The misconception that land redistributed through land reform is of poor quality needs to be debunked, believes Siphe Zantsi, a researcher in the economic analysis unit at the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) in Pretoria, and Aart-Jan Verschoor, a researcher in the economic analysis unit.
Land reform is a thorny issue in South Africa, yet it is key to the political stability and the economy of the country. Because land reform is enforced by the constitution, it is something that as a nation we’ll have to implement; in other words, it’s not an option. This importance and power of land reform makes it a political weapon that is often used by politicians, especially when we’re approaching elections.
Given the lack of substantial, reliable data, this weapon becomes easy to use to substantiate personal and political debates. As Professor Ben Cousins puts it, “The land debate in South Africa is clouded by misrepresentation and lack of data”.
In this piece, we hope to shed some light on one of the ill-conceived facts, that “land redistributed through land reform is mostly of poor quality”. To do so, we draw from a study of 1 956 Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) farms across the country that was conducted by the Impact and partnership division of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC).
The survey data used by the ARC is as good as a census of PLAS farms as of 2018, as it consisted of roughly 89% of PLAS farms purchased between 2006 and 2018. So, we have confidence in our data, particularly for the land redistribution component of the land reform policy.
The land reform policy has three components, namely, land tenure reform, land restitution, and land redistribution. Also, the controversy around redistribution of poor land quality is more pronounced in terms of the land redistribution component because, regarding the land restitution component, most beneficiaries opt for financial compensation whilst those who opt for land get their original land (i.e. the land that they were forcefully removed from).
Exaggerated views
Our findings reveal that the popular view that “redistributed land through land reform is of poor quality” is not true for PLAS farms. Our analysis shows that land acquired through the PLAS programme is generally of good or fair quality and 98% of farms have fair to good natural resources. Furthermore, most farms (59%) are large enough and have a natural resource base that can support viable enterprises.
Related stories
- New ministers unveil budgets to boost agriculture, land reform
- Rangeland scarcity, animal diseases hit communal farmers hard
What is also interesting but somewhat disappointing, is that only 7% of the PLAS farms were running commercially at the time of our analysis. It should, however, be noted that PLAS farmers faced a plethora of challenges and limitations at the time, especially in terms of access to capital and other resources and services. Still, these results indicate that PLAS can achieve its objectives.
However, PLAS is the latest modality of the land redistribution component of the land reform policy and probably the largest one thus far. Other modalities were used before PLAS, such as the Settlement Land Acquisition Strategy (SLAG), and the Land Reform for Agricultural Development (LRAD) to name two. Our data speaks to only the PLAS farms and may miss the facts about other land redistribution modalities.
It is also worth mentioning that these positive land potential findings, however, do not take away the other true widespread opinions about South Africa’s land reform, for example, that most land reform farms are not productive. Although some of these views are exaggerated.
Our data shows that on 350 of the 1 953 PLAS farms, no commodities were being produced. Further (54%) of PLAS beneficiaries did not produce anything substantial during the previous financial year. Contributing to this poor performance is a myriad of factors, chief among them being the lack of adequate and timely post-settlement support.
Collective responsibility
All-in-all, land reform is not all bad news, there are some positive results to build on, and it is these positive signs that the state and the nation should build on. We should agree that land reform is not only a government baby, but that all agricultural stakeholders have a role to play, for the sake of our country.
Beneficiaries have the obligation to use the land productively because thousands of other potential beneficiaries missed the opportunity to be selected. Government officials have to act according to sound work ethics and not be involved in corruption. Commercial farmers should support emerging black farmers in mentorship even if pro-bono, and welcome new farmers to the agricultural organisations.
Hopefully, the issue of the lack of reliable data on land reform will be addressed when the Land and Agricultural Development Agency that President Ramaphosa mentioned in the 2021 and 2022 State of the Nation Address is finally implemented.
- Siphe Zantsi works in the economic analysis unit at the Agricultural Research Council in Pretoria, while Aart-Jan Verschoor works in the economic analysis unit. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Food For Mzansi.
READ NEXT: Climate change deepens Africa’s water crisis
Sign up for Mzansi Today: Your daily take on the news and happenings from the agriculture value chain.
