What benefit-sharing mechanisms can help forestry-based land restitution beneficiaries in South Africa? The case of Limpopo province forestry projects

Abstract

The capture of the benefits by the elites due to the lack of a benefitsharing mechanism is a serious threat to the development of forestry land restitution projects in South Africa. This study investigated the benefit-sharing mechanisms desirable to land claimant beneficiaries in forestry-based land restitution projects. A random sampling technique was used to select 351 and 170 households' beneficiaries in Levubu and Tzaneen communities in Limpopo Province, respectively. Data were collected using a household questionnaire and focus group discussions. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse data. Findings revealed that there are still no benefit-sharing mechanisms in Levubu and Tzaneen communities, but the beneficiaries comprehend the significance of developing a benefit-sharing mechanism for fair and equal distribution of benefits. The results revealed that stakeholders' meetings (58.7%) and open beneficiaries' meetings (40.6%) were preferred mechanisms. In addition, beneficiaries in both Levubu (54.4%) and Tzaneen (68.9%) preferred to receive benefits monthly. This paper provides the first overview of a benefit-sharing model in forestry-based land restitution projects in South Africa. It concludes that there is a need to consider the early development of a benefit-sharing mechanism in land restitution projects in order to allow a greater equal share of the benefits.

The influence of forest proximity to harvesting and use of provisioning ecosystem services from tree species in traditional agroforestry landscapes

“…Limpopo Province is classified as one of the underdeveloped provinces in South Africa (Statistics South Africa 2016), characterised by a persistently high unemployment rate and extreme poverty (Makhubele et al 2022). The majority of the 5.7 million people in the province live below the poverty line (Statistics South Africa 2016) and heavily depend on PESs (Makhubele et al 2021), agriculture and social grants (Shackleton 2020).…”