74
majority of the association’s members are landowners, and therefore stand to benefit if MBLR remains the state’s preferred model rather than expropriation (especially with no compensation or non-market-related compensation).
This model allows the state to avoid becoming financially overstretched while ensuring both implementation and ongoing support for the beneficiaries. As part of the public administration processes, the public administrators would be able to efficiently and effectively plan their day-to-day activities. The discussion now focuses on progress registered in the implementation of the land reform programme from 1994 to 2011.
75
Province Redistribution & tenure Restitution Total
Number of
projects Hectares Benefi-
ciaries Claims Hectares Benef-
ciaries Hectares Benefi- ciaries Eastern Cape 675 353357 25633 16201 94834 215201 448191 240834 Free State 799 350291 7721 2662 47615 40893 397906 48614
Gauteng 286 34513 7328 13159 9476 70179 43989 77507
Kwa-Zulu
Natal 690 547414 67761 14752 642447 433168 1189861 500929 Limpopo 291 91235 7403 3382 513024 220227 604259 227630 Mpumalanga 444 322839 13950 2694 399876 225877 722715 239827 Northern
Cape 271 952744 2773 3682 539620 100554 1492364 103327
North West 300 268366 40539 3682 373642 172963 642208 213502 Western Cape 223 122304 12750 3709 3769 118165 126073 130915 Total 3979 3 043 264 185858 15546 2624303 1597227 5667567 1783085
Table 3.2: Progress in implementing the land reform programme (Source: Greenberg, 2010: 4).
Though the above table reflects a degree of progress, it strongly suggests that the state will not be able to achieve its target of transferring 30% of land to Blacks by 2014, a date that itself reflects a backward revision which proved necessary when it became obvious that the original target date of 1999 (as envisaged by the ANC’s RDP was unrealistic (Greenberg, 2010: 4). According to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, at least 24.6 million hectares of agricultural land should be redistributed to the previously disadvantaged by 2014. This means that over a period of 20 years, the state should, on average, redistribute 1.23 million hectares per year (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Strategic Plan 2009-2012, 2009: 16).
The question is whether the 2014 target can be achieved considering the present pace of implementation. According to Ghyoot (2008:180), by April 2006, at least 4 million hectares had been transferred to Black people, 1 million through land restitution and 3 million through land redistribution. By September 2009, 5.69 million hectares had been transferred. The slow pace of transfer has been attributed, among other factors, to the inflated cost of land, which the
76
state had to accept owing to the willing-buyer willing-seller principle (Greenberg, 2010: 4).
A further impediment, noted by the former Director-General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Gilingwe Mayende (2004), was the non-availability of state land for land reform purposes, since, according to Mayende, no further distribution of state land suitable for agricultural use was contemplated. Mayende based his argument on the 24.5 million hectares of state land available for allocation to land reform beneficiaries while the rest was for domestic use by organs of state, such as the defence force, the police and correctional services. Mayende also acknowledged that there were difficulties with regard to tenure reform. In fact, he argued that not much has been done to address the tenure impasse, particularly in rural areas. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has however come up with a plan that would see Members of the Executive Council in the provinces allocate resources for the settling of claims. As Mayende’s statement assisted in keeping the public informed about the status of state land redistribution, it was in line with public administration and management protocols of communication, which envisage public institutions and citizens working together to attain shared objectives.
Mayende did not downplay the challenges facing the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. These include high land prices, a shortage of the resources necessary for the implementation of land reform and a few unwilling sellers. He also argued that established commercial agriculture must demonstrate a concrete commitment to land reform. This observation was borne out of experience over time. For instance, the organised farming fraternity in the form of AgriSA objected to some land reform initiatives. When prime agricultural land was up for redistribution, the Department encountered opposition and this served to delay the process of transfer (Mayende, 2004).
The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform noted in an address to AgriSA that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform expected organised agriculture to assist in the national effort to absorb the unemployed into the economy. The Minister maintained that broadening participation in the
77
agricultural sector would contribute to the viability of the economy as a whole, and in this regard, a variety of partnership models as a way of capacitating disadvantaged communities are available. These include public ownership working in conjunction with private entities, for example leases allowing municipalities to delegate new investments and the operation of infrastructure facilities to the private sector (Malan & Van Rooyen, 2010: 124).
While acknowledging that the land reform programme is moving slow (though the government is looking at ways of speeding it up), this study also aims to determine the impact of the programme where land has been transferred. It argues that attaining the transfer target of 30% is not good enough if the quality of life of the beneficiaries does not change for the better. According to Lahiff (2008: 1), the land reform programme has been criticised for its inability to deliver on its objectives of historical redress, the redistribution of wealth and opportunities and the promotion of economic growth. Lahiff points to a perception that where land has been redistributed, this has not in fact resulted in improvements in agricultural productivity or an improvement in the livelihoods of the beneficiaries. A goal of this study is to assess whether, measured against the stated objectives of the various land reform projects, the quality of life of their beneficiaries has improved.
The implementation of the land reform programme has not been without challenges. Some people have complained that progress is too slow, while others have complained of a lack of post-settlement support from the state.
Newspaper headlines on the land restitution programme have highlighted conflicting views (Ghyoot, 2008: 180). The next section examines some of the challenges facing land reform.