2.10 Municipality and Land Reform
2.10.3 Municipal commonage
Commonage in municipalities is commonly referred to in South African administrative terminology as ‘municipal commonage’. This is land owned by a local authority which was acquired through state grants. The grant amount varies from case to case and is determined by the provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, taking into account the availability of funds and the principles of fairness and equity (White Paper on South African Land Policy, 1997: 51).
There are national schemes that help local authorities to acquire commonage for agriculture for their poor residents, and even land for affordable housing.
The local authorities demonstrate their good faith by entering their land holdings in the public land register. Commonage helps the local authorities to assist needy members of the community at minimal cost. This might take the form of commonage grazing and family gardens, which would fulfil the land
51
reform objectives of affording households the chance to engage in productive land use and increase the chances for employment (Buthelezi, 2008: 9). The national government is expected to create capacity for both land administration and land reform at the local government level (White Paper on South African Land Policy, 1997: 89). The study investigated whether productive land was allocated and employment opportunities were increased as a result of the land reform programme.
Commonage is used to improve people’s access to land for agricultural purposes and was intended to promote local economic development by means of which poor and needy residents could supplement their income. It constituted an inexpensive form of land reform (Land Reform Policy Committee, 1997: 1). Through the Municipal Commonage Grant, municipalities acquire land which is kept in trust and may not be sold or encumbered (Lebert and Rohde, 2007: 819). The underlying understanding was that the commonage would serve as a livelihood strategy since rural households derived livelihoods from natural resources, livestock or agriculture and the availability of commonage land would assist rural households which nearly all participate in the cultivation of the home plot (Shackleton et al., 2001, 593).
In comparison, commonage in the Namaqualand area of South Africa, presented challenges in respect of both land use and land administration. The model disregarded the communal farming practice instead of enforcing the individualisation of grazing holdings which was more of the White commercial farmers (May and Lahiff, 2007: 788). The studies conducted in the Northern Cape revealed that the commonage projects’ household were found to consider agriculture the necessary element of their livelihoods, than both redistribution and restitution. Furthermore, it was noted that livestock was owned individually, rather than in redistribution and restitution where land was collectively and individually owned (Bradstock, 2005: 1983).
This programme targeted small rural towns and settlements where poor people needed access to both grazing land and small garden areas to supplement their income and enhance their household food security. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform encouraged local authorities to develop
52
strategies that would enable poor people to access the existing commonage that was presently used for other purposes. The Department also provided funds to enable resource-poor local governments to acquire additional land for this purpose.
It was incumbent upon the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to render assistance in developing appropriate provincial policy, legislative frameworks and administrative systems for the use and maintenance of municipal commonages for land reform purposes. Those municipalities that needed support had to be assisted to determine how to regulate the relationship (using by-laws and private agreements) between users, themselves and local authorities.
While this was perceived as a good policy to help the poor and needy gain access to land, it became problematic in some areas. In some cases, the land acquired was not used for the purpose for which it was intended, which meant that the poor were denied the opportunity to access land that could satisfy their basic needs. It was noted that just a quarter of rural households accessed land for crop production (May et al., 1996 in Manona et al. (1999: 27), but many rural communities also reported that their income increased because they had access to agricultural land. This served as an indication that increased access to land could improve a community’s well-being. To extend the available commonage, existing leases can be bought out before they expire, if the lessee is willing to be bought out. Some local authorities might need financial assistance to take this route.
There are many municipalities that could benefit from the commonage approach. It was unfortunate that in Limpopo Province, particularly in the GLM, such an approach had not been adopted. It was not clear whether this was due to lack of information on the part of municipal officials or lack of capacity in the provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Reform was not clear.
The GLM includes farms that could be bought for commonage and this might have assisted in alleviating poverty among the local citizens, but most projects collapsed because there was poor post-settlement support, or none at all, once the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform exited a project. This
53
happened with both municipal commonages and projects outside of the municipalities (Walker, 2003: 134). The potential of these commonages should not be underestimated as they are capable of sustaining intensive cultivation of both community and household gardens and are especially important for developing and expanding local initiatives that people have already begun (Mc Allister, 1992 in Fay, 2009: 1431).
2.10.4 Building capacity for sustainable local government in land reform