokana) applied for permission to erect a citrus packing shed in order to facilitate the export of oranges. In the period up to 1957 Dinokana was still a comparatively strong rural economy. According to a survey made by the South African ethnographer Breutz (1953, p. 161) in the early 1950's: the tribe has an elaborate irrigation system. As there is more water they also grow European vegetables, such as cabbages, peas, tomatoes, carrots, radish, onions, and they have various kinds of fruit trees. There is also sufficient grazing around Dinokana. Clearly there is evidence that "on the whole Moiloa's Reserve in the 1950's was still productive and its economy had not been severely undermined" (Manson 1983a, p. 64). To test the contention that Dinokana was still a productive reserve area in 1957 it is possible to analyse air photographs of the village taken in that year. These reveal a dense patchwork landscape of cultivated fields.

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

However, an analysis of a time series of air photos for the years 1957, 1963, 1970 and 1984 indicates a decline in the area under cultivation and the consequent decrease of agricultural production. For the years 1957 and 1984, simplified land use maps of Dinokana are derived and presented (Fig 2). The 1957 map shows a substantial area of irrigated lands adjacent to the village with grazing land available on the higher ground. In contrast the 1984 map shows a striking reduction in the area under cultivation. Using a planimeter it is possible to calculate the area under cultivation in 1957 and 1984. In 1957, 470 ha were under cultivation whereas in 1984 only 206 ha were cultivated. The calculations reveal a reduction in the cultivated area of 264 ha, that is 56%. It can be seen from Fig 2 that formerly cultivated land is now either unused or has been taken up by informal housing development. The area where the rice project has been implemented is also illustrated in Fig 2. Possible reasons for this collapse in agricultural production seem to have their starting point in the political disturbances of 1957. In that year the South African government attempted to force African women to carry passes. This action was strongly resisted by the women of Dinokana, who symbolically burned their passes in protest, and by the majority of the community. The state reacted to this with force and large numbers of people were detained. This caused severe dislocation in Dinokana and consequently dealt a strong blow to agriculture as many people went into hiding or fled to neighbouring Botswana (Hooper 1960). One Dinokana farmer pointed out that "in 1957 my harvest was very bad, only eight bags. I usually got about 50 or 60" (Manson 1983b, p. 37). Before the people of Dinokana could recover from this shock to the agricultural system, they were faced by an unfortunate chain of events. There was a severe drought in the years 1962-66, concurrent with an outbreak of disease among the villagers' fruit trees, which were an important source of food as well as providing some cash income from the sale of the fruit (Montshosi 1987). The fact that neighbouring Botswana received independence in 1966 was also a blow to the local economy since this was accompanied by the strict enforcement of the previously open and fluid border between Moiloa's Reserve and the Bechuanaland Protectorate (Drummond and Manson 1990). In turn, this reduced certain significant resources available to the people of Dinokana since previously they had maintained cattle posts (grazing lands) near Kanye in Botswana (Montshosi 1987). The intensification of apartheid laws and oppression throughout the 1960's and 1970's exacerbated the situation. In particular, the South African government's policies of influx control and forced removals had the effect of adding substantially to the population of the area. The population of the Lehurutshe district grew from 41 925 in 1970 to 59 946 in 1980 and further to 74 437 by 1985 (Bophuthatswana Department of Economic Affairs

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

341

Fig 2 Changing land use patterns at Dinokana 1957-1984

[ ] DINOKANAVILLAGE []INFORMAL HOUSING

1985, 1989). The successful imposition of influx control by the South African state in many ways reduced the options of people in Dinokana. They could no longer migrate easily to find work in major cities, therefore they could not earn money to re-invest in agriculture. Further, the fact that population increase could not easily be relieved by rural to urban migration had the effect of increasing population pressure on agricultural land. The present day settlement of Lehurutshe only came into existence in the early 1970's when people were moved ~here from 'black spots' in the western Transvaal (Surplus People Project 1983). Lehurutshe was however chosen to be the new regional capital of the district and a new shopping centre and some light industries were established. The settlement is now a proclaimed township and presently has a total of approximately 9000 people. This development of a new urban centre has obviously had ramifications in terms of increasing water demand. This has been met by tapping the waters of the Dinokana eye. As demonstrated previously, this has had severe repercussions for the villagers, in terms of reducing the amount of water available, thereby hampering their ability to grow irrigated crops all year round in their gardens. By the early 1980's there can be little doubt that the rural economy was in an extremely fragile condition. It was at this time that conditions needed to be improved and Dinokana was selected for agricultural development. Two agricultural projects were established, the aim of which was to increase food production to try to make the new 'state' of Bophuthatswana self-sufficient. Irrigation water was diverted from the network of furrows which served villagers' gardens and fields, to the projects, as well as to the apartheid-created settlement of Lehurutshe,

[ ] RICEPROJECT ~GRAZING LAND

[ ] CULTIVATEDLAND []UNCULTIVATED LAND

resulting in a decrease of agricultural production in the village.

Conclusion The experience of agricultural development in Dinokana suggests that there is a contradiction in terms of agricultural goals and planning. Both projects may be seen as a partial success in fulfilling their 'national' political goals, that is in terms of increasing food production, but they may have negative impacts on Dinokana village (which was supposed to benefit from these projects). Consequently the issue of whether any 'development' has taken place is a moot point. This contradiction is not unique to Dinokana, but resonates with wider experiences of agricultural development elsewhere in Africa. In this paper it has been argued that there is a need for a historical perspective to inform rural and agricultural development planning. This means that there should be a place for historical research in rural surveys which precede development planning. Land use and agricultural production are not static but change over time. This dynamic need to be be uncovered, otherwise the danger is that positive aspects of past agricultural systems will be ignored, and the mistakes of the past will be repeated. This does not apply only to the peculiar case of South Africa's Bantustans but has some relevance for rapid rural appraisal studies throughout Africa. Geographers have a valid role to play here by uncovering past systems of African agricultural production and rural resource management.

342

Acknowledgements The financial assistance of both the University of Bophuthatswana and the Institute for Research Develo p m e n t o f t h e H u m a n S c i e n c e s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l is hereby acknowledged. Thanks are due to Phil Stickler, University of the Witwatersrand, for drawing the figures.

References Adams, W. M. : Managing to irrigate Nigeria? In: Mensching, It. G. (ed.), Problems of the management of irrigated land in areas of traditional and modern cultivation, pp. 37-44. International Geographical Union, Hamburg 1982. Adams, W. M.: Rural protest, land policy and the planning process in the Bakolori project, Nigeria. Africa 58, 315-336 (1988) Adams, W. M.; Anderson, D. M.: Irrigation before development: indigenous and induced change in agricultural water management in East Africa. African Affairs 87, 519-535 (1988) Adams, W. M. ; Carter, R. C.: Small-scale irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in Physical Geography 11, 1 - 2 7 (1987) Adams, W. M.; Grove, A. T. (eds.): Irrigation in Tropical Africa: problems and problem solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1984. Agricor: Temisano: Developing the Community through Co-operative Agriculture. Agricor, Mmabatho 1984. Agricor: The interview of 5/8/88 was given to me by a member of Agricor who would like to remain anonymous. Agricor: Annual report 1987/1988. Mmabatho 1988. Beuster, D. J.: Research priorities in Bophuthatswana agriculture. In Graaff, J. F. (ed.), Bophuthatswana Rural Development Papers, 30-35. Africa Institute of South Africa, Pretoria 1985. Blaikie, W. G.: The Life of David Livingstone. John Murray, London 1903. Bophuthatswana Department of Economic Affairs: The Republic of Bophuthatswana Statistics. Mafikeng 1985. Bophuthatswana Department of Economic Affairs: The Republic of Bophuthatswana Statistics. Mafikeng 1989. Breutz, P. L.: The Tribes of Marico District. Government Printer, Pretoria 1953. Briggs, J. A.: Farmers responses to planned agricultural development in the Sudan. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 3 (NS), 464-475 (1978) Bundy, C.: The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry. 2nd edn. David Philip, Cape Town 1988. Chang, M. H.: Dinokana Rice and Vegetable Project Report. Department of Agriculture, Mmabatho 1983. Daniel, J. B. McI.: Agricultural development in the Ciskci: review and assessment. South African Geographical Journal 63, 3 - 2 3 (1981) Daniel, J. B. McI.; Webb, N. L.: The image of agriculture in two Ciskeian rural communities. In: Charton N. (ed.), Ciskei: Economics and Politics of Dependence in a South African Homeland, pp. 48-58. Croom Helm, London 1980. Drummond, J. H.: Changing patterns of agricultural land use and agricultural production in Dinokana village, Bophuthatswana. Paper presented at 26th Congress of the International Geographical Union, University of Sydney, Australia 1988. Drummond, J. H.; Manson, A. H.: The evolution and contemporary significance of the Bophuthatswana-Botswana border. In: Rumley D.; Minghi J. (eds.), The Geography of Border Landscapes. Routledge, London 1990.

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

Freeman, C.: Drought and agricultural decline in Bophuthatswana. In: South African Research Service (eds.), South African Review Two, pp. 284-289. Ravan, Johannesburg 1984. Freeman, C.: The Impact of Drought on Rural Tswana Society. Unpublished M. A. dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 1988. Hinderink, J.; Sterkenburg, J. J.: Quo vadis? research on agricultural commercialization in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 74, 367-375 (1983a) Hinderink, J.: Sterkenburg, J. J.: Agricultural policy and production in Africa: the aims, the methods and the means. Journal of Modern African Studies 21, 1-23 (1983b) Hinderink, J.; Sterkenburg, J. J.: Agricultural policy and the organization of production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Rural Studies 1, 73-85 (1985) Hinderink, J.; Sterkenburg, J. J.: Agricultural Commercialization and Government Policy in Africa. KPI, London 1987. Hohib, E.: Seven Years in South Africa: Travels, Researches and Hunting Adventures, Between the Diamond-Fields and the Zambezi, (1872-79), Vols I and II. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London 1881. Hooper, C.: Brief Authority. Collins, London 1960. (Reprint, David Philip, Cape Town 1989). Jordan, R.: Interview with Director of Extension, Bophuthatswana Department of Agriculture, at Mafikeng, 31/5/88. Keenan, J.: Agribusiness and the bantustans. In: South African Research Service (eds.), South African Review Two, pp. 3 1 8 326. Ravan, Johannesburg 1984. Legassick, M.: Gold, agriculture and secondary industry in South Africa, 1885-1970: from periphery to sub-metropole as a forced labour system. In: Palmer, R.; Parsons, N. (eds.), The Roots of Rural Poverty in Central and Southern Africa, pp. 175-200. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1977. Letsoalo, E. M.: Survival Strategies in Rural Lebowa: A Study in the Geography of Poverty. Unpublished M. A. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 1982. Letsoalo, E. M.: Land Reform in South Africa: A Black Perspective. Skotaville, Johannesburg 1987. Letsoalo, E. M.; Rogerson, C. M.: Rural 'development' planning under apartheid: betterment planning in Lebowa, South Africa. Geoforum 13, 301-314 (1982) Mabin, A.: Land ownership and the prospects for land reform in the Transvaal: a preliminary view. In: Cross, C. R.; Haines, R. J. (eds.), Towards Freehold: Options for Land and Development in South Africa's Black Rural Areas, pp. 137-145. Juta, Cape Town 1988. Manson, A. H.: The Hurutshe resistance in the Zeerust district of the Western Transvaal, 1954-59. Africa Perspective 22, 62-79 (1983a) Manson, A. H.: The Troubles of Chief Abram Moilwa: The Hurutshe Resistance of 1954-1958. South African Institute of Race Relations, Johannesburg 1983b. Manson, A. H.: The Hurutshe in the Marico District of the Transvaal, 1848-1913. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 1990. Manson, A. H.; Drummond, J. H.: The transformation of Moiloa's Reserve in the Western Transvaal: politics, production and resistance in a rural setting, 1919-1986. Paper presented at the History Workshop, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 1990. Mashile, G. G.: The economic environment of rural land policy and planning. In: Cross, C. R.; Haines, R. J. (eds.), Towards Freehold: Options for Land and Development in South Africa's Black Rural Areas, pp. 50-59. Juta, Cape Town 1988. Montshosi, P.: Interview with lifelong resident of Dinokana, at Dinokana, 18/6/1987.

GeoJournal 22.3/1990

343

Reimer, K. L.: The impact of development on the sexual division of labour: a Batswana case study. Unpublished M. A. dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 1987. Rogerson, C. M.; Beavon, K. S. O.: Towards a geography of the common people in South Africa. In: Eyles, J. (ed.), Research in Human Geography: Introductions and hrvestigations, pp. 83-99. Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1988. Rogerson, C. M.; Browett, J. G.: Social geography under apartheid. In: Eyles, J. (ed.), Social Geography in International Perspective, pp. 221-250. Croom Helm, London 1986. Rogerson, C. M.; Letsoalo, E. M.: Rural under-development, poverty and apartheid: the closer settlements of Lebowa, South Africa. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 72, 347-361 (1981)

Roodt, J. J.: Bophuthatswana's state farming projects: an aggro business? Indicator South Africa 3, 1, 6 - 9 (1985) Simkins, C.: Agricultural production in the African reserves of South Africa, 1918-1969. Journal of Southern African Studies 7, 256-283 (1981) Surplus People Project: Forced Removals in South Africa, the Surplus People Project Volume 5: The Transvaal. Surplus People Project, Cape Town 1983. Weiner, D.: Agricultural transformation in Zimbabwe: lessons for South Africa after apartheid. Geoforum 19, 479-496 (1988) Wolpe, H.: Capitalism and cheap labour power in South Africa: from segregation to apartheid. Economy and Society 1,425-456 (1972)

Rogerson, C. M.; Letsoalo, E. M.: Resettlement and underdevelopment in the black 'homelands' of South Africa. In: Clarke, J . I . ; Khogali M.; Kosinski, L. A. (eds.), Population and Development Projects in Africa, pp. 176-193. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1985. Rogerson, C. M.; Parnell, S. M.: Fostered by the laager: apartheid human geography in the 1980's Area 21, 13-26 (1989) Roodt, J. J.: Capitalist agriculture and bantustan employment patterns: case studies in Bophuthatswana. In: South African Research Service (eds.), South African Review Two, pp. 327334. Ravan, Johannesburg 1984.

ZMBA$

Note

All archival references are fully sourced in Drummond, 1990: The impact of two agricultural projects on Dinokana village, Bophuthatswana, unpubh M.A. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (in prep).

•?

THE SOUTH AFRICAN "~GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL .h

The South African Geographical Journal is published biannually by the South African Geographical Society. NIMBAS

N ~ A S , The Netherlands Institute for MBAStudieshas establisheda partnership with the University of Bradford Management Centre, one of Europe's leading business schools.

Bradford

Published contributions include peer-reviewed articles on original research, review papers, research notes, and book reviews on topic s of geographical interest. The major aim of the Journal is to promote significant and valuable research and discussion in both physical and h u m a n

W h y study for the B r a d f o r d M B A in T h e Netherlands? As a small nation, with an open economy and an exceptional knowledge of foreign cultures and languages, the Netherlands has acquired through centuries of experiencea great reputation and expertisein international businessand trade. Against the background of Europe 1992the Netherlands businessenviromnent is the most dynamic location in which to study for your MBAdegree. NIMBAS-Bradford MBA: Key Facts • The NIMBAS-BradfordMBA has an excellent international reputation ~ The NIMBAg-BradfordMBA combines theory and practice,creating more efficient and effectiveinternationally-oriented managers The NIMBAS-BradforclMBAis designedfor managerswho alreadypossess a university degree (or equivalent) and a minimum of two years work experience • The NIMBAS-Bradford MBA is a 13 months Full-Time Programlne, taught in English. F o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , please contact: Postgraduate Secretary, N1MBAS,P.O. Box 2040, 3500 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Fax:...31 3409 1237.

geography, with particular emphasis on southern Africa. Individual issues can currently be purchased at US$10 or £6; a n n u a l subscriptions are also available

Publishing details fi'om:

Subscriptions and orders:

The Editors S A Geographical Journal Univ. of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg 2050 South Africa Tel. (011) 716 2823

The Administrative Secretary S A Geographical Society P O Box 128 Wits 2050 South Africa Tel. (011) 339 1951