Ben Cousins Crossfire
Dr Gilingwe Mayende’s reply to my criticisms of the manner in which land reform in South Africa is currently being managed (”Didiza’s doing what she should”, August 25 to 31) fails to reassure on the quality of current leadership in land reform. The central thrust of criticism – declining government capacity – is barely dealt with. Much of Mayende’s piece consists of a weak and unconvincing defence of the new land redistribution policy, accompanied by derogatory and inaccurate personal attacks on the author (which are completely beside the point). Mayende is incorrect when he asserts that I was ”one of the originators and chief proponents” of pre-1999 redistribution policy. I had nothing to do with its design, and was always critical of its reliance on a R16 000 grant, market transactions and drawn-out bureaucratic processes of approval as the mechanisms for redistribution.
Mayende and I agree that pooling of the grant was problematic at times. But there were other problems too: consultants brought in to develop ”business plans” often proposed agricultural enterprises far removed from the realities of people’s capacities or aspirations. Consultant- driven processes to establish legal entities to hold land, within unrealistic time frames and budgets, have created fictional institutions and consequent management problems. Rhetorical commitments to gender equity and to the active participation of people in the design of projects were inadequately translated into practice.
What Mayende fails to acknowledge is that many of the failings of the previous programme have been reproduced in the new policy. Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs Thoko Didiza’s intimation in her February announcement that a ”supply-led” approach to land acquisition would be explored has been dropped, and we are back with willing sellers and buyers, grants from the government, and consultants (or ”design agents”) to do the planning. Gender equity and participatory planning remain rhetorical goals – the only difference being that there is now much less rhetoric. Pooling of grants by those who wish to acquire land as a group is still explicitly provided for, without any indication of how the problems that have arisen in the past might be avoided. The major differences with the previous programme are in relation to beneficiaries, and the requirement that the recipients of the grant make an ”own contribution” in cash, labour or kind. The new programme aims at fostering a class of small, medium and large commercial farmers who are black, addressing racial imbalances in agriculture. In addition, it aims to ”improve nutrition and incomes of the rural poor who want to farm at any scale”. The overall goal is to transfer ownership of 15-million hectares in five years. Now, there is no reason why emergent farmers attempting to gain entry into the sector should not benefit from government support, and it is true that this group was neglected by previous policies. A dedicated programme that addresses this interest group’s needs for financing and support is thus not unwelcome. The major problem with the programme lies in the fact that measures to assist this group apply also to the much more numerous rural poor, for whom they are completely inappropriate. This is because the underlying model of agricultural production that informs design of the whole programme is one of full- time, ”modern”, market-oriented, commercial farming.
The model and the programme fail to address the reality of the production systems of most rural people, for whom agriculture is one of many livelihood strategies, and who use very different farming methods to those in the commercial sector. Natural-resource harvesting from common-pool resources, for a variety of purposes, complements cropping and livestock production. Safety net functions are combined with marketing for cash, at a range of scales of operation. These systems can be highly productive, and major increases in yields and marketed output are feasible when infrastructure and support services are provided – as demonstrated by research in South Africa, and also in the communal areas and Model A resettlement schemes of Zimbabwe. Despite this evidence, the dominance of the commercial farming model in the minds of policymakers led to the neglect of resettlement in Zimbabwe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was regarded as a form of welfare. In similar fashion, small- scale production in the context of multiple livelihoods is often regarded in South Africa as being merely for ”subsistence” (or ”food security”), and very little real support is provided. Yet this is the form of production engaged in by most rural households, who should be the primary beneficiaries of land reform. Inadequate understanding of rural livelihoods and their potential was, in my view, one of the chief failings of pre-1999 land policies – but the penny clearly hasn’t dropped. The fact that an (inappropriate) commercial model underpins the design of the new redistribution programme means that two likely outcomes are: the programme will not in practice lead to much land acquisition by the rural poor; and most of the land- reform budget for land acquisition will be used to benefit a small and relatively well-off interest group. These are the fears of many NGOs in the land sector, who have attacked the policy not because its overall goals are seen as unworthy, but because analysis of practical detail reveals that the poor are unlikely to benefit. Statements that beneficiaries will include the poor and small-scale producers are not sufficient – these intentions must be reflected in appropriate mechanisms and procedures.
Fears that new land-reform policies are (in practice, if not in rhetoric) biased against the poor are reinforced by consideration
of tenure reform. The new ”integrated programme” suggests that ”communities and traditional leaders” could offer land for sale to members who desire greater tenure
security. This ignores the need for a broad tenure reform that includes stronger rights for groups as well as individuals, and conflates
security with individualised rights and freehold titles. If implemented, it could lead to increasing levels of landlessness within the communal areas. There is no legal basis at present for these proposals since the state owns most communal land – the main reason why tenure reform in these areas, inhabited by a third of all South Africans, is an urgent necessity.
What are the government’s intentions in this regard? May-ende asserts that the draft Land Rights Bill has not been rejected, despite being ”clearly flawed”. No reasons are given for this view, and none have been forthcoming since the drafting process was halted by the minister in June 1999. The only public pronouncement to date has been the February 2000 policy directive, which made it clear that state land would be transferred to ”tribes” as well as groups and individuals. This stance is deeply flawed and could fatally compromise the rights of members of landholding groups. It also contradicts the clear bias towards individual title apparent in the redistribution policy. Didiza announced in February that new tenure legislation would be tabled in the third quarter of the year, but there is no sign of it as yet. Transparency and public debate on this crucial issue is urgently needed. These have been signally absent in landpolicy processes since last year. The only example of consultation cited by Mayende (the April 20 workshop on redistribution) was a poorly organised event to which civil society stakeholders had to get themselves invited (if they were lucky enough to hear about it on the grapevine). Little notice was taken of the criti-cal views expressed. Memoranda sent by NGOs and others to the minister over the past six months have not been responded to as yet. Given recent controversy, the time has surely come for an open and public discussion of policy in a national summit on land reform and rural development. Dr Mayende – are you and your department willing to take up this challenge? Professor Ben Cousins directs the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape