Lack of clear long-term strategy to redistribute land while ensuring food security undermines land reform efforts

DEBATE

Centenary of Native Land Act 1913

Cheryllyn Dudley MP ACDP 

20 June 2013

The centenary of the Land Act is an unpleasant reminder of past errors and present harsh realities but it is also an opportunity for us all to reflect meaningfully on ‘the land question’ and how we need to proceed with this social, economic and natural resource in South Africa. 2013 is also significant because it is just one year away from the 2014 deadline that government set for itself in the mid-1990s, of redistributing 30% of commercial agricultural land to black ownership – a target that most analysts agree cannot be met.

Research findings show that only 10% of land has so far been transferred, and that many transfer projects have failed. Dr Peter Jacobs of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) reported that out of a sample of 301 land-reform beneficiaries in the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and North West Province, only 167 were actively farming. And many of them used only a small piece of their land for agricultural purposes.

Researchers also found that land transferrals were generally not in line with gender equity policies. More than half the respondent households – 54% – indicated that men were more likely to own land distributed through land reform – and in KwaZulu-Natal males make up almost 70% of these land owners.

Most reasonable, people would agree that the pace of redistribution of land in South Africa has been far too slow and one of the many reasons for slow progress has been the “willing buyer willing seller” land redistribution policy. The ACDP acknowledges that the proposed Property Valuations Bill, together with provisions of the Expropriation Bill, are an attempt to address this problem but we are also aware that the Bills are far from perfect.

The South African Constitution places an obligation on the state to “take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources” to effect land redistribution. The Bill of Rights also clearly allows for the state to expropriate property – even if the owners of that property are unwilling to part with it or unwilling to part with it at the price offered.

The Constitution does however, prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and provides that expropriation be subject to the payment of compensation.  It does not require the state to pay the market value but it is required to pay “just and equitable” compensation, “reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected”.  

It has been suggested that land reform could be better served if a dedicated Valuations Court existed and the ACDP agrees that the proposed Bills should be amended to require a court to approve all forms of compensation in cases of forced expropriation.

Land reform in South Africa in the post-1994 era has often been compared with Zimbabwe’s more radical attempt towards broad-based land redistribution with South Africa’s process being seen as a more democratic and transparent approach till now.  One thing we do know - is that if we do not succeed in finding solutions – SA could face far more radical attempts to redistribute land by a hard-pressed and restless people who feel they have nothing to lose!