{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01753576372865713, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014766958929395477, 'mean_word_length': 5.247838616714698, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
LAND REFORM IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF BADLANDS IN THE MFOLOZI CATCHMENT, KWAZULU-NATAL

ABSTRACT Several studies have shown that gully erosion poses a problem to South African peasant farmers. Land that is already severely affected by and/or susceptible to this form of erosion is therefore not suitable for transfer to such beneficiary communities under the Land Reform Programme. Concern that the transfer of such land in the Mfolozi catchment would exacerbate its already serious soil erosion problem motivated Watson and Ramagopa (1997) to identify unsuitable land types and subcatchments in it from this gully erosion perspective. It has subsequently been established that badlands pose as much a problem as do gullies to the Mfolozi's peasant farmers. By analysing the functional relationships between data sets on the biophysiographic characteristics of land types and on the location and spatial extent of badlands, this study identified unsuitable parts of the catchment from a badland erosion perspective. Conclusions reached from integrating the findings of this study with those of Watson and Ramagopa (1997) have important implications for the future decision making process regarding land that becomes available for potential transfer to peasant farmer communities in the Mfolozi catchment. Firstly, the current erosional status of any land in subcatchments W224, W226, W231, W232, W241, W242, W243 and W244 (Department of Water Affairs quaternary catchment numbers) should be assessed at a very early stage in the process because of the very high probability that it is already seriously affected by gully and/or badland erosion. Secondly, land within land types CA, BD, DB, FA and FB is most unsuitable and should be exempt from transfer. Land within land types AC, BB, EA and AB is unsuitable and should only be considered if there is not a more suitable alternative. However, should other socio-political considerations make the transfer of land within both these categories of land types inevitable, they should respectively receive a very high and high rating on the priority list for both support services and monitoring and evaluation.