policy
Marianne Merten
The new land reform policy unveiled this week by Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Thoko Didiza after eight months of stony silence, has raised serious concerns about the lack of public debate and consultation in the formulation of a new policy framework.
The introduction of several controversial changes in the new policy has also come under serious scrutiny from land affairs analysts.
The minister’s policy statement on Strategic Directions on Land Issues includes an additional government grant for emerging commercial farmers and the proposed transfer of state land to “tribes, communities or persons who are long-term occupiers of state land”. Also announced is a financial cap on commonage – money paid by central government to local authorities to acquire land for subsistence agriculture as poverty relief.
Land analysts say while black emerging commercial farmers are among those who must benefit from land reform, they are concerned this may constitute a U-turn from empowering the rural poor to market-driven forces.
Policy researcher Ruth Hall of the Centre for Rural Legal Studies said the balance of emphasis between emerging farmers and the rural poor remained unclear in the policy statement.
“It is important to provide opportunities for black farmers to enter medium and large- scale agriculture. On the other hand, what are the priorities of land reform as stated in the White Paper which has been drafted after extensive consultations,” she said. “Has that all been thrown away?”
The policy statement said emerging black commercial farmers would receive a grant to help them acquire land as the current system had not significantly helped their development. The new grants range from 70% for small projects to 20% for large projects.
Access to land will also be made easier by commonage and the disposal of state land through lease or sale.
“A new supply-led system will be piloted with a more proactive approach to managing the allocation of land coupled with a more strategic use of grants to support the government’s rural development strategy,” Didiza said.
“The objective of the new programme is to gradually change the structure of South African agriculture by opening opportunities thereby creating a significant number of black commercial farmers operating on medium and large scale.”
Observers are concerned that rights-based access to land is becoming less important. Despite the emphasis on emerging farmers, doubts also remain on whether the policy would substantially redress the racially skewed structure of agriculture.
Professor Ben Cousins, head of the programme for land and agrarian studies at the University of the Western Cape’s school of government, said if emerging commercial farmers received the lion’s share of grants, it would be to the detriment of the rural poor.
The new food security-net policy was more a welfare handout than giving rural communities access to better support structures, he said.
It did not take account of the substantial contribution that mere access to land and subsistence farming opportunities made to the domestic economy. Cousins added that few details were currently available and there was a need to see how resources are distributed.
Those dealing with land issues are also concerned about including tribes in land and tenure reform. The notion of a tribe is widely contested and customary practices like the exclusion of women from land ownership could have legal and constitutional implications. As tribes are not legal entities it is unclear who would have the rights to land.
Yet Didiza has proposed that state land – some 32-million hectares covering a quarter of the country – should be disposed of to “suitable emerging black farmers”. The “outright transfer to tribes, communities or persons who are long-term occupiers” should be preceded by an investigation into their rights.
Such an inquiry process was previously abandoned because of old land disputes which flared up again. The policy statement proposed setting up provincial state-land committees consisting of officials from the departments of land affairs, agriculture, public works, water affairs and forestry together with traditional leaders, municipalities and the Land Bank. A national state-land committee is to be established in the minister’s office.
While regulations are drafted in terms of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act of 1999, the minister could proceed to dispose of “the state land occupied by the tribes in the interim” after consulting stake holders like traditional institutions.
In her policy statement Didiza lifted the moratorium on new projects and announced a review of settling restitution claims because of the slow pace and high cost to government. Of the 63455 claims only 785 predominately urban cases have been finalised.
Says Cousins: “There are some good things. Let’s have a dialogue on some worrying things. Criticisms, even if you don’t take them on board, can only help to refine policies and that’s positive.” But plans to unify land administration – which especially affects former bantustans where the “permission to occupy” system and various racial land laws dominate – have been put off until after June.
It is expected the minister will abandon the Land Rights Bill, which was ready to go before Parliament just before last year’s general election, in favour of completely new legislation.
The policy statement is the result of an internal review since Didiza took over the portfolio although it is not clear who of her senior officials was involved. It comes amid allegations of a department at war with itself as suspicions and increased tensions among officials believed to have slowed down work.
And Didiza herself has acknowledged this in the policy statement. “It would appear that there are different interpretations of policy matters within the department. As a result it has been difficult for the department to come up with a coherent and integrated strategic plan from which an efficient and effective operational plan could be derived.”