178
179
operations would be seriously hampered. The importance of financial resources cannot be overemphasised.
Putting the farming activities in order. The departments that had a direct role to play in supporting land reform programmes should review their priorities. For instance, the Department of Agriculture should define its roles, responsibilities and objectives. It should put together a clearly defined programme for the agricultural extension officers who would be important in providing support services.
Local municipalities should develop an integrated plan as they work out their IDPs that cover land reform projects. A budget should be set aside to cater for the land reform programmes. If need be, the budget from the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) should also incorporate the land reform projects.
(a) Prioritising land reform programmes in Greater Letaba Local Municipality
When respondents were asked whether the GLM gave priority to land reform programmes, 57% said yes, and 43% said no. The fact that only 57% agreed that the Municipality had given this priority is a somewhat doubtful confirmation of municipal commitment to the land reform process.
The respondents made various suggestions regarding ways in which the community can be awarded projects, among which was the suggestion that hard work by the community would provide added motivation for government to assist further. They emphasised the necessity of looking after projects, taking ownership of the projects rather than thinking that this was purely a concern for government and not for themselves.
Respondents also felt that working with the government was another way they could give support, and that community cooperation with the government was important for successful implementation of land reform.
The beneficiaries in the GLM sought to avoid the collapse of land reform projects by working as hard as they were able to. This was important to attract
180
support, since no-one would wish to invest where people were inactive. They sought to be vigorous and careful when working on these acquired properties.
Where they encountered doubtful issues, it was very important for the ultimate survival of the project to engage in consultation. The respondents further suggested that the beneficiaries should learn to tackle problems head-on, rather than rely solely on external assistance.
(b) Aftercare service
A majority (73%) of the respondents indicated that land reform beneficiaries in the study area were not receiving aftercare assistance; with only 27% reporting that beneficiaries had received such assistance. The minimal level of support thus indicated, could seriously affect the beneficiaries’ operations.
It emerged further that the aftercare assistance that some land reform beneficiaries had in fact received, covered advice on both farming and technical operations, both of these being key aspects for any successful farming venture. It was unfortunate that the majority within the research area had not had access to this assistance, and it should be a major concern for all stakeholders that the awarded projects receive full attention to sustain their operations.
In comparison, as indicated in the literature review, China’s redistributive land reform programme. was intended to improve rural development This was done by prioritising access to inputs, liberalising output markets and improving agricultural trade. In fact, China’s approach was focused on improving the economy by supporting the land reform programme (Griffin, Khan & Ickowitz, 2001: 50). This resulted in high growth rates and living standards in the country. In South Africa all these stakeholders were expected to be committed from the outset and to keep their input as constant as possible. Perhaps, there should be mechanisms to measure the extent of this aftercare with the intention of establishing the gaps and filling them. In fact, aftercare should have a timeframe within which feedback should be solicited; this would afford opportunities for intervention. The need for aftercare support, particularly for land reform beneficiaries, cannot be overemphasised. In fact, the NGOs,
181
municipalities, Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Department of Agriculture, and private sector should provide assistance to these projects, because they are a key priority for the country’s democracy. If the government can introduce tax incentives that were linked to land reform projects, both the private sector and the NGOs will be attracted to participating in the programme. The government might also consider subsidising the services to beneficiaries rendered by both NGOs and the private sector.
The advice that the respondents provided to the stakeholders on the aftercare services covered a number of issues, some of which are discussed below:
The need for financial management and financial skills.
It is encouraging to realise that the beneficiaries were able to identify their inabilities. For instance, effective management was integral to the success of their farming activities. Previous discussions highlighted the fact that some projects had collapsed, and inadequate management was one of the causes.
Perhaps intervention by various stakeholders is necessary to avert such problems. Finance, too, is a priority in any farming operation, and financial advice should; therefore, be welcomed.
Provision of farming infrastructure and the necessary inputs.
The request by the beneficiaries of both farming infrastructure and inputs is an indication of the beneficiaries’ commitment to the awarded projects. In addition to the input of farming activity the beneficiaries also required relevant infrastructure, as mentioned in the previous discussion. For instance, it was indicated that they needed fencing material, tractors and water. Perhaps if the stakeholders had heeded this call, improvements would be noticed with time.