Land Reform and Livelihoods in Sugarcane Farming in Mpumalanga, South Africa.

Paul Dulais James

Presentation for The Impact InitiativePretoria

16-18 March 2016

Introduction

• ESRC/DFID Project – Farm Scale and Viability: An Assessment of Black Economic Empowerment in Sugar Production in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

• National discourse surrounding slow pace of land reform and failure of post-transfer farming – a national story of failure?

• Mpumalanga sugar sector – a land reform “success story”.

• Question – What are the implications of successful land reform in the Mpumalanga sugarcane sector?

• What are the policy implications of re-assessing land reform success?

The South African Land Question I

• Apartheid – Consolidation of reserve system, creation of Bantustans.

• Bantustans – 13% of the country’s land nominally home to 80% of the population.

• 1994 - Land distribution in South Africa amongst the most uneven in the world.

• Insecure livelihoods, land scarcity and degradation, entrenched poverty.

The South African Land Question II

• South African government has pursued a three-pronged approach to land reform:• Market-led land reform – willing buyer/willing seller reform.• Restitution – legal restoration of ownership to individuals and communities

displaced from land by racial laws since 1913. • Tenure reform – embedding the property rights of labourers, farm tenants, and

residents of former reserves.

• Slow pace of reform: • Initial target of 30% in 5 Years. • By 1999 – 1.8% of land transferred. • By 2012 – 8% of land transferred. • Target has been twice delayed and still unachieved.

• Widespread failure of land reform farms – lack of post-transfer support and finance.

The Mpumalanga Sugar Sector: A Land Reform Success Story?

• Pro-active approach to Land Reform by sugarcane miller TSB.

• Site of the largest land restitution claim in South Africa.

• Outperforming national achievements in land transferred – 62% of sugarcane farmland is black-owned.

• “Successful” post-transfer sugarcane farming – TSB claim 99% of land is productive. Farm productivity amongst the highest in the sector.

Context: Mpumalanga Lowveld• Subtropical region bordered by KNP, Mozambique and

Swaziland. • Irrigated agriculture – sugarcane, banana and citrus fruits.

• Site of late settlement through European expansion – early twentieth century.

• Tropical diseases (rinderpest, malaria, sleeping sickness) as natural barriers.

• Development of irrigation as precursor to mass displacement of African population.

• 1954 – Mass eviction of population from seven “tribal communities”.

Settlement and Displacement in Mpumalanga Lowveld

Lowveld Settlement Pre-1954

Displacement Post-1945.

Structure of Land Reform

The Greater Tenbosch Land Claim I • A consolidated land restitution claim by seven claimant

communities. • The largest (most valuable) land restitution claim in South

Africa. • Settled in its entirety.

The Greater Tenbosch Land Claim II

Restitution Outcomes I

Restitution Outcomes II

Restitution Outcomes III

Joint Venture: IST

Joint Venture: STT

Land Reform & Livelihoods I

• Intended livelihood benefits of joint ventures –• Direct financial transfers.• Skills Development.• Enterprise Development• Community Investment – scholarships, school funding, sports funding

etc...

• Financial (lease & dividends) – • 35m Rand per year. • Poor/opaque governance has resulted in little of this money reaching

the beneficiaries. • Real potential – approximately 2130 Rand per year per beneficiary.• Insignificant profits generated by farms.

• Skills Development – • Preferential hiring of beneficiaries. • Wages paid close to national minimum wage for agriculture. • Wages depressed by historic reliance on migrant labour. • Some uptake of employment – 35% of workforce. • Current employment of beneficiaries – 1.8%• Full potential employment 3.8% of beneficiaries.

• Enterprise Development – • Requirement that JV farms use contract services provided by

beneficiary-owned companies. • Cane cutting, labour provision, fertiliser sales. • Business access limited by “tribal identity”.

Land Reform & Livelihoods II

Land Reform: Whose Success Story?

• TSB – • Despite ceding ownership of land, TSB have increased their control over

land through joint ventures and long term leases. • Direct control of production mechanisms – increased productivity =

increased cane processing and value generated in the value chain.• Political success – TSB have secured a reputation as a leader in land

reform and a socially transformative agribusiness corporation.

• Beneficiaries – • A narrow group of beneficiaries, often already politically and/or

economically well connected, successful in capturing the gains of land reform.

• For the vast majority of beneficiaries land reform has delivered little to no benefit.

Policy Implications

• A need to reconsider the parameters for “success” and “failure” in South Africa’s land reform programme.

• Focus on quantity of land transferred and productivity of post-transfer farms is necessary but insufficient.

• Need to deepen an understanding of the livelihood implications of land reform –

• Who is benefitting?• How do these people benefit?• Who is excluded from the process?

• Time to broaden the possibilities for land use post-restitution?