The government’s land reform program has three principal components namely land restitution, which involves returning land (or otherwise compensating victims) lost since 19 June 1913 because of racially discriminatory laws; land redistribution (which should make it possible for poor and disadvantaged people to buy land with the help of state grants); and the land tenure reform (which aims to secure the tenure rights of people on commercial or communal land). Since 1994 there has been very little progress in all of these areas. However, recently President Mbeki has prioritised the speeding up and completion of the restitution cases by setting 2005 as the deadline. This has provided political direction and urgency.

Land redistribution and tenure reform however, are not receiving the same level of political commitment from government, which affect largely the rural communities. It is these components that surely require serious political will and direction from the President down to the local government level. Unfortunately, this is not forthcoming, as the government seems convinced that the demand of the rural poor is essentially for housing as opposed to land for agriculture purposes. As such, there is limited political will to introduce mechanisms that will fast track the redistribution of agricultural land to black emerging farmers. Land is a productive asset; therefore land and agrarian reform are critical in the quest for job creation, poverty eradication, food sovereignty and economic growth in the rural areas of South Africa. Our submission serves to prove that there is an increasing demand for land by rural poor people in the Western and Northern Cape.

The target of transferring 30% of commercial agricultural land in 15 years is not being met and is an ever-receding goal. By March 2004 the land reform program as a whole had transferred 2.9% of agricultural land in the country, excluding former homelands (DLA 2004) at a total cost of R4.6 billion, including the cost of land, cash compensation and institutional operating costs (National Treasury 2004).

Source: Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate: Department of Land Affairs.

Moreover in the Western Cape the demand for agricultural land outstrips the allocated budget. In 2002, the Provincial Land Reform Office (PLRO) had LRAD commitments worth over R100 million, with only R48 million available for land reform. In 2002/2003 over-commitments of funds forced the Western Cape PLRO to place a moratorium on LRAD applications (Jacobs et al, 2003). It is estimated that the number of applicants awaiting land for farming in the Western Cape amounts to approximately 10, 000. In the Western Cape the pace of land reform is constrained by an inter alia inadequate budget and by the availability of land on the market.

The budget for land reform serves as an indicator for landless women and men to measure government’s commitment to land reform. Land reform is allocated less than 1% of the total national budget.

Current trends in the land reform budget suggest that official targets will not be met, with the exception of Restitution, perhaps. The failure to provide for any increase in the budget for the purchase of land under the redistribution programme in 2004 is disappointing in the light of the unprecedented public interest in land reform. The absence of specific allocations to various areas of tenure reform suggests that this key area will also be constrained as a result of lack of resources (Hall & Lahiff, 1994).

2.3 Willing buyer willing seller approach

The current market based model undermines the original objective of the land reform legislation. This framework requires landless emerging farmers to be dependent on the market to purchase land, which is reliant on the willingness of commercial farmers to sell. Current data suggests from 1995 – 1999 land prices in the Western Cape increased by 41.3% while the national average was only 3.8% (Provincial Development Council, 2004). It is clear from this that land reform disproportionately benefits white commercial landowners. On the other hand, the slowness of the government’s land reform processes - it can sometimes take up to a year or more for a willing seller to get their money - discourages may potential sellers from putting their land on the market. In cases where there are willing sellers, there are currently no funds for the acquisition of land through LRAD.

The case of Hondeklip Bay, a community in the Namaqua District of the Northern Cape Province, surrounded by commercial farms, state land and mining land (De Beers) illustrate the issue of the snail pace of land reform. Since 1994 the community tried to get access to agricultural land to improve their livelihoods, but to date were unsuccessful as a result inter alia, of government’s unwillingness to dispose of state land, high land prices, willingness of mining companies to make land available for conservation purposes as apposed to small scale farming. SPP suggests that non-market options e.g. expropriation should be considered.

The efficacy of land reform is also dependent on the post settlement support they receive in order to farm in a sustainable and economic viable manner. Our experience has shown where communities or individuals received land; there is a lack of comprehensive post settlement support. In Namaqualand, where SPP assisted more than 12 communities in acquiring more than 400 000 ha of commonage land, only one of those communities have to date received an infrastructure grant. Most of the farms have infrastructural problems. Support should not only be limited to extension services by DOA but should encompass inputs such as water, development resources, access to credit, access to markets, training and capacity building. There should be a shift in approach from just land reform to a more comprehensive land and agrarian reform agenda.

Access to water is a critical variable within the land reform process. The slow process of land reform has the consequence that landless people would not gain access to water in the immediate future, particularly since there is an increasing demand by commercial farmers for additional water. Further, while access to water for emerging farmers might be reserved by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, landlessness, makes it difficult for emerging farmers to claim their right to water.

Land reform is a national competency. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure a more equitable distribution of land ownership, to support the work of the Commission on the restitution of land rights, and to ensure that a programme of land tenure and land administration reform is implemented. It is the responsibility of the provincial government to provide complementary development support to beneficiaries of land reform. The principal recommendation from SPP in the first comprehensive tenure reform policy process in the Act 9 areas of the Namaqualand, Northern Cape is, "irrespective of whom the future owner(s) of the Act 9 trust land will be, that continuous administrative support needs to be rendered to the community". The problem is that both at provincial and local government levels, no adequate provision was made for this function. Furthermore, if local governments’ budgets need to be reduced, administrative support (for communal land) is usually not considered as a priority area for the municipality. As illustrated, in some cases local government need to take on additional functions without the appropriate budgets ("unfunded mandates").

The budget allocation for land reform is a definitive indication that land reform is clearly not prioritised on the agenda of Treasury, Cabinet and Parliament. We recommend that more priority should be given to the redistribution component of land reform and that the budget for this component of land reform should be increased in line with a proper and realistic costing of all key areas of land reform.

Concurrent competencies between provincial government and national government with regard to critical areas such as rural development and agriculture – that affects the sustainability of land reform – need to be clarified. More importantly, adequate budget allocations should be made available to ensure the sustainability of national land reform initiatives at local level (e.g. support for land administration and land management in communal areas).

The introduction of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme [CASP] by NDA, and the promised reintroduction of the Agricultural Credit Scheme, is important steps in developing comprehensive post-settlement support. A more critical issue is to ensure that appropriate support is provided to the different types of beneficiaries.

The current market –based approached, which is expensive and slow should be assessed. If the popular demand for land reform is to be met, ways will have to be found for acquiring land and securing rights in a cost-effective and a timely manner. This will in turn require a renewed political discourse around land reform and the most effective means to achieving it (Hall & Lahiff, 1994).

A limit should be placed on the amount of land holdings owned by commercial farmers. An investigation should be conducted to determine the reasons for high land prices asked by ‘willing sellers". A price ceiling should be instituted on land reform transactions.

Non-market options e.g. below-market levels of payment (compensation that is ‘just and equitable’) to owners should be implemented.

A proactive land reform strategy should be developed, which should include using and giving effect to the expropriation clause.

SPP recommends that a shift in focus from land reform to a broader agrarian reform agenda will be a better way to deal with the problems of landlessness, food insecurity, livelihoods and poverty. An agrarian reform agenda would involve more than land e.g. extension support, developmental resources, access to credit, access to markets, access to water, training and capacity –building, etc.