THE SOUTH African government has admitted that one of its cornerstone policies, the reversing of apartheid-era land ownership inequality, has failed abysmally. In 1994 the African National Congress set a target of handing 30 per cent of agricultural land to the black majority by 2014 – at that stage it owned barely 13 per cent. But most of the land the state has bought for redistribution or for restitution, intended to compensate blacks thrown off land they owned under white rule, has not been used for farming and has lain idle.
The government said last year it had so far managed to buy and transfer only about 6 per cent of land to black people, but had been slowed by a shortage of funds. However, critics say the programme has also been hobbled from the start by the inadequate farming skills and under-capitalisation of the new owners, many of whom are seriously indebted, and the government pledged belatedly last week both to increase its investment in some 200 transferred farms that are potentially productive and to curb foreign ownership. The state will offer technical and financial support, including mentoring and, possibly, equity partnerships with experienced or retired farmers. After that, land owners would have to show a willingness to work hard and produce food or the state would reclaim the land.
The huge cost of acquiring land from white farmers – estimated at €7.3 billion for 82 million hectares of land – as well as problems in negotiating land prices with owners under a “willing-buyer, willing-seller” policy have also prompted the government to resubmit an amended expropriation Bill to parliament later this year. That would controversially allow the state to seize land from farmers at prices set by it if negotiations to buy the land failed. In 2008 the Bill had been put on hold after opposition parties, farmers’ bodies and other civic groups protested it was unconstitutional.
Land reform and rural development minister Gugile Nkwinti said it was untenable that more than 90 per cent of the 5.9-million hectares of land the state bought for emerging farmers was not productive and that the state was losing substantial revenue.
The acquisition programme’s worthy objective of overcoming land poverty and the inequality of the apartheid years does not necessarily make the policy good sense. Reinforcing a failed policy with elements of compulsion is unlikely to improve it but the promise of increased investment in farmers and their land is an important initiative that may make a difference.