The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform is tasked with ensuring that policies are formulated to sustain the agricultural sector. The present incumbent, Minister Gugile Mkwinti, has integrated the policies of his portfolio within an imaginative programme of agrarian restructuring. It remains unclear whether current land reform policies will enable government to meet its targets.
The 2005 Land Summit reflected a mixed picture of stagnation and progress (Cousins in Mail and Guardian, 11-17 August 2006: 23). While land policy aims
60
to redress past wrongs and help South Africa’s poor to become successful commercial farmers, new developments continue to emerge. There is growing concern in government that land reform seems to have failed, and that a new, radical, and less market-oriented approach is needed (Bernstein, 2005: 8), in line with Zimbabwe’s implementation of compulsory occupation of commercial farms with no compensation (Juana, 2006: 295). This policy, though unpopular in the eyes of the international community, particular in the West, was adopted by the Zimbabwe government to accomplish redistribution of land. It was the purpose of this study to determine the shortcomings in South African land reform implementation. Why was there a loss of confidence on the part of the constituencies?
There has been little meaningful consultation with stakeholders and it is unclear which resolutions would be acted upon. In communal areas, tenure reform has ground to a halt, and evictions from commercial farms continue.
Meanwhile new approaches to land redistribution and post-settlement support are being investigated (Cousins in Mail and Guardian, 11-17 August, 2006:
23). Among the groups that are vulnerable to hunger and poverty through denial of access to land and other productive resources are small farmers, tenants and workers without land. These have been the hardest hit because they rely solely on agriculture. Any land policy that ignored the need for these groups to make a living would be unacceptable (Buthelezi, 2008: 3).The poorest group within the rural population are the agricultural workers, and most cultivable fertile land continues to be held by a small number of powerful land owners.
This links with the study question that sought to establish whether beneficiaries were afforded aftercare support, and it appears that post-settlement support was not adequate. Even the land redistribution programme itself is open to question. Having so many projects remaining unsettled threatens to undermine the whole purpose of land redistribution, which was to open up productive land for both residential and farming use (Ramutsindela, 2003: 42). The emphasis was on uplifting the very poor in rural and urban settings, including labour
61
tenants, farm workers and new entrants to agriculture. Projects that were approved were starting to collapse and this was a serious reason for concern.
While acknowledging the complexity of resettlement, Bernstein (2005: 12) concurs, indicating that provincial departments fail to provide post-settlement support for land redistribution projects. The complexities of redistribution range from “shack farming” to increased personal indebtedness of new farm settlers and inconsistent grant allocations to some, but not all, land redistribution beneficiaries.
A study by McCusker (2004) that was carried out on 18 CPAs that acquired properties through the land redistribution programme identified four factors that block land use and land cover on redistributed farms:
farm management by membership was difficult and ineffective
members tended to be unprepared to organise, maintain, and develop their CPAs as economic entities
farms failed as production units due to lack of managerial skills
farming expertise was not taken into account as a criterion for membership and leadership of CPAs
there was minimal farm training on all the CPAs
there was a lack of the skills required to run a farming business McCusker (2004: 65).
Taking these issues into account, this study sought to establish whether poverty had been reduced in CPAs that acquired properties through the land redistribution programme. Were there gaps that prevented the programme from achieving its goals? It had been noted that consultation with stakeholders was minimal and even less meaningful (Cousins in Mail and Guardian, August 2006: 23). Linked with the study question on what lessons stakeholders will learn from the study, this remains a highly relevant issue.
The Department could consider aligning land reform, agricultural support and other programmes with the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of
62
municipalities. This would be one way of creating a more proactive role for the state in land acquisition, which would include expropriation when negotiations break down (Cousins in Mail and Guardian, August 2006: 23). This links with the question on the extent of the legislative framework that government put together to address the land reform question. Here a key issue is that the policies that were put in place needed alignment so that they complement one another. Where one policy was not suitable, another needed to kick in.
This might fast track the delivery of land to beneficiaries. The municipalities’
IDPs could become the focal point, which would lead to a more committed approach with greater coherence between the various programmes within institutions, particularly in relation to agricultural support. Since the land received through land reform is mostly intended for agricultural productive purposes, the Department of Agriculture should be closely involved, not least because 43% of South Africa’s population suffers food insecurity (Rose &
Chartlon, 2002, in Valente, 2009: 1540).
Land reform is critical to poverty eradication; this aspect should not be left to chance and needs to be enforced through pertinent legislation and policies.
Further implementation of such policies need to be incorporated into public administration processes. An analysis of the land reform programme, therefore, would be incomplete without an analysis of the public administration process at play and how public administrators interface with the beneficiaries and other non-state actors.