REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LAND SUMMIT
DRAFT REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LAND SUMMIT, NASREC, JOHANNESBURG,

JULY 2005

A PARTNERSHIP TO FAST TRACK LAND REFORM:

A NEW TRAJECTORY TOWARDS 2014

27 – 30 July 2005

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Land Summit was an important moment in the history of South Africa’s new democracy. The first decade of freedom has witnessed remarkable achievements. But the task of liberating South Africans from the burden of our shared history has only just begun. Central to this challenge is the transformation of land and agrarian relations. In the first ten years of democracy we have made progress in the arena of restitution, redistribution and tenure reform, but much more needs to be done.

1.2. At the end of July 2005, over a thousand South Africans from all walks of life gathered at NASREC outside Johannesburg to deliberate on the trajectory of land and agrarian reform. Social movement activists, government officials, farmers, business people, people living and working on commercial farms, landless communities and beneficiaries of land reform, public representatives and political parties, traditional leaders, academics, donors, religious leaders and NGOs engaged in frank and robust debate over three days under the banner of the Summit: “A Partnership to Fast Track Land Reform: a New Trajectory Towards 2014”. The Summit was also attended by international delegates from Namibia, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Kenya and other countries, who enriched these debates with their own experiences of land and agrarian reform.

1.3. The Summit assessed how far we have gone in meeting the land and agrarian reform ideals of our people as reflected in the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. The Summit noted the progress made by our democratic government in the first ten years of democracy. Nevertheless, one delegate after another said that progress had at best been slow and costly.

1.4. The Summit was convened by the Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, but the impetus for the gathering came largely from civil society organisations involved in land rights campaigns. Civil society had identified the need for an inclusive review of land reform, with a view to accelerating the pace of delivery. The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs announced that she would convene such a forum in order to create a platform for South Africans to find practical solutions to accelerate land delivery for sustainable development. Following this announcement, which was made in April 2005, a process of consultation was conducted. This included engagements across government departments, as well as meetings and discussions with stakeholders outside of government. Each of the nine provinces held a provincial summit, the conclusions of which were fed into the national Land Summit. However, many delegates expressed concern about the extent and depth of the pre-Summit consultation process.

1.5. The Summit was convened to ensure that all those with an interest in land and agrarian reform should be able to freely express themselves. Given the diversity of opinions, the range of interests involved and the intensity of emotion and passion that the land question justifiably generates, it was unlikely that consensus would be found on each and every issue. Despite these challenges every effort was made to reach consensus and failing that to adopt positions supported by the overwhelming majority of delegates. The Land Summit and the resolutions adopted at the Summit are the starting point for what needs to become an ongoing engagement, with a view to building the widest possible unity in action around the revised programme of land and agrarian reform.

1.6. This report has been prepared by the convenors of the Summit, the Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, to reflect, in a summary, the outcome of the Summit and to form a basis for ongoing engagement, and with a view to defining a clear way forward towards 2014.

2. BACKGROUND: A brief HISTORY OF DISPOSSESSION

2.1. At the heart of South Africa’s history lies the story of conquest and dispossession. From the beginning of colonial invasion in 1652, savage wars of dispossession were waged against the indigenous peoples of South Africa, processes that were aimed at seizing land for the exclusive use of white settlers. At the same time colonial authorities explicitly sought to separate Africans from ownership of independent means of production so as to ensure their availability as a cheap and docile labour force to service the agricultural and mining economies.

2.2. The Natives’ Land Act of 1913 was culmination of these processes. Not only did it prevent Africans from owning land outside the “reserves” especially established for that purpose, but it also prevented black people from playing any role in the rural economy, other than in the form of wage labour. Between its enactment and the democratic victory of 1994 millions of black people were forcibly removed from ‘white South Africa’ in one of the most effective and ruthless examples of land dispossession and systematic impoverishment of a people in the twentieth century. Sol Plaatjie, the first Secretary General of the ANC, described the position of black South Africans on the morning that the Natives’ Land Act was passed: “Awaking on Friday morning, June 20 1913”, said Plaatjie, “the South African native found himself not actually a slave but a pariah in the land of his birth”. The Natives’ Land Act was only one of many legislative and administrative means employed by South Africa’s racist state to dispossess black people to the extent that by 1990 the white minority owned 87% of the land or had access to it while the black majority had access to only 13% of the land.

2.3. It is against this background that, as the struggle for democracy escalated, South Africans of all races came together at the Congress of the People in Kliptown in 1955 and adopted the Freedom Charter. The Charter counter-posed the racist and divisive practices of the state with a vision of a South Africa which would genuinely belong to all. The Charter proclaims that:

· “South Africa Belongs to all who Live in it – Black and White”

· “The People Shall Share in the Country’s Wealth”

· “The Land shall be Shared Amongst those Who Work it”

2.4. Taking place in the year of the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter, the national Summit on land and agrarian reform was one of the numerous processes in the new dispensation, which aim to realise this vision and reverse the damage inflicted on South African society by its past. The Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) places a duty on government to take steps that would enable citizens to gain access to land. It therefore establishes a constitutional mandate to ensure that land distribution is equitable and that the injustices of the past, especially those dating back to 1913 are effectively addressed.

2.5. The democratic government’s approach to land reform is based on three pillars:

2.5.1. Restitution: Section 25 (7) of the Constitution stipulates that “a person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress”. Between 1995 and 2005, 62,127 claims were settled, benefiting almost 900,000 South Africans. A further 20,000 claims already lodged are yet to be settled.

2.5.2. Redistribution: The land redistribution programme aims to redistribute land to the landless poor, labour tenants, people living and working on commercial farms and emerging farmers for residential and productive uses, to improve their livelihoods and quality of life. By 2005, almost 500,000 hectares of land had been redistributed to the benefit of around 50,000 households. Government has set itself the target of redistributing 30% of all white-owned commercial agricultural land by the year 2014, which would require a significant acceleration of the pace of redistribution.

2.5.3. Security of tenure: Tenure reform has been the slowest and most difficult aspect of land and agrarian reform to date. A number of laws have been enacted to address tenure insecurity of people living on commercial farms, the most important of which was the Labour Tenants Act, 1996 (Act 3 of 1996), which provides strong protection for labour tenants, and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act of 1997, (Act 62 of 1997) which establishes security of tenure to those who live on someone else’s land. However, despite putting in place legal instruments, it is clear that realising security of tenure, as well as human rights and labour rights, for people living on commercial farms is an ongoing struggle.

2.6. In the context of 350 years of colonial dispossession, and the entrenchment of inequitable, and often inhuman relations between South Africans in rural areas, it is generally acknowledged that progressive change has not been fast enough. The Land Summit aimed to build consensus around a new trajectory of land reform. In doing so, the Summit benefited substantially from listening to international experiences of land and agrarian reform. Contributions came from Brazil, Namibia, Kenya and Zimbabwe, and in general terms, the Summit drew the following conclusions from international experience of land reform:

2.6.1. Equitable distribution of land is an essential component of equity in society more broadly, and can contribute significantly to accelerated growth.

2.6.2. Rural areas populated by family farms and small-holder agriculture have higher standards of living, are better for poverty reduction; and better for equity.

2.6.3. If left alone, the market will not redistribute land, nor can it reshape rural social and economic relations. Therefore, the state must actively intervene to give effect to land and agrarian reform objectives.

2.6.4. The relationship between the state, commercial agriculture and social movements engaged in land reform activism is key to the success of the land reform programme.

3. OVERVIEW OF THE LAND SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

3.1. As noted above, given the diversity of opinions, the range of interests involved and the intensity of emotion and passion that the land question justifiably generates, it was unlikely that the Summit would find consensus on each and every issue. However, notwithstanding the diversity of opinion voiced, a great deal of common ground was found. All participants, including government, commercial agriculture and social movements agreed on the following points:

3.1.1. All participants renewed their commitment to ensuring the redistribution of at least 30% of white owned agricultural land by the year 2014 – the end of the second decade of democracy. Government aims to reduce poverty and unemployment by half over the next decade. As we have noted, international experience points to a strong association between a more equitable distribution of land and higher living standards, lower levels of rural poverty, stronger growth performance and a more equal distribution of the national income. Therefore, not only is land and agrarian reform necessary to undo the injustices of history, it must also be a central component of economic transformation, and contribute towards realising the goals of accelerated and shared growth.

3.1.2. All participants confirmed that the current approaches are not delivering land at the scale required to achieve this target and is also not realising the full potential of developmental benefits associated with land reform. There is an urgent need to change the approach in order to deliver far reaching, but orderly, land and agrarian reform during the next ten years.

3.1.3. The achievement of this goal requires inclusive partnerships, in which government, landless people, farming communities and other components of civil society act together for sustainable land and agrarian reform. In particular stronger efforts need to be made towards building unity in action between the State, social movements and other stakeholders at a local level. Furthermore, the capacities that exist amongst the farming community are a central element in successful and sustainable change.

3.1.4. Notwithstanding the need for partnerships, the State needs to assume a stronger leading role in ensuring accelerated and sustainable land and agrarian reform. Market mechanisms alone will not achieve the kind of fundamental structural change that all agreed is needed. In order to meet this obligation, state capacity and resources need to be substantially enhanced in all three spheres of government. In particular, government needs the stronger capacity to target beneficiaries, to identify and acquire land for redistribution and to support beneficiaries with an array of mechanisms that enable them to become independent. Enhancing the state’s capacity must address the constraints within the Departments of Land Affairs and Agriculture. It must also ensure better coordination across a range of other government departments and spheres.

3.1.5. Despite significant legislative reform over the last ten years there has been little real change in the lives of people living and working on commercial farms. The scale of evictions and the ongoing violation of human rights on farms is a source of serious concern requiring urgent action to defend existing rights. The new approach to land reform must also ensure that people living and working on commercial farms are the primary beneficiaries of land reforms. We were asked to separate issues of tenure security from management of evictions.

3.2. Beyond the common ground outlined above, there was overwhelming majority support for a number of resolutions and recommendations that emerged from commission discussions. The full reports of the commissions, which were presented to the plenary session of the Summit, are reproduced in section 6 of this document. In what follows, we present a summary of the main areas of resolution and recommendations which emerged from these commissions, with a view to defining the way forward after the Summit. It should be noted that some participants in the Summit, notably commercial agriculture, did not agree with some or all of the recommendations contained herein. Nevertheless, the convenors are of the view that these resolution capture the views of the vast majority.

3.3. the ‘Willing Seller-Willing Buyer’ policy and Market-driven approaches to land AND agrarian reform

3.3.1. The overwhelming majority of participants in the Summit rejected the notion that the land reform process should be based solely on the notion of willing seller-willing buyer (WSWB).

3.3.2. International experience of land and agrarian reform programmes demonstrates that the market on its own is unable to effectively alter the pattern of 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 experience over the last eleven years confirms this international experience: the pace of redistribution to the targeted groups has not been sufficient to realise our 2014 objective.

3.3.3. Market-based land acquisitions entail reliance on the existing land market system which is characterised by a number of distortions and imperfections, such as restrictions on land subdivisions, the absence of an effective and progressive land tax, unequal access to capital markets and information, as well as contradictory requirements in respect of municipal zoning regulations. The free market mechanism is also open to abuse through price inflation by unscrupulous sellers, valuators and some state employees - with the result that money earmarked for buying out existing owners so as to facilitate restitution and land redistribution has benefited only a few, many of whom are already economically ‘empowered’.

3.3.4. The White Paper on South African Land Policy of 1995 had envisaged a largely market-driven approach to land reform, based to a large extent on the principle of WSWB. However, there is currently no constitutional requirement that restricts our approach to land reform based solely on the principle of WSWB. On the other hand, the Constitution compels the State to ensure equitable access to land. Section 25(8) in respect of property rights explicitly states that “no provision of this section may impede the State from taking … measures to achieve land … reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination”. The Constitution makes provision for expropriation of land for the purposes of land reform provided “just and equitable” compensation is paid, the amount and manner of whose payment is agreed by the affected person or approved by a court. Market value is only one of five factors to be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation payable. The Constitution therefore makes provision for payment of compensation below market value.

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, 1996, SECTION 25: [1]

(1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

(2) Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application: (a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and (b) 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 or approved by a court.

(3) The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting and equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including: (a) the current use of the property; (b) the history of the acquisition and use of the property; (c) the market value of the property; (d) the extent of direct State investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and (e) the purpose of the expropriation.

(4) For the purposes of this section: (a) the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and (b) property is not limited to land.

(5) 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.

(6) A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.

(7) A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.

(8) No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve, land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36 (1)

(9) Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).

3.4. A New Trajectory Towards 2014

3.4.1. Realising the goal of redistributing 30% of white-owned agricultural land by 2014, requires a well planned, efficiently managed and adequately funded plan that will enable fundamental social transformation to take place without disrupting food security or the broader economic goals that South Africans have set themselves.

3.4.2. Participants in the Land Summit felt that the new trajectory in land and agrarian reform should be defined by the following:

3.4.2.1. The beneficiaries of land and agrarian reform should be previously disadvantaged, with specific emphasis on the poor, women, people living and working on commercial farms, the disabled and the youth and other previously disadvantaged people. Programmes which specifically target these groups are required.

3.4.2.2. Reform should aim to restructure the dominant models of land use and agricultural production. Fundamental changes to the patterns of land ownership are required. This includes support for small-scale agriculture, the active promotion of sub-division and action to reverse the growing concentration of land holdings, promoting the principle of ‘one-farmer one-farm’ and changing the current farm size culture.

3.4.2.3. The key principles underlying our approach to implementation should include the decentralisation of the land reform process, participatory and people-centred methods which are area-based, and the integration of land and agrarian transformation into wider development priorities, particularly through the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of local and district municipalities. Mechanisms to broaden access to municipal commonage by the poor and emerging farmers need to be developed as an integral part of decentralised land reform

3.4.2.4. Land redistribution and restitution should promote sustainable development by providing land for production and settlement, in both rural and urban areas and should be integrated with infrastructure development.

3.5. The Leading Role of the State

3.5.1. The State should be the driving force behind land redistribution. It should lead proactive acquisition of land through negotiated purchase and where necessary expropriation. Expropriation should be used for both restitution and redistribution, taking into account the constitutional criteria of just and equitable compensation. Effective delivery will require more resources, both human and financial, devoted to the programme of land and agrarian reform.

3.5.2. More broadly, a new trajectory in land and agrarian reform requires the state to actively intervene in the land markets in a variety of ways. The Summit recommended the following approaches:

3.5.2.1. Conduct a land audit on private land and state land and make this information publicly available.

3.5.2.2. Insert a “social obligations” clause in the Constitution to protect occupiers of land that has been underutilised by the owners.

3.5.2.3. The use of expropriation of targeted land, in line with the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law. Government should not pay market value for land acquired for land reform purposes. Rather they should pay “just and equitable compensation” as per the constitution. Legislative reform to give better effect to this instrument will be required.

3.5.2.4. Government must act swiftly to scrap the restrictions on subdivision of land, in order to provide a conducive environment for small-holders. Furthermore, it is important to mention the institutions tasked with providing extensive support for small-scale agriculture in South Africa and at the same time suggest how such delivery can be enhanced.

3.5.2.5. The degree to which agricultural extension services continue to be biased against smaller producers and the coordinated provision of financial and non-financial support needs review.

3.5.2.6. Greater regulation of the land market, including a state right of first refusal in all land transactions. Where land on sale is desirable for land reform, government would become the first buyer, without competition. Land transactions between private persons should be possible only after government has declared the land unsuitable for redistribution. Further clarification is required regarding which categories of land would be affected.

3.5.2.7. Imposing a progressive land tax as a disincentive for excessive holdings of unused and underutilised land.

3.5.2.8. Reversing the growing concentration of land holdings, promoting the principle of “one farmer one farm” and changing the current large-farm-size culture.

3.5.2.9. Regulating foreign ownership and land use priorities.

3.5.2.10. A moratorium on the sale of all state land for purposes other than land reform.

3.5.2.11. Regulating land use to optimise social benefit.

3.5.2.12. Promote access to municipal commonage for poor people and emerging framers

3.5.2.13. Additional capacity would need to be created within government to pursue land and agrarian reform programmes, including for agricultural extension and support for beneficiaries. Government should also look into the redeployment of agricultural support staff. Government must sustain its support to co-operatives. Provinces also need to review the work of extension workers and ensure that their procurement arrangements provide opportunities to emerging farmers.

3.5.2.14. Better coordination is required across government departments. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry needs to participate directly in the land reform process, particularly through ensuring access to water rights and irrigation schemes. The Department of Trade and Industry needs to play an active role in terms of enterprise development and marketing support to beneficiaries. The Department of Transport also should be involved to review transport infrastructure and its relation to agricultural development. The Department of Minerals and Energy should participate in the programme with a view to ensuring proper electricity supplies, especially in respect of small-scale farmers. Government also should support the development of new technologies, and marketing channels that are appropriate for small-scale farming. Research into indigenous technologies is also required.

3.5.2.15. A further process of engaging with development financing institutions is required to ensure that they are aligned behind the programme of land and agrarian reform.

3.5.2.16. There is a need for greater investment and better coordination around post settlement support programmes. Such programmes should apply in both the pre- and post-transfer period, and should include training, mentorship with service level agreements, capacity building, building SMMEs and cooperatives and the provision of bulk infrastructure development.

3.5.2.17. Government must regularly and effectively communicate and consult with communities regarding outstanding restitution claims and land reform processes. Greater outreach of government services to local communities is required, including through the creation of one-stop service centres, a wider network of Land Bank offices etc.

3.6. Partnerships and Decentralized Reform

3.6.1. The Land Summit urged local government structures to factor land reform into economic development priorities. In partnership with various stakeholders, the Summit proposed the formation of local land reform forums. These structures would have the capacity to bring all stakeholders together in the deliberation of land issues and the identification of land needs and how these can be addressed.

3.6.2. Partnerships around restitution and redistribution should be established at all levels, and should seek to address unequal relationships through ongoing empowerment, capacity building, and the redirection of financial resources. Provincial and local land reform forums involving all stakeholders, and aiming to build a people’s contract for land reform and agrarian transformation, should be established in all municipalities. Partnerships should include people living and working on commercial farms, NGO’s, cooperatives and broad based community organisations, the private sector, amakhosi, interdepartmental partnerships across government and former land-owners.

3.6.3. Land and agrarian reform should be an integral part of the mandate of local government and should form a central component of Local Economic Development (LED) strategies, including through its inclusion in Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). IDPs should also ensure service provision for communities living on commercial farms as well as those living on communal land. The protection of tenure rights of communities living on communal land as well as those living on commercial farms should be part of the mandate of local government. Local government should also consider establishing agricultural training institutions. The national sphere of government must provide both guidance and adequate funds to municipalities in order to handle these issues.

3.6.4. An audit of state land and private land is required, which also looks into the question of land potential and viable agriculture activities. Such an audit could be conducted at the national level, but the process and results of such an audit are most important at local level where results should help facilitate reform programmes. In terms of such an audit unused and underutilized land should be targeted for land reform

3.7. Security of Tenure and the Rights of People Living AND WORKING on Commercial Farms

3.7.1. The Summit found that tenure legislation for people living and working on commercial farms has not substantially assisted the security of tenure of these citizens. Voices were raised in favour of a moratorium on evictions from farms until new legislation and a programme to properly protect people living and working on commercial farms is in place. A Presidential Commission of Enquiry into the situation of people living and working on commercial farms was also called for.

3.7.2. The Summit recommended that a coherent and proactive strategy to protect people living and working on commercial farms and give them homes and land of their own is urgently required. It also recommended that in the absence of a strategy there should be a moratorium on the eviction of people living and working on farms. This should include a well-resourced programme to build the organisation and capacity of people living on farms and capacity, which should be jointly developed by government and civil society.

3.7.3. Government must act more decisively in enforcing the relevant laws that exist to protect people living and working on commercial farms. This should include new powers of enforcement and the devotion of additional human resources for this purpose. The transformation of the South African Police Services (SAPS) is required to ensure recognition and protection of rights of people living and working on farms.

3.7.4. Similarly the judiciary, particularly Magistrates, need to ensure compliance with legislation prohibiting illegal evictions and apply the criminal sanctions provided for in the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, 1996 and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997. In many cases, court orders are implemented swiftly without due consideration of the availability of suitable alternative accommodation for evictees as required by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997. The lack of legal representation for people living and working on farms threatened with eviction often defeats the intention of the Acts. A more practical way of dealing with evictions and ensuring the security of tenure for communities living and working on farms needs to be explored.

3.7.5. A number of amendments were recommended for Labour Tenants Act, 1996 and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997 (ESTA) to strengthen the legal rights of people living and working on commercial farms, separate labour relations issues from tenancy rights and guarantee the long term rights of people living and working in commercial farming areas and ensuring their access to land. In particular, the current definition of rights of long-term occupiers under ESTA is not strong enough.

3.7.6. Amendments to legislation and implementation plans have to address the current discrimination against women that amongst other things has resulted in women often being treated as secondary occupiers without rights of their own.

3.7.7. Land on which that farms schools are built must be expropriated to secure those schools and the rights of children of communities living and working on commercial farms to education.

3.7.8. New tourism, conservation and other developments that tend to have a negative impact on the tenure rights of communities living and working on commercial farms must not be allowed to go ahead until the rights of those affected have been secured.

3.8. Restitution

3.8.1. Restitution was among the key issues the Land Summit deliberated on. Many voices were raised in favour of a re-opening of the restitution deadline to take into consideration those who were unable to lodge their claims before the cut-off date of 31 December 1998. In light of the low number of applications, problems of communications and the complexity of the legal process, the Summit recommended that the process of lodging restitution claims should be re-opened, without compromising settled claims.

3.8.2. The Constitution provides that a person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress. Some voices were raised that this should be shifted back to 1652, the time when colonial dispossession began. Others warned of the complexity of assessing the status of claims so far in the past, and the political consequences of competing and overlapping claims that may very well arise, leading to ongoing division and reigniting forgotten animosities between different groups. This debate was referred to future forums that need to have a well-informed discussion on the merits and demerits of adjusting the 1913 cut-off date for the validity of land claims.

3.8.3. The question of what constitutes ‘equitable redress’ needs to be reconsidered with a view to offering sustainable development options rather than monetary compensation.

3.8.4. The Land Summit also called for the restitution of mineral, forestry and water rights as part of the restitution of land rights.

3.9. Beneficiary Support and Sustainable Development

3.9.1. The Summit recommended a framework to support the beneficiaries of restitution, tenure reform and redistribution, which should include:

· Capacity building and training.

· Small and medium and micro-enterprise development.

· Community participation in bulk infrastructure development.

· Mechanisms to use land-related income for community development.

3.10.Land Use Priorities and Foreign Ownership

The Summit raised the issue of land use, including the proliferation of game parks and golf courses. The issue of foreign land ownership was raised sharply, with some participants calling for a moratorium on ownership of land by foreigners. There was agreement that policies were required to regulate these matters. It was noted that a report of the panel of experts appointed to investigate and make policy recommendations on the issue is due to be tabled with the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs soon.

3.11.ComMunal Land and Commonages

The Land Summit had insufficient time to properly address the problems experienced in the area of communal land ownership. Nevertheless it is intended that solutions to the unique problems of these areas require a greater effort at consultation with the affected communities on the part of government.

Addendum A

4. REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONS OF THE LAND SUMMIT

The national Land Summit divided into five commissions to consider the issues in greater detail. Here we reproduce the full reports of the commissions, as presented to the Summit plenary session.

COMMISSION 1:

LAND REDISTRIBUTION: URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Proactive role of the state

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 land owners and expropriation where needed.

State must have right of first refusal on all land sales.

Who should benefit

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 to promote urban and rural development

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

Land redistribution needs to be integrated with infrastructure development.

Role of the State

Right of first refusal, with a reasonable time frame

Land tax: support from all parties except AgriSA

Budget: substantial increase in budgets, more staff.

Actively promote sub-division 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 land and private land (including municipal land) and make this information publicly available at local level.

Moratorium on the 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)

Land Acquisition

Proactive acquisition by the state in response to identified needs, through negotiated purchase and where necessary expropriation. This is the alternative to willing-buyer, willing-seller principle, which should be scrapped.

Disagreement on expropriation from AgriSA

There was rejection of paying market prices. Two views emerged: (a) Use constitutional criteria to pay below-market ‘just and equitable’ compensation, and (b) do not pay any compensation (i.e. confiscation), which would require a constitutional amendment

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

Target unused and under-utilized 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

Local government must play an active role in land and agrarian reform. It should identify local needs; release municipal land and assist in the identification of land to meet these needs; and provide services and support to beneficiaries.

Ensure that land reform is included in every Integrated Development Plan (IDP), and define it as part of the local economic development (LED). That is, land and agrarian reform should form part of the mandate of local government.

Stop allowing commercial farmers to use commonage.

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

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

Land Use and Development

Revisit the dominant models of land use and agriculture, and support the option of small scale agriculture.

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

Moratorium on new golf courses and new game farms and other elitist developments, and privatisation 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 and state facilitation must be put in place in strategic partnerships.

COMMISSION 2:

RESTITUTION

Prices, affordability and quickening the pace

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

Review the Willing Buyer-Willing Seller principle.

Sustainable development

Post settlement support should include pre- and post-transfer measures and be backed by a business plan for each community.

Post settlement support should include:

· Provision of training, mentorship and other forms of capacity building.

· Development of SMMEs.

· Development of bulk infrastructure in which the community is involved.

· Income from land must be used for development of the community.

Communities must have ownership of land identified for nature conservation and conservation projects should be conducted in partnership with communities, who must share in the benefits.

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 well as other forms of support.

Compensation

More compensation options than the dominant cash model are necessary.

Land and housing in rural areas are still preferred to financial compensation.

Urban areas have a unique situation and (financial) compensation is sometimes more appropriate.

Communication and consultation

There should be regular communication with communities regarding outstanding claims already gazetted.

Concerns were expressed about the failure to communicate the restitution process and the requirements. This has led to missed opportunities to lodge claims, which is one reason we should consider extending the restitution process.

Comprehensive rights

Complementary rights (mineral, forestry and water rights) should be investigated: restitution should be extended to more than surface land use rights – need to involve the relevant government departments, communities and beneficiaries.

Review of cut-off dates for restitution

Relatively low numbers 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, and legal issues.

Re-opening the restitution application process (i.e extension of 1998). Reopening of deadline should not compromise existing settled claims.

Extension backwards prior to 1913 was considered but no consensus was found, especially since it raises the possibility of conflicting inter ethnic claims.

Partnerships

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

Partnership development is a process, and initial unequal relationships must be addressed by ongoing empowerment. Capacity building, financial resources, monitoring and evaluation all require strategic partnerships.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

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

Emotional and social trauma and polarisation caused by dispossession have to be addressed by a Commission similar to the TRC, to promote reconciliation and mutual understanding within South Africa society. This would assist with healing and bringing closure.

COMMISSION 3:

CREATING A THRIVING ECONOMY IN RURAL AREAS

Human and institutional capacity to support land-based agricultural activity

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

Entrench agriculture as part of curriculum in our schools.

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

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

Encourage joint ventures that are characterised 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 from their farming families.

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

PAETA to prioritise land reform beneficiaries for learnerships to build skills.

Provision of well researched information on production

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 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.

Develop appropriate market systems and support systems focussed on South Africa, SADC and Africa

Market responses need to begin to delink from dictates of countries of the north and focus on 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 agricultural products.

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

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

Broaden establishment of co-operatives and enable sustainable support to them

Sustainable government support to co-operatives 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 Agri-BEE allocation to cooperatives.

Transform the development financing systems (Land Bank and others)

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 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 encourages financing institutions to include provision of financial management training and continuing support and monitoring 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.

Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs to transform the Land Bank Boards to be inclusive of local leadership elected through public nomination

Fundamental changes to the patterns of land ownership

Government to remove the property clause in the Constitution.

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

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

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

Government to effect fundamental change in South Africa’s agricultural 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 for South Africa from experience in the rest of Africa and in Western Europe.

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

Foreign ownership of land and business

Government needs to immediately stop sale of land to foreigners

This 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.

Role of National Government

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

Investigate the establishment of agri-villages.

Investigate the impact of tourism industry on land and agrarian reform.

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

Ministry for Land and Agricultural Affairs to:

· Urgently embark on a comprehensive legislation and policy review on the various land reform and agrarian reform addressed herein

· Conduct a land audit.

· Facilitate creation of one stop services centres for land and agrarian reform services

· Minimize bureaucratic processes

· Immediately remove willing seller willing buyer principle.

· Investigate the provision of agriculture subsidies for emerging farmers as an instrument that is additional to the grants.

· Facilitate the establishment of land reform forums with key stakeholders in each municipal area.

· Ensure that they have the requisite staff capacity and resources to deal with land issues.

· Investigate reduction in registration and transfer costs.

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

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

National Treasury to substantially increase allocation for land and agriculture.

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

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to:

· participate in the land reform process through instituting appropriate access to water rights for irrigation schemes;

· expand building of dams and sustainable maintenance thereof;

· Enable general access to water by rural communities.

Department of Social Development’s instruments to become part of land reform delivery

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

Role of Provincial Governments

Review work ethic of agricultural extension workers, they need to be visible.

Review the framework for engagement of agricultural extension officers. They should either be transferred/seconded to municipalities or they should work as entrepreneurs through an agency agreement

Procurement arrangements to provide opportunities to emerging farmers.

Role of Local Governments

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 IDP targets.

Local government to attract other industries into local areas to complement agriculture based enterprises.

Local government to establish land and agrarian reform units in each municipality.

Role of Transport Sector

Review various transport-related costs to minimise cost impact to emerging farmers

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

COMMISSION 4:

SECURITY OF TENURE ON COMMERICAL FARMS AND IN COMMUNAL AREAS

Terminology

The commission was not happy with the terms ‘farm dwellers’ and ‘farm occupiers’. An alternative term was not finalised, although one suggestion was something along the lines of ‘indigenous people’ or ‘Abantu benolabuko’ However, in the report the commission has continued to use the term ‘farm dweller’.

The Department of Land Affairs now uses the term “people/communities living and working on commercial farms”.

Urgent Actions

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’s rights on farms

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

Enforcing the laws

DLA, the Department of Labour, 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 all 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.

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

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

Transformation and monitoring of the South African Police Services 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).

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

Amending the laws

Government must amend and amalgamate ESTA/LTA by the end of this financial year, with the full involvement of all stakeholders. (Agri-SA supports the 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 (i.e. they 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.

(Agri-SA cannot support the proposed amendments without careful consideration; it could never agree to the separation of tenure rights from labour arrangements. It will make inputs on an Amendment Bill)

Land

Government must pro-actively 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. (Agri-SA is 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 of the property clause; a one person-one farm rule; limitations on farm size; the subdivision of large farms; the end of the 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.)

Development

Land on which farm schools are built 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 dweller settlements as part of Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and ensure service provision as part of municipalities’ responsibility for the defense of farm dwellers rights and support for the development of long term solutions.

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

Empowerment

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 them of their rights and help them defend those rights.

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

Accountability

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 cannot agree to expropriation as a penalty.)

Communal land

Insufficient time to discuss communal land (former Bantustans, former ‘coloured’ reserves) or urban land tenure (informal settlements etc).

Strong feeling that DLA must further consult with the affected communities

One recommendation was that these consultations take place within the communications strategy planned by the Department .

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

Communal land – some problems

Currently 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 Lebowa government, and in the homeland government (Cabinet Ministers).

Some communities have requested Legal Resources Centre (LRC) to challenge the CLRA in the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it undermines rather than secure their rights.

The success of any land and agrarian reform 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 the country pauses to reflect on the successes and challenges of the last ten years and to chart the way forward in our restitution and redistribution effort, it is of paramount importance that we reflect on this important aspect.

In doing the above, we should seek to enhance our 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 patters, need for sustainable farm settlements, minimizing land invasions, rationalising relevant legislation, creating institutional capacity and sound resource mobilisation and management.

COMMISSION 5

LAND USE MANAGEMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING

ISSUE	DISCUSSION	ACTION PLAN/ RECOMMENDATION
Rural/urban migration Change of land use Farm settlement Institutional arrangements Land invasions Legislation Resource management	Disjointed rural/urban planning Resource allocation currently biased towards urban areas Land identification and acquisition Too many laws and institutions (DFA, NEMA, 70 of 1970 etc.) Game parks and golf estates springing 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 (CPAs) not sufficiently equipped to deal with land use and and planning issues Sub-division 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 Disjointed planning, service delivery and support systems Limited agricultural and management skills within beneficiary communities Lengthy land delivery systems Hardships experienced e.g. evictions, refusal of access to roads and thorough fare services There is a gap between business 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 Commercial farmers encroaching on land of beneficiaries (land grab) Landless people illegally occupying the land of beneficiaries Land owners are practicing “shack farming” for monetary benefit Multiplicity of laws and related institutions which do not always aid/ assist effective land delivery and development (DFA, NEMA, ESTA, CLARA, Act 70 of 1970 etc.) Water rights have not been sufficiently aligned with the land delivery programmes Limited awareness of the provisions of legislation in some communities 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 sufficiently dealt with in the land delivery process Women, youth and people with disabilities are left out of the resource allocation and management equation Privatization of natural resources creates hardships for farm worker communities	Need for a national Settlement Strategy (Presidency) Encourage rural-urban planning continuum Reverse colonial/ apartheid planning Rationalise relevant laws and enhance institutional coordination (National Government) Moratorium on foreign land ownership (Land Affairs) Introduce incremental land tax system (Treasury and DPLG) 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/ bureaucratic 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 this (Land Affairs) Enforcement of integrated development 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 pans (DPLG) Conduct needs analysis and design and implement targeted training and mentorship programmes for new emerging farmers (National and Provincial Agriculture and Land Affairs) Project cycle to be shortened (Department of Land Affairs) Place moratorium on evictions Review ESTA urgently (Department of Land Affairs) Community participation requirements must be complied with in line with the 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 - Must assume greater social responsibility (financial institutions) Land boundaries must be clearly indicated by beacons Accelerate land reform Government to investigate the causes of land invasions and address them 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 of Water Affairs and Forestry, Agriculture and Land Affairs) Implement awareness programmes among communities and interest groups (all spheres of government) 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 to urgently address water and land issues simultaneously to ensure a full agrarian reform (Departments of Water Affairs and Forestry, Agriculture and Land Affairs) Target these groups for effective resource allocation and management programmes (Departments of Water Affairs, Labour, DEAT and Agric) Integrate workers interests in the final privatization processes e.g. forestry

5 KEY SPEECHES

5.1 Welcome by the Premier of Gauteng, Mr Mbazima Shilowa

The Premier of Gauteng, Mr Mbazima Shilowa, expressed the dire need for land not only for agricultural purposes but also for development of housing and related infrastructure such as roads. He drew the Summit’s attention to apartheid settlement patterns in which the rich live near their places of work and the poor live far away from their places of work.

His submission was that settlement planning should target strategically located areas to ensure that the poor are also housed in areas of close proximity to their place of work. While this would be seen as mitigating factors of poverty by minimising the cost of transport, the social implication of this intervention was highlighted in that families spending more time together would be more stable than those spending more time commuting to work. Worse still have always been those families whose members have to migrate way from their homes to be closer to work.

The Premier challenged the Summit to address the transformation of land and agriculture whilst placing a particular interest on land for housing and economic development. In the light of high land prices, he appealed that the discussions should also be focussed on how to make land accessible and affordable.

5.2 President Thabo Mbeki

Intervening just after the paper presented by Professor Sam Moyo from Zimbabwe, president Thabo Mbeki said:

“There was something that Sam Moyo didn’t mention. Around 1990 the 10 year period imposed by the Lancaster House Constitution(agreed to at Lancaster House in London on the occasion of granting independence to Zimbabwe, then called Rhodesia) on the land question was coming to an end.

In 1990 the formal negotiations were begun with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

The Deputy Secretary General of the Commonwealth told the speaker that he went to Harare and spoke to the government of Zimbabwe at the end of this 10 year and said although this allows you to take a different route with the issue of land reform you have to delay it because if you move quickly with the land redistribution (in Zimbabwe) you are going to frighten the apartheid regime in South Africa. So wait to give the ANC and the other people a chance to negotiate this settlement not with people who are frightened that when liberation in South Africa comes their land will be gone in the way it was in 1990 in Zimbabwe. Therefore there was a delay and Zimbabwe slowed down any process of land redistribution to give a chance for the negotiation process in this country to succeed. I think the importance of the presentations of Sam Moyo and Mr Euginia Peixoto, (permanent secretary for land and agrarian reforn in Brazil) that I heard, puts this very important question of land and agrarian reform in the context of a continuing struggle. It is not something that stands out on its own. There is a context. If you look at the situation in Brazil there is a coalition in the parliament of Brazil. Therefore, the PT, ruling Workers Party, cannot impose a radical reform process in a democratic context through the law they cannot do it. They don’t have the political possibility to do it. Sam Moyo was talking about the evolution of the situation in Zimbabwe, why was there a structural adjustment programme. There is a presentation that’s been made of the Zimbabwean Liberation Movement in that first decade which is actually wrong-that the problem in Zimbabwe was a problem of corruption. That was wrong. In Zimbabwe with the victory of the liberation struggle, quite correctly the Liberation Movement in Zimbabwe said we have fought for the better life, we have to move on the land question and they moved away said Sam. But the people also need education, they need access to health, they need agricultural development, they need clean water etcetera. To respond to the demand to meet the needs of the people, the Zimbabwean government spent more than it had.

By 1983/84 Zimbabwe was already beginning to accumulate an external debt - the money was for building clinics, schools, training people etcetera – that’s when the structural adjustment took place. As the comrade from Brazil said if you go to a donor to help you they will impose conditions.

Even here when we say we must address this matter of land in South Africa-and we have to-in a serious way, in a way that is faster than what has happened up till now, in the context of the totality of the things that we have got to do.

One of the things we have got to say as we move faster as we have to move, one of the things that we should never lose sight of is that at the end of the day the ordinary working people of this country must be in a better position.

This is a critical part of this. As well as taking this thing in the context of a continuing struggle, It is not just a struggle about land, it is a struggle about jobs at the same time, it is a struggle about all manner of things. It is a struggle about the deracialization of society, it’s a struggle about creating a non-sexist society and all of these things come together and hang together. And this issue- the land issue – is one of them.

So as we strategize let us address the land question with the urgency it needs, but in the end the product must be that we say the masses of our people are better as a consequence of this and not worse. Good luck to the Land Summit and thank you very much.”

5.3 Keynote Address by the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Ms Thoko Didiza

“Can the rich afford to help the poor? Jeffrey Sachs in his book ‘The End of Poverty’ asks this very pertinent question. In attempting to answer, he says “It may seem highly imprudent to ask the rich to take responsibility for helping the poorest of the poor to escape form the poverty trap. Not only is it thankless and endless, it may also break the bank- or so the thinking goes. After all, haven’t the rich world’s own welfare programs proven to be too much to handle? Aren’t the rich in enough of fiscal mess with the problems that they have already taken on? How can the rich world possibly take responsibility for billions of people outside of their borders in countries with rapidly growing populations? These are reasonable answers. The more one looks at it, the more one sees that the question isn’t whether the rich can afford to help the poor, but whether they can afford not”

Reflecting deeper on this question and answer by Jeffrey Sachs, we may have to reflect whether this is not the question we need to be asking ourselves in relation to land reform in South Africa today. 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 are 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.

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

The Land Summit takes place under the backdrop 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:

v “ South Africa Belongs to all who Live in it, Black or White,

v The People shall Share in the Country’s Wealth,

v The Land shall be Shared Among those who Work it.”

The vision of the Freedom Charter was a direct opposite of and an attack on the apartheid vision that had its roots in the Natives’ Land Act of 1913.

The immediate and devastating impact of the Natives’ Land Act in 1913 that is still evident in almost all aspects of our lives today was graphically described in the following words by Mr Sol Plaatjies, the first Secretary General of the African National Congress, in his book “Native Life in South Africa”:

“Awaking on 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 of 1996 imposed the duty and 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 tenure.

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, after ten years of courageous and concerted efforts to restore the dignity and respect of the poor, the disposed and landless communities, the overall assessment of government performance and its social partners is that commendable progress has been made in 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 re organization of the state, the integration of various administrations, the drafting of promulgation of new legal statutes and the setting up of institutions to support land and agrarian reform.

Clearly in examining our progress we need to also acknowledge that there was no standard from which we had to measure ourselves, safe to say our own targets as set in the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). I raise this matter because any international comparison would indicate that each peculiar circumstance must be taken into consideration.

Looking at this reality, how far have we gone as country in the past ten years? Since 1994, over 1.2 million people have benefited from the entire land reform programme of government. We have delivered more than 3 million hectares of land. Our government’s 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 withdraw 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 commercial farm land and transform the agrarian economy and to contribute to higher growth, employment creation and greater social and economic equity.

Ladies and gentlemen, in assessing our experience we have gained confidence from the progress that has been made and have become more hopeful about our future. Furthermore, invaluable lessons that we have learnt from our experiences now stands us in good stead with in the redesigned and implementation of land and agrarian reform programmes.

From our experience, we have 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 improve relations;

· Integrated government programs 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 failure of land markets;

· Restrictions 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 rights of people living and working on commercial farms;

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

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

Ladies and gentlemen, the following measures need to be undertaken to ensure that land and agrarian reform moves to the new trajectory and 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;
• Establish a register of land needs for target groups (including labour tenants, people living and working on commercial farms, landless);
• Identify specific comprehensive support package for the new owners (including agriculture: financing, infrastructure, marketing, training and education, technology, 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 occupations;
• Introduce measures to enhance the security of tenure of people living and working on commercial farms and other vulnerable groups;
• Complete restitution claims by 2008;
• Implement the Communal Land Rights Act fully;
• Integrate land and agrarian reform into local economic development;
• Link rural and urban areas through peri-urban, small- and medium holdings;
• Acquire land for towns that need land for expansion;
• Complete the repeal of the Prohibition of Sub-division of Agricultural Land Act and sub-divide farms where necessary;
• Implement a progressive land tax as a means to promote more intensive use of land, reduce farm sizes, and reduce speculative value of land;
• Regulate the ownership of land by foreigners;
• Strengthen the cooperation between the three spheres of government; and
• Formulate a post-Summit implementation strategy in the next three years as per the President’s extension on the settlement of outstanding restitution claims, especially rural claims.

5.4 Opening Address by the Honourable Deputy President, Ms Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka

The Deputy President explained that the mandate of the Land Summit was to make sure that land and agrarian reform is taken a step further and that full advantage is taken of the help of government and stakeholders and that implementation of land and agrarian reform is in the best interest of the country.

The Freedom Charter should guide land and agrarian reform as it states that the land shall be shared by all people and those who work it. Section 25 of the Constitution that deals with property rights, the Reconstruction and Development Programme(RDP) and the White Paper on Land Policy, 1995 should also show the way.

She stated that government would like to ensure that employment and equity are increased, and that growth and redistribution can be addressed.

The objective of the Land Summit was to inform the South African public of the progress made in land reform and to acknowledge challenges faced in this process.

She added that government wanted to look at blockages in implementing land and agrarian reform, affirm its commitment to the process and invite people to actively participate in reform. Government will examine the land market and how it functions and wishes to ensure shared growth in order to deliver more effectively with shared partnerships by concerned stakeholders.

Ms Mlambo-Ngcuka said that the country must address the issue of the second economy and emphasized that this would be done together with restructuring and driving transformation in the first economy. Progress in the second economy would not happen if the first economy stayed where it was. One of the goals for 2014 was to halve unemployment and reduction of poverty will be one of the outcomes of land and agrarian reform.

She went on to say that in the second decade of democracy, the government will fast track the issue of land and agrarian reform. Government will ensure that the historic distortion arising from the Native Land Act, 1913, continued to be addressed decisively.

She celebrated the absence of violence and destruction in transformation since 1993, and applauded the negotiations that have led to a democratic government.

The redistribution of more than 3 million hectares has changed the lives of many people. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and the Land Claims Court will ensure that all the restitution claims will be settled within the next three years.

She also said that the pace of restitution had been negatively affected by the “Willing Buyer/Willing Seller” principle and this should be revisited. Markets cannot be the leaders in this process because markets cannot address the plight of the poor. That is why Section 25 of the Constitution is used to address some of these problems, i.e. inflated prices and unsavoury practices.

She affirmed that the state and the market has impacted significantly on the pace, quality and quantity of the steps that have been taken in land reform. She would like to disaggregate the bottlenecks as perceived by every sector involved.

She is concerned about the issue of land pricing as it affects the end result of land ownership patterns in South Africa.

She mentioned that she was aware of problems in the agricultural sector and these should be solved, because although there was commitment, a huge stride was still required. She discussed the security of tenure of communities living and working on commercial farms and what could be done about this.

The Deputy President also mentioned the fact that urban migration was increasing pressure on urban and peri-urban land and the need for housing as well as social development. Government has to ensure simultaneously that available land is not used for the wrong purposes.

The partnerships formed at the Land Summit is a new trajectory towards 2014 that is supported by Government, by colleagues in provinces and at local government level and that challenges will be met. Ms Mlambo-Ngcuka also stated that whatever is achieved in land ownership and in terms of foreign ownership must be handled in such a manner that it benefits South Africa.

The Deputy President also pointed out that the Minister raised the issue of the state as being the only buyer and therefore a most significant player in this market. Government wanted to use this market power to influence the price and also to ensure that sellers work with government instead of trying to exploit them.

6 STAKEHOLDER INPUTS

6.1 Provincial Addresses

The provincial Members of Executive Councils (MECs) presented reports from the provincial Land Summits, most of which had common themes and recommendations including the need to review:

The ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle and the market-based approach.

The cut-off dates for restitution.

The ownership of land by foreigners.

They also raised these matters of concern:

Poor communication with stakeholders.

Lack of information on implementation processes and on progress of restitution claims was seen as a source of frustration to beneficiaries and restitution claimants. All points reported from the provincial summits have also been captured in the commission reports.

6.2 Political Parties

All political parties represented in Parliament made statements or presentations on land and agrarian reform at the national Land Summit. The following are the salient points of the different speeches delivered by their representatives:

6.2.1 African Christian Democrat Party (ACDP)

The ACPD congratulated the Minister for the work done in her Department but noted that delivery should happen faster. A disturbing fact was that the government has not yet succeeded in its goal of redistributing 30% of the agricultural land.

The party was not against the principle of ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ because this notion dovetails with the principles of a free market economy.

The ACDP spokesperson raised concerns over the fact that the Summit did not see a link between land reform and the impact of HIV/AIDS pandemic. The party would like to see land reform making provision for the health policies and interventions that are linked with agriculture, redistribution and restitution policies. The ACDP wishes to see the issue of the deadline for land claims being revisited. The party called upon the government to review the South African land policy in its current form.

Government was encouraged to discern between the need people have for a home from the need to farm. Emerging farmers need technical assistance and access to markets. The ACDP believes that the cooperation of farmers is important.

6.2.2 African National Congress (ANC)

The ANC respects the Constitution as the supreme law of the country. It recognizes the injustices and the wrongs suffered by the vast majority in the past; therefore it has committed itself to dealing with land and agrarian reform. The party believes that the country must deal with the issue of land hunger and homelessness. Of particular importance was the quest for a better life for all South Africans.

The ANC spokesperson stated that one cannot continue to use the Natives Land Act of 1913 as a departure point for land reform any longer: atrocities were committed before 1913. At their recent National General Council conference, a delegate - who is a farm worker - told the conference about the appalling living conditions of people living on farms and urged the party to ensure that all existing rights are communicated to the people in their indigenous languages and not only in English as is currently the case.

The ANC said that, in order to expedite delivery, the principle of ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ needs urgent review. On the issue of high prices being demanded for farm land, it was felt that the state must set the price without deviating from the Constitution. The spokesperson pointed out that infrastructural development and an integrated approach to planning is a prerequisite to a successful land reform programme. The ANC said that land and agrarian reform was a challenge which requires all the stakeholders to work together and to always be mindful of the need to favour those who have no property. In conclusion, the party said that it believed the challenges concerning land are urgent, noting that - in years to come, people would think back to the Summit and ask it was an opportunity lost or gained, and advocated that we must be practical and face challenges immediately.

6.2.3 Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO)

AZAPO traced the problems faced in the land and agrarian sector back to the talks at Kempton Park (CODESA) in 1992. The Summit was an opportune moment to rectify the wrongs arising from the agreements made at that juncture. The spokesperson noted that the freedom objectives of the liberation struggle were inseparably linked to winning back the land for the African majority - who were dispossessed of their land during colonisation and apartheid.

AZAPO was of the view that after ten years of democracy the land was still owned by a white minority who to this day continue to feed the nation and could potentially cut off the supply of food - for political expediency or any other reason. They felt that the land reform programme, as currently implemented by the government, is failing dismally. AZAPO stated that, in cases where white landowners are not willing to sell or demand exorbitant prices for their land, the solution is to expropriate. Moreover, such land was typically acquired illegally in the first place. The AZAPO spokesperson noted that about 55 000 white farmers own all farm land and Africans were confined to the former homelands or reserves. An audit of farmland owned by individual white farmers was advocated. The appalling conditions of people living on farms was noted as being of great concern to the party.

The government was urged to fast-track the empowerment of black people through targeted black economic empowerment programmes. AZAPO also called on the government to introduce wide-scale training and redesign the school curriculum to include agriculture skills. In conclusion, AZAPO articulated its view that the state should own of all land in South Africa.

6.2.4 Democratic Alliance (DA)

The DA stated that it supports the notion of undertaking land reform and restitution. They expressed their dissatisfaction about the method and the outcome of the current approach, and noted that there was “a lot of red tape”. The DA spokesperson said the party held the view that land and agrarian reform required a well planned, efficiently managed, timeous, adequately funded plan - which should be implemented with minimal disruption to food security. Indeed, productivity must be sustained – its must not be abandoned by the state. According to the DA, the cost of land reform should be borne by the people and the government - and not only by the present land owners. Fair market value should be the foundation on the basis of the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ approach; the DA spokesperson said that this approach was vital and must not be tampered with.

Greater emphasis should be placed on the communal land, especially in the Eastern Cape and other such provinces, where the underutilized potential of certain land could be harnessed to alleviate poverty and unemployment. Moreover, a comprehensive rural development strategy was a prerequisite for successful land reform. The DA was of the opinion that both restitution and redistribution projects have been plagued by failure to maintain the productive capacity of the transferred properties. This situation requires urgent intervention, it said. According to the DA, 36% of high potential soil of South Africa is situated in the communal areas – particularly along the eastern sea board - and technology was available to bring development to those areas.

Beneficiaries, said the spokesperson, must be supported through training programmes; business plans should determine the human carrying capacity of transferred land. A distinction should also be made between those who are employed in a project and those who are shareholders - adequate budgetary support was essential in this regard.

6.2.5 Freedom Front Plus (FF+)

The FF+ regards South Africa as their “fatherland”. The party, said their spokesperson, believes that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. It is concerned that the focus is mainly on land owned by white farmers, whereas, if the Summit wanted to find solutions, there would have to be a radical shift in the mindset. The FF+ believes that everybody who has the desire and ability to produce for the market - and is able to compete on a global basis - should be given an opportunity to do so. The party does not a favour a situation where a competent white farmer is replaced by a new emerging black farmer without the expertise to compete on a global scale.

The FF+ called on the Land Summit not to endorse scrapping of the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle.

6.2.6 Independent Democrats (ID)

The ID was of the view that the Land Summit was long overdue and hoped that workable solutions would be found. By addressing the land issue, a stable and prosperous nation was being created. The party felt that farming was a very risky profession and that South Africa has moved from a highly protected and subsidized agricultural sector to an under-protected sector, and that this process has caused job losses and increased the high unemployment rate.

The ID spokesperson said that the party believes that priority must be given to agriculture, land reform and an “injection of financial and technical resources”. They were pleased that in this year’s budget restitution had been given priority and that more claims will be settled. However, the party was concerned that many communities had been excluded as they were unaware of the cut-off date.

The ID believes that the current approach adopted by the state will make it difficult to reach the 30% target by 2014 and that far more resources would be needed. A proactive approach is necessary; market supply must not drive the process. Rather, a systematic assessment of all land needs in a particular area must prompt redistribution.

The party was concerned that the budget allocated for the implementation of the Communal Land Rights Act in 2005 is only R12 million and urged that more money be set aside. The continued eviction of people living and working on commercial farms, particularly in the Western Cape was a major cause for concern. ESTA is not protecting people living and working on commercial farms and new legislation is required to protect people living and working on commercial farms and to make legal representation accessible.

Beneficiaries must be given post-settlement support following land transfer; assisted with implements, seed, tractors and dams is necessary. Farmers should also be given training.

6.2.7 Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP)

The IFP moves from the premise that there are three types of ownership namely public, private and communal. Their main focus is on communal ownership: the party’s position is that communal land ownership must take precedence over both public and private land ownership. Traditional communities constitute the majority of the South African population and they should have full ownership rights to the land that they presently occupy.

The IFP also believes that traditional leaders must hold the land in trust for their subjects. The party believes that the land must be shared since this promotes the culture of Ubuntu and a deep-seated sense of social solidarity. The IFP spokesperson argued that the function of communal property has not been sufficiently explored and that further research must be undertaken. The failure to recognize communal ownership, it said, is the heaviest legacy of colonialism and racial oppression to this day.

In KwaZulu-Natal, the IFP established and adopted the Ingonyama Trust to hold land on behalf of communities. This has placed KwaZulu-Natal several years ahead of the rest of the country and the party hoped that the central government would not impede this process. The IFP stated that it is concerned about proposals to transform communal ownership into alienable freehold, and concluded by urging the Summit to ensure the preservation of communal land ownership in the country.

6.2.8 New National Party (NNP)

The NNP believes that it is important to reach a national consensus on the land issue in the country. Land reform in itself is a big challenge, however, it should be addressed. The party was fully supportive of the ANC-led government‘s land reform programme. But the NNP spokesperson said that the pace of land reform was too slow and urged that it should be done at the fastest possible pace. Land ownership patterns must be changed in order to alleviate socio-political problems, and innovative support programmes need to be developed simultaneously.

The NNP emphasized that land and agrarian reform must lead to economic transformation of the previously disenfranchised and that commercially viable operations must be maintained. New farmers must also receive training and assistance so that they can develop viable farms and accelerate access to new markets - both locally and internationally.

The NNP spokesperson noted with concern the exorbitant price of land in some areas and urged that this matter must be addressed - because land reform was not negotiable. The NNP stated that it was in everyone’s interest that the target of redistributing 30% of agricultural land to blacks by 2014 was achieved.

6.2.9 Pan Africanist Congress (PAC)

The PAC said the Land Summit was focussing on the most important question in South Africa; land reform is a matter of national concern that requires workable and permanent solutions.

The PAC’s historical position has always been that the starting point and the outcome of the liberation struggle was centred around land. A call was made to the national Land Summit to make sound choices no matter how difficult they are. The PAC called for a review of the property clause in the Constitution because of the impact it has on the pace of delivery. The PAC also emphasised that, after acquiring the land, emerging black farmers need to be trained. Funds must be made available for this purpose. The Spokesperson concluded by making reference to the events taking place in Zimbabwe and urged the Summit to avoid this “ticking time bomb” by finding a lasting solution to the land question.

6.2.10 South African Communist Party (SACP)

The SACP stated that the Land Summit is a culmination of their Red October campaign launched in 2004 - in collaboration with other social movements, and as such appreciates the government’s effort in addressing the problem. The SACP spokesperson noted the important and progressive steps taken in terms of land reform since 1994, but expressed a serious concern regarding the slow pace of land reform to date. Having criticized government, the party also acknowledged that all players have a role to play and the problems experienced in land reform should not just be seen as government’s responsibility: broad participation in the Summit by all players is therefore crucial. The hope was expressed that the Summit would lay a basis for agreement and decisive action.

The main issues raised by the SACP were:

The ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ approach must be central to discussions as it is clear that the market-based approach to land reform is “not working” and is in stark contrast to the historical ‘land grabbing’ processes of 1913 and 1936. Issues of price should be addressed.

There are Inadequate linkages between land reform, agricultural development and transformation of apartheid-based settlement patterns. Viable local farming communities must be created with effective post-settlement support - including the supply of appropriate credit facilities - for agricultural development and land for human settlement, in addition to the building of a progressive agricultural cooperative movement.

People living and working on commercial farms are still working in poor conditions and earning low wages, receiving inhuman and exploitive treatment at the hands of many farmers. Accelerated land reform would assist in creating work, building sustainable livelihoods and fighting poverty.

Revitalizing the rural economy and rural areas would address the perception that black people do not want to farm - whereas people are actually leaving rural areas simply because there are no opportunities there.

The expropriation of land must be instituted; this will, for example, create viable pockets of land where there are presently unwilling sellers who could be targeted for expropriation.

The tax regime must be reviewed: the current one favours a system of large farms. This discourages small farming and encourages large, unused land holding. There should be an audit of planned ownership and usage of land.

An integrated approach to land reform is vital at all levels of government – although land reform is driven nationally, implementation is locally.

6.3 Research and Academic Institutions

6.3.1 Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) – University of the Western Cape

PLAAS presented several key challenges concerning land reform which involve:

The adoption by South Africa of a policy of market-assisted land reform that entails –

Redistribution via state grants,

Market transactions mediated by the state and,

Selective use of expropriation.

In restitution, rather than ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ approach, the state negotiates sales with land owners

In the area of tenure reform limited substantive rights that are enjoyed by farm dwellers and the issue of land titling in communal areas.

The presentation focused on why South Africa had adopted the model advocated by the World Bank and the achievements thus far. With regards to restitution, there was a concern that some three-quarters of claims have now been settled - but largely by cash compensation. Only about 6% have involved the transfer of land; this has therefore not fundamentally reversed the massive land dispossession of the past. Most of the outstanding claims are large rural claims which pose a new challenge. PLAAS’ spokesperson alluded to the fact that negotiations for the purchase of land were being stalled by uncooperative land owners and that decisive steps need to be taken by the state to address this matter. The challenge was to now transfer high quality land in a way that would genuinely empower claimants.

PLAAS felt that in terms of redistribution there was increased delivery in 2002 and thereafter a decline and has not yet recovered. It was felt that the commonage and settlement programmes have been compromised since the launch of the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD). A proactive strategy has to be adopted and provision sufficient funds to meet the demands of the poor and destitute and those who face evictions.

The question of farm dwellers posed a very serious threat to land reform as farm dwellers’ living conditions have deteriorated so badly since 1994 with hundreds of thousands having been evicted during this period. Legislation such as ESTA has not prevented farm dwellers from being evicted. The budget allocated for CLRA was also a cause for major concern.

In conclusion PLAAS posed four key challenges to be considered:

The development of a shared strategic vision for transformation and institutions and the provision of resources for fundamental agrarian reform,

Engaging systematically with property owners in order to secure sufficient land for redistribution,

The need for the state to engage systematically with the landless in order to define the quality and quantity of land demand and ,

The provision of a supportive environment for a new class of small farmers.

6.3.2 University of Fort Hare

A paper was presented in which the University’s representative shared the experiences of other countries and made a few observations. It was noted that the economies of Africa and those of Latin America and Asia are dependent on the production of primary commodities, mainly agricultural and mineral products which are exported to the advanced capitalist countries of the world. These are exported mostly in an unprocessed form and are subject to market prices.

The paper observed that agricultural production in Africa is the most important economic activity and therefore land remains central to the means of production. Over the years, this has seriously been impacted upon by the legacy of colonialism.

The spokesperson described the instructive experience of countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, Bolivia, Asia, Bangladesh, Kenya and the Philippines where uprisings led to military rule and the curbing of land reform.

6.3.3 University of Venda

A study conducted by the institution noted a widening gap in understanding between government and the Landless People’s Movement on both policy and strategy. The Freedom Charter, the RDP, the Constitution and GEAR seem to be understood quite differently by those affected. Therefore, the ideological and strategic reasons for the paradigm shift from the RDP to GEAR need to be clearly communicated in the various indigenous languages.

The paper noted that since 1994, land reform has been subject to various constraints which accounted for the slow pace of delivery and now necessitate a comprehensive information and communication strategy.

A strategy for developing a common understanding on worldwide policy is urgently needed: yet, the study noted, there is enough goodwill and reasonableness for the achievement of this common understanding in the next decade.

6.4 Commercial Agriculture

6.4.1 AgriI-SA

Agri-SA emphasizes that land reform should take place within a statutory framework which balances needs, rights and obligations - all within the rule of law.

The organization supports market-based land reform and proposes that reform is best determined by the ‘willing buyer’ willing seller’ concept. The commercial land market in South Africa is quite active and innovative models should be found to deal with problems of insufficient equity. State-assisted land reform presents a major intervention in the ownership patters of productive resources and causes uncertainty with negative economic and market consequences. It is therefore important to commit to information sharing, discipline around cut-off dates for restitution, sound supportive administrative processes and adequate funding.

Agri-SA submits that government decides the targets of land reform, any commitment should be underpinned by adequate financial support to facilitate market transactions – the cost should not be borne only by present land owners. Commercial farmers do not have excessive resources at their disposal, therefore they have limited scope to share their resources and still remain viable. The organization questions the sustainability of small scale farming given that globally markets are becoming increasingly free and competition stronger, therefore farm sizes are typically increasing to achieve economies of scale.

The local commercial sector enjoys only limited government support and faces a heavy economic burden. Imposing a land tax would therefore be counterproductive, serving to neutralize potential benefits of government promoting conditions for investment and growth.

It is felt that the biggest implementation problem is the problematic nature of delivery systems - rather than deficient current policies. Cumbersome administrative processes, lack of institutional coordination, lack of capacity and funding, skills gaps and limited market-access are problems which need to be addressed. Moreover, government must provide adequate post-settlement support.

Agri-SA noted that expropriation will not necessarily achieve objectives of land reform. Sound fundamental administrative processes and fair compensation is essential. The Summit should address the needs of all, including present land owners, people living and working on commercial farms, consumers, investors and financiers.

6.4.2 National African Farmers Union (NAFU)

NAFU feels that there is a need to remain focused on maintaining the status of land issues as the fundamental block of sustainable food production, not a production commodity. The fertility of agricultural land is being depleted at an alarming rate and farmers have to “foot the bill”. Moreover, black farmers are not even in a position to participate in the rush for agricultural profits. Members of NAFU have very little land and face almost insurmountable obstacles in acquiring land; they are often far outside the agricultural value chain which makes competitive production impossible. NAFU states that the survival of the small farmer – black or white – seems to have become irrelevant to profit seekers.

It was further stated that the fact that land is overpriced and expensive can be attributed to various factors, including the fact that sellers inflate the value by incorporating the perceived value of improvements and the role of foreign buyers. NAFU is convinced that the ‘willing seller-willing buyer’ approach will not work, not least because the previous government’s subsidies built a strong agricultural infra-structure which now amounts to individual assets that have to be ‘bought back’. All legislative mechanisms governing land and agrarian reform should therefore be reviewed and an extension for claims submission is requested (provided that a diligent and professional review is done of the process followed).

NAFU states that the problems we face must not only be dealt with at national-level – but also at the level of municipal administrations because they are closest to the people; moreover, all role players must be involved, corporations, financial institutions etc.

6.4.3 Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU-SA)

TAU-SA indicated its commitment to focus on economic rather than ideological issues. Land reform should not be implemented in an unscientific and irrational way without considering sound economic principles. TAU expresses alarm about incorrect processes: for example, some new owners have not received their title deeds and their authority is therefore immediately challenged. Due to a lack of good extension services, there is structural poverty. In terms of the restitution programme, 15 000 present-day commercial farmers stand to lose their farms; if this happens expertise will be lost, there will be a loss of job opportunities, and white farmers will be blamed.

The organization emphasizes that agriculture is dominated by climate and geography and is not a process that you can simply manipulate. Sustainable commercial agriculture is the essence of food security. Entrepreneurs with know-how, high-technology, and information-driven agricultural practices will be the farmers of the future and they will drive economic growth. Free economic and market forces must determine development of black economic empowerment (BEE) in the agricultural sector. Land reform and a BEE framework for agriculture could jeopardize property rights, production and competitiveness of commercial agriculture.

TAU feels that anti-white racism should be addressed. Expropriation seems to be government’s only alternative plan for land reform and would not necessarily work. There is a large amount of land available on the open market and new owners should conform to economic discipline to ensure sustainable production. Commercial black farmers should not be marginalized; rather they need better extension services, efficient legal processes (vis-à-vis title deeds) and finance.

6.5 civil society organisations and Social Movements

1.5.1 Association for Northern Cape Rural Association (ANCRA)

ANCRA states that land is an important natural resource for sustainable livelihoods. Land reform policy is essential to remedy the injustices of the past and the Department of Land Affairs has a mandate to promote sustainable growth and local development by providing previously disadvantaged people access to land, security of tenure and restoring their disinherited land rights.

ANCRA calls for a review of all legislation regarding land reform - inclusive of public participation. The ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ approach must be scrapped along with market approach: no suitable land is available. ANCRA calls for a moratorium on land sales to foreigners. They also call for a land audit, and various other actions including moratorium on all evictions, amendment of ESTA. The Department of Minerals and Energy should involve communities before issuing permits and mining licenses.

1.5.2 Border Rural Committee (BRC)

For BRC, the main issue is the aspect of betterment which affects the former ‘homelands areas’ particularly in the Eastern Cape. The 1997 land policy did not adequately address the redress of the rights of those affected by betterment claims; there needs to be re-opening of the lodging of claims in this regard.

6.5.3 Land Access Movement South Africa (LAMOSA)

The LAMOSA presentation focused on restitution. The Makuleke settlement in Kruger Park is cited as a precedent for a win-win situation: communities must indeed receive high value land. Additional land must be awarded to accommodate larger communities, because overcrowding causes power struggles and conflict. The cut-off date should be extended and there should be no cash compensation. Market-based land reform does not work, land reform must be demand- and production-led. The ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle should be scrapped. Section 25 of the Constitution should be suspended until land is equally distributed. Clear procedures and criteria should be put in place to govern expropriation processes – this issue should not be politically loaded.

6.5.4 Landless Peoples Movement (LPM)

LPM indicates that the Land Summit has been called for, for a long time. LPM feels that the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle is a major obstacle to successful land reform and so-called ‘illegal’ occupations is a manifestation of the failure of land reform thus far. The slow pace of land reform is criticized. Moreover, people on farms constantly have their basic human rights violated through abuse and evictions.

The LPM demands another People’s Land Summit in 12 months and the participation of all landless in the implementation of the programmes affecting them. There should be a land audit and a moratorium on evictions. The principle of ‘one household, one farm’ should apply. The restitution claims process should be reopened. The state must have first option to buy land on the market. Post settlement support is required. There must be a moratorium on sale of land to foreigners. Security of tenure issues and tenure legislation must be addressed.

6.5.5 National Land Committee (NLC)

The NLC, and a new alliance called the Alliance of Land and Agrarian Reform Movement (ALARM), expressed disappointment at the rate of land reform delivery and submitted that the pace needs to be expedited. In particular, the needs of vulnerable groups - like people living and working on commercial farms and those in communal areas - must be addressed. Foreigners should be barred from buying agricultural land and turning it into game parks and golf courses: there should be a moratorium on the sale of land for these purposes.

The NLC urges that market-based land reform must be revised and the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle abandoned. Expropriation must be utilized to affect land reform, and there should be a limit on amount of land ownership.

Other salient issues raised by the NLC include the lack of security of tenure for people living and working on commercial farms and the need for government to place a moratorium on all evictions. More effective tenure legislation is required, supported by sufficient resources. Post-settlement support and better processes of land transfer must be addressed. Regarding the awarding of land in community restitution claims, there should be more definition of rights. There needs to be a new land and agrarian reform programme and a joint representative committee to monitor implementation.

6.5.6 NKUZI Development Association

To this organization, land is key to addressing issues of poverty, sustainable livelihoods and broader development programmes. Alternate models of agriculture and land use planning are also required. The priority should be food security and not profit. Land markets must be supported and protected. Basic infrastructure must assist rural developments; household food security and production should receive support. There must be integrated planning and the provision of skills, capacity and credit for small producers.

6.5.7 SA Council of Churches

The SACC places the issues within the context of a Godly dimension – there is a transcendent dimension to land that goes beyond man. Indeed, the issue of land is central to many religions. Land issues in South Africa are based on injustice and swathed in the violation of human rights. Yet the state appears obsessed with targets and statistics: it refers largely to restitution issues. Yet, even injustices done to forefathers now dead must be addressed. Cashsh compensation for restitution claims should not be endorsed and the cut-off date needs to be revisited.

The SACC indicates that there is a need to come up with different land ownership models: communal land ownership and the lack of land ownership amongst women is worrying. Landless people must get land.

6.5.8 Surplus People’s Project (SPP)

SPP indicated that upcoming farmers cannot access land successfully. There is little good agricultural land is available on the market. Commercial farmers inflate land prices, in some cases land is even sold below market value but they do not have the means to purchase. The ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle should be scrapped.

SPP requests that there should be cooperation amongst all parties involved. The speaker refers to the newly formed alliance ALARM and expresses support for their viewpoints.

6.5.9 Transkei Land Organisation (TRALSO)

TRALSO would like to shift the focus to forestry and land issues. Forestry-land is being leased to white companies after being taken from Africans (e.g. SAPPI). This land should rather be rented to the people of the areas. All people, black and white, belong to this country: there should be sharing of wealth by all.

6.5.10 Trust for Community Outreach (TCOE)

TCOE indicates that the principle for land reform should be ‘one farm, per person’. The needs of people living and working on commercial farms must to be addressed, they are being maltreated by farmers and are being underpaid or paid in kind - which results in various social problems. The ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle runs in contradiction to the facts of our history whereby people were forcibly removed.

6.5.11 Women on Farms Project

The Women of Farm workers feel that workers are still not receiving any benefits in terms of land reform. Many do not even know of policies in this regard. There should be a moratorium on foreigners buying land and a clear policy drafted in this regard. Land is required for farming and housing. The workers are also ready to own and operate large commercial farms and should be given the relevant support. Land prices are too high and expropriation should be utilized in this regard. The plight of women needs to be addressed.

6.5.12 National House of Traditional Leaders (NHTL)

The speaker for the NHTL reminds the Summit that millions of African people are still landless and restricted to the reserves under Amakhosi or Traditional leaders. The situation of past must be reversed and the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’s principle challenged. (The Zimbabwean example indicates that government should take the power to acquire land without paying any compensation to settlers) Problems are caused by white farmers - who did not even buy the farms in the first place.

6.7 Business Sector

6.7.1 Business Unity South Africa (BUSA)

BUSA recognizes the importance of land reform and continuous debate as essential parts of the transformation process. It recognizes existing government policy and agreements on land reform, but notes that there is a need to strike a balance between addressing the ills of the past and ensuring sustainable and sound economic growth that benefits all.

Solutions proposed by BUSA include sound business principles and a revised administrative process, the transfer of skills, and increased access to opportunities. It supports a market orientated approach. There is adequate legislation and policy in place but there is a need to accelerate implementation.

The organization feels that all social partners must assist government, and the education and development of current and potential land owners must be addressed.

6.7.2 National African Federated Chamber of Commerce (NAFCOC)

NAFCOC states that the land question is directly linked to sustainable livelihoods of the African majority: it is the basis for food, buildings, housing, etc. The agricultural sector has a critical role to play in the overall socio-economic transformation and can assist in advancing issues of food security and in lowering food prices. NAFCOC also expressed a concern that there is a need for ‘business with conscience’.

The organization urges that land reform should be fast-tracked; in particular, restitution and the government’s power to expropriate could be utilized. In addition, NAFCOC feels that we need to engage the issues of traditional leaders and authorities as they deal with the rural communities on the ground. Education and skills development for people living and working on commercial farms and new farmers is crucial: more African farmers need to be developed. If the agricultural sector contributed more that R3, 5 billion of the country’s GDP, how much of that comes from African farmers? “The small business guys should be brought into the economic mainstream, which includes the Black farmers.”

6.7.3 South African Chamber of Business (SACOB)

SACOB calls for government to address land reform in the context of agrarian reform. Land reform is directed at the transfer of land to smallholders whereas agrarian reform is a much broader concept which involves the whole agricultural sector.

SACOB supports market-based land reform – the market is not a political instrument but purely a mechanism for providing people who have a demand with those who can supply that demand – a simple exchange of cash or goods. Markets survive in any political environment. The market will play a very limited role if government wants to redistribute 30% of land to black people by 2014.

SACOB also indicates that there is a need to make a distinction between the business of land owning and the business of farming. The fact that land reform would not necessarily impact on the food processing industry needs to be considered in view of the BEE requirements.

7. International Experience of Land Reform

Inputs to the Summit, both by international and regional speakers, looked at the regional dimension of the land and agrarian reform challenges in similar settler economies. These covered Kenya, Namibia, Zimbabwe; Brazil and South Africa; the experiences, successes, failures, deficiencies and lessons learned.

7.1 Kenya. Dr George Mburathi, Kenya

Resolving the land question in this region is - as agreed to by all speakers - a multi-faceted; dynamic, complex and difficult undertaking. Managing this undertaking requires institutional capacity with trained expertise – and political will. According to Dr Mburathi, representing the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), many countries in Africa are facing land problems which have clear roots in the dispossession of Africans under colonialism and - specifically in South Africa - additionally through apartheid. This has left a powerful legacy, both in terms of outright suffering and in historical memory.

According to Dr Mburathi, many governments have also failed to allocate the financial and human resources needed to address land problems. A cyclical element is evident in land reform policy in this region: generally, there is an initial strong political commitment to land reform which is followed by a change in policy to address so-called economic goals – at the expense of the eradication of landlessness and/or poverty. This is found in almost all the countries in the region at various levels.

The emphasis of land and agrarian reform in South Africa is also on the 30% target, at the expense of the impact of the programme in terms of the political vs. social vs. economic goals. In Kenya the ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle was never applied – and within a time-frame of between five and ten years, over 90% of the land reform targets had been achieved. In South Africa, the achievements in relation to the land target are still less than 4% after ten years. This policy issue must be resolved.

7.2 Namibia. Mr F Tseehama, Permanent Secretary for Lands, Namibia

In Namibia land ownership is divided into public and private land:

The state owns most of the public land, which includes all communal land, national parks and

environmental protected areas. Communal land is administered by the traditional authorities

and Private land is freehold title land.

As a result of the slow pace of land acquisition, the Government of Namibia has evoked its constitutional provision that empowers the minister to use the approach of compulsory acquisition or expropriation as a parallel option, to complement the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ approach.

In 2004, the government expropriated commercial land to pro-actively accelerate land redistribution to ensure availability of land needed for land reform purposes. This was followed by putting the administrative mechanisms in place and the subsequent identification of the first farms to be acquired through expropriation.

The land reform programme has to be seen as a national programme in the public interest. For it

to receive the requisite support, there should be wide and meaningful consultation with the

relevant stakeholders. The implementation of land reform requires adequate political support and

the commitment of dedicated resources allocated to the appropriate institutions in order to ensure

success.

7.3 Zimbabwe Professor Sam Moyo,

According to Professor Moyo of the African Institute for Agrarian Studies, many tenets within South Africa’s present land arrangements and legislation are fairly similar to those in Zimbabwe. While it is frequently argued that the radicalisation of land reform in Zimbabwe has political origins: that is to say that in 2000 the state was bent on retaining power through the manipulation of elections - and the land question - to gain electoral support. According to Professor Moyo, this notion is historically and empirically invalid, as the Zimbabwe land question has social origins. It is clear that social, economic and political objectives of land reform need to be balanced.

In Zimbabwe, where the balance between the economic, social and political objectives are not balanced, the price of radical action can be economic isolation from the international community. Such isolation has a negative and polarising impact not only on agriculture but on all sectors of society.

Prof Moyo also stated that South Africa has a choice to make: either take a radical approach to land reform bearing in mind the political and economic fall-out that is most likely to follow this choice. The other choice is to proceed on the current path and deal with the social problems that will arise due to the slow pace of delivery. The social problems have far-reaching economic and political repercussions: political instability and economic decline.

7.4 Mr Eugenio Peixoto, Permanent Secretary for Agrarian Reform, Brazil

In Brazil, the land problem is defined as follows:

There is large inequality in the distribution of wealth which is evidenced by the inequality of land

distribution: large farms comprise half the arable land in Brazil, while the small farms comprise

only 18.9% of arable land.

This disparity is further compounded by the fact that 33% of the population is rural, and rural

poverty is double that of urban areas, i.e. 52% of the rural population is poor. 60% of the farm

land is under-utilized, while 4,5 million rural households have little or no land.

It is estimated that 1.5 to 2.3 million families have the desire and ability to become farmers.

Brazil has a history of (sometimes violent) land invasions and confrontation between land owners and landless people. Since 1985, 1,100 labour leaders and peasant activists have been killed.

In Brazil, the Government operates two main land redistribution programs: one which is market-assisted and supported by the National Confederation of Agricultural Workers (CONTAG), and one which is based on expropriation, and supported by the Landless People Movement. The social movements in Brazil play a vital role in the process of land reform. For example, the Landless People Movement (MST) and the labour union confederation (CONTAG) are

officially recognised as partners in the implementation of the land reform programme. They work with communities to identify land for redistribution, undertake research and make proposals to government on project implementation.

In both programs, the identification of farms and beneficiaries benefits from the participation of these two social movements. Both social movements support invasions and expropriation, but the Agricultural Workers also support less confrontational strategies to land reform, such as the market-assisted program.

The two programs complement each other in several ways. For instance, there is a legal norm that land below a certain size cannot be expropriated.

According to Mr. Peixoto, in Brazil access to land is complemented by support – including enabling access to the national credit programme. The basic elements of successful land reform are land, credit, education, technology; this mix of interventions enables people to be transformed into economic agents and developers of the economy of the country.

In conclusion, Mr Peixoto recommended that South Africa should explore the lessons from these two complementary programs. :

8. FINANCING LAND REFORM

8.1 International Perspective.

A panel discussion was led by Rogier van den Brink of the World Bank, Paula Chalinder of the Department for International Development (United Kingdom) (DFID), and David Solomon of the University of Wiwatersrand. on the subject of finance for land reform.

The World Bank made a strong case for land reform, based on its international experience. It could lead to faster economic growth and higher living standards. However, markets, if left to themselves, would not redistribute land from the rich to the poor. This is why land market interventions are needed, including removing all distortions favoring the rich (e.g. artificial restrictions against sub-division), providing subsidies to the poor, and taxing the bare value of the land, to reduce its speculative value.

In addition, the panel noted that a holistic approach in financing land reform, because land only constitutes one part (typically 30-40%) of the total cost of a successful land reform project.

Whereas a contribution by the beneficiaries themselves to the financing of the total cost was advisable, such a contribution should not be so high as to exclude the poor from the program, and, if the contribution was in the form of a loan, care should be taken that the loan as a share of the total value of farm assets should not exceed what is considered a “safe” level (i.e. 30% based on international averages).

Using a land tax to finance part of the program was seen as a politically and economically attractive instrument. Professor David Solomon made the economic case for a land tax, which does not tax the fixed improvements, but only the unimproved value of the land. He also outlined how such a tax could be implemented in South Africa.

The panel cautioned strongly against any attempts to take short-cuts to fully funding the land reform program: this would slow down the program, create political resistance by the land-owning classes, and undermine the chances of success of the beneficiaries.

8.2 A National Perspective: Land Bank

Mr George Oricho from the Land Bank focused on enterprise – rather than macro-level finance issues – in South Africa.

Challenges in Financing Land Reform:

Tenure: The prevalence of communal access to land, which affords the right to use but not to

own, constrains lending. Ownership of land is typically used as a collateral or security against a

loan. Innovation is therefore needed to circumvent this issue.

High Land Prices: Money is loaned for agriculture in proportion to the productive capacity of the

land – not simply the worth of the land. This fact is often misunderstood, there is often a

“disjuncture in expectation”. It is, after all, the profits from the use of the land that will repay the

loans not the intrinsic value of the land.

Although it appears that loan interest rates have declined over the last four years, they have not

decreased relative to agricultural returns.

Reinvestment and Capital: Successful farming requires the reinvestment of “profit” into the

business. If farmers have access only to loan finance – which has to be repaid – it is very difficult

to reinvest sufficient monies to sustain an agricultural business.

Role of Development Finance Institutions (DFIs):

A key role of the Land Bank and other DFIs is to mobilize private sector monies for land reform.

Innovation on issues such as non-collateral-based lending, leasing, charging clients on an

“interest-only” rather than a principle-sum-based rate – all these innovations have been tried with

different levels of success in other countries and can encourage innovation amongst DFIs locally.

Donor support could enable DFIs to charge less than market rates.

Role of Government:

The government has a vital role to play in hastening the speed of delivery.

Grants remain an indispensable part of land reform.

Finance for bulk infrastructure – such as irrigation schemes – is needed, especially by emergent

farmers: the role of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry should be further explored.

The state must continue to support and develop research, markets, extension services and

information. In conclusion, land reform needs adequate funding to grow, and the role and potential contribution of co-operatives should not be overlooked in future.

9. the Way Forward

9.1 The 2005 national Land Summit succeeded in articulating a vision for land reform towards 2014. It is a vision which can succeed if government, civil society, farmers and all other stakeholders act in unity towards a common programme.

9.2 Government is committed to taking the process forward in partnership with stakeholders. The first small step is the publication of this document as a basis for further discussion.

9.3 The way forward is defined by “A Partnership to Fast-Track Land Reform: A New Trajectory towards 2014”. The building blocks of this partnership are:

9.3.1 Re-affirming the redistribution target of 30% of white-owned agricultural land by 2014;

9.3.2 A well resourced programme driven by the government including the pro-active acquisition of land utilising expropriation where necessary and targeting disadvantaged beneficiaries;

9.3.3 Establishing partnerships at local and national levels in which government, business, labour and civil society have clear roles, responsibilities and mechanisms of accountability;

9.3.4 Carrying out a land audit and establishing a register of land needs for target groups, including labour tenants, people living and working on commercial farms and the landless;

9.3.5 Introducing a comprehensive support package for new owners and building the institutions tasked with providing support from a local to national level;

9.3.6 Amending legislation and improving implementation capacity to ensure tenure security, with a view to enhancing the security of tenure of farm dwellers and other vulnerable groups and complimenting this with medium to long term strategies that give farm dwellers homes and production land of their own;

9.3.7 Implementing a progressive land tax and repealing the sub-division of land act as a means to promote more intensive use of land, reduce farm sizes and avoid compromising productivity; and

9.3.8 Completing all outstanding restitution cases by 2008 with complimentary support services provided to realise as far as possible the transformation and development potential of land claim settlement.

9.4 In practical terms the following steps are proposed:

9.4.1 In consultations with stakeholders, government will undertake to develop a comprehensive implementation plan taking account recommendations of the National Land Summit.

9.4.2 Convening a national forum on land and agrarian reform, to bring stakeholders on board with respect to the post summit process. Consultative processes at national level would aim to :

· Secure agreement on a national implementation plan.

· Identify legislative and policy reforms that are required.

· Review the institutions tasked with implementing land reform.

· Monitor implementation.

9.4.3 Identifying key districts of the country to implement an initial set of accelerated redistribution programmes, in which social movements, national departments, local government and the farming community can work together to find innovative and local solutions.

9.4.4 Taking forward the program of the National Land Summit will require the input of and enthusiasm of all stakeholders. In addition to initiatives led by national government, provinces and municipalities together with other stakeholders should proceed to engage around the post land summit processes that address local and provincial challenges. Interaction is also required to promote access to municipal commonages to poor people and emerging farmers.

ADDENDUM A

LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS

1. African Christian Democrat Party (ACDP)

2. African National Congress (ANC).

3. Agri-SA

4. Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO)

5. Border Rural Committee (BRC)

6. Business Unity South Africa ( BUSA)
7. Congress of South African Trade Unions ( COSATU)

8. Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).

9. Democratic Alliance (DA)

10. Freedom Front Plus (FF)

11. Independent Democrats (ID)

12. Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP)

13. International Development (United Kingdom) (DFID)

14. Land Bank

15. Landless Peoples Movement (LPM)

16. National African Farmers Union( NAFU)

17. Land Access Movement South Africa (LAMOSA)

18. National Land Committee (NLC)

19. Nkunzi Development Association

20. National African Federated Chamber of Commerce (NAFCOC)

21. National House of Traditional Leaders (NHTL)

22. National Farmers Union (NAFU)

23. New National Party (NNP)
24. Pan Africanist Congress (PAC)

25. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) – University of the Western Cape

26. South African Communist Party (SACP)

27. South African Chamber of Business (SACOB)

28. Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU)

29. South African Council of Churches (SACC)

30. Surplus People’s Project (SPP)

31. Transkei Land Organization (TRALSO)

32. Trust for Community Outreach (TCOE)

33. University of Fort Hare
34. University of Venda
35. University of Witwatersrand

36. Women on Farms Project

37. World Bank

---

[1] Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996).