Ruth HallProgramme for Land & Agrarian Studies, UWC

Presentation to Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, Parliament

7 November 2007

Reflections and Questions onDepartment of Land Affairs:

Annual Report 2006/07

Key features of the report

• Acknowledges the “public outcry over the slow pace of land reform”.

• 4.3% of agricultural land has been redistributed.• Delivery this year varies greatly across provinces and

overall has been well below target.• The (adjusted) budget has been spent.• A great variety of new policy processes are

underway, but there is no new overarching policy framework to guide this – as planned at the Land Summit.

• This suggests that land reform is now reaching a turning point: new approaches are needed. This will require clear political direction, and will likely have substantial resource implications.

Land transfers• Delivery has risen but has not met its target

– The target of 3.1 million hectares to be transferred this financial year has not been met.

– Just 259,000 hectares have been delivered through redistribution and 579,000 approved through restitution.

– This is 27% of the target. – An improvement on previous year, but falls far behind what

would be needed to reach the 30% target by 2014.• Striking that there are many projects where funds have

been spent and land transferred, yet no beneficiaries are indicated (ie. zero).

• Spectacular under-performance in Limpopo and North West, while delivery is better in Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.

• At present, it is not possible to say how much land has been transferred to how many people.

What information is needed?• Equivalent information on hectares, cost and

beneficiaries (or households), with totals, for each province for the year– Compared to all previous years– Disaggregated by programme– Disaggregated by marginalised groups– Compared to the 30% target

• This would require the overhaul of the M&E system, which is understaffed and at present is not able to produce this information.

• To understand not only delivery but impact, we need to know who is benefiting and how they do over time– This requires socio-economic profiling of beneficiaries at

project inception, to allow for impact analysis.

Budget

• The Department is now spending its capital budget (over 99%) – but the original allocation in Vote 29 for 2006/07

was adjusted downwards by over R1.1 billion.• Rises in the capital budget have not been

matched with equivalent increases in the current budget– from previous financial year, allocation for land

reform rose 103% (capital) compared to 45% (current).

• Worryingly, key budget lines for Agriculture – MAFISA and Livelihoods Development Support – are static or in decline over the MTEF, while CASP is rising slowly.

Policy development process

• Post-Summit process has now ground to a halt, and more than two years later, there is no clarity on the future direction.

• The National Steering Committee (NSC) established with stakeholder representation is was meant to provide this agreement by March 2007, but this has not happened, and the task teams have ceased to meet (p. 34).

• New policy frameworks on evictions, land ceilings, land acquisition, expropriation, land taxes, and foreign ownership, are not in place – only the report of PEFOL has been publicly released.

• What forum now can be created to take forward, and resuscitate trust in, this process?

Directions for redistribution policy

• Area-based planning (ABP) is now being rolled out across the country, with the appointment of consultants who are to develop plans for each district.

• This is intended to provide the basis for integration of land reform into IDPs and alignment of relevant institutions.

• However, there is no policy guidance on what kind of change is to be pursued, who should be prioritised, and therefore it is unclear how varying and contradictory interests and needs will be weighed up – and whether consultants will be required to take these crucial political decisions.

• Proactive land acquisition strategy (PLAS) has enabled the state to acquire large tracts of land, but this needs to be informed by assessment of what the needs are – and to be acquired for specific purposes and beneficiaries.

Directions in tenure reform• The review of ESTA and the LTA has been in the pipeline

since 2001. • National evictions survey (Nkuzi) and the Human Rights

Commission inquiry and hearings have underlined the urgency to deal with systemic human rights violations on farms – including tenure violations and illegal evictions.

• Little effort has been made to use the Extension of Security of Tenure Act to grant farm dwellers ownership of land or development assistance either on the farms where they live, or elsewhere. – Less than 50 ESTA projects for farm dwellers – Instead, the focus has been on regulating evictions.

• Little progress has been made in implementing the Land Reform (Labour Tenant) Act – About 200 projects, but unclear how many claims these represent– Affected landowners have not been issued with Section 17 notices. – None of the disputed claims have been dealt with, compared to a

target of 200.

What direction for farm dwellers?

• Political leadership is now needed on the future of farm dwellers:

– Is the intention to keep farm dwellers on farms, as they are?– To regulate ongoing evictions so that these happen in a legal

way?– To secure farm dwellers’ rights to remain where they are and

expand their access to land?• To secure farm dweller rights would require:

– Maximum enforcement of the current provisions of ESTA and LTA, pending new legislation.

– Amendment of ESTA to provide substantive statutory tenure rights, including by conferring on long-term occupiers the status of non-evictable occupiers.

– A dedicated and well-resourced official programme, with intergovernmental coordination with other agencies, particularly Department of Justice.

– Renewed dialogue among farm dwellers, landowners and the state.

Institutional changes and challenges

• DLA is a small department, with an ambitious mandate, weakened by high staff turnover and vacant posts.

• There is a clear need for one agency to drive the process of identifying land needs, identifying and acquiring land and planning for settlement and implementation support.

• Much energy spent on design of a Special Purpose Vehicle to acquire and dispose of land, with private sector involvement, which now will not go ahead.

• Instead, Project Management Units are to be created with the task of meeting the Presidential target of 5 million hectares by 2009.– Unclear how this will relate to functions of PLROs and DLROs.

• There is enormous pressure to deliver, but delivery should be scaled up with (a) support systems in place and (b) clear direction on who is to be prioritised, as large projects may mitigate against the poor gaining entry.

Deliberate, then deliver

• At the current rate, there is a gradual increase in the rate of delivery, but little sign of ‘fast-tracking land and agrarian reform’. This is urgently needed.

• However, the issue is not only speed; now what is needed is greater clarity on policy: – Agrarian reform policy: what are government objectives for

restructuring the agricultural sector, and how will this contribute to reducing poverty and promoting a more equitable developmental path?

– Approach to implementation: How will this be pursued and how will land reform delivery mechanisms be reconfigured, in response to the resolutions of the Land Summit?

– Institutional reforms: What new institutional arrangements will this require?

• Clarity on these questions may provide the basis for greater financial commitments by government.

Conclusions• This annual report shows a chronic mismatch between

the intended scale of the programme and the actual resources, policies and systems available to meet this.

• Top priorities are therefore:1. For integration of land reform within a wider framework of

agrarian reform (ie. what is it that land reform is intended to achieve, beyond the 30%?).

2. For Land Affairs and Agriculture to undertake joint policy development in the area of agricultural land reform.

3. For political leadership on the issue of farm dwellers’ tenure rights.

4. For clarity on institutional arrangements that will be needed to drive a strategic and more interventionist approach

5. For the department to demonstrate what would be needed in terms of staffing and resources to scale up protection of land rights and delivery of land.

• “The massively unequal distribution of land is not just the unfortunate legacy of apartheid, it is the totally unacceptable continuation of apartheid.”

• Cyril Ramaphosa, Secretary-General of the ANC, at the Land Redistribution Options Conference, Johannesburg, October 1993