Land Redistribution in South
Africa: a critical review
Presentation to the World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty,
Washington D.C. 24th March 2015
Dr Edward Lahiff, University College Cork
Overview of Presentation
 Background
 Broad assessment to date
 Key policy questions
 Critical issues – land acquisition, beneficiary
targeting, models of land use, post-settlement
support
 Recent policy developments
 Conclusions
South Africa at a Glance
General:
• Population: 52 million (2011)
• Area: 1 .22 million KM2
• Capital: Pretoria (admin)
• Official languages: 11
Economy:
• GDP growth rate: 3.1%
• GDP size: 25th in the world
• Unemployment: 25.2%
• GDP structure: agri. 2.5%, industry 31.6%, services 65.9%
• Major trading partners: China, US, Japan, Germany, etc.
Population structure (2011):
• African (79.2%), White (8.9%), Colored (8.9%),
Indian/Asian (2.5%)
Problem Statement
 History of violent dispossession and exploitation
– in 1994, minority white population controlled
approx. 87% of agricultural land
 Enduring dualism in agrarian structure
 Widespread rural unemployment, poverty and
inequality
 High entry costs to commercial agriculture
 Lack of obvious pathways between the
smallholder and large-scale commercial sectors
 Need for broader access to land, but also to
markets, capital and expertise
Policy Framework
Constitution 1996
Legislation (various Acts)
Policy statements – e.g. White Paper
1997, Green Paper 2011
Three sub-programmes:
 Land Restitution – land claims, limited land
restoration
 Land Redistribution – discretionary grants
 Tenure Reform – farmer workers/dwellers,
communal areas
Policy Position
The 1997 White Paper: “[T]he purpose of the land
redistribution program is to provide the poor with
access to land for residential and productive uses, in
order to improve their income and quality of life. The
program aims to assist the poor, labor tenants, farm
workers, women, as well as emergent farmers.
Redistributive land reform will be largely based on
willing-buyer willing-seller arrangements.
Government will assist in the purchase of land, but
will in general not be the buyer or owner”
(Department of Land Affairs, 1997).
Willing Seller, Willing Buyer
• The 1996 Constitution guaranteed the rights of
existing owners, but also granted specific rights of
redress to victims of past dispossession and set the
legal basis for a potentially far-reaching land reform
program.
• The Constitution allows for expropriation of property
for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject
to just and equitable compensation.
• The defining feature of policy to date: reliance on
voluntary purchase of land at market prices, a policy
widely referred to as ‘willing seller-willing buyer’.
• Such an approach was not dictated by the Constitution
but can be seen as a policy choice in line with
emerging international trends.
Broad assessment
 Approximately 7.3 million hectares reportedly transferred
to date (over 8% of total white-owned agricultural land in
1994)
 4.2 Mha via redistribution
 3.1 Mha via restitution
 Number of beneficiaries is less clear – potentially millions,
but widespread drop-out
 Reports of collapse of production and employment on
much transferred land; little evidence of material benefits
to many intended beneficiaries
 Areas of success: some independent production (inc.
subsistence); some commercial partnerships in forestry,
minerals, sugarcane, sub-tropical fruit and nuts, ecotourism, wine etc.
 Gradual evolution (and expansion) of support services,
including credit, mentoring, advice
Key (unresolved) Questions for Land
and Agrarian Reform in South Africa
 What is the envisaged agrarian structure – mix of small,
medium and large enterprises?
 Who are the intended beneficiaries - specifically?
 Which land is to be prioritised – by quality, location,
affordability, beneficiary demand, supplier willingness to sell?
 What degree of coercion/choice for landowners, and level of
compensation?
 How to extend post-settlement support to all land reform
participants (and other historically disadvantaged farmers)?
 What new land rights for beneficiaries?
 How to deal with special categories– farm workers, labour
tenants, farmers on communal lands etc.?
 What to do when land reform projects fail?
Critical issues 1: Land acquisition
 Broadly consensual: willing sellers, with minimal expropriation
or threat
 But this imposes major limitations: most restitution claimants
have not opted for land, many other would-be beneficiaries
struggle to find land that meets their needs
 Switch to proactive land acquisition strategy (PLAS) means a
greater role for the state, but has not necessarily led to more land
being offered for sale; no evidence that PLAS is meeting identified
needs (i.e. is demand rather than supply led)
 Questions remain about the quality of land being acquired, and
prices paid
 Commercial farming lobby strongly opposed to land reform, and
barely challenged up to 2014
 Proposed restrictions – land ceilings, foreign ownership – are
unlikely to contribute much additional land
Critical issues 2: Beneficiary targeting
 Broad aims of inclusion, but not linked to concrete
strategies
 Early setbacks (e.g. large groups under SLAG) led to
smaller groups, with higher entry requirements: LRAD, and
now State Land Lease and Disposal Policy
 Little data available on gender profile, income, background
 But appears to favour males with accumulated capital and
ability to navigate state agencies, banks etc. Many are
already active in other economic sectors – urban
professionals, small businesses, etc.
 Key constituencies that appear to have been overlooked are
farm workers (past and present), the unemployed, young
people, and small-scale farmers in the communal areas
Critical issues 3: Land Use
 Land use is determined largely by business plans imposed on
beneficiaries: whole-farm plans with a strong commercial
orientation and continuity with previous owners
 Stronger commercial emphasis under State Land Lease and
Disposal Policy (‘medium and large scale commercial farmers’)
 Little evidence of input from beneficiaries or adaption to their
needs and past experience (unless they happen to be very
commercially oriented)
 Little or no integration with communal area activities
 Most critical is the failure to subdivide farms, or provide for a
diversity of activities suited to people with low income and
limited commercial experience.
 General refusal to allow settlement on lands and noncommercial activities
Critical issues 4: support services
 Land reform beneficiaries in all categories report a lack of appropriate
support services, long delays, and poor coordination between agencies
 Since 2009, the Government has adopted a two-pronged response institutional reforms, e.g. a new Department specifically responsible for
rural development and land reform issues; and new strategy development,
actively prioritizing rural development and land reform initiatives in all
major economic development strategies.
 Evidence of considerable improvement in recent years –CASP (2004),
LARP (2008) and CRDP (2009), and especially RADP (Recapitalisation and
Development Programme, also RECAP) from 2010-11.
 To March 2014, RADP reached 1,459 farms and 1.4 Mha; total cost of R3.2b
– now appears to be reaching majority of new redistribution beneficiaries
(but few restitution cases).
 Many older projects remain inactive and without effective intervention or
support
 Rise in private mentors, strategic partners etc (over 600 to date). Many
have been very problematic –short-term profit taking, failure to take risks,
lack of investment, little or no profit-sharing or other benefits, but other
appear to be working.
New Policy Directions
 Reopening of restitution claims since 2014: likely to
be expensive and disruptive of wider land reform
efforts
 20% land sharing: seemed to enjoy broad consensus
as part of the National Development Plan
 50:50 proposals for commercial farms – highly
problematic, appears unrelated to prior land reform
experience (and objectives)
 Land ceilings: unlikely to release significant areas of
quality land
 Curbs on foreign ownership: of little relevance to
land reform, but potentially disruptive in the wider
economy
Conclusions 1
 Slow progress to date, limited achievements
 Lots of potential learning, but lessons haven’t translated
sufficiently into policy improvements
 Ongoing political uncertainty and conflicting messages
 Challenge of entry into commercial agriculture have been widely
underestimated
 Need to allow beneficiaries to design and implement their own
projects
 Continued lack of a comprehensive vision of the kind of agrarian
restructuring that is desired, the means by which it is to be carried
out and the intended beneficiaries
 Over-concentration on questions of land ownership, with
insufficient attention to models of land use
 Support services still not sufficient, or adequately integrated with
land reform and local government services for all beneficiaries
Top priorities now are
 Identification of most suitable land to meet proven demand,
to be acquired through a mix of market and expropriation
 A variety of land use options ranging from subsistence to
commercial, with scope for graduation - subdivision of
farms must be central to this
 Support services must be expanded further, closely
integrated with land redistribution itself and with
provincial and local government services.
 Special measures needed to include (and support) a wider
variety of beneficiaries – women, youth, unemployed
 Resettlement (i.e. housing) on farms must be an option
 Need for major investment in social services and
infrastructure in resettlement areas
Thank you