The LRAD policy was initiated in August 2001 (Schmitz, 2001). According to the Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs (2000: 2) the objectives of LRAD, which are to be achieved in the 15 years from 2000, are to:
• "Increase access to agricultural land by black people (Africans, Coloureds and Indians) and to contribute to the redistribution of approximately 30% of the country's commercial agricultural land (i.e. formerly' white commercial farmland') over the duration of the programme.
• Contribute to relieving the congestion in over crowded former homeland areas
• Improve nutrition and incomes of the rural poor who want to farm on any scale
• Overcome the legacy of past racial and gender discrimination in ownership of farmland
• Facilitate structural change over the long term by assisting black people who want to establish small and medium sized farms
• Stimulate growth from agriculture
• Create stronger linkages between farm and off- farm income generating activities
• Expand opportunities for promising young people who stay in rural areas
• Empower beneficiaries to improve their economic and social well-being
• Enable those presently accessing agricultural land in communal areas to make better productive use of their land
• Promote environmental sustainability ofland and other natural resources."
Despite attempts to define objectives it is apparent that the objectives of LRAD are vague and have no means for assessment (i.e. no indicators). The policy does not indicate how much LRAD is expected to contribute to the target of redistributing 30% of the country's commercial agricultural land. Wegerif (2004) points out another issue for clarity: that is, there is confusion over whether LRAD is to redistribute 30% of all agricultural land or just 30% offonnerly white commercial farmland (Wegerif, 2004).
Under the auspices of the LRAD programme there are four different categories of LRAD projects. These are summarised below:
• Food safety net projects enable LRAD beneficiaries to acquire land for crop and livestock production to improve household food security.
• Equity schemes allow LRAD beneficiaries to access a grant that will enable them to buy into existing agricultural enterprise. The grant recipient will be a eo-owner and an employee of the farm,
• Production for markets is a commercial agriculture activity. These LRAD beneficiaries will use their financial and technical resources to produce for markets, over and above what they require for subsistence needs.
• Agriculture in communal areas projects assist communities, and individuals part of communities, in making productive investments in their communal land to enhance production and food security.
(Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2000)
Clearly, LRAD is intended to supply land for a range of categories of projects including subsistence through food safety net projects. However, according to Wegerif (2004), who conducted extensive case study research into LRAD projects in Limpopo Province in 2004, ascertained that land acquired through LRAD is ultimately not for subsistence but for commercial agricultural enterprises and this is the trend in South Africa at large.
When the LRAD policy document came out in 2001 there were concerns about the programme needing to transfer assets relevant to agricultural production and this would mean working with other stakeholders (Schmitz, 2001). However, only the DoA is referred to in the policy document. In fact, between August 2001 and December 2002, the Land Bank was involved in eo-financing LRAD projects with the DLA. This proved successful as LRAD projects routed through the Land Bank generally moved quickly to completion. However, the Land Bank was a victim of it own success as the budget allocation from the DLA was spent quickly and resulted in a strained relationship between the DLA and the Land Bank and the subsequent termination of agency agreement between the two institutions (HSRC, 2003). In can be argued that the poor coordination and collaboration between institutions is a direct indication of unclear policy.
The LRAD policy document also indicates that LRAD is important for redressing gender imbalances in land access and ownership, citing that "not less that one third of the transferred land resources should be accrued to women" (Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2000: 3). However, the policy then states that: "Group production projects will be discouraged" (Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2000: 3). This is difficult to avoid, particularly where beneficiaries have grouped together to acquire the land.
Additionally, as pointed out by Wegerif (2004), women tend to be included in group projects and not individual LRAD projects. Therefore, LRAD is contradicting itself by discouraging group production projects in which women are more likely to participate.
However, the concern government has about group projects is not unfounded. In an earlier assessment of land reform projects, Deininger and May (2000) found that smaller projects (less than 10 households) were more successful than larger projects. This was confirmed by the HSRC report which indicated that group farming projects tend to fair poorly in comparison with family farm type projects, and although cooperative farming under SLAG tended to fail this model still appears popular with beneficiaries (HSRC,2003). Itwas also found that the management structures of unsuccessful projects consisted mainly of trusts or
common property associations (Deininger and May, 2000). This has implications for the tenure security of LRAD projects since LRAD favours groups formed as common property associations.
The LRAD policy document clarifies that it is the responsibility of the DoA to provide agricultural support services to LRAD projects (Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, 2000). However, the support from the DoA has been deteriorating since inception of the land redistribution programme (Aliber, 2003) which is problematic because the DoA's failure to provide extension compounds problems ofLRAD projects.