The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, having been participated in the Land Summit held in Nasrec, Gauteng from 27 – 31 July 2005, reports as follows:

1. BACKGROUND TO THE LAND SUMMIT

The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, in the Budget vote speech to Parliament outlined the programme of action of the government for the coming financial year. Central to those activities was the question of access to and use of agricultural land as well as the issue of land reform in general, all of which culminated in the Summit on Land and Agrarian Reform.

The Summit was held to draw from international and local experiences on land reform policy and implementation. It also served as a platform to engaged in open, frank and honest dialogue on land and agrarian reform within South Africa.

2. DELEGATION

Although the Committee submitted a recommendation to Parliament for a ten-member multi-party delegation to attend the Summit, such recommendation was not approved, and no reasons were provided.

Therefore, the following four members attended: Mr Z. Kotwal (ANC); Mr D.M Dlali (ANC); Mr B.A Radebe (ANC) and Mr A.H Nel (DA). Mr J. Boltina accompanied the committee for logistics and secretarial support.

3. THEME OF THE SUMMIT: "A partnership to fast-track land reform: A new trajectory, forward to 2014."

4. OBJECTIVES

Inform the South African public about progress made in the land and agrarian reform process;

Acknowledge challenges facing the process;

To look at "blockages" in implementing land and agrarian reform;

To affirm commitment to the process;

To invite South Africans to actively participate in land and agrarian reform;

To examine the country’s land market and how it functions; and

To examine how to make interventions on what is required to improve delivery mechanism.

Celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Freedom Charter;

To reverse the legacy of Natives Land Act of 1913 that was promulgated; and

Review access to agricultural land in the past decade while encouraging dialogue amongst key partners and stakeholders.

BUILD-UP TO THE SUMMIT: Provincial Departments of Agriculture and Land Affairs were encouraged to hold provincial summits as a build up to the National Summit.

In 1994, the democratic government inherited one of the worst racially skewed land distributions in the world; whites owning 87% and blacks 13% of agricultural land. Undoing this legacy of apartheid’s highly unequal redistribution is therefore a fundamental priority for the nation. It was because of this reality that even during the negotiations periods for a peaceful settlement one of the important principles that had to be addressed was the need to undertake land reform in South Africa.

Gathered here today, as stakeholders from Government, political parties, business, farmers, workers tenants, landless communities, civil society, faith –based organizations and traditional authorities – to honestly take stock of Constitutional obligation to carry out the just and fair land and agrarian reform over the last decade and also define real and concrete measures to accelerate land reform in South Africa.

This Summit takes place under the back-drop of the 50^th Anniversary of the Freedom Charter whose vision for a future democratic dispensation in South Africa contained the following important land and agrarian issues:

"South Africa belongs to all who live in it, Black or White,

The people shall share in the country’s wealth,

The land shall be shared among those who work it."

This vision of the Freedom Charter was a direct opposite of and an attack on the apartheid vision that had its roots in the Native Land Act of 1913. The immediate and devastating impact of the Native Land Act that is still evident in almost all aspects of lives today was graphically described in the following words by Sol Plaatjie, the first Secretary General of the African National Congress, in his book "Native Life in South Africa:"

"Awaking of Friday morning, June 20, 1913, the South African native found himself, not actually a slave, but a pariah in the land of his birth."

It is against this painful history of land dispossession, economic exploitation and social domination of particularly the African majority population, that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa imposed the duty and an obligation on the State, as a matter of public interest, to take legislative and other measures to effect land reform in order to facilitate restorative land justice, increased access to land and improved security of tenured.

The principle that underpinned the Freedom Charter and that is today enshrined in the Constitution, firmly asserts that never again should an individual or a group of individuals and communities in the country suffer from unjust, inhuman and unfair dispossession of their land property and material possessions.

After ten years of courageous and concerted efforts to restore the dignity and the respect of the poor, the dispossessed and landless communities, the overall assessment of government performance and its social partners is that commendable progress has been made in the delivery of land and agrarian reform in South Africa.

This progress has been made in spite of the fact that the first years of democratic governance, a lot of focus was on reorganization of the State, the integration of various administrations, the drafting and promulgation of new legal statutes and setting up of institutions to support land and agrarian reform.

In examining progress, there is a need to acknowledge that there was no standard from which to measure, safe to say the targets as set in the Reconstruction and Development Programme. The matter is raised because any international comparison would indicate that each land reform program in a particular country would have its own peculiar circumstances into consideration.

Taking this reality into consideration how far has the government gone in the past ten years? Since 1994, over 1.2 million people have benefited from the entire land reform program of government. More than 3 million hectares of land have been delivered. Government housing program has also made a contribution towards land delivery.

Further, agricultural control boards were abolished to deregulate commodity and trade markets. Subsidies and tax concessions that favoured commercial farmers were withdrawn and support programmes for emerging farmers and land reform beneficiaries were established. And a minimum wage for farm workers was introduced.

But progress that has been made is not enough. More, swift, resolute and resourceful efforts must still be made to transfer 30%of farm land and transform the agrarian economy and to contribute to higher growth, employment creation and greater social and economic equity.

In assessing the experience gained, the progress made gave confidence and have become more hopeful about the future. Furthermore, invaluable lessons learnt from experience stands in good stead with in the redesign and implementation of 2014 land and agrarian reform.

From experience, the following have been learnt that:

Legal processes are inherently adversarial, slow and expensive in comparison to agreements around a common vision and negotiated processes that work better, faster and improved relations;

Integrating government programmes must be integrated and collaboration between departments at all levels encouraged;

Markets by themselves do not redistribute land at the scale, quality, location and price from rich to poor and from white to black participants;

The willing buyer – willing seller approach needs to be mediated by the reality of a failure of land markets;

Restriction on subdivision of land forces beneficiaries to form large groups that are difficult to manage and sustain;

The tension between the protection of property rights and obligation on the state to undertake land reform is essential to maintain a healthy balance between these growth factors;

Current legislation regulates evictions rather than provide protection to farm dwellers land rights;

Strategic partnerships such as share equity schemes need to address the question of unequal power relations (knowledge, wealth, networks etc);

The neglect of the rural areas and almost exclusive focus on urban areas has further impoverished the rural and agrarian economy, while increasing the pressure on urban and peri-urban land for sustainable human settlement.

The following measures need to be done to ensure that land and agrarian reform moves to the new trajectory that will contribute to the higher path of growth, employment and equity by 2014:

Re-affirm redistribution target of 30% agricultural land by 2014;

Establish government, business labour and civil society partnerships that are binding with clear role, responsibilities and accountability;

Introduce proactive acquisition of land by the land for targeted groups in the land market;

Establish a register of land needs for target groups, including (labour tenants, farm workers and landless);

Identify specific interventions for targeted groups, including proactive land acquisition by the state;

Introduce a comprehensive support package for the new owners (including agriculture, financing, infrastructure, marketing, training and education, technology transfer, extension and support for land reform projects such as water rights, housing, education, health etc);

Make land and agrarian reform a cluster priority;

Orderly management of evictions and illegal land occupations;

Introduce measures to enhance the security of tenure of farm dwellers and other vulnerable groups;

Complete restitution cases by 2008;

Implement Communal Land Rights Act fully;

Integrate land and agrarian reform into local economic development;

Link rural and urban areas through amongst others peri-urban small and medium holdings;

Acquire land for towns that need land for expansion;

Complete the repeal of the Sub-division Act and sub-divide farms where necessary;

Implement progressive land tax as means to promote more intensive use of land, reduce farm sizes and reduce speculative value of land;

Manage ownership of land by foreigners;

Strengthen cooperation between three spheres of government;

Formulate post Summit implementation strategy for the three years as per the President’s extension on the settlement of outstanding claims, especially rural claims.

8.1 Mr Kgalema Motlanthe: African National Congress

The true meaning of the freedom charter was also spelt out by the late President of the ANC, Oliver Tambo in 8^th January 1980 statement to mark the 25^th anniversary of the charter when he said:

"The Freedom Charter contains the fundamental perspective of the vast majority of the people of South Africa of the kind of liberation that of us are fighting for. Hence, it is not merely the Freedom Charter of the African National Congress and its allies. Rather it is the charter of the people of South Africa for liberation … Because it came from the people, it remains still a people’s charter, the one basic political statement of our goals to which all genuinely democratic and patriotic forces of South Africa adhere."

To the extent that these words remain true today, the words of Oliver Tambo are a fundamental premise in understanding the Freedom Charter. This is so because the charter embodies a vision of an alternative society to society we inherited. It constitutes the programme of the people for creation of a truly democratic, non-racial, non-sexist, united and prosperous country. Therefore, we in the ANC our premise remains of debating land transformation, is the Freedom Charter and this remains unchanged.

This Summit on land and agrarian reform will need to practically advance the objective contained in the Freedom Charter that the land shall be shared among those who work in it.

Taking place in the year of the 50^th anniversary of the Freedom Charter, the summit should also review progress made over the last decade in advancing land and agricultural reform, and importantly, look at what needs to be done to accelerate and deepen the process of transformation.

It has been 50 years since the Congress of the People, meeting in Kliptown on 26 June 1955, declared that "Restrictions of land ownership on a racial basis shall be ended, all the land re-divided amongst those who work it to banish famine and hunger."

While legal restrictions on ownership have been abolished, the devastating legacy of the 1913 Land Act is still reflected in current land ownership patterns, in the structure and composition of the agriculture sector, and in the levels of rural poverty and underdevelopment.

While much progress has been made in the first 11years of democracy, it is clear that there is still a long way to go. It is also necessary to assess the rate of progress to date, the lessons that have been learnt and the factors that constrain the realization of the vision of the Freedom Charter.

This National Land Summit also takes place at a time when we enter the second decade of freedom. Accordingly, it is necessary to look back and ask difficult questions. The Summit must answer amongst others the following questions:

How far have we gone to transform land ownership that in terms of the apartheid regime 13% of the population would own 87% of the land?

What progress has been made in ensuring that by 2014, we would have redistributed 30% of the white-owned agricultural land to blacks?

To what extent is the principle of willing-buyer; willing seller affecting the pace of land reform in South Africa? What can be done to increase the pace of land redistribution?

Have we answered the question of what should be done to address the skewed land ownership patterns both domestic and foreign?

Could we honestly suggest that all the stakeholders in the land and agriculture sector have acted in a manner that advances vision 2014?

As part of building a partnership to fast track land reform, thus advancing the vision of the Freedom Charter, we must re-affirm the charter’s call "The Land Shall be Shared Amongst Those Who Work It." Indeed, the summit must take decisions that will ensure that the land is shared among all who work it.

Land transformation is unfolding with a constitution exactly says. In this regard section 25 of the constitution provides for amongst that:

"The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis." Accordingly, the constitution imposes an obligation on the state. Furthermore, section 25 states that "A person or community disposed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or redress." This is an obligation on the part of the state. The constitution further instructs the state that "no provision of section 25 may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the result of past racial discrimination." Once more, this is an obligation that government must perform.

The point is that land transformation and agrarian reform is non-negotiable. It must happen because the constitution of the Republic provides both the legislative and policy framework for such an undertaking.

Apartheid has caused poverty and hunger amongst the majority of people. Land and agrarian reform are therefore central in poverty eradication and economic growth. However, this can only be effective if people act collectively and in partnerships. Simply put, there is no case of us- and -them.

The first 10 years of democracy have seen important and impressive progress in land reform. The challenge facing the summit, and South Africa as a whole, is to build on these achievements to accelerate and deepen land agrarian reform.

The struggle to end injustices must succeed as the constitution of the Republic states that: "We the people of South Africa, recognize the injustices of our past. Honour those who suffered for injustice and freedom in our land. Respect those who worked to build and develop our country, and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity."

Many years to come the future generations will look back at this summit where hundreds of delegates from the length and breadth of the country gathered in NASREC to determine the way forward. The generations will judge the summit on the basis of the actions taken and commitments made to enhance democratic transformation.

The current status: Ten years past the 1994 democratic elections, little has been gained by the landless regarding the return of historical lands. Landless are still hungry and some are actually employed on the same lands which formerly belonged to ancestors. The two government programmes to redress the hunger for land use: the land restitution and land redistribution. Both programmes are failing dismally. Land Restitution requires proof of dispossession after 1913. Land Redistribution is based on white farmers willingness to sell.

The latter is more of a problem because various factors such as, white farmers are not willing to sell to blacks; they know the value of empowerment through land ownership; and there are practical examples where, if they are willing to sell, they inflate the prices beyond the actual value.

Clearly then, blacks would remain in a no-win situation. There should be a mechanism to force white farmers to behave and sell properly or land should be appropriated. Statistics show that ten years after democracy, land ownership is roughly as follows: 55 000 white farmers own all farm land outside the "designated poor reserves"; black owned land by emerging farmers is still to be quantified. 83% is white owned, 17% is black owned or 87% is white owned farmland and 13% is black owned poor land.

The State and the Land: The state is supposed to own 7% of land-mass of the country. Most state owned land needs an urgent audit. There are examples of farmers using vacant land for themselves. Also, there are vast tracts of white owned land which is not used at all. The lands are so huge that they cannot manage to utilize all the lands own.

Social factors on the farms: farm workers family social conditions on the farms are appalling and unacceptable. Simple requirements such as toilets do not exist. There are no structures for entertainment; sports facilities; health facilities and worst of all is that workers suffer from hunger despite being involved in the food production which is even exported.

The way forward: Black empowerment programmes of activities should be quickened; there should be adequate government assistance to emerging black farmers; there be programmes in schools about farming; a massive farming programme for youths should be introduced and trained youth should then be employed to assist farming communities; there should be audit of land owned by government; and farmers who owned more than they need should be forced by legislation to sell at reasonable prices.

The social challenge facing South Africa is to ensure that the new freedom also manifests itself in land ownership. If twenty years down the line, land ownership patterns have not change there will be socio-political problems, which are not in the interest of political and economic stability. It is therefore in everyone’s interest, including those required to dispose of their land, to ensure speedy and effective implementation of and conclusion to the land reform programme. On the basis of willing buyer – willing seller, but reviewed to ensure non-exploitation, and people’s rights and economic interests must also be factored in.

The Summit will have to focus on the issue of land restitution itself. Land reform is meant to redress the disposition of land and to address the land ownership patterns of the country. But there are no mechanisms to ensure that redistributed land remains in the hands of those that were previously disadvantaged, or for that matter that monetary compensation contributes to change in land ownership patterns.

And this is a difficult challenge, given people’s constitutional rights with regard to that which they own and their right to free economic activity. Nevertheless, it is a challenge that must be addressed: If twenty years down the line we have spent billions and have not yet achieve real ownership reform, then the question is: Has the country spent the money wisely?

There are many cases where restituted land is sold for its monetary value back into the community from which it was redistributed, in some cases to the very person from which it was expropriated in the first place. What contribution does that make to changing land ownership patterns? And if after having spent billions of rands, we still sit with socio-political problems due to a lack of land ownership, what has the country achieved?

Land transformation must go hand in hand with economic transformation. Economic transformation is a long-term activity and therefore, as difficult as it is, mechanisms must be sought and synchronized with land transformation programmes to bring about a correlation between ownership of the economy and ownership of the land.

In short, NNP suggests a speedy and effective land reform – effective land reform meaning that the intended change in the land ownership patterns is sustained. However, in this area some work still needs to be done to design the necessary control mechanisms for ensuring the retention of restituted land in the hands of the previously disadvantaged, until such that the envisaged economic and land transformation goals that Government has set.

The private sector and current landowners should engage in private initiatives as well. That will give effect to the envisaged changed ownership patterns. It need not be the stereotype "taking from whites, giving to blacks". It can also be joint ventures, new partnerships and there are a number of good examples that can be pointed already.

There is another side to this as well. Land ownership in itself is not as important as land as a means to secure income. If land reform programmes succeed only in changing ownership patterns, but do not establish commercially viable operations, it will not contribute towards improving the national wealth.

NNP position therefore, is that new farmers must not only be provided with land, farmers must also receive training and assistance so as to develop viable farms. To this end, there is a need to look at programmes and determine whether there is sufficient inter-departmental co-ordination to comprehensively deal with the provision of land, access to capital, training and development and finding markets.

The question of Land reform is not about the right or wrong thereof, but rather the direction, the method and pace.

With a relative high population density in South Africa and a relative low potential of the agricultural resources, land reform requires a well planned process, efficiently managed, timeously and adequately funded and implemented with the least possible disruption of food security.

The cost to implement land reform and restitution must be for the account of all the people in South Africa and should not be borne by the present land- owners or agriculture industry only.

Fair market value for land should be the base and willing buyer, willing seller principle adhered to as far as possible. Deviation from these principles could put the whole process in jeopardy and put South Africa on a road of land quotas and economic disaster as experienced in other countries.

A serious problem in this exercise of land reform is the inability of the State machinery to function efficiently. Too many delays and decision points seriously interfere with the successful completion of nearly all projects.

It is of essence that productivity of land is sustained. Recipients of land must not be abandoned by the State and be supported by strategic planning and experienced partners which have a proven track record.

A far greater emphasis should be placed on land reform in communal areas in the Eastern Cape and other Provinces where unutilized high potential land with a tremendous latent potential could alleviate the poverty problems of those areas.

Many of the reform and restitution projects will become poverty traps if they not already are if government does not step in with a new approach.

The IFP moves from the premise that there are three types of property ownership, namely, private and communal. It is thus unfortunate that the government emphasizes the first two which were foisted upon South Africa by colonialism via the Roman-Dutch law. The IFP position is that communal landownership, in terms of indigenous customary law should take precedence over private and public land ownership.

The reason why the communal landownership is crucial is that traditional communal communities still constitute the majority of the South African population. It is therefore follows that these communities should be endowed with ownership rights to the land occupy. This is most probably the point of departure between the government and the IFP. Government holds the view that community ownership is broken into individual ownership, that is, ownership by individuals members whereas to the IFP it is clear that the community as a collective holds all the land for the benefit of all its members and those of the future generations in a mystical continuity with those of the previous ones.

IFP makes a clear distinction between ownership by traditional leaders and ownership by traditional communities. To the IFP traditional leaders do not own the land, they only hold it in trust for their subjects. This element alone shows that no basis exists for a comparison between traditional communities and the European feudal system. It will be recalled that in the latter, the land was owned not by people, but the landlord. Precisely because of this distinction the IFP has often pointed out that there is a need for a shift in emphasis from traditional leadership to traditional communities regarded as a specific model of societal organization.

The above distinction is essential since land issues are central to both traditional leadership (as trustees) and the traditional model of societal organizations (as owners). It is also central to the definition of the cultural and social equilibrium of the new South Africa. It is land that defines a community. The essential feature of traditional communities is the self –administration of land which is assigned to the community, via the action of traditional leadership, to each of its members to meet the needs.

It is regrettable that the cultural and social function of the institution of communal property has not yet been sufficiently explored by the official academia. Indeed the entire history of land settlement in South Africa has not been the object of complete academic research, and yet it underpins the core of historic background and the present day social tensions.

The failure to recognize communal property is the heaviest legacy of colonialism and racial oppression persisting to this day. The IFP as ruling party of the erstwhile KwaZulu government has been committed to counter this legacy and promote a process in which traditional leadership and communal property can receive joint, recognition and protection. IFP has committed to reverse colonial dynamics which to this day are at play in so far as, with the exception of KwaZulu-Natal, all the land of traditional communities belonging to the majority of the South African people is still classified as state property.

The country must realize that communal property supports a type of differentiation in economic models which at this juncture of national history is essential to maintain social stability. "Subsistence" agriculture and "subsistence" commercial activities may effectively enable large segments of population to conduct a free and independent existence without having to augment the urban proletariat, and agricultural activities should be upgraded to profit-making and profit-driven enterprises as soon as possible.

All these reasons lead the IFP to appeal that communal property ownership should gain recognition, not only in terms of indigenous and customary law, but also in terms of legislation ensuing from national government.

The IFP is also concerned about the decentralization of powers when it comes to land distribution and restitution. True to federalist philosophy, the view is held by the party is that land is a provincial and local rather than central competence. Every province in the country has its general as well as unique land needs. Therefore, leveling down of provincial frameworks to uniformity remains detrimental to reform and conflict resolution. It is according to the IFP plea that the Department of Land Affairs should make a preliminary policy decision to delegate to provinces as much as possible of its legislative and administrative competencies. The necessity of provincial and local government dimension to land affairs is underscored by the fact that this subject matter is extremely explosive, conflict ridden and capable of creating a long string of social racially charged conflict. Provincial and local government would be in a much better position of operating and developing policies with sensibilities to the on the ground potential for conflicts.

The Independent Democrats mains that addressing the inherited land inequalities in South Africa is crucial towards creating a stable and prosperous nation. Unfortunately, all can agree that the pace of land reform has been too slow and there is a need to find ways of improving it to address the very real concerns held by people.

Firstly, there is a need to place land reform in the context of enormous changes that agricultural sector has undergone over the last ten years. South Africa has moved from highly protected and subsidized agricultural sector to of the least protected in the world, which in the face of huge agricultural subsidies in the North have made farming a very risky profession.

These changes have also led to agriculture shedding a number of jobs and exacerbating high unemployment rate. Some commentators believe that South Africa’s future does not lie in agriculture and that government should place its emphasis on simply creating and industrialized economy. It is pertinent to note that many of the so-called Asian tigers initially relied on agriculture as the basis for their economic take-off. In economies like China and Taiwan, it was also their extensive land reform programme that created an equitable basis for future economic growth.

ID believes that greater priority must be given to agriculture and land reform in South Africa and that more financial and technical resources should be directed towards it. Government support for agriculture has more than halved in the last decade. Having set the context one would like to consider the three major components of land reform namely, restitution, redistribution and tenure reform.

On the issue of restitution, it is encouraging to note that in this year’s budget far more money has been set aside to finalize restitution claims. This is welcomed to move forward on the issue. The slow pace of settling restitution claims is resulting in frustration on the part of both the claimants and those farmers whose land is currently under claim. While ID Government motives in setting a deadline for the registering of restitution claims, the Party belies that this approach has meant that many people and communities have been excluded from obtaining justice on past dispossession.

ID has been approached by a number of people who have valid claims of being dispossessed but were unaware of the cut-off date of 1998 for registering the claims. Many of such people live in deep rural areas and were not adequately informed of the cut-off deadline.

In terms of redistribution there are many constraints on the current approach adopted by the State which will make it difficult to reach 30% target by 2014. Initially, according to the Reconstruction and Development Programme the 30% target should have been reached in the first five years of democracy. The target has since shifted to 2014 and if one considers the slow pace of land reform it is clear that there will be immense difficulty in reaching the set date. Without a doubt more resources will need to be allocated to land redistribution.

In the area of tenure reform, ID is concerned that the budget allocated to implementation of the Communal Land Rights Act is only a paltry R 12 million for this year, which consequently will only allow it to be bed implement as a pilot project in KwaZulu-Natal. ID would strongly urge for more money to be set aside for its full implementation as there is currently uncertainty over landownership in many parts of the Eastern Cape. This is having an adverse effect on development as investors are unable to get clarity on the processes that need to be followed in obtaining leases for projects. This is a matter that has to be urgently addressed if were to encourage development in what is one of the poorest regions of the country.

The challenge for land reform is not only transfer land, but ensure that land generates wealth for beneficiaries and society as a whole. To do this the level of post settlement support needs to be drastically improved. The Freedom Charter sates that "the State shall help the peasants with implements, seeds, tractors and dams to save soil." This is particularly the case for small-scale agriculture, which if nothing else could be a very effective poverty alleviation strategy and provide a sustainable livelihood for many rural people who are enduring grinding poverty.

In most Southern Africa countries, the most salient land policy change has been the legal provisions introduced to enable customary land tenures, under which the majority of people live, to lease land to developers through long term lease-hold and natural resources concession arrangements. These policy developments largely emulate the Mozambique and Botswana customary tenure arrangements, and expand the land lease practices already found in state-held land and public natural resources regimes. These policy directions have received much international donor support. The SADC is currently in the process of adopting a Regional Land Reform Technical Facility, intended to mobilize aid and regional expertise to improve land policy formation processes.

Yet the crucial underlying issue is whether these reforms will address the increasingly growing land concentrations, mainly among white and black elites and foreign owners, including multi-national firms who use it for agriculture, tourism and urban real estate development. Land concentration among black elites, to exclusion of the poor and "remote" communities, generates further conflict. These processes of land concentration are part of official policies aimed at developing agrarian capitalism and tourism, both based on export-oriented land uses. Perhaps because land concentration in countries such as Zambia, Botswana and Malawi have been less dramatically executed than the Zimbabwe land transfer process. The concentration processes are largely uncommented upon in the regional and international discourses on the land question.

Some of those impacts result more from the attendant debilities that face a foreign currency in a starved and isolated economy rather than directly from land reform itself. They reflect the government’s poor international donor relations, given that, in the past, development assistance less proscribed by invreased concerns over governance and human rights issues might have been mobilized to ease the foreign exchange and import stress, rather than watch the continued economic collapse.

Nonetheless, humanitarian aid has been provided to about 45% of the Zimbabwean population. The net result of these poor relations between the government and international community, based on domestic governance contradictions and the problems of "rule of law" in Zimbabwe’s land reform approach to mass land expropriation, supported by land occupations, has been the entrenchment of the radicalization of the land reform policy process.

This has closed opportunities for economic recovery and poverty reduction through international assistance. This potentially defines the framework of future aid relations in the region in general.

Therefore, in summary, land reform policies in Southern Africa seem to be evolving through the interactive use of market and compulsory approaches to land acquisition for redistribution, restitution and tenure reform to both the landless and emerging black agrarian farmers. Official land reform policies were increasingly being forced to respond to growing popular demands for land. An important lesson to be learnt from the political independence settlements in the settler territories of the sub-region is that, by not sufficiently addressing the problem of inequitable land and natural resources ownership, the downstream entrenchment of unequal racial economic opportunities, ensuing from such control in economies facing slow employment growth, are likely to fuel agitation for radical land reform.

Thus, land redistribution, restitution and tenure reform in redressing historical grievances, social justice and poverty are crucial ingredients of reconciliation and development, and essential to the resolution of the national question and democratization processes.

Consolidation of land: During the period from 1952 to 1961, massive movements of people took place in the Central Province of Kenya by relocating people into villages. This was organized by the colonial government. Few years before independence, land consolidation was carried out whereby families on small holdings were put together into respective parcels, followed by the issuing of title deeds. From the villages, families were moved onto their families respective parcels of land. All this was done forcibly and there was no freedom of choice or expression. At one time, the Kenyan model of individual titles was considered an example of how other countries should follow. However with time, certain elements have cropped up which make it difficult for the title system to reflect the social reality at the grassroots level. Co-existence of indigenous tenure systems still thrive.

Settlements: Soon after independence, massive settlements of people from native reserves to the former white highland were undertaken. The following process took place: Selection of people to settled; Selection of settlement areas; Adjudication of land for settlement; Infrastructure/health clinics, schools roads etc; Land buying companies and co-operatives; Preparation for new settlers in terms of training; Training of trainers; Farmers training centers; Co-operation of various departments; and Credit.

Current situation: Ever increasing demand for land has overshadowed the transparency and effectiveness of institutions at all levels to deal with public and customary land and in addition, to the delivery system of land-related services. The delivery of land related service is centralized.

The situation was reflected by the Njonjo Commission. This was a commission of enquiry into land law system of Kenya in 2002, which focused on the Principles of a National Land Policy Framework, the Constitutional Position of Land and the New Institutional Framework for Land Administration, amongst others. It was observed that the overall lack of policy, the destruction of the infrastructure, the interference in land matters by provincial administration and most of all the failure to heed the views and needs of local residents, has brought land administration into total disrepute in the eyes of Kenyans. The Land Reform policy–making process was initiated by the Minister of Land and Housing.

Gaurantee the security of all categories of tenure;

Keep all categories of land rights, whether individual, communal or public clear and unambiguous;

Provide a robust framework for the marketability, including transfers, of different species of land rights, in specific cultural and economic contexts;

Facilitate the sustainable regulation and management of all categories of land, public private and community;

Provide an accurate and transparent land information system; and

Avail socially acceptable mechanisms to sort out disputes.

The challenge of land redistribution is equally a reality for Namibia and that the government of the Republic of Namibia has vowed to address this with vigour within the laws of the Republic.

The struggle for independence in Namibia was a war aimed at giving the Namibian people the right to self-determination and to take full control of their resources and means of production, among which land as means of production is key.

It is this need for and denial of access to land as a vehicle for development that necessitated the Namibian people and oppressed people, to take up arms in order to fight for their rights and to determine the destiny. The history of Namibia, like in South Africa, is testimony to the injustices that were committed by the colonial powers on people in effort to disown the people and take control of the land.

In 1904 the first major resistance to foreign occupation was marked by violent response when forefathers and mothers resisted having the land grabbed by the colonial settlers. This war left approximately 80 000 Namibian people exterminated by German colonial invaders. In 1905 the German government issued orders empowering the colonial regime to confiscate all land from the Herero and Nama people.

The colonial governments continued to push the majority of people to less productive land where population pressure on the land and other resources caused extreme poverty. This process of confiscation involved no compensation and in almost all cases it included confiscation of the livestock of the people.

In 1989 the Constituent Assembly adopted a constitution that guaranteed the right in land and provided for expropriation with just compensation. At independence in 1990, the government, realizing the importance that land will play in the development of the economy and the eradication of poverty amongst the majority of people, resolved that, in the interest of national reconciliation, a national consultation of the way forward was necessary.

On coming to power, the SWAPO-led government announced its intention to redress the imbalances in the ownership and possession of land through the transfer of land to the landless majority.

This resulted in the 1991 National Conference on Land Reform and the Land Question that charted the way forward and the manner in which the government would implement the reform in both communal and commercial agricultural areas.

Brazil’s land problem was characterized by high inequality; 33% of population is rural; but 60% of farm land under –used, while 4.5 million rural households with little or no land; history of sometimes violent land invasions and confrontation between land owners and landless people.

The rationale for land reform was based on social stability and equity; efficiency; macroeconomic conditions improving and during 1990s the supply of land was up; and the price was down; and land reform was an integral part of National Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Political background: Cardoso government (center-left/right coalition) came power in 1995. Social movement of the landless people (MST and others) put pressures on government to deliver on land. Government put the land reform high on the agenda. Subsequently, created Ministry for Land and Agrarian Development. The Ministry obtained substantial increase in land reform budget. There was also improvement in legal and administrative framework for federal expropriation programme. World Bank supported negotiated land reform pilot project nationwide (to 14 states) under the name (Land-Based Poverty Alleviation Project).

There are two social movements, the MST and the CONTAG. These movements have quite distinct constituencies and were formally and informally associate themselves with the land reform and also have different views about the appropriate strategy to implement land reform.

MST favours invasions and expropriation as the appropriate land reform strategy while CONTAG supports invasions and expropriation, but also a less confrontational strategy of land reform, including negotiated land reform.

There were two land reforms programmes. Expropriation: was administered by Federal Land Reform and Colonization Institute (INCRA). Compensation method was through government bonds for compensation of land and cash for improvements. Social movements helped to identify farms and beneficiaries.

Land Credit programme was implemented with the states. Compensation method was through a voluntary agreement between owners and beneficiary associations. However, the price agreed is evaluated by government and civil society. The programme has a formal partnership with CONTAG to screen farms and beneficiaries.

Project cycle Federal Programme focused on identification of farms often by social movements; the eligibility for expropriation verified by INCRA and approved by INCRA at federal level; and once expropriation is approved, the owner former owner has to surrender the land, but can contest listing and valuation of farm in court.

Expropriation method: Farm size above maximum means that each district has a reference farm size calculated as "15 modules", 1 module is defined as viable family farm; farms up to 15 modules cannot be expropriated, but can be bought by INCRA; for example, if 1 module is 50 hectares, then the reference farm size is 750 hectares; If a farm is above that reference farm size and declared "unproductive", the government could expropriate it.

Project cycle Land Credit Program: is highly decentralized to states; associations first screened by District Screening committees, where labour unions and civil society are involved; then technical evaluation; the State committee for Sustainable Rural Development approves projects.

Land Credit Project cycle: the negotiations for land price involves communities with the help from the state officials and CONTAG unions; all money for land purchase and investments transferred to former owner and community accounts at the time of the land transfer; community owned funds then released in tranches upon receipt of expenditure reports; the resettlement and all investments such as housing, roads, irrigation managed by community, and often executed by them.

AgriSA has engaged with policy makers since 1992 to gain better understanding of the frustrations and aspirations of the landless and hoe it relates to the productive use of land, especially for food production in a competitive commercial environment. A number of guiding principles emerged that should be applied for land reform, namely:

Land should be managed within a statutory framework that balances needs, rights and obligations in an equitable fashion – being fair and just to all concerned. Acceptance of the importance of "rule of law" is therefore paramount for transparency, fairness and an outcome that will be in the best long-term interest of the country.

Because State assisted land reform represents a major intervention in the ownership pattern of productive resources and therefore causes uncertainty, unfortunately with negative economic and labour market consequences, issues such as sharing of information, discipline around cut-off times for restitution, sound supportive administrative processes and adequate funding for land acquisition should be adhered to.

The question being debated is who should pay for land reform. There is broad agreement that land reform is in national interest and therefore the cost of land reform should be borne by all South Africans through Treasury and it should not be required from present landowners to contribute differently or more to this cost than other tax paying citizens. A skewed distribution of land reform cost can easily result in efficient farmers being bought out at a price that will not allow them to invest elsewhere in equal or similar economic opportunities.

This implies that it is reasonable for landowners to expect a market related price for land that they have to part with, which is best determined by means of the "willing buyer, willing seller" concept.

It is for government to decide on the target for land that needs to be transferred into the hands of black farmers and those who need land for housing. However, any commitment in this regard should be underpinned by adequate financial support from government to facilitate land transactions and should include resources for pre as well as post settlement support.

Government should also take cognizance of the effect of land reform policies and programmes on food security and jobs – issues of similar importance as land reform in the context of stability and economic opportunities, especially in rural areas. Targets for land reform are therefore not as issue to be decided on without considering other important national imperatives.

AgriSA and its affiliates have committed towards addressing the agricultural dimensions of land reform, and more especially supporting the development of successful Black farmers. AgriSA is in a process of seeking wider industry support and co-operation for an initiative that will support and promote black farmer development programmes, nationwide. Also wish to work closely with NAFU and government in this regard. Information on progress with land reform and farmer settlements as well as the application of "best practice" that will deliver positive results, mentorship facilitation, strategies to achieve broader community involvement, canvassing of financial resources for programmes and policy advocacy will be the core functions of this initiative.

The demand for land also needs to unpacked. There are physical and economic constraints that limit the opportunities to participate in commercial agriculture. The question has been raised whether we want to grow subsistence farming. This is a political decision about future options but need to guard against simplistic short-term solutions for complex challenges.

There seems to be a perception that commercial farmers have excessive resources at disposal. Although there are large-scale farmers the reality is that most farmers are small businesses with low profitability. According to the 2002 Agricultural Statistical Survey 51% of commercial farmer’s turnover was below the level that required farmers to register for VAT. If the norms of the National Small Business Act (Act 102 of 1996) were applied, also in terms of capital employed, the vast majority of farms would be classified as small businesses. These are facts that should be more commonly understood and acceptable. The ability of farmers to share resources and remain viable are therefore limited.

Globally, due to freer markets and competition, farm sizes are on the increase to achieve economies of scale in order to be competitive. The sustainability of small scale farming under these conditions is questionable from a pure economic perspective.

The local commercial sector, due to limited government support compared to international counterparts, faces an even heavier economic burden dictating a greater need to become bigger in order to reap the benefits of the so-called economies of scale.

It is the government responsibility to promote the competitiveness of primary agriculture, for example by reducing the cost of administered prices. It includes reducing taxes and levies on a number of inputs. This imperative was recognized in the Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture. Imposing a land tax will be counterproductive, neutralizing the potential benefit of efforts by government to promote conditions for investment and growth.

The commercial land market in South Africa is active. About 4% of agricultural land is traded annually. Adequate land of good quality is available for redistribution. With the support of LRAD and the financial support from commercial banks, this land can be obtained for redistribution. The problem in most cases is that of insufficient equity. There are innovative models available to deal with this problem.

The principle of land expropriation for purposes of land reform was also debated and proposed as a method to expedite the process and cut down cost. With no information available as to what is being considered it is AgriSA’s view that this will not necessarily achieve any of the two objectives. AgriSA continue to demand fundamental sound administrative processes if the State is to acquire land for land reform and for fair compensation. Even an amended Expropriation Act cannot move away from applying the "willing seller-willing buyer" concept. A common understanding on the meaning of this concept and the application thereof should be sought. There is a need therefore rather debate more practical solutions for specific problems that a market assisted approach towards land reform presents.

Gathered here deliberate on effective ways to accelerate land reform in South Africa and find equitable ways of sharing the available land in socially acceptable ways.

In South Africa, black farmers who were not even in a position to participate in the rush for agricultural profits for many decades are now left with such backlog of enablement, than even the countries like Brazil, Japan or wherever, requires far more complex modeling than is currently being applied.

NAFU members have very little land and face almost insurmountable obstacles in acquiring land, and when they do acquire, they find themselves so far outside the agricultural value chain that competitive production seems impossible. In addition to this, the survival of a small farmer whether is Black or White, has become so irrelevant to the accountants who drive for corporate profit growth, that ultimately farming feels more like a punishment than a reward.

NAFU does not belief that there is too little land in South Africa to promote a healthy and stable agricultural sector based on socially equitable principles. It is however known that access to, and utilization of land is complicated by a number of factors. People argue that land is expensive and this is a major cause for problems facing the country. Expensive land is a normal dynamic and the cost of acquiring expensive land can be mitigated through diligent and focused production.

NAFU contend that land is overpriced. This is not a normal dynamic and the best production techniques will not allow a farmer to farm in a manner that would allow them to repay the cost of overpriced acquisition. Overpriced land has many causes but the two most pertinent reasons are as follows:

In the first instance sellers inflate the actual value of agricultural properties by incorporating the perceived value of improvements on the property that do not enhance production capacity and hence ability to repay acquisition loans. It should also be noted the majority of these non-productive improvements were made possible by unrealistic profits realized in a subsidized production environment, extremely low repayment interest rates and with the utilization of a labour force that had no minimum conditions of service protection. Buyers on the other hand, are faced with prospect of competing with a global food market that no production subsidies, and have to borrow money at competitive commercial rates from financial institutions that all of this while paying minimum wages, maintaining respectable work conditions and providing socially responsible developments assistance to their work force. It is this definition of willing seller-willing buyer then clearly it will not work, because while it may all sound like a leveling playing field, clearly this field has been built on two terrains with the one half much higher than the other.

In the second instance, overpriced land results from the wealth being generated in western economies that can afford to buy land in South Africa and let it lie fallow until a handsome profit can be made when the exchange rate is favourable. Would it benefit the western maize industry if a sizable chunk of South African maize producing lands were turned into game reserves with the aid of profits made from subsidized maize? The answer will not be known if South Africa does not begin to maintain accurate information regarding foreign land ownership, the origin of the funding as well as the purpose for which the land in South Africa is being utilized for.

It remains one of the biggest concerns that the relative lack of accurate and reliable information about black farmers, successes and contribution they make in feeding the nation, continues to allow those who resist government’s efforts to reform the industry, to shout untruths about black farmers and hide the fact that their real contribution into destabilize an environment that is politically precarious poised. It is also known what happens when the fundamental need of people to work land is ignored. In Zimbabwe the frustration felt by people in this regard was not adequately addressed and South Africa has seen what the destructive impact on the economy can be when agricultural foundation of the country is destabilized to the point where normal dynamics and relationships cease to exist. The government in Zimbabwe could not manage the situation without the collaboration of the private sector. South Africa must take heed of what happened and ensure that the private sector and civil society be activated to play a significant role on the road ahead.

With regards to land restitution, it is the very same dynamic which impacts on the willing seller-willing buyer concept that continues to frustrate the process of land restitution. The delays, more often than not relate to the vastly different perceptions of value that people attaché to agricultural land.

NAFU contend that the subsidies utilized by the previous government to build a strong agricultural infrastructure were aimed at preserving a national resource to the benefit of a select few.

In this NAFU calls for a review of all legislative mechanisms governing land and agrarian reform in South Africa. The reality facing agriculture is that while land indeed plays a critical role, there is no balanced agriculture as have not had for some time (the high subsidy levels utilized for decades by the previous government is testimony to that).

Of the 84 900 000 hectares of land approximately 25 000 000 hectares of arable land will be redistributed through land restitution. AgriBEE will take another 26 405 000 hectares. This leaves us with 32 395 000 hectares arable land. This excludes the communal land that is already in the possession of the State, previously part of the National States and still the basis of subsistence farming. This is the land that has to deliver food security to South Africa and Southern African region.

The process of land restitution is based on land claims. In spite of the procedures laid down by the law, land claim is a major issue for land owners because the right to private property is at stake. The landowner is excluded from the process of the land claim until it is published in the Government Gazette. The marginalisation of the farmer as proprietor until the last moment is a distortion of the right to private property.

The process of land reform also jeopardize the civil rights of the farmer if the implementation of the Act is forced onto the farming as a political process without supporting the economic viability of the agrarian communities. Land claims and the constant threat of AgriBEE impacts on the psychological and social structures of the rural communities and creates a society in imbalance.

More agricultural land is available on the free market and approximately 2003 farms have already been offered to the Department of Land Affairs for possession. In the mean time more claims are published on the agricultural land. It is unlikely that the commercial productive farms will continue its production after the claimants have possessed the farm. The question arises if the claimants are farmers, potential farmers or only subsistence farmers. Will the new farmers sustain the optimal ecologically balanced production potential of the land? According to the recent examples it is unlikely that commercial agriculture will benefit from this process.

The process of Land Reform should enhance the commercial production of food provide the structures and environment for black emerging farmers without discriminating white commercial farmers.

On commercial agriculture and food security, TAU emphasizes that the future of South Africa’s commercial agriculture and sustainable food production in globalised economies, will be determined by international economic and financial standards and regulations, and not by South African standards and a Land Reform Programme. TAU maintains the point that free economic and market forces must determine the development of Economic Empowerment in the agricultural sector.

The test for successful agriculture is when food is produced in quantity and quality on a commercial basis to impact on the basic existence of every person by delivering sustenance to combat under-nourishment, malnutrition and famine and secure health on a sustainable competitive and commercial basis in globalised economies.

With the collapse of the economies of the neighbouring states and the regression of social services, the South African economy will have to grow with 6% to 7%. This is unlikely if the loss in human capital through an aggressive transformation process and policy continues and the burden on services in rural areas escalates. The influx of illegal foreigners and the unprotected borders will eventually restrict the growth and put more stress on commercial agricultural land.

Therefore, the position of TAU on land reform and cannot change from the stance that land reform and the AgriBEE framework for Agriculture will jeopardize the property rights, production and competitiveness of commercial agriculture in a sensitive and high risk industry to the detriment of food production and food security.

On Small scale farming: Do we believe in this as an option for the poor? What must be done to enable success?

Land acquisition: should the state remain reticent, or proactively intervene in markets?

Farm workers: Is their future as rural proletariat only, or as producers in the their own right?

Land rights and tenure: how should land be held and administered?

AgriBEE: What commitments from landowners?

The negotiated transition to democracy, and the Constitution, involved fundamental compromises:

Existing property rights would be respected, no matter how such property has been obtained historically;

But this respect would be set against a strong mandate on the state to effect land reform and bring about a more equitable system of land rights

Section 25 of the Constitution is an agenda for transformation because it:

Obliges government to implement land reform "in the nation’s interest,"

Empowers government to intervene in and override markets, including through expropriation;

1 Clause gives qualified protection to property rights;

8 of 9 clauses are about transforming property rights

As in other democracies, property rights are not absolute, but exist within a matrix of counter-balancing rights and obligations. However, up to now the state has not intervened decisively in the property or agricultural economy. Such a laissez-faire approach is unprecedented in world –historical terms, and international evidence suggests that it is not capable of bringing about substantial transformation in the property rights.

There is substantial unused scope for more proactive and interventionist strategies to drive change. Few would consider the status quo in the rural areas to be sustainable, other than at an extremely high cost. It is difficult to imagine how these challenges may be resolved other than through far-reaching land and agrarian reform.

Four key Challenges

To develop a strategic vision for transformation (and to delop the institutions and provide the resources necessary for a fundamental agrarian reform);

To engage systematically with property owners in order to secure sufficient land for redistribution (supply side reforms, directly through negotiation or compulsory purchase, or indirectly through a land tax);

To engage systematically with landless (in order to define the quantity and quality of land demand and to mobilize popular support for land reform); and

To provide a supportive environment for a new class of small farmers (to produce for market and non-market purposes, in terms of access to input and output markets, revamped state support services and affordable credit).

Therefore, as a way-forward the Summit represents a historic opportunity to reflect on and learn from experiences over the past decade, and to chart a new course. High-level policy debate is now needed on the future direction of the programme as a whole, and the roles of the state and other progressive social partners. The Summit also provides opportunity to make commitments about specific interventions that are needed in the short-term. An appropriate post-Summit process may be required to further explore options for the future and top respond to positions presented.

The presentation focuses on the complex of political and economic factors that seem to drive land occupation as well as the government’s land reform implementation strategy. A review of the debates in government, the private sector and civil society since 1994 points to the absolute importance of deepening and broadening understanding of the interplay of political and economic forces informing government strategy and the various forms of resistance and response. And given the fact that most people involved in land occupations – the landless and homeless – are poor and illiterate, it is then more urgent to develop a comprehensive and integrated public education strategy. For a number of complex reasons, the government land reform information and communication strategy has gone deep and far enough.

One wonders whether the landless peoples movement, including its affiliates is on the same page with government regarding the political and economic considerations, mid to long term, that drives the implementation strategy. A number of empirical studies refer to the widening gap in understanding between government and the Landless Peoples Movement on both policy and implementation strategy.

The richly nuanced historical and ideological contexts of the Freedom Charter, the Reconstruction and Development Programme, the Co0nstitution and the Growth, Economic and Reconstruction Programme, are not adequately understood, let alone appreciated by those directly affected by land reforms;

The ideological and strategic reasons for the apparent shift from the Freedom Charter through the RDP and GEAR to the White Paper on Land Development, Public Land Management, and Land Administration, still have to be articulated in the language of the tribe;

How to mange the apparent let down from the euphoria of freedom in our lifetime in 1994, to a clear –eyed admission that land reform in South Africa is subject to various constraints including; macro-economic and fiscal constraints, organizational constraints, capacity constraints, physical resources, governance and institutional constraints;

The apparent tension between manifest, policy, legislation and implementation has to be managed as cautiously as possible. Central to this is the need for a comprehensive and implementable information and communication strategy.

The land use is an extremely delicate and potentially explosive matter and must be handled with the utmost care. And all of things necessary, deepening and broadening public understanding, especially within the LPM, cannot be over-emphasised.

There is also the question of the states constitutional duty "to take reasonable steps to enable citizens to gain access to land, promote security of tenure, and to provide redress to those who were dispossessed of property after 19 June 1912 as a restitution of past discriminatory laws or practices. In a country if sharp social and economic disparities, consensus on "reasonable steps" may prove hard to achieve. Not without such consensus, there will be no end to conflict, and no end to land occupation.

Further, there is a need to educate the public, especially the key actors, that the partnership between government, the private sector and civil society, fraught with ideological struggles in a globalizing economy, cannot be sustained without compromise. Understanding of the ideological and strategic comprise is required.

12.3 Prof Sipho Buthelezi: University of Fort Hare

In poor agrarian economies, the pattern of landholding is a major correlate of political power structure, social hierarchy and economic relations. Possession of land confers on the possessors the mutually reinforcing attributes of the political privilege and social prestige. The aggregate pattern of land ownership, determines the manner in which land and labour are combined for production purposes, with consequences for the quantum distribution of the product. These in term, have implications for the relative and absolute material well being of the population, particularly as food is the major product of land.

Small farmers, tenants, sharecroppers and landless workers are among the social groups vulnerable to hunger and poverty, and they usually have inadequate access to land and other productive resources. An International Labour Organization (ILO) study, suggests that agricultural wage workers, for example, are the poorest sections of the rural population, and in many countries their real wages have fallen despite rising agricultural productivity and trade. At the same time, much of the cultivated, fertile land is held by a small number of powerful landowners. Thus the social impetus for land and agrarian reform is the possibility of improved social justice and equity.

The varieties of land and agrarian reform have been informed by varied and historically determined agendas, mediated by clearly articulated social and class exigencies.

Civil society has devised and implemented an advocacy strategy aimed at ensuring that victims of dispossession in the Eastern Cape are not denied the constitutional right to restitution. The strategy has taken form of the "Vulamasango Singene" campaign (open the door so that we can come in). The campaign has three thrusts: community mobilization, building a critical mass of organizational support, and negotiating with government.

The Eastern Cape is the poorest province in the country and the homeland are the poorest parts of the province. Over 70% of people in these areas are poor. Unfortunately, the trend of worsening poverty has not been arrested since 1994 – and as a matter of fact has been deteriorating. The efforts that government has made to address the problem have been inadequate. Supplementary programmes and strategies are urgently required.

Community mobilization: The key to winning the campaign is the extent to which affected communities are mobilized. There are approximately 1 250 communities in the former Ciskei and Transkei which were dispossessed through betterment. To date, approximately 200 of these communities have been organized, and collectively constitute the foundation of the campaign.

Building a critical mass of organizational support in the Eastern Cape: It is necessary to achieve united support for the campaign amongst all important organizations in the Province. At this stage, the campaign is drive by collective leadership provided by the African National Congress (Eastern Cape), the Border Rural Committee, the Congress of South African Trade Union (Eastern Cape), the Eastern Cape NGO Coalition, the Eastern Cape Council of Churches and the South African Communist Party (Eastern Cape).

Negotiations with government: campaigners have been negotiating with government for two years. Based on a joint commitment to resolve what is mutually acknowledged to be a substantive problem, government committed itself to find an appropriate solution was clearly demonstrated by Minister’s signing of an official memorandum on the lodgment of betterment claims in the Eastern Cape.

Challenges / problems

Access to productive land with water, proper fencing and affordable prices;

A land ceiling should be instituted and one farm should be allowed per farmer;

Government should force farmers with more than one farm to sell land to emerging farmers;

Government must review land policies and all stakeholders to participate.

Game farms and foreign land ownership lead to job losses.

Problems with municipalities regarding lack of support to maintain commonage land; and

There is no representation on municipal local economic development structures.

The traditional communities are underdeveloped and most live without access to services such as electricity, clean water, sewerage and houses. The setting is strictly rural and operate on not on a basis of cash or monetary economy, but through agricultural activities.

The issue of land, ownership and occupation has been critical for a long time. Beneath that are the glaring issues of housing, unemployment and infrastructure. For a long time, land has been the cornerstone of African life.

Land ownership: in South Africa over 80% of the best grazing and agricultural land is in the hands of white people. The critical issue is the fact that according to statistics about two-thirds of African people live in the rural areas. The Constitution guarantees the ownership of the individual fixed property. Government can only buy land from descendents of white colonizers on willing seller, willing buyer policy.

Government, since independence in 1994 introduced land reform programme that sought to redistribute 30% of land, initially scheduled for completion before 2006. However, the land reform is marked by some disappointments and frustrations. Land redistribution deadline is set for completion by year 2014. According to Department of Land Affairs only 3.2% of this target has been delivered. Through the willing buyer, willing seller policy this has cost more than R1 billion in restitution while more than R300 million was spent in redistribution and tenure. Currently, 82 million hectares of arable land is owned by a minority.

Therefore, the debate around land occupations is tangled with racial politics and in turn perceptions have largely been negative. Land occupation in general is associated with disorder, political strife, economic crisis and administrative failure on the part of blacks. In Zimbabwe, for example, the recent land occupations have been synonymous with economic crisis and political failure.

The LPM has demanded the land summit since 2001. Various meeting were held with the Department. The LPM believed that if the following demands are implemented, land crisis that has engulfed the nation and people, can begin to be resolved:

Government must ensure immediate moratorium on all rural and urban forced removals and evictions, whether from farms or other rural land;

End market led land reform and the willing buyer, willing seller policy;

Government must ensure to stop land sales to foreigners;

A mass-based land audit to identify all forms of unused or unproductive land, as well as land of abusive farmers and absentee owners can be made available for land reform;

Government should provide post-settlement support in terms of markets, finance, training and inputs and use the land reform money to support the landless;

Government must scrap the ESTA and LTA and replace these with a law that must protect and give land to farm dwellers.

The SACP hopes that the summit will reach some agreement and take forward the following issues:

The Summit needs to commit to a process to discuss the development of a comprehensive state-led and people-centred and agrarian strategy. Key elements of the strategy must be an effective linkage between land reform and agricultural development, to development, land for human settlement, and building of a progressive agricultural co-operative movement.

In order to achieve such as comprehensive, inclusive strategy, it is important to push government beyond just two pillars of land reform – security of land tenure and land restitution – to proactive acquisition of new land, including using expropriation and effectively regulate prices paid for land.

All other demands which include access to land, decent working and living conditions for farm workers, effective post-settlement support must all be subjected to, and can only be realized under an overarching state-led industrial policy on land and agrarian transformation.

Review the willing seller, willing buyer policy and lay a basis for an alternative strategy and programme. Such strategy and programme must include expropriation and all other instruments contained in the Constitution and other legislation.

Central in land and agrarian transformation is access to affordable and appropriate credit and the importance of linking the discussion to the struggles and processes for the transformation of the financial sector; and

Review all local government Integrated Development Programmes in order to ensure to include land and agrarian transformation measures.

13.6 Alliance of Land and Agrarian Reform Movements (LARM)

ALARM presented a memorandum which was a collective contribution from landless communities, rural dwellers, national and provincial NGOs, landless people’s organizations, small farmers and producer groups, the environmental sector as well as the South African Communist Party with the following demands:

Government must scrap market-based reform;

Make another countryside possible: the state must drive land and agrarian reform;

The state must actively and aggressively use expropriation for land redistribution;

Re-open the date for land restitution claims;

End farm dweller evictions;

Review Communal Land Rights Act;

Promote and develop sustainable livelihoods; and

A consultative, representative and democratic post-summit process.

Given the failure of the current land reform programme to address skewed patterns of land ownership and lack of meaningful change in people’s lives within the democratic dispensation civil society has been calling for land summit for the past three years. The call is for a summit seeking alternatives to the current market based land reform programme and its inability to redistribute land for livelihoods. It is with this understanding that the landless people, emerging farmers and rural communities of the Southern Cape and Karoo districts decided to participate in the summit to contribute towards shifting market based land reform and land use. Issues to be addressed by the summit must include:

The imperative to facilitate access to land and control over natural resources;

Post settlement support for sustainable livelihoods;

Decentralization and the effect on land reform;

Privatization of state assets and the effect on land reform and rural development;

Farm dwellers and the inability of the current policies to address tenure and livelihood for farm dwellers; and

Integrated Sustainable rural Development and Spatial Planning and the effects on sustainable rural development.

Firstly, there are white farmers who have large pieces of land and also many farms, while on the other hand there are people without land even to put up an informal structure. The farmers in turn employ the landless, where farm dwellers are exploited.

Secondly, how land is sold – the willing buyer, willing seller. The principle is problematic because redistribution of private land can only happen when there is a white farmer willing to sell. The principle also gives powers to white farmers to sell land at prices that are exorbitant.

Thirdly, with regard to 30% land, government promises to redistribute by 2014. The question is what is the difference between 30% and the 13% that was given. The effect of the decision is that black people will be left with 43% land whilst white people will remain with 57%. There is no difference because people who will benefit from the redistributed land are more, because of population growth, compared to the people that were allocated the 13% of land in 1913. Land was dispossessed because of capitalist motives.

Consensus on rejection of willing buyer, willing seller (except AgriSA)

State must be the driving force behind land redistribution, rather than the present minimalist role. Specifically, more staff, more resources should be allocated for the programme, active negotiation with landowners and expropriation where needed.

State must have right of first refusal on all land sales

Primarily the previously disadvantaged people should benefit, but specific measures should be taken to target: the poor, women, farm workers and the youth.

Land redistribution must provide land for production and settlement, in both rural and urban areas.

Land redistribution needs to be integrated with infrastructure development.

Right of first refusal, with a reasonable timeframe

Land tax: supported by all parties except AgriSA

Budget: substantial increases in budgets, more staff

Actively promote subdivision to provide for smallholders

Reverse the growing concentration of landholding but disagreement from AgriSA on how for example, land ceilings or one-family one farm

Conduct a land audit on public and private land (including municipal land) and make this information publicly available at local level

Moratorium on sale of state land – except for land reform purposes

There must be speedy and just administrative action in land redistribution (cut the red tape, more capacity)

Proactive acquisition by the state in response to identified needs, through negotiated purchase and where necessary expropriation. This is the alternative to WBWS that must be scrapped.

Disagreement on the expropriation aspect from AgriSA.

There was rejection of paying market prices. Two views emerged:

Use Constitutional criteria to pay below –market "just and equitable" compensation

Do not pay any compensation that is, confiscate). This would require Constitutional amendment.

Strong support for moratorium on foreign ownership (but leasehold is an option) and address redistribution of land already owned by foreigners and reparations.

Target unused and underutilized land, and land of abusive farmers.

Insert a "social obligations clause" in the Constitution to protect those who occupy the above categories of land.

Local government must play an active role in land and agrarian reform – identify local needs, release municipal land and assist to identify land to meet the needs of people, and provide services and support to beneficiaries.

Ensure land reform in included in every IDP and define it as LED, that is part of the mandate of local government.

Stop allowing commercial farmers to use commonage.

Promote access to municipal commonage for poor people and emerging farmers.

Local land forums to identify land needs and include landless, municipalities, Department of Land Affairs, Agriculture and landowners.

Revisit the dominant models of land use and agriculture.

Support the option of small-scale agriculture

People in informal settlements must be prioritized for access to land and housing on nearby unused land.

Moratorium on new golf courses and new game farms and other elitist developments, and privatization of state forest land.

Invest in coordinated and better – resourced post-transfer support, including training, extension, access to markets and finance.

Urgent intervention to address problems in existing projects.

Disagreement about strategic partnerships: perpetuating inequality? Better safeguards & state facilitation must be put in place in strategic partnerships.

Expropriation: should be applied as an additional instrument for restitution purposes to speed up the process and set affordable and fair compensation.

Review of the willing seller/ willing buyer principle.

Post-settlement support (must have a business plan for each community should include pre and post transfer measures:

provision of training, mentorship (including capacity building)

development of SMMEs

development of bulk infrastructure in which community is involved

income from land has to be used for development of community

Nature conservation: communities must have ownership of this land, must be in partnership with conservation projects and must share in benefits from the projects.

Urbanization: Restitution in urban areas has to be integrated with IDPs and provincial development programmes.

Obstacles in urban development of properties involved in restitution have to be addressed by relaxing by-laws, as a well as other forms of support.

More options than the dominant cash model are necessary, for example, land and housing in rural areas are still preferred to financial compensation.

Urban areas have unique situation and compensation sometimes more appropriate.

Communication and reporting strategies to communities on outstanding claims:

-Require regular communication with communities regarding outstanding claims already gazetted;

- Concerns about failure to communicate the restitution process and requirements, and therefore missed opportunities to lodge claims (this is used as one justification to extend the restitution process).

Complementary rights (mineral, forestry and water rights) should be investigated: restitution should be extended to more than surface land-use rights.

There is need to involve relevant government Departments, communities and beneficiaries.

Re-opening of restitution application process (extension of 1998):

Relatively low number of applications compared to number of forced removals, especially in urban areas;

Communities were unable to apply on time because of various factors, such as communication problems, the complexity of the process, the legality of it etc;

Extension backwards prior to 1913 considered but no consensus (raises possibility of conflicting inter-ethnic claims);

Re-opening should not compromise existing settled claims.

Restitution cannot make a difference without partnerships. Both community and partners must benefit from the partnership;

Partnership development is a process, and initial unequal relationship must be addressed by ongoing empowerment;

Capacity building, financial resources, evaluation and monitoring all require strategic partnerships.

NGOs

Private sector: business and financial institutions

Inter-departmental partnerships in government

Former land owners

Land is an economic asset, an emotional identity and dignity resource, a social insurance asset and more

Emotional and social trauma and polarization caused by dispossession have to be addressed by Commission similar to TRC to promote reconciliation and mutual understanding within South African society;

Healing and bringing closure.

Establish agriculture training institutions (academies) in all municipalities. These are to be used to train the youth, women and the farmers in general.

Entrench Agriculture as part of the curriculum in schools.

Retool and re-skill the current extension service work force.

Promote mentoring arrangements but ensure that these have clear service level agreements that are regular monitored.

Encourage joint ventures that are characterized by meaningful business skills transfer.

Provide intensive training for beneficiaries of land reform. It should be noted that the current crop of successful commercial farmers draw their success from generations (four or more) of knowledge accumulated by their farming families.

Government to review redeployment of public service staff that support agriculture. Redeployment often has a negative impact on community that would have been served by that individual.

PAETA to prioritize land reform beneficiaries for learnership to build skills.

Comprehensive audit of land potential and viable agriculture activities on such land.

Government to provide information on other economic activities that agriculture can link to.

Enhance quality of transfer of agriculture information to the beneficiaries of the land reform.

Government to fund development of new technologies that are appropriate for small scale farming.

Information to be provided to the beneficiaries in user friendly language.

Government to provide funding for research into indigenous technology.

Market responses needs to begin to delink from dictates of countries of the North and focus of RSA needs, and then the needs of other countries on the continent.

Enhance the quality of provision of information about markets.

Government to ensure that policy is responding to markets that are sustainable in the medium to long term.

Promote the Proudly South African culture for locally produced agriculture products.

All spheres of government to facilitate establishment of local and district level markets as well as mobile market systems for handling of small volume produce.

All spheres of government to investigate the establishment of a mobile abattoir system for chickens and small livestock.

Sustainable government support to cooperatives is desirable to enable these not only to succeed but to also remain democratic. Government withdrawal has in some cases precipitated a situation where these entities are subsequently run undemocratically.

Enable integration of different types of cooperatives (finance, producer, marketing).

Government to consider applying a percentage of AgriBEE allocation to cooperatives.

Land Summit to resolve to constitute a session at which development financing institutions will be required to deal with the issue of instruments required to not only access land but also to unlock profitable agribusinesses in rural areas.

Such Summit to include Land Bank, Commercial Banks, Treasury, IDC, and institutions falling under the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).

Government and financial institutions to come up with suitable options other than Credit worthiness when dealing with poor farmers.

Government to introduce policy that encourage financing institution to include provision of financial management training and continuing support and mentoring for beneficiaries of their financial instruments.

Repossessed or liquidated land to be made available to current farm occupiers.

Land Bank to immediately review the performance of all previously land bank funded projects and facilitate assistance where required.

MALA to transform the Land Bank Boards to be inclusive of local leadership elected through public nomination

Government to remove the property clause.

South Africa to introduce user rights and move away from the title deeds system in the rural areas.

Government to effect an end to evictions – much land lies idle and current evictions cannot therefore be considered to be need based.

Idle land owned by state, churches and private land owners to be immediately made available.

Government to effect fundamental change in South Africa’s agriculture economy. Do not keep the old structure of agriculture in place and just populate it with black faces.

Government to affirm the concept of one farmer one farm. But effect a change in the current farm size culture. Draw lessons from South African experience before the colonial era and from experience in the rest of the Africa and in Western Europe.

Promote subdivision of agriculture land and ensure its agriculture use is sustained.

Government needs to immediately stop sale of land to foreigners.

This is to be followed by introduction of new laws and policies regulating access of foreigners to land ownership in South Africa.

South Africa to effect law and policies that allow foreign investment only if it contributes significantly to creation of sustainable jobs.

Government to consider establishing of a Ministry of Rural Development which will house all elements needed to unlock economically viable activities in rural areas.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to urgently embark on a Comprehensive Legislation and Policy review on the various land reform and agrarian reform addressed herein.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to conduct land audit.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to facilitate creation of one stop service centers for land and agrarian reform services.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to minimize beaurocratic processes.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to immediately remove the willing buyer, willing seller principle.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to investigate provision of agriculture subsidies for emerging farmers as an instrument that is addition to the grants.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to facilitate establishment of Land Reform Forums with key stakeholders in each municipal area.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to ensure that they have requisite staff capacity and resources to deal with land issues.

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs to investigate reduction in registration and transfer costs.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to participate in the land reform process through instituting appropriate access to water rights for irrigation schemes.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to expand building of dams and sustainable maintenance thereof.

DWAF to enable general access to water by rural communities.

Government to investigate the establishment of Agrivillages.

Department of Land Affairs to implement a policy retaining a portion of the payment to the seller until it can confirm that all assets are in intact at the time of occupation by the new owner.

Department of Trade and Industry to be part of the land reform effort in terms of providing support to beneficiaries with regard to agriculture enterprises and markets.

Department of Social Welfare instruments to become part of Land Reform delivery.

Department of Environmental Affairs to be involved in the land reform process to enable better planning with regard to interface between livestock and game.

National government to investigate impact of tourism industry on agrarian reform.

Tourism industry needs to be transformed to ensure inclusion of land reform beneficiaries.

Department of Agriculture to restructure the budget investment patterns. Reverse the current allocation ration between current and capital expenditure.

Treasury to substantially increase allocation to Agriculture and Land.

Review the work ethic of the extension workers, and must be visible.

Review the framework for engagement of extension officers.

Extension officers should either be transferred /seconded to municipalities or should work as enterpreuneurs through an agency agreement.

Procurement arrangements to provide opportunities to emerging farmers.

National sphere of government to provide guidance and adequate funds to municipalities in terms of handling land related matters.

Enable collective participation of AmaKhosi, municipal structures and farming communities in fast-tracking Integrated Development Plans (IDP)

Local government to establish land and agrarian reform units at municipality level.

Review various transport related costs to minimize cost impact to emerging farmers.

Fast-track road infrastructure development to improve access to input suppliers and to markets of agriculture products.

The Commission was not happy with the terms "farm dwellers" and "farm occupiers".

An alternative term was not finalized, although one suggestion was something along the lines of "indigenous people" or "Abantu benolabuko." However, in the report have continued to use the term "farm dwellers".

A moratorium on all evictions until new legislation and programmes are in place to properly defend farm dwellers. (Not supported by AgriSA: legal evictions should still be possible, and municipalities should have programmes to accommodate those affected)

A Presidential Commission of Enquiry into the situation of farm dwellers, including review of previous evictions and other violations of people rights on farms.

Government must in partnership with civil society, develop a coherent and proactive strategy to secure farm dweller’s rights, with a large and dedicated budget, and dramatically increase its capacity to both protect rights and secure independent land for farm dwellers.

Department of Land Affairs, Department of Labour and Home Affairs (due to the abuse of illegal immigrants on farms), police, prosecutors, courts and the Legal Aid Board must commit themselves to enforcing people’s rights (land rights, protection of livestock, access to graves, visitors rights, freedom of movement) and providing free legal services to farm dwellers, with immediate effect.

Farm dwellers must be allowed to participate in Community Policing Forums on equal terms with farmers and other stakeholders, and get time off work to do so.

The abuse of the Trespass Act to evict farm dwellers must end, as it no longer applies to farm dwellers – it has been amended by ESTA.

Department of Land Affairs needs new powers for enforcement of tenure laws and the human resources to use these powers, as do other departments such Department of Labour.

Farm dwellers should not be forced to pay rent for living on and /or using the land for livestock and other purposes.

Transformation and monitoring of the police is urgently needed, to overcome their bias against farm dwellers and ensure immediate action against farmers that violate the law (and in particular tenure laws).

Department of Land Affairs and the criminal justice system must ensure prosecution and suitable sentences for violators of tenure rights.

Government must amend and amalgamate Extension of Security Tenure Act and Labour Tenants Act by the end of this financial year, with the full involvement of all stakeholders. (AfriSA supports review of ESTA and LTA provided that an inclusive consultative process is followed).

Amendments to LTA and ESTA should strengthen the rights of farm dwellers, including the following:

_ the current definition and rights of long term occupiers under ESTA is not good enough, therefore create a class of long term non-evictable occupiers with a revised definition (that is such people cannot be evicted regardless of crimes or violation of agreements)

separate tenure rights from labour arrangements- dismissal should not lead to a person losing their home.

Create a direct legal route for farm dwellers to have their tenure security (and other rights such as the right to visitors) confirmed.

End the discrimination against women that positions them as minors whose land rights are dependent on a male household head.

Create enforceable rights to service provision.

Ensure protection of farm dweller’s livestock and proper valuation and compensation for these.

Ensure strong burial rights and access to graves in accordance with people’s culture. (AgriSA cannot support the proposed amendments without careful consideration; it could never agree to the seperation of tenure rights from labour arrangements. It will make inputs on an Amendment Bill)

Government must proactively acquire land, using expropriation where necessary, for the creation of sustainable settlements for farm dwellers and to give long-term recognition of their rights within commercial farming areas. (AgriSA in favour of off-farm rather than on-farm solutions and expropriations should be a measure of last resort).

To enable access to land of their own for farm dwellers the following are recommended:

_ Review the property clause;

One person one farm rule;

Limitations of farm size;

The subdivision of large farms;

The end of willing buyer/willing seller approach. (Agri SA’s view is that the property clause is a critically important part of the democratic compromise and should not be tampered with).

Land that farm schools are on needs to be expropriated in order to secure their future, and the state must provide adequate resources and support to ensure that children on farms receive a high quality education.

Include farm dwellers settlements are part of Integrated Development Plans and ensure service provision as part of municipalities responsibility for the defence of farm dwellers rights and support for the development of long term solutions.

All development projects, particularly those requiring approvals from departments of Environment and Tourism, must not be allowed to proceed without first securing the rights and getting the agreement of any farm dwellers on affected land. (AgriSA felt that farm dwellers should be consulted only if their rights are directly affected by the proposed development).

Government and civil society must implement well-resourced programmes to build farm dweller organization and capacity, including education to defend their rights and engage effectively in development planning and in driving their own development.

Farm dwellers must have complete freedom of association to join unions and other organizations that can inform their of their rights and help defend those rights.

Specific programmes are needed to empower women on farms and support them in asserting their rights.

A statutory structure must be created at the local level in order to monitor and enforce the implementation of the law; this should include all law enforcement agencies and farmers, who must play a more active role in finding solutions and ensuring respect for people’s rights.

Stakeholders, government and farmers must subscribe to a code of conduct and be held accountable.

Farmers who abuse workers and illegally evict farm dwellers must be expropriated. (Agri-SA did not agree to expropriation as a penalty).

Insufficient time to discuss communal land (former Bantustants, for coloured reserves) or urban land tenure (informal settlements etc).

Strong feeling that Department of Land Affairs must further consult with the affected communities.

One recommendation was that these consultations take place within the Communication Strategy planned by the Department.

But some felt strongly that this will not constitute adequate consultation.

Currently there is a lack of clarity on who owns "communal land".

As a result people are experiencing problems with municipalities, who see it as state land.

Major problems in areas where land was transferred to "tribes" by the former Lobowa government, and tribes are under traditional leaders who were former homeland government Cabinet Ministers.

Some communities have requested Legal Resources Centre to challenge the CLARA in the Constitutional Court. On the grounds that it undermines rather than secure their rights.

The success of any land agrarian programme is, in a very direct manner, dependent on the effectiveness of the Land Use and Spatial Planning system within which it is implemented. As a country pauses to reflect on the successes and challenges of the last ten years and chart the way forward in land restitution and redistribution effort, it is of the paramount importance that we reflect on this important aspect.

In doing the above, we should seek to enhance Land Use and Spatial Planning to ensure greater understanding of the most effective land identification and acquisition models, the rural / urban development continuum, the role and impact of change –of – land use patterns, need for sustainable farm settlements, minimizing land invasions, rationalizing relevant legislation, creating institutional capacity and sound resource mobilization and management.

Disjointed rural/urban planning

Resource allocation currently biased towards urban areas.

Land identification and acquisition

Need for a National Settlement Strategy (Presidency).

Encourage rural –urban planning continuum

Reverse colonial/apartheid planning

Too many laws and institutions (DFA, NEMA etc)

Game parks and golf estates spring up everywhere.

Excessive ownership of land leading to under utilization.

Low income settlements do not receive required prioritization compared, for example to environmental habitat.

Plans are prepared with limited regard to actual land.

Applications for change of land use take too long.

Community Property Associations (CPA) not sufficiently equipped to deal with land use and planning issues.

Subdivision requirements are outdated, expensive and tedious.

The role of traditional institutions in land use management not always clear and /or of assistance especially in regard to female –led issues.

Willing buyer willing seller cannot address the historical land problems sufficiently.

Rationalize relevant laws and enhance institutional coordination (National Government)

Moratorium on foreign land ownership (Department of Land Affairs)

Moratorium on change of land use to game parks and golf estates (Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs).

Introduce incremental land tax systems (Treasury and Department of Provincial & Local Government)

Set land ownership ceiling (Agriculture and Land Affairs)

Greater prioritization of these settlement informed, first and foremost, by current national /political imperatives.

Every IDP to integrate strategically located vacant land.

Remove administrative / beaurocratic bottle- necks (Provincial Governments and municipalities).

Enhance capacity building (Agriculture and Land Affairs).

Review requirements to provide for, for example, smaller farming enterprises and diversified farming practices (Agriculture and Land Affairs).

Review and clarify role of traditional institutions (Land Affairs and DPLG).

Urgent need to review willing buyer – willing seller approach (Department of Land Affairs).

Disjointed planning, service delivery and support systems.

Limited agriculture and management skills within recipient communities.

Lengthy land delivery systems

Hardships experienced for example evictions, refusal of access to roads and through fare services

Enforcement of Integrated Development Planning to ensure land delivery and support for small scale emerging farmers (All spheres of Government).

IDPs and PGDS (Provincial Growth and Development Strategies) to incorporate land reform sector plans (dplg).

Conduct needs analysis and design and implement targeted training and mentorship programmes for new emerging farmers. (National and provincial Agriculture & Land Affairs).

Project cycle to shortened (Department of Land Affairs).

Place moratorium on evictions.

Review ESTA urgently (Department of Land Affairs).

There is a gap between plans and community understanding of and participation in such plans.

Weak farmer unions/ formation within emerging communities.

Financial institutions not taking responsibility for the quality of their products and required back up system.

Land Bank is quick to repossess land from beneficiaries.

Community participation requirements must be complied with in line with country’s constitutional and democratic principles (dplg).

Capacity and resources should be made available to enhance organizational strength (Agriculture and land Affairs).

Package better quality products.

Play active role in capacity building among beneficiaries.

Assume greater social responsibility (Financial institutions).

Commercial farmers encroaching on land of beneficiaries (land grab).

Landless people illegally occupying the land of beneficiaries.

Land owners are practicing "shack farming" for their monetary benefit

Land boundaries must be clearly indicated by beacons.

Accelerate land reform.

Government to investigate the causes and forms of land invasions address these.

Government must ban "shack farming". (Department of Land Affairs).

Multiplicity of laws and related institutions which do not always aid / assist effective land delivery and development (DFA, NEMA, ESTA, CLARA etc).

Water rights have not been sufficiently aligned with the land delivery programmes.

Limited awareness of the provisions of legislation in some communities.

Review and rationalize such legislation (all spheres of government).

Government to urgently address water and land issues simultaneously to ensure a full agrarian reform (Departments: Water & Forestry and Agriculture and Land Affairs).

Implement awareness programmes among communities and interest groups (all spheres of government).

State land is owned and managed in different pockets.

State land is not being disposed at sufficient pace.

There is uncertainty on extent, location and current utilization of state land.

Water needs not sufficiently dealt with in the land delivery process.

Women, youth and people with disabilities are left out the resource allocation and management.

Privatization of natural resources creates hardships for worker communities.

All state land should fall under a single national government department.

State land must be prioritized for both redistribution and settlement purposes.

A full audit of state land required urgently (Land Affairs).

Government urgently address water and land issues to ensure a full agrarian reform (Departments: Water, Agriculture and Land Affairs).

Target the disadvantaged groups for effective resource allocation and management programmes (Departments: Water Affairs, Labour, DEAT and Agriculture).

There is currently no Constitutional requirement that restricts our approach to land reform based solely on the principle of "willing seller- willing buyer."

Nevertheless, the White Paper on South African Land Policy of 1997 mandates an approach based largely on this principle and, therefore, much of government approach to land acquisition has in practice been based on acquisition at market prices from willing sellers.

Market-based land acquisitions entail reliance on the existing land market system which is characterized by a number of distortions and imperfections, such as restrictions on land subdivisions, the absence of an effective land tax, unequal access to capital markets and information, contradictory requirements in respect of municipal zoning regulations.

The Constitution provides for the expropriation of land with just and equitable compensation. In addition, the current legal framework allows government to expropriate land in terms of the Constitutional parameters.

Nevertheless, in practice government has only used expropriation in a very limited number of cases.

South Africans have committed themselves to a target of redistributing 30% of the land by the year 2014.

International experience of the land reform programmes demonstrates that the market on its own is unable to effectively alter the pattern on ownership in favour of equity for the targeted beneficiaries of land reform as well as in favour of broader goals of job creation and poverty reduction.

South Africa’s own experience over the last eleven years confirms this international experience in that the pace of redistribution to the targeted groups has not been sufficient to realize our 2014 objective.

To reject the principle of "willing buyer-willing seller."

The instrument of expropriation should be used actively and selectively in terms of the Constitutional principles which provide for expropriation in terms of a law of general application and subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided by or approved by a court.

That, furthermore, amount of compensation should have regard to the following Constitutional principles:

The current use of the property

The history of the acquisition and use of the property;

The market value of the property;

The extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property;

The purpose of expropriation

That the state should actively intervene in the land market including through:

The use of expropriations;

Scrapping of restrictions on subdivision of land;

Extensive support for small –scale agriculture;

Reversing the growing concentration of land holdings;

Promoting the principle of "one farmer one farm."

Changing the current large-farm size culture;

Regulating foreign ownership;

Imposing a land tax;

Regulating land use to optimize social benefit.

The principle underlying our approach should include the decentralization of the land reform process, through participatory and people-centred methods which are area-based, planned and which integrate land and agrarian transformation into wider development priorities, particularly through the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).

South Africa’s land policy should consist of:

Programmes of state actions and land market interventions;

A proactive and state led approach characterized by well planned and holistic but just and equitable methods;

A programme to attain the objective of a better life for all by a people’s contract to create work and to fight poverty through urban and rural development.

15. RECOMMENDATIONS

The significant policy and implementation recommendations were made by the participants on how to fasten the pace of delivery and improve current delivery methods.

Some of the recommendations relate to Policy, for example:

_ Review the Willing Buyer, Willing Seller Approach;

Institution of the Right of First Refusal;

Imposition of a progressive Land Tax and other incentives for Land Release;

Promotion of Subdivision of Agricultural Land;

Review of Restitution Cut-off dates.

Implementation issues relate to:

_ Integrated Development Planning;

_ Enhanced State Capacity;

_ Communication and consultation strategies;

_ New land acquisition methods;

_ Resettlement models;

_ Targeting of beneficiaries

The House note the Summit report; and also

The House note the Department of Land Affairs is currently developing a plan to implement the recommendations of the summit.