Southern Africa’s land reform journey has been slow and complex, with deep historical roots and ongoing challenges. In this insightful piece, Emeritus Professor Leon Hugo and postgraduate student Jean Hugo explore the impact of colonial and apartheid-era land dispossession and the government’s efforts to foster inclusive agricultural growth and food security.
Traditionally, with the scarce population, southern Africa provided the inhabitants ample scope for extensive subsistence farming.
Traditionally, Southern Africa’s sparse population allowed for extensive subsistence farming. However, colonial and apartheid laws, such as the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts, systematically dispossessed Black South Africans of their land, causing widespread economic disenfranchisement. By apartheid’s end, 87% of arable land was owned by White South Africans, representing a small minority.
The government aims to unlock land’s economic potential through restitution and redistribution, fostering agricultural production, inclusive growth, and food security for all. This includes reinstating small-scale farmers’ contributions to rural economic uplift.
The Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994) provided a legal framework for individuals and communities to reclaim land. Between 1998 and 2024, 83 205 land claims were settled, to redistribute 30% of agricultural land to black farmers by 2030.
The land reform programme seeks to create black commercial farmers, deracialise agriculture, and achieve agrarian reform. Organised agriculture aims to build a sustainable food system benefiting society. However, land restitution remains complex, with ongoing debates about ensuring justice and economic viability. The signing of the Expropriation Bill (without compensation) on 24 January 2025 has sparked concern and legal threats.
Obstacles to land reform
By 2016, reports showed that the land reform programme had not spurred expected development, with most land reform farms showing little activity and beneficiaries earning minimal income. Much of the redistributed land had fallen out of production, raising concerns over the programme’s economic sustainability. By 2023, less than 10% of agricultural land had been redistributed, far below the target of 30%.
Bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of capacity in the department of agriculture and land reform are cited as obstacles, with new landowners receiving inadequate financial, infrastructural, and technical support. Like in Zimbabwe, some redistribution programmes have benefitted politically connected elites, not poor rural farmers.
A deeper, underlying issue is also suggested.
Barriers to success
In a study by Hugo et al. (1991) in the Polokwane region, factors inhibiting the success of black farmers were identified. Beyond inadequate financial, infrastructure, and technical support, the main limitation was a lack of a commercially driven perspective, strongly linked to education levels. Farmers with less than grade 10 education had a limited understanding of farming practices and environmental conditions.
For example, they showed poor awareness of veldt deterioration and erosion, and often attributed poor conditions to superstition. They viewed cattle numbers as wealth indicators, rather than focusing on animal quality.
Peach (2013) and Nicholson et al. (1991) also explored factors contributing to the success of Black commercial farmers in the North West Province and Gazankulu, respectively. These studies highlighted that previous farming experience, farm size, willingness to hire labour, and openness to new techniques were common traits among successful farmers with education beyond primary school.
Providing a person with a piece of land, does not make him or her a farmer; let alone a successful producer of food. Thus, a farmer’s inherent capacity to farm successfully is more crucial than land allocation or financial support. Education and capacity building are essential for successful farming.
Related stories
- Farmland vs. housing: Balancing SA’s land reform tug-of-war
- Tourism revives rural communities through land reform
The way forward
Agricultural production can be practised at various levels, stretching from the home garden via smallholdings to farms and large-scale corporations.
At the risk of forcing the issue of classification, the food production within the current black community can (somewhat artificially) be divided into five categories:
- A: Resource-poor areas where people are barely existing.
- B: Subsistence farmers; surviving on the breadline.
- C: Semi-commercial small-scale farmers.
- D: Market-orientated enterprises.
- E: Commercial farming enterprises.
- F: A separate category is the urban/semi-urban gardening plots.
The aim should be to move individuals from unproductive conditions (category A) into productive situations (categories B to E). Each category needs goal-specific training.
PHASE A
People in resource-poor areas (category A) need assistance to either transition to subsistence farming (category B) or, if that’s not possible, migrate to cities for survival – either through non-agricultural employment or urban gardening (category F).
Several South African organisations support urban residents in developing fruit and vegetable gardens. Currently, 68% of the population lives in cities. According to The Guardian, by 2035, six African cities – including greater Johannesburg – will each have populations over 10 million. This rapid urbanisation is contributing to increased poverty and poor living conditions.
PHASE B
The government’s land distribution has been ineffective, giving land to black applicants without ensuring farming capability. Ownership doesn’t guarantee success, and many productive (mostly white) farmers leaving have harmed food security. A system to assess applicants’ farming potential and provide target-specific training, funding, and equipment is necessary.
PHASE C
Upgrading farmers from subsistence (category B) to semi-commercial (category C) and market-oriented (category D) requires advanced training and sustainable practices. Institutions offer training, but it’s unclear if these courses meet emerging farmers’ needs. If they do, food security concerns can be addressed, but the sector needs renewal in terms of regenerative agriculture practice training.
PHASE D
Advancing from semi-commercial (category C) to market-oriented (category D) farming requires management skills and advanced support. Agricultural colleges provide necessary advanced training.
PHASE E
Category E-farming is outside this scope. While large-scale farming is needed, it’s unsustainable, posing a challenge for agricultural institutions to promote sustainability.
Should training be a prerequisite for receiving government land? While it ensures sustainable farming, it may exclude those lacking resources or valuable traditional knowledge, creating a difficult balance between support and accessibility.
- Prof Leon Hugo is an Emeritus Professor in the geography department at the University of Pretoria, and Jean Hugo is a post-graduate student in video technology at Tshwane University of Technology. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Food For Mzansi.
READ NEXT: Water-smart farming Sandveld’s answer to climate crisis
Sign up for Mzansi Today: Your daily take on the news and happenings from the agriculture value chain.
