Farmland or quarry: a community land decision
A communal ward has 400 ha of arable land farmed by 1 200 households. A company offers a 25-year lease on 150 ha for a granite quarry. It will pay US$40 a month to each of the 90 households whose fields lie on that land, and promises 60 jobs at about US$110 a month. Maize on that land yields 3 tonnes per hectare and sells at US$220 a tonne; inputs cost US$150 per hectare. The company will use explosives three times a week within 800 m of the school, and wash crushed stone in a dam that feeds the ward's borehole. The council meets on Saturday to decide.
1. Calculate the annual net value of growing maize on the 150 ha. Show your working.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 – Output. 150 ha × 3 t/ha = 450 tonnes of maize a year.
Step 2 – Gross income. 450 t × US$220/t = US$99 000 a year.
Step 3 – Input costs. 150 ha × US$150/ha = US$22 500 a year.
Step 4 – Net value. 99 000 − 22 500 = US$76 500 a year from the 150 ha, before labour.
Reasoning note: the figure that matters is the net value, not the gross. A learner who stops at US$99 000 overstates the land's worth by nearly a third. Also note this US$76 500 is spread across 90 households, roughly US$850 per household per year - and it renews every season for as long as the land is looked after.
2. Compare the quarry offer with the maize farming, and identify the risks the council should weigh.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 – Value the cash offer. 90 households × US$40 × 12 months = US$43 200 a year, i.e. about US$480 per household per year.
Step 2 – Value the jobs, cautiously. 60 jobs × US$110 × 12 = US$79 200 a year, but only if every job goes to a local person, which the company has not guaranteed.
Step 3 – Compare like with like. The quarry cash (US$43 200) is less than the maize it replaces (US$76 500). The offer only looks generous if the jobs are counted, and jobs are not land.
Step 4 – Weigh the risks:
- Time: 25 years is a generation. Once the topsoil is stripped, the land will not return to maize quickly after the lease ends.
- Water: washing crushed stone in the dam that feeds the borehole risks silting and dirtying the ward's drinking water.
- Health and schooling: blasting three times a week 800 m from a school affects concentration and cracks weak walls.
- Money leakage: wages may go to outsiders, and pay stops the day the quarry closes; the land would not.
Judgement: the quarry is a short-term cash gain against a permanent loss of arable land. That is the core trade-off the council must decide.
3. Recommend a decision to the council, with conditions. Your answer must state what you would accept and what you would refuse.
Read the worked answer
Position: do not accept the offer as written. The financial case is weak and the environmental risks are unaddressed.
Conditions I would insist on before any lease:
- Raise the land payment above the US$76 500 net maize value - the company is asking the ward to accept less than farming earns, so the offer must at least match it, with payments reviewed every year.
- Guarantee local employment in writing, with training places for ward residents, so the jobs figure is not a promise only.
- Protect the water: a separate settling dam, sited away from the borehole catchment, with monthly testing of the borehole water and results posted publicly.
- Protect the school: no blasting within school hours, a survey of the school buildings before and after, and company-funded repairs.
- A rehabilitation bond, paid up front, so there is money to level the pits and replace topsoil at the end of the 25 years.
- Shrink the area. Take 50 ha, not 150 ha, so households keep most of their fields and the ward tests the company's behaviour before scaling up.
Reason for the structured answer: a bare 'yes' or 'no' ignores the ward's need for cash. The defensible answer is a conditional yes on a smaller area - this protects food production while capturing some benefit, and it keeps the council in a position to walk away.