Business Day
*Land plan might just be workable* *Editorial, Business Day, Johannesburg, 15 November 2011*THE National Planning Commission's National Development Plan (NDP) for 2030 includes an integrated set of proposals concerning the land question. Given the innate difficulty of the topic, are these proposals workable?
The land question, of course, is perhaps one of the most intractable among a long list of issues SA has inherited from its benighted past. On the one hand, land ownership patterns are frighteningly skewed. The degree of imbalance may not be absolutely clear but it's obvious the racial breakdown of land ownership is dangerously unfair.
On the other hand, farmers in SA are a valuable and valued resource. They are large-scale employers and provide a critical set of products. SA's farming sector is well developed and harming it would be to shoot oneself in the foot.
Trying to bend back the springs of action in this dilemma has proved extremely difficult. Yet it's important not to discount the progress that has been made. The report notes that, since 1994, six-million hectares of agricultural land have been redistributed, 3,4-million hectares through land redistribution and 2,4-million through the restitution process. And of about 80000 land claims lodged since 1994, 95% have been settled.
However, the current context is worrying. The total proportion of land under cultivation is shrinking, affecting small-scale farming as well as large- and medium-scale commercial farming areas.
Nevertheless, the plan suggests agriculture has the potential to create close to a million new jobs by 2030, because the evidence is that the 1,5-million hectares under irrigation, which produce virtually all of SA's horticultural harvest and some field crops, can be expanded by at least 500000 hectares through the better use of existing water resources and developing new water schemes. This is all important, but the crunch issue is the redistribution problem. The report does underline that security of tenure is required, because farmers will not invest unless their income streams are secure. It notes, too, that land reform beneficiaries in commercial farming areas have to fund land purchase up front, making it almost impossible to farm profitably because of high debt burdens. Where land is provided on a grand basis, the financial burden is shifted to the state, which the report says "has limited means to provide post- settlement" support.
What it suggests is a stepped programme of financing, with successful application being given a rent- free probation of two or three years. If the farmers prove capable, the lease length will be increased to 40 years, with full commercial rental phased in over four years. Part of the rental fee will be applied to a Land Bank sinking fund that will eventually provide full title. It also suggests entrepreneurship training, and a new cadre of extension officers to respond to the needs of smallholding farmers.
The specific proposal on land reform is multifaceted. It suggests proposed land transfer targets should be "in line with fiscal and economic realities", which presumably means they should be decreased. It also suggests districts in commercial farming lands should convene a fully representative committee that should identify 20% of the commercial agricultural land available for transfer. This should be through absentee landlords willing to exit, deceased estates, and so on. The state would pay for half the market value and the 50% shortfall would be made up of contributions from the commercial farmers who volunteer to participate. In exchange, commercial farmers would be protected from losing their land and gain full black economic empowerment status.
It's easy to see how badly this will go down in small-town bars. Essentially, commercial farmers are being asked to pay 10% of the value of their existing land to fund their competitors. Do they have that financial facility? In some areas they might, but in others they won't. Farmers are generally much less well off than many believe.
Yet, most commercial farmers do appreciate the need to settle the land question, especially if they could be sure the goalposts will not be moved ever again. It's a provocative proposal, but absolutely not out of the realm of possibility. Like much of the document, it requires more specific consideration but it has the advantage of being more realistic than many of the hotheaded interventions we have seen so far.
*From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=158676* * * -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
<<inline: BusinessDay.gif>>
