167 7.4.5 Income analysis
Figure 7.3: Income Analysis
A substantial proportion (41%) of the respondents indicated that they had no income prior to their participation in the land reform programme, which could explain why they opted to be involved – hoping that land reform projects would provide them with job opportunities and ultimately with income to meet their basic needs. This is a telling reflection of the standard of living of the people within the research area.
The research also showed that 51% of the respondents received an income that was less than R3000. This amount is insufficient for a family, hence the participation in the land reform programme. Only 8% of the respondents earned income over R3000.
168
QUESTIONS PUT TO THE RESPONDENTS YES NO Land reform and its beneficiaries
Did beneficiaries receive sufficient income from land
reform projects? 27% 73%
Would beneficiaries encourage others to participate
in land reform projects? 81% 19%
Did Dept. of Agriculture extension service officers
provide beneficiaries with assistance? 51% 49%
Policy and conceptual issues on land reform
Was land reform legislation effectively applied? 57% 43%
Should the Minister be allowed to fast-track land
acquisition by side-stepping the Land Claims Court? 75% 25%
Were recent changes in legislation relevant to the
study area? 24% 76%
Were local people adequately informed about land
reform programmes? 70% 30%
Impact of land reform
Did land redistribution projects assist beneficiaries
to acquire new skills? 66% 34%
Did land reform programmes reduce unemployment
in the Greater Letaba Local Municipality 59% 41%
Were land reform beneficiaries able to access
financial assistance? 46% 54%
Were the operations of the land reform projects
affected by lack of financial assistance? 60% 40%
Have land reform projects contributed to the local
economy? 86% 14%
Did land reform projects serve as good models for
community development 88% 12%
169
QUESTIONS PUT TO THE RESPONDENTS YES NO Satisfaction with the pace of change
Were beneficiaries satisfied with the implementation
of land reform policy? 67% 33%
Was there support from the local municipality? 57% 43%
Did beneficiaries receive aftercare assistance? 27% 73%
Were respondents satisfied with the aftercare
support? 57% 43%
Table 7.4: Beneficiary responses on land reform issues
Several issues can be deduced from the table above and the analysis is provided hereunder:
7.3.2.1 LAND REFORM AND BENEFICIARIES 7.5.1 Income received from land reform projects
Only 27% of the respondents said that they derived sufficient income for their basic needs from land reform projects, while the great majority (73%) reported that this had not been the case for them. With barely a quarter of beneficiaries being able to rely solely on land reform projects for their income, it could be concluded that these programmes do not sufficiently improve people’s livelihoods, making it likely that beneficiaries could eventually withdraw and the projects could collapse. Considering that these projects had been in existence for 14 years, the lack of improvement in income provision seems unacceptable.
7.5.2 Motivation to encourage others to participate in land reform projects
A minority (19%) of the respondents indicated that they would not encourage other people to participate in the land reform programmes, while 81% said that they would encourage others in their communities to participate. The mainly positive response suggests that participants see potential benefits in the programme.
170
7.5.3 Support by agricultural extension officers
Just over half the respondents (51%) reported that they had been visited by extension officers, which indicates that the land reform is receiving attention from the Department of Agriculture and that officials are taking required control of the projects as a public administration function. This will enable them to identify challenges that the land reform beneficiaries are faced with and provide solutions. The figures also suggest that resources were stretched as the officers were unable to visit all participants.
A similar experience was noted in Zimbabwe where the Ministry of Land and Agriculture stepped up the extension services. Resources were channelled into capacity building of the personnel who were tasked with land reform issues. In addition, funds were allocated for recruiting the new staff to assist the land reform beneficiaries (African Renaissance, 2006: 51). This was an indication of the political will that was prevailing at the time of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme.
7.5.4 Suggestions by land reform beneficiaries to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
When the respondents were asked how best they could advise the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, they raised a variety of issues which could be summarised as follows:
The department should make sure that land reform projects are properly equipped with the necessary machinery, ploughs, and tractors.
Respondents expect departmental officials to monitor the smooth running of farming operations on land reform projects, which have been hampered in some cases by problems such as faulty water pumps.
The department should supply the projects with the necessary infrastructure such as water pumps, tractors and even grading of farm access roads. On some farms that changed ownership
171
through the land reform process, the infrastructure was not maintained. While the logistics were being sorted out, the properties were left unattended by the previous farm owners. The whole thing took place prior to reoccupation by the land reform beneficiaries. There was no security to ensure that the property remained intact before the occupation took place.
The department should encourage the land reform beneficiaries to work hard, tilling the land, growing vegetables to feed their families, and, for those with livestock, practicing acceptable methods of cattle farming, such as rotational grazing. Working hard means that beneficiaries must equip themselves with the necessary farming skills, including financial and operational farm management skills.
The fact that respondents were able to come up with practical, focussed suggestions about ways in which the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform could improve their farming situation indicates their level of commitment to these projects. It became clear in the course of the interviews that beneficiaries hoping to make progress in farming were critically hampered by inadequate equipment and infrastructure.