Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Learning about Land Reform in
South Africa: A Social Scientific Approach
Karin Bos
Annet Pauwelussen
Leonardo van den Berg
Eefje Notten
Anne Gerrit Draaijer
Learning about Land Reform in
South Africa: A Social Scientific Approach
Team 507
Development of a training module on land reform in South Africa
Commissioner: Dhr. Verschoor
Coach: Marian Koster
June, 2009
Karin Bos
Annet Pauwelussen
Leonardo van den Berg
Eefje Notten
Anne Gerrit Draaijer
This report is produced by students of Wageningen University as part of their MSc-
programme.
It is not an official publication of Wageningen University or Wageningen UR and the content
herein does not represent any formal position or representation by Wageningen University.
Copyright © 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by any means, without the prior consent of the authors.
Page
Table of contents
List of boxes, figures and tables
List of acronyms
Background and justification of the module 1
Chapter 1 An introduction to South African land reform 3
1.1 Land reform history 4
1.2 South African land reform in regional comparison 8
1.3 Challenges for South African land reform 10
Chapter 2 Theoretical approaches to land reform 18
2.1 Neo-liberal approaches to land reform 19
2.2 Political Economy approaches to land reform 20
2.3 Actor-oriented approaches to land reform 24
Chapter 3 Land reform in practice: livelihood strategies 28
3.1 Livelihood 28
3.2 Perceptions of the livelihoods of land reform beneficiaries 30
3.3 Livelihood and farming strategies 31 Chapter 4 The social side of land reform 38
4.1 Different perceptions 39
4.2 Social cohesion 42
Assignment 1: Transect 47
Assignment 2: Role play 53
Table of contents
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning 56
Appendix 2: Land reform legislation 57
Appendix 3: Role play 58
References 59
Page
Cases
Just in case: The Gallawater farm 32
Just in case: Goats 39
Just in case: Social cohesion 44
Just in case: Ubuntu 53
Boxes
Box 1:
What determines the failure or success of a land reform project 16
Figures
Figure 1: Land restitution 12
Figure 2: Land redistribution 13
Figure 3: Forms of Livelihood Diversification 35
Figure 4: Example of a Transect Data Sheet 48
Tables
Table 1: Participant recording natural capital 49
Table 2: Participant recording physical capital 49 Table 3: Land reform legislation 56
List of cases, boxes, figures and tables
ANC African National Congress
ARC Agricultural Research Council
ARD Agricultural Research for Development
CASP Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program
CLRA Communal Land Rights Act
DLA Department of Land Affairs
DoA Department of Agriculture
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GLTP Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park
ISRDP Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Program
LARP Land and Agrarian Reform Program
LRAD Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development
MAFISA Micro-Agricultural Finance Initiative of South Africa
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PLAAS Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies
PLAS Plan for the pro-active Land Acquisition Strategy
PWAL Promoting Women’s Access to Land
RDP Reconstruction and Development Program
SANP South African National Parks
SIS Settlement and Implementation Support
SLAG Settlement/Land Acquisition Grants
WUR Wageningen University and Research Centre
List of Acronyms
1
Land reform has received much attention in South African literature. But what is land
reform? What are the debates surrounding land reform? How does land reform take place
and how should it take place? Little has been written that clarifies these questions and put
them into perspective. This training module has been written at the request of the
Agricultural Research Council (ARC) to fill this gap. The module has been especially written
for graduate and undergraduate students but may provide fresh ideas to researchers,
policymakers and others involved in land reform. The compilation of the module was in
itself a learning process for the authors who are all MSc students at the Wageningen
University in the Netherlands.
Different case studies carried out by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) illustrate the
problems and the complexity of current land reform in South Africa. However, most
evaluations are based on technological studies, in which the social element plays an inferior
role. Insight in these social factors is crucial for the understanding why many land reform
projects are failing, the ARC has acknowledged the need to include a social scientific
approach in the training of (future) policy makers. Furthermore there is no clear overview of
the available literature about land reform, which makes it difficult for students to get a clear
view of the different perspectives and the information that is already present.
Besides this, there is need for a different way of educating students. Teaching needs to move
from the more classical ‘listen and learn’ style to an ‘experiential’ learning style1 where
discussion and critical reflection is stimulated. Instead of reproducing information and
opinions that are already there, tertiary education institutions need to challenge their
students, the people that may become the future policy makers of South Africa, to come up
with new perspectives on land reform, to work in a more interdisciplinary setting and to be
critically reflective of their own bias and of the way land reform policy is created and
implemented at the moment.
The team of authors consists of five students, of which four have their background in social
science studies. With writing this module the purpose is to offer a social-scientific
perspective on land reform. The module prioritises the actor oriented approach developed at
the Wageningen University. This entails looking at land reform from the viewpoint of the
different actors involved.
A large part of the module consists of literature that is devoted to explaining important
themes in land reform through the use of ‘state of the art’ scientific concepts. To aid the
reading of the literature ‘learning goals’ are listed at the beginning of each chapter. These
help students to find the important themes in the text. To test students understanding of the
text and to stimulate further thinking each chapter ends with some discussion points. The
module gains depth by presenting two themes in land reform. Here a detailed account of
relevant concepts is given. These are supported by case studies. Students are given the
1 According to Kolb, experiential learning is learning by doing and learning through reflection (Verschuur, personal communication, June 8, 2009). For a visualization of Kolb’s experiential learning, see appendix 1.
Background and justification of the module
2
opportunity to get a taste of the complexities encountered on the field by engaging in a role
play exercise and a transect walk. The former enables students to experience the complexity
of negotiations in land reform situations by playing the role of different actors. With the
transect walk students go out into the field to see for themselves what farmers do and how
villages are organized. Combined, these elements of the module stimulate informed and
critical thinking amongst students
The aim of the module is to 1: Reflect on the socio-historical context of land reform policy, 2:
Understand different theoretical approaches to land reform. 3: Learning to view risks and
success factors of land reform from an actor-oriented approach. 4: Be more aware of the role
they can play in finding solutions for the land reform problems.
The module opens with an introduction. Here the history, a comparison with land reform in
other countries and an overview of current policy reform in South Africa is given. The
second chapter describes two common perspectives of land reform: the neoliberal and the
political economy perspectives. This is followed by an introduction of the actor oriented
approach that will be used throughout the rest of the module. The last two chapters zoom in
on two themes. The third chapter focuses on the relation between land reform and livelihood
strategies. This includes a written part and a field based assignment. The fourth chapter
focuses on the importance of social cohesion in land reform, followed by a role play.
June 2009,
Annet Pauwelussen
Anne Gerrit Draaijer
Eefje Notten
Karin Bos
Leonardo van den Berg
3
South Africa has a long history of unequal land distribution and forced land removals.
Apartheid divided land along racial lines and its legacy can still be seen in the socio-political
landscape of the country. To this day, the physical separation of ‘black’ and ‘white’
communities is largely intact in the rural areas. This is the result of both the slow pace of
land restitution, and the unforeseen problems with land reform that were discovered along
the way. From a historical perspective land reform in South Africa has been done twice: first
by taking land away from black and coloured people and forcing them into ‘homelands’ and
second, by taking away land from the new, white landowners and give it back to the original
occupants. To understand why land reform in South Africa is where it is today, it is
important to look at its history, at how the country’s land reform policy was and is created,
but also at the unique aspects of South Africa’s land reform policy compared to its
neighbours. A short overview of this land reform (policy) history (also see table 1) and a
comparison of South Africa with Namibia and Zimbabwe will therefore be given below.
Learning goals: After this chapter you should…
- Be able to identify the (ideological) dualisms in South Africa’s land reform policies
- Know the three pillars of South African land reform, their aims and their challenges
for the future
- Know different bottlenecks in land reform policy implementation
- Be able to explain the unique position of South African land reform:
• In historical perspective
• In regional perspective
Why land reform?
Before diving into the theory and practice of land reform in South Africa, it is useful to ask
what land reform is and what the reasons for land reform are. Most authors would agree that
land reform consists of measures aimed at a more equitable and fair distribution of
agricultural land. Usually this entails transferring the ownership of land from larger land
owners to small scale farmers or landless people. Land reform then involves:
o The ones from who the land is taken, who loose their land as a result of land reform.
They will be referred to as landowners in this module
o The ones to whom the land is transferred. They will be referred to as beneficiaries in this
module
o The government who mediates this transfer. The government can choose to appropriate
the land through negotiation, by force, or through the market mechanism
Other actors that are involved or that directly or indirectly influence land reform include:
landowner lobbies, social movements, lawyers, international institutions, provincial and
local levels of government. Their role varies in different situations.
Chapter 1 An introduction to South African land reform
4
Although many agree on what land reform is, there is a lot of disagreement on why land
reform should be undertaken, if it should be undertaken at all. Is, as proposed by the World
Bank, the main reason for land reform to increase the number of farms so that they can
effectively compete with each other and produce food for lower prices? Or does land reform
actually jeopardize production and food security as it disappropriates land from
technologically advanced, highly efficient, large scale farmers that can make use of
economies of scale (Tupi, 2006). On the other hand, maybe there should be less emphasis on
agricultural production. Is land reform necessary to absorb the unemployment created by
capitalism and industrial development? (Bernstein, 2007). And is land reform necessary to
decrease inequality and to create justice? Or is land reform necessary to reverse periods of
social injustice? Should production be the most important value in land reform, or should
other values (such as subsistence, pension, and housing) be emphasized?
These are all important questions and there is no single answer to them. In this module these
questions will be put into a social science perspective. In the first chapter the situation in
South Africa will be described, by linking land reform to South Africa’s historical, regional
and political context. After this, the next chapter will dive deeper into the different
perspectives that are taken in discussions about land reform, perspectives that inform the
way land reform policies are developed and evaluated. After these two theoretically oriented
chapters the chapter three and four focus more on the social and practical side of land
reform.
1.1 Land reform history____________________________________
During colonial times, millions of black South Africans were forcibly removed from their
land and homes. South Africa’s legacy of racially biased land ownership was formalized by
the Natives Land Act in 1913 and the Group Areas Act in 1936. These acts were strengthened
by the creation of homelands and influx control policies2. Land access and ownership was
severely restricted for black South Africans. These restrictions ended black commercial
agricultural production that was evident during the late 1800’s and early 1900s (Van Rooyen
& Nene, 1996; Chikanda & Kirsten, 1998, in Verschoor, 2003, p. 14) and created a legacy of
small-scale production systems among black farmers, which can still be seen today.3
The racially biased restrictions on land ownership and the forced removals of people from
their land provoked popular resistance and led to political mobilization in the rural areas. At
the end of the 1980s, this resistance resulted in negotiation talks between the liberation
movement and the apartheid regime. Land played a key role in these negotiations. The
liberation movement focused on the development of a land policy in which land would be
given back to the people that had been forcibly removed (Hall, 2004, p. 1).
2 Measures regulated the inflow of black Africans into South Africa's urban areas during the pre-apartheid and apartheid eras. Black Africans were only allowed in towns to serve white labor needs. They had to live in townships on the outskirts of town (Boddy-Evans, 2009). 3 Homelands often were of low soil quality, and so large-scale production would be impossible. Moreover, agriculture was not considered suitable for black people; they were rather seen as a cheap labour force to serve white labour needs in towns and on large white-owned farms.
5
Post-apartheid reconciliation
When South Africa became a democracy in 1994,
the Reconstruction and Development Program
(RDP) was developed with a four-fold purpose:
1. Redress injustices of apartheid
2. Foster national reconciliation and stability
3. Underpin economic growth
4. Improve household welfare and alleviate
poverty
(Hargreaves, 1998).
Even though the RDP mentioned equality and reconciliation as key purposes, it mainly had
an economic focus. The basic idea behind the land reform program was to transform
economic relations in the rural areas. However, the ethical and symbolic aspect of land
reform, that was there from the start, were still important, as land rights and -access are
themes that inextricably related to identity, belonging, and perceptions of justice. Redressing
historical injustices was a major goal of land reform policy and it seems to become even more
important during the last few years. In a survey by Aliber and Mokoena (in Walker, 2005, p.
806), it is found that in 2001, sixty-eight percent of black respondents agreed with the
statement that “Land must be returned to blacks in South Africa, no matter what the
consequences are for the current owners and for political stability”. For many South
Africans, the history of land dispossession has been crucial for the social and political
identity of black people as a group, including people who have not experienced land loss or
forced removals themselves. “It is this historically determined political identity that informs
the approval shown by many black South Africans for the chaotic and corrupt land
redistribution campaign launched by President Mugabe in neighbouring Zimbabwe”
(Walker, 2005, p. 808).
The negotiations about land reform during the transition talks between the new government
and the old apartheid regime resulted in a political compromise: the new government would
protect the property rights of the current landowners, while property relations would be
transformed through a gradual and market-based program of land reform (Hall, 2004, p. 1).
According to the World Bank, market-based land reform, in which land is bought at market
prices with the help of state grants and without any compulsion on current owners to sell,
would be the shortest and fairest way to land reform success. The program would be
demand-led. Land, sellers and beneficiaries would not be identified by the state, but by the
people themselves and the role of the state would be to provide financial assistance (Hall,
2004, p. 4-5).This principle is called ‘willing buyer–willing seller’.
Three pillars of Land Reform: 1. Land redistribution 2. Land restitution 3. Land tenure reform
6
Redistribution, restitution, tenure reform
“Faced with the need to balance strong demands from the dispossessed with the need to
preserve the commercial farming sector and a fragile political compromise, the African
National Congress (ANC)-led government opted for a three-pronged land reform policy:
redistribution, tenure reform and restitution” (Lyne & Darroch, 2003, p. 1). According to
Lahiff (2007, p. 1579), redistribution comprises the conditions the state fosters to redress the
racial imbalance in access to land. Tenure reform is about legally securing tenure rights of
people or communities whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially
discriminatory laws or practices (Didiza, 2006). Forms of land ownership that evolved
during colonialism and apartheid are converged in an attempt to redress the dual system of
land tenure in which whites owned land as private property as opposed to communal land
allocation among blacks. The majority of rural blacks still live on communal land, registered
as property of the state (UN, 2005). Restitution, according to Hall (2004, p. 5) is defined as: “a
person or community dispossessed of property after 1913 as a result of past racially
discriminatory laws or practices is entitled either to restitution of that property or to
equitable redress”. With these three pillars, the ANC aimed for a highly efficient small-scale
agricultural sector that would generate economic growth (Lyne & Darroch, 2003, p. 2).
Problems during the first phase of land reform
Looking back at the first five years of land reform makes clear that performance was slower
and less effective than the government had hoped for. A range of institutional and technical
problems can be identified in the 1994-1999 period, including:
1. A lack of decentralization in decision making: Decisions were mostly made top-
down and did not match the needs of the land reform beneficiaries
2. A lack of internal coordination within and between different governmental
departments and a general lack of relevant skills among staff
3. A lack of attention in land reform policy for post-settlement support, causing land
reform to fail in the implementation phase
4. A lack of reliable systems of monitoring and evaluation so mistakes in policy
implementation were often repeated
(Hall, 2004, p. 6)
Shifts in redistribution policy
From 1999, there was a significant shift in redistribution policy. The Land Redistribution for
Agricultural Development program (LRAD) was launched in 2001, to replace the SLAG
(Settlement/ Land Acquisition Grants) policy that was in use in the first years of land reform.
In the SLAG program, historically disadvantaged South Africans could apply for a cash
grant to purchase and develop farmland. In practice, beneficiary households had to pool
their grants to be able to buy an entire farm from a willing seller. In these instances of ‘group
ownership’ a legal entity (usually a community land trust or communal property
association), was established that was formally registered as the owner of the property. In
most of these cases, there were too many beneficiaries compared to the size of the farms that
were redistributed. The farms could therefore not support all the beneficiaries as full-time
7
farmers. Moreover, these groups of claimants were heterogeneous. This caused
disagreements over what should be done with the land. These problems could be dealt with
by LRAD. LRAD differed from SLAG in one major respect: Beneficiaries did not have to be
poor to qualify for a minimum grant, and those who had more savings and who could raise
bigger loans to finance their farms qualified for successively larger grants (Lyne & Darroch,
2003, p. 4). Hereby, LRAD aimed at stimulating ‘black’ entrepreneurship, and creating a class
of black commercial farmers to replace the white commercial farmers (Ainslie et al, 2003, p.
18-19).
Land reform proceeded without a wider rural development framework, until the Integrated
Sustainable Rural Development Program (ISRDP) was presented by president Mbeki in 2001.
The aim was articulated as being: ‘to conduct a sustained campaign against rural and urban
poverty and underdevelopment, bringing in the resources of all three spheres of government
[local, provincial and national, red.] in a coordinated manner’ (Department Provincial and
Local Government, 2006). It was not a whole new innovative program but a policy
mechanism for working in a more coordinated way. This new mechanism was developed to
address the problem of top-down policy-making and –implementation, and the lack of post-
settlement support in the land reform process. The aim was not only to improve
coordination between institutions at different levels, but also to enhance support for the
reduction of widespread poverty by improving poor people’s means to develop sustainable
rural livelihoods. As access to land was seen as crucial for the alleviation of rural livelihoods
the ISRDP combined the formerly separate fields of land reform and poverty reduction. A
typical ISRD program would focus on a certain area to ensure a coordinated, integrated,
holistic program. It would utilize linkages, partnerships and strengthened institutional
capacity as well as community-based institutions (Mazambani, 2001, in Verschoor, 2003, p.
32).
More recently, the creation of the recent Land and Agrarian Reform Program (LARP) has
resulted from increasing collaboration between the Department of Land Affairs (DLA) and
the Department of Agriculture (DoA), both at the national level and the provincial level.
LARP aims at accelerating the pace of service delivery and at a more coordinated and
integrated approach to land reform. LARP shows a strong economic focus, both on the
reduction of unemployment and on increasing agricultural production. LARP has the
following objectives:
• To redistribute five million hectares of white-owned agricultural land to ten thousand
new agricultural producers; this is five hundred hectare per new producer;
• To increase the number of black entrepreneurs in the agribusiness industry by ten
percent;
• To provide universal access to agricultural support services to the target groups;
• To increase agricultural production by ten to fifteen percent;
• To increase agricultural trade by ten to fifteen percent for the target groups.
Other Acts that have become important in the last ten years of land reform are the
Communal Land Rights Act, in which the ownership of land in the former homelands is
given to communities residing there and the Expropriation Act in 2006, in which the
government has obtained the right to forcibly buy-off farmers in order to get land.
8
What becomes clear from the summary of policy initiatives above is that in the first few years
of democracy, South Africa wanted to get rid of its legacy of exclusion, apartheid and
colonialism, by becoming part of a modern, progressive and more liberal world order. This
was part of a continentally popular idea of an African Renaissance, which depended on
inclusion and (re-)empowerment of Africa and Africans (Du Toit, 2009, p. 5). Several policies
were created, implemented and improved to reach this goal, even though one can question
the level of success up to this day. See appendix 2 for an overview of South Africa’s land
reform legislation.
1.2 South African land reform in regional comparison_________
Different political landscapes
In this paragraph, South Africa is compared to two of its neighbours: Namibia and
Zimbabwe. After independence Zimbabwe and Namibia faced similar challenges in land
reform as South Africa. There was a huge need to redistribute land ownership and to end the
division of land based on racial and ethnic differences. Notable features of land reform
policies in these three countries are:
• There was a shift from state-owned land into some form of market-oriented practices
• Communal land held under customary law has not changed significantly anywhere
in the region
• There is little provision of finances and support services for resettled farmers The
only countries where this takes place are South Africa, and in Zimbabwe during the
first ten years after independence
(Breytenbach, in Hunter, 2004, p. 60-61)
But even though these three countries have faced similar problems in their land reform
efforts, when it comes to land issues it is striking how important their national political
landscapes have been in determining how land reform has proceeded.
“The lesson throughout the region is that land restitution cannot solve the problems of land
reform; and that land reform alone cannot solve the problems of poverty and inequality, or
of equity and production” (ibid., 2004, p. 61). This requires a comprehensive land reform
strategy, but also political will and an integrated national and regional approach to land
reform. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has not developed these
strategies yet, and there is still a fundamental lack of an integrated regional approach to land
reform.
9
Land reform in regional comparison
kumhanya hakusi kusvika4
Although there are many similarities in the history of South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe,
the underlying structures of land reform are different. Unlike South Africa, Zimbabwean
colonisation started relatively late, in the 1890s when John Cecil Rhodes crossed the Limpopo
River (Lebert, 2006, p. 1). This means Zimbabwe had a much shorter history with foreign
influences than South Africa. Another difference is the time of independence. Zimbabwe
became independent in 1980, when South Africa and Namibia were still under colonial/
apartheid rule. Namibia became independent in 1990, South Africa in 1994.
A number of similarities can be discerned in the way in which the transition to independence
occurred in the three countries. First, the liberation struggles culminated in negotiations,
leading to a settlement that paved the way to independence. The principal liberation
movements (the South West African People’s Party (SWAPO), in Namibia, the ANC in South
Africa, and the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) in Zimbabwe
constituted the first post-independence governments. The populations of the three countries
had high expectations of their new governments, so the governments made considerable
investments in basic social services and focused their early efforts on acquiring land for the
resettlement of poorer communal farmers (Adams & Howell, 2001, p. 3-6; Sachikonye, in
Hunter, 2004, p. 82).
This search for internal stability and prosperity met with mixed results in the three countries.
Soon after independence, there was an outbreak of civil war in the western Matabeleland
provinces in Zimbabwe, and there were threats of destabilization from the aggressive
apartheid regime in South Africa. In Namibia, the conditions for consolidation of
independence were better in the 1990s. In addition, the regional situation improved with
progress towards a democratic settlement in South Africa. Compared to Zimbabwe, land
reform in South Africa and Namibia has proceeded in a much more peaceful and structured
way (Sachikonye, in Hunter, 2004, p. 82).
One of the striking differences between the three countries is in the way land reform has
progressed. Efforts at land reform in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe moved after fifteen
years from a ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ approach to the ‘fast track’ land reform program
in the 1990s, in which land owners were forced from their land by the government (Adams &
Howell, 2001, p. 4). Zimbabwe’ s fast track strategy was inconceivable in South Africa, where
a range of black empowerment policies have been created and where a rapid-growing black
middle class emphasizes the benefits of secure property ownership. Similar black
empowerment policies have been absent in Zimbabwe and the position of the black middle
class in society was eroding. Mugabe, therefore, chose the only thing that was left to him:
grabbing the land, says Breytenbach (in Hunter, 2004, p. 62).
While there was a common feature in the inequitable land-ownership patterns that the three
countries inherited, there have been clear differences in the scale of such inheritance,
especially the amount of land and the numbers of settlers involved. In Namibia, the amount
4 “Rushing is not arriving”, Shona saying
10
of land held by commercial farmers was comparatively larger than in South Africa and
Zimbabwe because of the semi-arid character of the land; in Zimbabwe and South Africa, the
numbers of land-hungry small farmers was much higher than in Namibia (Sachikonye, in
Hunter, 2004, p. 81). However, South Africa has a much greater proportion of privately held
land (72%), most of which appropriated by white settlers, than Namibia (44%) and
Zimbabwe (41%). Progress in redistribution of these private lands has been greatest in
Zimbabwe (22,5 % in 2001, compared to 1% in South Africa and Namibia) (Adams & Howell,
2001, p. 1).
The fact that Namibia is the most arid country in sub-Saharan Africa is an extra challenge for
the country. It means that there is limited agricultural potential (e.g. less than one percent of
the total landmass is arable). Subsidies to farmers have shrunk and the competition with
global markets has increased. Along with rising fuel costs, there is not much incentive for
established farmers to keep farming. There is also very little government initiative to support
resettlement. Despite all these differences, analysts agree one noticeable common factor of all
three countries is that land reform policies have for the most part not been successful
(Nieuwoudt, 2008).
1.3 Challenges for South African land reform_________________
Dualisms in current policies
Policies for land reform and agrarian reform have been characterized by a two-way strategy.
On the one hand there is the aspiration for poverty reduction through social policies aimed
at redistributing land rights to the landless poor and creating sustainable livelihoods among
the rural population. On the other hand land reform policies have focused on market
integration, up-scaling of agricultural production and an emphasis on agricultural
productivity of land owners which show a more competitive and liberal-economic approach
to land use (Adams & Howell, 2001, p. 1-2; Du Toit, 2009, p. 1). The combination of these two
goals within current South African land reform has led to contradictions and mismatches
between policies, and there is a lack of an integrative strategy in which these two approaches
can be combined.
Besides this, the way land reform policy is presented allows no grey areas. Land reform
policy in South Africa is based on the concepts of inclusion and exclusion. The skewed
division of land is the direct result of the exclusion of black people from the mainstream
economy and social life in general, by discriminatory practices and political barriers during
apartheid. This implies that inclusion is the solution to all problems and this is how land
reform policy has been shaped through the years (Du Toit, ibid.). But reality is never black
and white. Most of the time people are included in a certain area, while being excluded from
another. Black people can be included in agricultural production by getting access to land,
but at the same time be excluded because they do not have access to markets, technology and
credit (Department of Land Affairs, 2008, p. 21). It is this ‘inclusion on disadvantageous terms’
that causes hardship and poverty. So, it is not all about inclusion (and exclusion), it is the
terms of the inclusion that determine whether this inclusion will be successful. If, for
example, people get access to land, but there is no mechanism for receiving credit, they will
11
be excluded from the market. One way to solve this is to give people (legal) rights and
protection (Hickey & Du Toit, 2007).
Another side to this is the much heard discussion about whether all black people can be
included in land reform. It is impossible to give every South African land, although this is a
strong ideal in the political ideology. A selection of beneficiaries is needed. But on the basis
of which criteria do you make this selection? This is a political, economic, social and ethical
decision that has to be made.
Evaluating land reform implementation
Land reform implementation has mainly dealt with two problems. First of all, land reform
implementation has not progressed as fast as intended. The acreage foreseen in 1994 is
lagging behind schedule, especially for the land redistribution policy. Secondly, the effects of
the implemented policies are not as envisaged and as hoped for. The production figures are
lower than expected, inequality between black and white is still high and so is the gap
between poor and rich. A recurring critique is that ‘current land reform policy is not serving
well the purpose in putting redistributed land into production and taking care of household
livelihoods in practice’ (Lahiff, 2008, p. 6). Many different factors have been identified that
cause failure of land reform implementation: inadequate planning, a lack of capital and skills
among intended beneficiaries, a lack of post-settlement support from local municipalities
and provincial departments of agriculture, poor dynamics and lack of cooperation within
beneficiary groups and a lack of proper infrastructure in targeted areas (ibid.). On the next
pages the implementation of the ‘three pillars of land reform’ is shortly discussed.
Land restitution
The target of the ‘restitution of land rights act’ is to give back the historical land rights of
approximately three million people who were expropriated during apartheid. According to
the Department of Land Affairs (DLA), this is reasonable on schedule, as intended in 1994
(see figure 1). The reason why so many restitution claims have been settled is that most of
these claims have been settled through cash compensation and the restitution of state-owned
land (Lahiff, 2008, p. 2). The remaining claims are more difficult so solve, because they
demand private-owned land that is highly productive and economically valuable. These
claims meet a lot of resistance from the land owners. Other problems might also hinder the
settlement of outstanding claims. One of these problems is the high cost of land, especially
the highly productive and attractive areas that are now claimed for restitution. There are also
a lot of disagreements within claiming communities about the land that is claimed
(Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, 2007, p. 3).
12
Figure 1: Land restitution
Because a lot of restitution projects have failed in becoming a success after land had been
returned, ‘strategic partnerships’ have been created between restitution claimants and
commercial operators. Often claimants need assistance, training and investment to use the
newly acquired land in a profitable and sustainable way. The pace of settling restitution
claims has also accelerated. Every claim used to appear before the Land Claims Court or the
Constitutional Court. Now most restitution claims are settled by administration and do not
have to appear before a court anymore (Lahiff, 2008, p. 3).
Land redistribution and tenure reform
The aims of the combined Land Redistribution and Tenure Reform Program, in the policy
documents of the DLA (2007, p. 58), are as follows:
• Redistribution of thirty percent of white-owned agricultural land by 2014 for
sustainable agricultural development
• Provision of long-term tenure security for farm dwellers and other vulnerable groups
• Contribution to poverty reduction
• Contribution to economic growth
• Promotion of social cohesion and economic inclusion
13
According to the statistics of DLA, the target of thirty percent before 2014 will probably not
be met (see: figure 2). An assumption within the whole redistribution scheme is that there is
a demand for productive agricultural land amongst beneficiaries. The land redistribution
scheme is creating top-down demand that is initiated by government policy, whereas
beneficiaries might desire a whole different kind of land redistribution, for example with a
more urban focus. In government policy it is also assumed that once beneficiaries have a
secure title to their land, they will leverage this asset in economically creative ways and start
to get themselves and their families out of poverty. Land titling and reform should then,
according to the government, automatically lead to a contribution to economic growth,
promotion of social cohesion and economic inclusion. In practice, this is not the case.
Important here is the question whether all black land claimants want to be farmers in the
first place. Although this assumption is inexplicitly made within land reform policies, it is
probably false. As will be discussed in the third and fourth chapter, claimants may have
different reasons to apply for a piece of land, and in many cases redistributed agricultural
land has become unproductive because claimants are not interested in farming. This in turn
explains why the government has become hesitant to give prime agricultural land to people
that have no aspiration (or means) to make their land productive.
Figure 2: Land redistribution
14
Redistribution is still affected largely by means of discretionary grants provided by the DLA
for the purchase of land on the open market. In 2006, the plan for the Pro-active Land
Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) was adopted, in which the state buys land for redistribution
directly from landowners instead of giving grants to applicants to buy land themselves. This
state-owned land is then allocated on a leasehold basis for three to five years. After these
years the person who leases the land has the option to buy it. This policy has led to a
growing proportion of land being purchased directly by the state, albeit still on the basis of
voluntary transactions and at agreed (‘market-based’) prices. A recent trend is that land is
purchased by the state without first identifying the intended beneficiaries for that land,
implying that policy may be swinging from an entirely ‘demand led’ approach to a policy
that is increasingly ‘supply led’. This implies that prospective beneficiaries may not be
directly involved in the purchase decision or in the immediate post-purchase planning for
the land, opening up the possibility of a more top-down (‘statist’) approach to both project
implementation and beneficiary selection (Lahiff, 2008, p. 3).
The tenure reform program has been a slow and difficult process within the South African
land and agrarian reform program. This is due to the fact that in many places communities
and individuals reside on state land and therefore have no security of tenure. The
Communal Land Rights Act No 11 of 2004 (CLRA) has assisted in the transfer of communal
land (currently held by the state) to communities and individuals who reside on that land. It
is anticipated that this program will provide security of tenure to more or less twenty million
people (United Nations, n.d., p. 2).
Sustainability impact
An often heard complaint about the implementation of land reform policy is the inadequate
support for beneficiaries after they have received land. The beneficiaries that need support
the most, lack access to all kinds of services, like credit, training and transport and access to
markets. This is exactly the opposite of what land reform policy wants to achieve: more
equality and a reduction of poverty. Besides a lack of support for beneficiaries, there is also
little support for institutions that directly work with beneficiaries, like non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). This lack of support limits these institutions in monitoring and
evaluating projects and their implementation. Furthermore, the local government is hardly
mentioned in the implementation phase, although it plays a vital role in the policy
implementation. There is no clarity about the different roles, rights and responsibilities of the
different stakeholders, like government departments (e.g. DLA and DoA), local
governments, beneficiaries, and NGOs (Lahiff, 2008, p. 6). There is also no shared vision
among the different stakeholders on what land reform is and what it is trying to achieve.
This is an important shortcoming that needs to be clarified in order to make land reform a
success.
Various measures have been undertaken to address the lack of post-settlement support, like
the introduction of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program (CASP), LARP and the
provision of micro-credit under the Micro-Agricultural Finance Initiative of South Africa
(MAFISA) program. Another interesting measure to address the lack of post-settlement
support is the Settlement and Implementation Support (SIS) strategy, which aims at a better
cooperation between the different government departments, but also between government
15
and land reform beneficiaries, NGOs and other stakeholders (Lahiff, 2008, p. 7). The different
programs and measures that have been created to address the lack of post-settlement
support, emphasize that only comprehensive support, with clear agreements, definitions,
goals, and task divisions, can result in sustainable and successful land reform projects.
History has proven that not having a comprehensive strategy, hinders the communication
between different stakeholders, prevents policy from being implemented in a way that
benefits the beneficiaries, and results in top-down policy-making and –implementation from
certain departments, organizations and experts. It seems as if policy makers think there is
something lacking in the different policies, because new policies and measures are created
constantly. However, it is probably not a lack of sound policy that forms the bottleneck in
South African land reform, but a problem of implementation strategies and a lack of skills to
relate abstract policies to the actual people and practices that land reform projects have to
deal with.
Criteria for failure or success
Obviously, something is not going well with land reform policy. In order to address this, it is
essential to know what exactly is going wrong. Although this seems an obvious statement, it
is especially the evaluation of land reform that shows a lack of vision and critical reflection.
Land reform project evaluations show a general lack of insights into what the real
bottlenecks are in the process of land reform implementation and what could be factors for
success. So, one of the main problem land reform faces lies in the fact that there is no
consensus on what an evaluation of land reform should focus at.
First of all, discussions about land reform in South Africa are dominated by the amount of
land that is redistributed from white to black land owners, often expressed as a part of the
total amount of land that was owned by white people at the end of apartheid. The numbers
differ significantly, mostly because different authors use different figures and different
measurements of success. When looking at the figures, some authors only look at land
redistribution, some look at land restitution and some combine both of them. This influences
the level of success, because looking at how much land was allocated; land redistribution has
been less successful than restitution. The sustainability of the different land reform programs
is hardly ever mentioned.
There is also a difference in looking at the amount of land that is transferred under a certain
program and the number of beneficiaries of that program. Important here is that not every
land claim is settled with land. A lot of people, especially in urban areas, have received
money instead of land. When we only look at the number of claims that were settled,
redistribution has been more successful than restitution (Lahiff, 2008, p. 1). In 2007, five
percent of the ‘white-owned’ land had been redistributed, of which forty-five percent
through restitution and fifty-five percent through redistribution (Lahiff, ibid.). These
numbers are exemplary for the focus of government policy. It seems that there is no strategy
for the period after land claims have been settled. Even though the failing of many land
reform programs and projects shows that it is after land claims have been settled, that
problems arise. Many restitution projects have failed in becoming a success after land had
(successfully) been returned. And so, measuring success only by looking at the number of
hectares distributed or number of claims solved does hardly say anything about the success
16
of land reform in the end. Critiques have argued that even more important is the
sustainability of the transfer of land and access rights and whether the beneficiaries indeed
benefit from these transfers (for example, see Adams et al., 1999, p. 1-6).
However, there are different goals
articulated in South African land reform,
among which: livelihood improvement,
stimulation of crop production, and equal
access to land ownership along lines of
gender, class and race. Because there are
different goals, a particular land reform
project can be a success in one respect, but a
failure in the other.
In addition to this, goals and criteria of land reform projects are often unclear on a local and
interpersonal level. When goals and criteria for a land reform project are not made explicit,
goals and criteria for success may change during the process of implementation, and
different stakeholders may have different perceptions of the goals and criteria of the project,
causing confusion or even conflict in the process. However, it is important to realize that this
complexity of different perceptions and goals of land reform is not a problem in itself. And it is inevitable that different stakeholders have different ideas about the goals, benefits and
criteria for a particular land reform initiative. But this complexity definitely becomes a
problem when it is not taken into account in the development and assessment of a land
reform project. In most evaluations of land reform projects only one goal of land reform is
put central, and this is mostly done by experts, policy makers and researchers that have one
particular set of success factors and benefits in mind, like maximizing commercial output or
an increase of monetary income of households. But by sticking to this target, and evaluating
the land reform project only by assessing how much the project adheres to criteria set by
these experts ‘from outside’, other success factors in the project are easily overlooked.
The way in which we evaluate land reform, the focus that we have when looking for success
or failure factors, depends on the framework with which one looks at land reform. The
impact of these different ways of looking at land reform on the outcome of evaluations will
be shown in the next chapter.
Additional literature: LRAN:
Articles on land rights and land reform in South Africa; articles on land reform struggles in
other countries (Latin America and Asia)
www.landaction.org
DLA:
For a government perspective on land reform. The latest news on land reform; articles and
case-studies
http://land.pwv.gov.za/home.htm
Box 1 What determines the failure or success of a land reform project?
• The goals that are set for the project
• The criteria used for its monitoring • The criteria used for its evaluation
17
University of the Western Cape:
Case study on land reform in Namibia
http://etd.uwc.ac.za/usrfiles/modules/etd/docs/etd_init_5934_1180443165.pdf
Livelihoods After Land Reform (LALR):
Land reform in different countries
http://www.lalr.org.za/
Ruth Hall - Land and agrarian reform in South Africa: A status report 2004
History of land reform in South Africa
http://www.dla.gov.za/documents&publications/publications/sis%20strategy/33/Associated
%20background%20documents%5CChapter%203%5CHistory%20of%20land%20reform%5C
hall_status_report_2004.pdf
Sam Moyo - the land question and land reform in Southern Africa
Land reform in Southern African countries
http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/moyo3.pdf
Points of Discussion • Argue whether land reform should or should not be undertaken at all
• Discuss alternatives for the three pillars
• Discuss how South African land reform could become more sustainable
• Commercialization, small-scale farming or both?
18
This chapter concentrates on three different theoretical approaches that are dominant in
social science studies of land reform. Land reform is a very complicated process that takes
place at different scales, with different actors, and that interacts with other processes in
society. It would therefore be a huge task to capture land reform in its totality. Even if
everything could be captured it would remain impossible to make sense of all the data
collected. For this reason academics, policy makers and other people will (implicitly or
explicitly) take a particular perspective with which they observe, discuss and evaluate land
reform. An when they think about land reform, their perception is to some extent influenced
by the assumptions that they made in advance.
Different theoretical frameworks exist in academic debates about land reform that give
direction to the way reality is interpreted, and these different perspectives give priority to
certain aspects of reality while obscuring others. A perspective is built on particular
assumptions of how ‘things work’ and of what is important and what is not. Perspectives
then enable a focus on particular processes in land reform. The choice of a theoretical
framework therefore determines the way in which you look at a (land reform) problem and
this has consequences for the solutions proposed.
Scholars of land reform take different perspectives and may debate with one another. And
through the years, different perspectives and assumptions have also shaped land reform
policy. The problems that land reform has faced since democracy have been evaluated from
perspectives that reflect dominant views in that particular time. By looking at the different
perspectives that have been present in land reform policy throughout the years,
assumptions, justifications and obscurities may become visible and may lead to crucial
insights into land reform dynamics.
In this chapter, first two perspectives on land reform will briefly be introduced: the ‘neo-
liberal’ and the ‘political economy’ perspective. South African land reform policy is to a large
extent shaped by the neo-liberal perspective which focuses on market dynamics and
agricultural productivity. This neo-liberal view has however often been criticized by scholars
using a ‘political economy’ framework. The strengths and limitations of both these
perspectives will be discussed and an alternative perspective, the ‘actor oriented’ approach,
will be put forward. The focus of the actor oriented approach is directed at people and
everyday practices that form a crucial, but often overlooked, dimension of land reform
studies. The last section of this chapter will end by laying bare some of the assumptions
underlying current land reform policy from an actor oriented perspective. In later chapters a
few of these arguments will be further explored in specific case situations.
Chapter 2 Theoretical Approaches to Land Reform
19
Learning goals: After this chapter you should…
• Know the basic assumptions of the neo-liberal, political economy and actor oriented
perspectives with regard to land reform.
• Be able to identify neo-liberal elements in land reform policy
• Be familiar with the criticism of political economy on land reform policy
2.1 Neo-liberal approaches to land reform____________________
The neoliberal perspective mixes neo-classical economic theory with liberal values.
Neoclassical economics centres itself around the workings of the market. The market is seen
as an ordering mechanism that can be used to promote development. Firms, including farms,
operate in the market and are assumed to maximize profit. They compete with other firms
for resources. This ensures the optimal use and allocation of scarce resources. Technology
can further improve the efficiency in the process of converting scarce resources into final
goods and can therefore stimulate development (Varian, 2003).
For farmers to become part of the market, they must externalize. This entails two important
changes. First, they must purchase inputs that
maximize production and profit. Second they
must sell their products on the ‘free market’.
For farmers to become successful they must
become entrepreneurs: they must engage in
market activity, adopt technology, and commit
to scientifically sound ways of farming, all of
which lead to profit maximization. This is both
necessary and desirable. It is necessary,
because otherwise producers will be
outcompeted. Desirable, as competition leads
products to be produced in such a way that prices reflect the relative scarcity of resources
and that diversity of products is stimulated, generating choice. One important condition for
the market to work is private property. Private property secures individual property rights.
This generates trust and only then investments will take place.
Vision and critique on land reform
Lahiff (2007) distinguishes between two bodies of opinion in land reform that can be
considered as having high affinities with the neo-liberal doctrine. The first is a conservative
position taken by liberals who opt for the preservation of the large commercial agriculture.
This position is supported by landowners, some businesses and parts of the ANC. They
acknowledge the need for some black participation within the sector but argue that the poor
and landless are best served by the development of the urban and industrial sector (Lahiff,
2007, Tupi, 2006). Tupi (2006) has argued that state appropriation will weaken the faith that
farmers have in private property. It will lead to a loss of confidence of farmers, leading them
Neo-liberalism 1. The rule of the market 2. Privatization 3. Deregulation 4. Applying new and
improved technology 5. Large-scale is the norm 6. Linear development
20
to invest less in their land. This in turn will negatively affect South Africa’s Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Tupi argues that rather than focusing on land reform, more emphasis should
be placed on the privatization of state owned companies. The money generated by this
privatization can be used to support apartheid victims (Tupi, 2006). Tupi also argues that
land reform has been criticized as being a populist tool used by the government to gain votes
(ibid.). Besides these problems with land reform, land reform beneficiaries have been charged
for being inefficient, inexperienced and lacking access to infrastructure (Anonymous, 2008).
These problems have made South Africa from a food exporter to a food importer (ibid.). "In
South Africa the whole issue of land redistribution has caused a severe drop in food
production already […]. Only thirteen percent of our land has a high potential for
agricultural output, so everything needs to be done to protect it; the current land reform
policy only puts it at risk" (Van der Zyl, in IRIN News, 2008, p. 2)
The second category distinguished by Lahiff (2007) is a more populist position and argues
for reform through the market. These proponents of market-led reform argue that through
the market landowners can decide whether they want to sell, farmers can decide what land
they want to buy and land will be valued according to its productive quality. This position is
supported by most of the proponents of ‘black economic empowerment’, the World Bank,
some South African academics and policy analysts and landowners. They argue that South
Africa’s large scale agriculture has grown inefficient due to being privileged to decades of
state support and protection (Lahiff, 2007). They argue for the support of a new class of
entrepreneurial family farms to ensure competition. Many landowners support this position
as it gives them negotiating power over the price of land at market prices (Lahiff, 2007). Neo-
liberals from both sides have also stressed the importance of land reform to maintain food
production levels. According to them this is best achieved through the market (Adams &
Howel, 2001, p. 1-2).
The neo-liberal discourse is not only present in academic debates but has also had
considerable influence on land reform policy. The neo-liberal influence is evident in a
market-led approach to reform (‘willing buyer-willing seller’), the support of entrepreneurial
farming, business plans, etcetera. This neo-liberal approach has received a lot of criticism
from political economists. This critique will be elaborated upon in the following paragraph.
2.2 Political economy approaches to land reform______________
Whereas neo-liberals see capitalism as a force of positive change, political economists see it
as a force that leads to the exploitation of the weak and poor. Like neo-liberals, political
economists focus on the market as a force of change. However they also include power in
their analysis by dividing society into more and less powerful and economic groups or
classes. Political economists argue that the increasing exposure of the poor to the forces of
privatization and commercialization lead to the weakening of the poor and landless classes.
Capitalism or the spread of (‘free’) markets then mainly benefits and enforces the more
powerful classes.
21
The poorer rural classes have a disadvantage to get access to the market because of a lack of
capital, access to technology and communication/information networks. Even if they receive
a piece of land, they are not in the same position as other farmers that (may) have more
capital, means of production, are skilled, have political power and access to information
networks. In itself this may not be a
problem as long as these poorer classes
have access basic necessities, like for
example food and proper housing.
However according to political economists,
the spread and penetration of capitalism
into different modes of production causes
the position of these classes in society to
weaken. This is because new technologies
and scale enlargement lead to increased
production, which in turn leads to a
decrease in prices of the products sold. The
decrease in the price means farmers get less for their product and thus leads to a reduction in
their profit margin. Smaller farmers are disproportionately struck by this and as a result they
either disappear or are considerably weakened (Bernstein, 1986). A new concern for political
economists is how smallholdings are increasingly incorporated into agro-food chains.
Supermarkets and other retailers contract smallholders to produce a certain amount of
products. Smallholders become to a large extent dependent on these contracts. Retailers at
higher parts of the chain use this dependency to increase their own value added. This means
cutting in the profit margin of the small farmers (Jacobs, 2009).
Vision and critique on land reform
Political economists have had considerable critique on land reform policy in South Africa.
Unlike the neo-liberals, their discourse has not moved much beyond the academic sphere.
According to these academics, land reform has been shaped by the dominant groups in
society including the political elite, businessmen and rich (large-scale) farmers. These groups
are served well by the pro-market approach to land reform taken by government. The end
result is however that land reform has caused little change for the direct benefit of the less
powerful (for example the landless, peasants, wage-workers, ethnic minorities). Evidence for
this is in the failure of current policy mechanisms to serve the poor and the excluded. Some
of these failing mechanisms are discussed below.
First of all there is a failure in beneficiaries acquiring good land because of the ‘willing
buyer-willing seller’ mechanism (see: chapter one). Lahiff (2007) argues that through the
‘willing buyer-willing seller’ mechanism, landowners are able to sell land above the market
price. There is no real market mechanism involved in determining the price as landowners
set the price for which beneficiaries try to obtain grants.
Second, although some groups in society are targeted by land reform policy because of their
weak position in society, there is a lack of success of this ‘empowerment’ in the
implementation phase. Rural black women belong to the poorest categories in South African
society. This marginalized group has been defined as a target for empowerment initiatives in
Political economy - Focus on relation between
economy and politics - Focus on power relations
and classes - The state, instead of the
market, should be in control - Capitalism weakens
production
22
the land reform process from the start. However, the early redistribution policy provided its
grants to households instead of individuals. This made men, who were more likely to control
household resources, the key beneficiaries instead of women. Even after the introduction of
grants for individuals, nowadays still only one tenth of the beneficiaries are women and
women’s rights still depend on the power relations within households and communities
(Hall, 2004, p. 7). The Promoting Women’s Access to Land (PWAL) project was established
in 2002 to identify obstacles and opportunities to advance women’s rights to land. The
PWAL project showed that addressing gender discrimination in the law had limited effect in
itself. Gender structures are firmly set on the local and personal level, for example in
inheritance practices (Hall, 2004, p. 7). In addition, women’s access to land is limited by
paternal structures in society, for example by traditional institutions like chieftaincies
(Hargreaves, 1999, p. 42). The bias is not only in gender but also towards the poorer classes.
Lahiff (2007) has argued that the size of grants depends on the size of your own contribution.
This means that the richer groups are able to receive more and the poorer groups less. This
critique has led political economists to conclude that that the existing class, race and gender
structures have remained politically and economically unchanged or even have
strengthened, despite land reform.
Third, political economists argue that beneficiaries are forced to follow a path that is
conformed to a specific vision of (the future of) agriculture. This entails large scale, capital-
intensive farming which is seen as the most productive form of agriculture. This large scale
path is favoured ‘even though various studies suggest that […] small-scale land use is the
most sought after by the rural poor and landless’ (Lahiff, 2007, p. 1589) The subdivision of
land has been made difficult under the apartheid regime. This situation is consciously
maintained by the current government to steer agriculture into ‘the right’ direction. Dividing
land is an expensive and time consuming administrative burden and there are still legal
barriers to divide land (Lahiff, 2007). Those willing to acquire land are then forced to pool
their grants and work together. This path also favours entrepreneurial behaviour. The
condition to receive a land reform grant is that beneficiaries must follow a business plan set
up by a government-appointed consultant who often bases his calculations on large scale
production models and assumes that the group of beneficiaries will work as a single unit.
This is to ensure farm ‘viability’. These groups however have been criticized as
“dysfunctional – many are in practice inoperative – and for leaving the rights of members ill-
defined and poorly protected.” (Lahiff, 2007, p. 1589). Political economists then argue that
the path government has chosen for agriculture leaves the economic power structure in
South Africa unaffected. In the words of Lahiff:
“Conservative elements within the country—which appear to include most of the agricultural
‘establishment’ of landowners, agricultural economists and officials of the Departments of Agriculture
and Land Affairs – are opposed to any change in agrarian structure, of which subdivision would be the
most obvious sign, and make extensive use of the language of ‘viability’. This feeds directly into the
arguments for ‘deracialization’, whereby conservative and some more progressive forces agree on the
need for a change in the racial profile of landownership, but reject major restructuring along class lines
(i.e. from relatively few large units to many smaller units).” (Lahiff, 2007, p. 1589)
Fourth, Hall (2007a) argues that the formation of land reform policy occurs highly isolated
from other agricultural interventions. The result is that there are few, if any, services to
23
support farmers after settlement. Farmers require information, organization, and capital and
require skills to set up a farm. Without this, farmers are vulnerable to hostile market forces at
a time when they are vulnerable because they are just setting up (Hall, 2007a). Furthermore
even in case a small-scale farm is successfully set up, some political economists argue that
small scale farmers suffer under market conditions. Arguments for this are that economies of
scale can be realized with more land and large landholders can buy up smaller ones. Under
the current system smallholder and subsistence farming is a vicious circle of poverty (Jacobs,
2009). From a political-economy perspective, small-scale farmers must then be protected
from market forces to be able to survive economically.
A fifth critique is the lack of proper representation of the marginal or poor groups in society.
The only countervailing power (to the dominant power and interests that make up the
current agrarian structure) is seen to be the poor and landless, who are represented by the
Landless People’s Movement, NGOs associated with the former National Land Committee
and the newer Alliance of Land and Agrarian reform movements. These movements argue
for a more interventionist role for the state for more widespread distribution and lower
compensation for landowners. However, Lahiff (2007) argues that they only take action
against landowners ‘in general’ without concrete demands at the local level. The result is that
little is achieved and that the vision of small scale farmers and their concerns have little effect
on policy.
Political economists conclude from this that as there is no effective counterforce, the
‘conservative elements’ in government dominate. The overall criticism of political
economists on South African land reform is that the structure of land ownership, and power
relations in general, are not changed by current and recent land reform initiatives. The result
is that the poor are still poor, the powerless still lack proper representation, and women still
play an inferior role in a male-dominated society. The classes in power and the strong large-
scale farming lobby have little interest in change that benefits the poor (Lahiff, 2007). The
result is the persistence of the (structural) class and race divide (Hall, 2007a). Some have
gone as far as to argue that current land reform serves to justify structural inequality as
current policy merely pretends to serve the poor (Mangxitama, in Hall, 2007a, p. 103).
In contrast to neo-liberals (who argue for more market and less state interference in land
reform), political economists see the solution to land reform problems in state intervention.
As the poor classes generally lack proper political representation, the state is responsible for
helping these farmers
to better their position
on the market and in
society in general.
Important here is that
the solutions
envisaged by the two
different approaches
stand in direct relationship with the land reform problems that are seen as most important.
Neo-liberals are more concerned with constraints to economic growth and innovation in
agriculture. Political economists see structural inequality in wealth, power and livelihood
Similarities Neo-liberalism and Political Economy
- Structuralist approach - Small-scale agriculture is not an option - Linearity of development is central
24
opportunities as the most important
problems of land reform. Political
economists then argue that the
government should take a more radical
interventionist approach to land reform to
counter market forces and powerful
groups (Hall, 2007a).
2.3 Actor-oriented approaches to land reform________________
A focus on people
Both neo-liberal and political economy perspectives see development as a linear process
determined by large (structural) forces. Neo-liberalists visualize the survival of profit-
maximizing, entrepreneurial farmers, who use and invest in new technology to modernize
and enhance their production for the market. Those that do not follow this logic will be out-
competed. For political economists capitalism leads to class polarization and the weakening
of small farmers. In both theories the weaker groups in society, like women and poor
farmers, are visualized as more or less homogenous groups, in which all members in the
group share the same needs, and have the same reasons for their decisions related to the use
of land. Also, in both theoretical approaches, the poor, women, small-scale farmers, etcetera,
do not seem to have agency. They are often portrayed as victims of wider processes and
external pressures in society; for example policy decisions by the government or economic
processes at the national or global level.
Both positions draw on theoretical models of farmers. They also tend to overlook reality as
only few studies are carried out on the level of the actors. There has been much evidence that
individual farmers act different from how both neo-liberals and political economists predict
(Long, 1992). How this exactly works out on the ground will be discussed in later chapters. It
is important to study the different actors in their own terms, to see how they make sense of
the world, how they behave, identify and deal with the constraints and opportunities they
face. Knowing this improves policy in the sense that actual (rather than imaginary)
constraints faced by farmers can be addressed.
Agency
Long (1992) introduced an actor oriented approach with which he argued that rather than
assuming that external forces (such as the market or powerful classes) determine the
existence or survival of specific classes, one must look from the perspective of the actor.
Actors have ‘agency’: they have knowledge of their own situation, they can reflect on things
that are happening to them and they can find ways to cope under pressure (Long, 1992). So
even though the market may be a force that restricts the behaviour of peasants, these
peasants may still devise ways to cope with this without disappearing (as theorized by
Actor oriented approach - Development is not a linear
process - The actor has a central
position - Actors have ‘agency’ - Negotiations and interactions
between actors are important
25
political economists) or turning into entrepreneurs (as theorized by neo-liberals). Farmers do
not necessarily adopt the profit maximizing logic and only value production as promoted by
neo-liberals. They may have another logic, which may be more optimal or not, but which is
at least embedded in their actual personal circumstances and their own values. What this
logic is, differs for different people and localities. It is important to study these alternative
strategies as they may offer other (more suitable) paths to development.
By focusing on different actors and their life worlds, the actor oriented approach helps to
shed light on the various assumptions made under current land reform policy. As discussed
above, theories and categories inherent in land reform policy are often at odds with what
actually happens ‘on the ground’. Assumptions are not only made about policy itself but also
on how policy is implemented. Below some of the assumptions will be discussed, limited to
three areas of land reform: the policy arena, the livelihood of beneficiaries, and negotiation in
the procedure of claiming land.
The policy arena
From an actor oriented approach land reform is an outcome of negotiations and interactions
between different actors, not only between groups but also within groups. These include
policy makers, lobbyists, agribusinesses companies, NGO’s, the World Bank and social
movements. A useful way to analyze the implementation of land reform is by
conceptualizing it as a script (Hebinck, 2008). Reading land reform policy as a script means
that to understand the script you must be aware of the historical and current conditions that
shaped it and the perspective that is being used to promote it. Studying the different actors
and their interactions allows us to find out how they affect the script. So although the main
goal of land reform was to address the injustice caused by apartheid, the script now includes
the modernization of agriculture as an aim. Actors cannot always be reduced to a
homogeneous group. Although many political economists argue that the state has a specific
vision of agriculture, there have been conflicting ideas of how land reform should proceed
between the Department of Land Affairs and the Department of Economic Affairs.
Negotiations between actors
Land reform does not only involve beneficiaries and policy makers. Other actors may
(directly or indirectly) affect the land reform process. Land owners and consultants often
play important parts in this. These negotiations are not always constraining but may equally
lead to arrangements that are more suitable than that envisaged by the consultants. For
example, a group of people claiming land in the Kruger Park was not so much interested in
returning to the land but were more interested in getting a share of the park’s revenues.
Negotiation also takes place within the group of farmers. Land is usually granted to groups.
Although these groups may have a common ancestry in the land they should not be seen as a
homogeneous group. There are differences in gender, age, and most have lived in very
different places after eviction. These differences have led to conflicts and make cooperation
between the actors difficult.
26
The motives behind decisions and strategies of different actors cannot be reduced to
economic interests only. For example, some landowner families have lived on their land for
generations and they want to protect their farm not only because it generates income but also
because it is a ‘way of life’.
Livelihoods and the role of land
Land reform policy makers and agricultural experts often focus on productivity increase
from tenure reform. However this goal may not be shared by the beneficiaries of land reform
(Andersson, et al, 2007). The result has been that what farmers do with the land deviates
from what policy makers intended them to do. One way to analyze how beneficiaries
actually use their (access to) land is through the concept of ‘livelihoods’. This concept refers
to the way people are able to make a living (also in a non-monetary way) in everyday life by
combining the use of land, capital, natural recourses, infrastructures ánd social relationships
that are available to them. Understanding the role of livelihoods in the land reform process is
useful for several reasons. First it will give insight in how the actual economic strategies of
beneficiaries deviate from the logic that policy assigns to them. This enables the
identification of why particular projects have not achieved their targets. Second it will allow
for the identification of constraints faced by households. This enables the design of better
informed policy which is likely to be more effective. Third, even though land reform targets
may not have been reached some people may still have benefitted from it in different ways.
Some of these ways may offer alternative paths to development. In chapter three the
livelihood concept will be explained and some examples will be given on the different
meanings people may attribute to land.
The livelihoods approach is also a useful tool to make sense of how beneficiaries give
meaning to land. This feeds directly into what role they want land to play in their lives. This
may be production, non-productive activities or a combination of both. One example is
claiming land for worship. Such a goal can be achieved without changing the status of land
as a national park (when people claim land that is a national reserve) or without evicting
landowners, as what is claimed is access and not ownership. A second example is the role of
natural recourses (like fuel wood, construction material, edible plants and insects, honey,
tools and reeds for weaving) in rural livelihoods. According to a report on livelihood
strategies by Ainslie et al (2003, p. 14) ‘many different resources and species are used to
supply everyday needs’. An example is the collection of medicinal herbs (ibid.). Although the
collection of medicinal herbs may indeed not directly increase agricultural production in a
village, or may not bring a lot of money into a household, it is also important not to
undervalue these kinds of livelihood practices right away without proper investigating the
role of this practice for local livelihoods (which are broader than monetary income only). The
collection of medicinal herbs may be an important role for women in a community, and the
availability of traditional medicine may contribute both to local self-sufficiency (for example
where regular medicine are hard to get or expensive), and to traditional structures of
authority and rituals. The role of natural resources in local livelihood strategies has been
structurally undervalued by state agencies, and therefore not (enough) accounted for in
development projects (Hassan, in Ainslie et al, 2003, p. 16). A third example is that land can
be attained with the intention of keeping it as a pension. People may work outside the farm
during their young life and become subsistence farmers once they retire (Klingen & Van den
27
Berg, 2008). Until that time land can be used productively if attractive sharecropping
arrangements exist.
It is clear from the above that there are different reasons why people want (access to or
ownership of) land, among and within groups of claimants and/or land reform beneficiaries.
These differences also create opportunities for negotiating different arrangements between
beneficiaries and landowners and between production and non-production related activities.
In conclusion, an actor oriented approach calls detailed study of different actors. How do
land reform and the associated changes enter their life worlds and how do actors make sense
of this by adapting, adopting, modifying, combining or resisting the elements of land
reform? A study like this will not only give insight in why actors do certain things and what
steps can be taken to improve their situation but it may also lead to the discovery of ‘hidden’
success stories. In the following chapters case studies will be put forward in which a detailed
analysis of the complexity of land reform is given.
Additional literature: I. Scoones - Livelihoods perspectives and rural development
Description and critical reflection on the development of the livelihoods perspective.
http://www.plaas.org.za/newsevents/news/news_item.2009-06-01.9764642288
S. Razavi - Engendering the political economy of agrarian change
How gender has been taken up by political economy and neoliberal perspectives.
http://www.plaas.org.za/newsevents/news/news_item.2009-06-01.9764642288
Points of discussion: • How do political economists and neo-liberals look at market led reform?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the actor oriented perspective?
• How would you study the effects of land reform in a specific village with an actor
oriented perspective? Discuss what data gathering technique you would use.
28
In this chapter, first an outline of the livelihood concept will be given. This will be followed
by an overview of how different scholars perceive the livelihoods of land reform
beneficiaries. The chapter will end with an overview of livelihood and farming strategies
often overlooked by academics and policy makers and their potential for development.
Learning goals After this chapter you should…
• Understand the differences between subsistence farming and commercial farming,
and be able to discuss the positive and negative aspects of both kinds of farming
• Understand what diversification and risk-minimizing strategies are and give some
examples
• Be able to identify constraints to developing sustainable livelihoods from a land
beneficiary/farmer perspective
• Understand what a livelihood framework is, and be able to identify the five different
pillars of the different livelihood ‘capitals’
3.1 Livelihood___________________________________________________
The livelihood concept
The term ‘livelihood’ is often mentioned in literature about rural development and agrarian
reform. Chambers & Conway (1991, p. 6) defined
the term as “the capabilities, assets (including both
material and social resources) and activities
required for a means of living”. Scoones describes
livelihood as “a complex web of activities and
interactions that emphasize the diversity of ways
people make living” (2009, p. 172). ‘Livelihood' is
discussed and described from a range of different
theoretical and practical perspectives, methods and
frameworks. The term is both complex (it can refer
to a wide array of practices and social categories)
and fluid (it can be adopted in different fields of
study within the broad perspective of rural
development studies (Scoones, 2009, p. 172).
Scoones writes that the term 'livelihood' can be
related to: “locales (rural or urban livelihoods),
occupations (farming, pastoral, or fishing
livelihoods), social difference (gendered, age-
defined livelihoods), directions (livelihood
pathways, trajectories) and many more” (ibid.).
Chapter 3 Land reform in practice: livelihood strategies
Livelihood definitions:
- “The capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living” (Chambers & Conway, 1991, p. 6)
- “a complex web of activities and interactions that emphasize the diversity of ways people make living” (Scoones, 2009, p. 172)
- Livelihoods can be studied by using a subdivision of ‘capitals’: natural, physical, human, financial and social capital (Ellis, 2000)
29
Ellis has developed a framework in which livelihoods can be studied by using a subdivision
of ‘capitals’: natural, physical, human, financial and social capital (Ellis, 2000; Hall, 2007b, p.
3).
1. “Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which
resource flows and services (e.g. nutrient cycling, erosion protection, crops,
forests, wild plants, water, land) useful for livelihoods are derived
2. Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to
support livelihoods (e.g. affordable transport; secure shelter and buildings;
adequate water supply and sanitation; clean, affordable energy; access to
information and communications). This also includes productive and household
assets, including tools, equipment, housing and household goods, as well as
stocks
3. Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, creativity, experience, ability to
labour and good health that, together, enable people to pursue different
livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives
4. Financial capital denotes the financial resources (cash, savings, remittances,
etcetera) that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives. The definition used
here is not economically robust in that it includes flows as well as stocks and it
can contribute to consumption as well as production
5. Social capital means the social resources upon which people draw in pursuit of
their livelihood objectives. It is about the quality of relationships among people
and the extent to which one can count on support by the family or mutual
assistance”
(Ellis, in Wageningen University and Research centre, 2006)
The advantage of the livelihood approach is that it focuses on the level of individual actors
and their everyday practice. The livelihood approach thus illuminates how people organize
farming, how they trade, keep livestock, etcetera, and what strategies they develop to make a
living out of that by using and combining different natural, financial and social resources.
The livelihood approach can be usefully combined with the actor oriented perspective. How
people make a livelihood then depends on how they make sense of their surroundings. They
are not ‘rational’ economic actors but also have other concerns and values that are related to
local specific constraints. To study people’s livelihood one must understand how they see the
world and how external pressures (for example through the market, or changes in policies)
enter into their life worlds. This also entails acknowledging the diversity of livelihoods. Only
when these things are recognised can development interventions be effectively targeted.
Sustainability
Possible indicators of sustainable livelihoods:
• sustainable use of natural resources
• increased income, and/or regularity of income
• increased well-being: water and sanitation, fuel for cooking, good housing
• food security by obtaining higher income or by self-provisioning
• access to social organizations, mobility, access to school and clinics, medicine.
(Hall, 2007b, p. 3)
30
The sustainable livelihood framework provides a basis for identifying indicators of
livelihood impacts of land reform. (Hall, 2007b, p. 3). However, when we discuss the success
or failure of particular livelihood strategies, it is not enough to focus on the benefits and
constraints for the land reform beneficiaries and stakeholders that are directly involved.
Chamber & Conway (1991, p. 6) write that a livelihood is sustainable when it can “cope and
recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide
sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net
benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term”.
Here, the authors make clear that the sustainability of a particular way of 'making a living' is
not only defined by the efficiency of the strategy for the group of people involved. A
livelihood, say, a particular way in which a small-scale farm is organized, is only sustainable
(according to the definition of Chambers and Conway) when it not only benefits the farmers
and farm workers in the present, but in the future as well. Moreover, this farming strategy
should also contribute to the general well-being of society at a wider scale.
3.2 Perceptions of the livelihoods of land reform beneficiaries________
Problems in land use
Recent shifts in land reform policies have shown a growing attention of the South African
government to stimulate rural livelihoods and improve post-settlement support for land
reform beneficiaries (for example, the Sustainable Rural Development Program, see chapter
one). New initiatives are aimed at enhancing land-based livelihoods among the poor, so that
the lives of the poor majority will get beyond the survivalist mode (Ainslie et al, 2003, p. 1).
From the general land policy perspective the solution to poor livelihood conditions is to
alleviate the constraints that exist to agricultural production (ibid.). This recent shift to
livelihoods stands in an ambiguous relation with the other focus in current land reform
policies: the stimulation of commercial production for the market among an emerging (black)
elite (Adams & Howel, 2001, p. 1-2, Ainslie et al, 2003, p. 1). This is to be achieved by
following a path to development from subsistence to commercial farming (Averbeke and
Mohamed, 2006; Lahiff, 2007). Government has stimulated this by opting for a market-led
approach to land reform, hiring consultants that make land use plans for beneficiaries, and
giving higher grants to farmers that invest more money in their land (Lahiff, 2007). Although
these two targets, improving rural livelihoods and stimulation of black commercial farmers
are not incommensurable per se, the accompanying policies need to set out different
strategies and criteria for success to accomplish these different goals.
Many studies have been done to point out the failures of land reform implementation, in
redistribution programs, in rehabilitation and in land tenure reform programs. Neo-liberal
critique on land reform has been that the commercial output of the land has decreased once
land of large scale farms became a patchwork of small plots of land owned by mostly
unskilled beneficiaries (Adams & Howell, 2001, p. 2). One common problem that reappears
in land reform implementation is that land is not used efficiently by the beneficiaries of land
reform, if new appropriated land is used at all. For example, the DLA’s second ‘Quality of
Life’ survey in 2000 mentions widespread underutilization of land. According to the survey
31
land was not used at all or arable land was not used for intensive forms of production,
although it was suitable for that kind of land use (or even had been used for intensive
agriculture before the land reform project). Moreover, the survey found alarmingly high
levels of poverty among beneficiary households (Hall, 2007b, p. 4).
Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) field studies also provide different examples
of under-use of arable land. In Vaalhart, the largest irrigation scheme in the Southern
Hemisphere, there was a declining agricultural production. This decrease in production was
found to have a negative impact on the provincial economy and the livelihoods of the
beneficiaries involved. According to this study stakeholders thought that production
declined because there were too many beneficiaries in relation to the potential of the land,
there was a lack of coordination among stakeholders and beneficiaries and there was a lack
of access to resources for effective collaboration and investment (ARD Field Studies Series #4,
2004). This under-use of high quality agricultural land may have far-reaching effects in the
long run: arable land that could be (and maybe was) used for the production of export
products, lies abandoned. Declining export of crops is seen as a major problem for South
Africa’s national economic prosperity (Adams & Howel, 2001, p. 1-2). Another concern is the
effect under-use of land has in the standard of living of beneficiaries themselves. The ARD
study in Ganspan (ARD Working Report, 2008) showed that diversification of livelihood
strategies was caused by pure necessity, and was therefore a sign of poverty. The study
showed that only three percent of the households were able to earn a living from agriculture,
and three quarters had to make a living from off-farm activities, an a large proportion was
dependent for income on social grants (46%, red.).
Political economists argue that land reform projects have failed because the power structure
has remained the same. Lahiff (2007) has argued that models of agriculture are often
inappropriate for poor land reform beneficiaries:
“Thus a defining characteristic of South African land reform policy is that beneficiaries—no matter how
poor or how numerous—are required to step into the shoes of former white owners and continue to
manage farms as unitary, commercially oriented enterprises, while alternative models, based on low
inputs and smaller units of production, are actively discouraged. This inappropriate model, and the
tensions within beneficiary groups that emerge from it, are largely responsible for the high failure rate of
land reform projects.” (Lahiff, 2007, p. 1590)
3.3 Livelihood and farming strategies______________________________
From a general policy perspective, land reform may be seen as ‘successful’ when
beneficiaries are able to increase the monetary income of the household from the newly
acquired land or access rights, and when job opportunities in general are increased. However
as we have seen in chapter two, farmers value land for other reasons than production as
well. To see the role that land plays in their lives their livelihoods must be taken into
account.
Although different studies show that newly appropriated land is not used for commercial
crop production, this does not mean that this land does not have a value or benefit for
32
beneficiaries. Different cases have shown the high incidence of ‘straddling’ among land
reform beneficiaries. Straddling refers to the situation in which land reform beneficiaries do
not settle on their newly acquired piece of land, but stay on their previous land and combine
both sets of natural and other resources to optimize their livelihood and the range of
opportunities for making a living. The Gallawater reform case provides a clear
demonstration of this livelihood diversification strategy. This case study is taken from
Ainslie, et al (2003).
Just in Case: the Gallawater farm
“In this case a group of 102 land reform beneficiaries that were relocated from the Lady Grey district
(in former Transkei) into the Zweledinga area in the north of the former Ciskei during 1977,
purchased the Gallawater farm in 1995 using a subsidy provided by the state under the provision of
Land and Assistance Act 126 of 1993 and a loan.” In this
case only 22 of the 102 beneficiaries moved to their newly
acquired land. The rest of the beneficiaries stayed on their
prior land or in their prior houses, and used the
Gallawater farm mainly as a grazing area for livestock.
The main reasons that were identified for the reluctance to
move to the new farms were that there was a lack of
housing and a lack of facilities and basic services on the
new farm area. In the Zweledinga area were irrigated
fields, housing facilities and also some communal grazing
areas for livestock. The availability of piped water,
electricity, schools, medical care, roads and a telephone network made these people unwilling to move
to their new land altogether. Instead the new land was used as a supplement, so that they had more
options at hand to let their animals graze, to find farmland in the future, to extract or collect natural
resources and more assets for their households. The families that did move to the Gallawater farms,
also had not abandoned their prior living place altogether. Many of them kept strong ties with family
that stayed behind, and some even developed split households. Interestingly this case study also
showed another often occurring phenomenon in the land restitution process, namely that many of the
beneficiaries were only ‘beneficiaries on paper’.
In a study by Mohamed (2006) various livelihoods types in Dzindzi are identified and
typified. This study shows that land was used in different ways.
• Pensioners who were only concerned about planting crops for their own
consumption.
• Pensioners that hired labour to plant crops for home consumption and who sold
their surplus.
• Skilled wage earners (e.g. teachers) that hired labour to work on their land to
produce for own consumption and to sell their crops.
• Unskilled workers that took on piece jobs and also farmed for food and sold their
crops.
• Market-oriented farmers who sold most of their crops.
• Subsistence farmers that mainly produced for own consumption
33
Both cases above show how a diversity of livelihood strategies, and different ways land is
used for making a living. Striking in the case of Mohamed (2006) is that many of the
livelihood types produce a surplus for commercial markets without falling into the category
of ‘commercial farmer’.
Ainslie et al (2003) argue that there is a dualism in South African thinking about agriculture;
with commercial agriculture coupled with freehold tenure on the one hand and subsistence
agriculture through communal tenure on the other. Subsistence land use, especially when
kept in communal ownership, is often considered wasteful and economically unproductive,
and therefore more attention is given to enhancing commercial agricultural production for
the market. Ainslie et al (2003, p. 1) challenge this dualist idea and argue that this is a rather
simplistic representation of the many different ways the land in South Africa is used in
reality. Instead they propose to replace this view with a ‘continuum of farmers’ approach
that recognizes a broad range of land users who take position somewhere between
commercial and subsistence farming, or that combine different aspects of the dualist divide:
for example communal tenure farmers who are involved in production for the market, or
people who use the land’s resources for a range of different purposes which often stay
unnoticed (for example the use of medicinal plants for traditional healing purposes). Hall
(2007b, p. 4) writes that most farmer that fall within the category ‘subsistence farmer’ still
buy ‘inputs’ and sell some of their products in local or regional markets. So there is a wide
variety of productive uses of land and natural resources amongst residents of communal
areas and land reform beneficiaries. Both Adams & Howel (2001) and Lahiff (2007) propose
that accompanying policies need to set out different strategies and criteria for success to
accomplish these goals.
Identifying Constraints
Land-based livelihoods have generally been undervalued. One should refrain from casting
subsistence land-use as wasteful and economically unproductive, though (Adams et al, 1999,
p. 1-2). This is not to say that there are no problems: “Most poor rural livelihoods encounter
considerable constraints to production that limit their land-based livelihoods to the
survivalist mode” (Ainslie et al, 2003: 1). However, it means that to be able to increase
livelihood opportunities we need to understand the various ways people can or cannot
benefit from land and land recourses. Ainslie, et al (2003) evaluate land reform in South
Africa with a special focus on the effects of land reform on poor people’s livelihoods. Like
most reports on the outcome of land restitution and redistribution, they identify the problem
of under-use of land and the seemingly lack of financial contributions to household income
from the production and sale of crops. The authors identify a range of constraints in different
land reform projects that were aimed explicitly or implicitly at livelihood improvement:
• Poor quality of the land,
• Lack of access to market for the sale of product,
• Lack of capital for investment and technology,
• Lack of organization among farmers,
• Lack of coordinating bodies for of cooperation and communication with other
stakeholders,
34
• Lack of skills and knowledge for commercial production,
• Prevalence of HIV/AIDS
• Gender inequality in rights and access to land.
Which constraints are relevant for a particular land reform case can only partially be
predicted in advance. Hall’s analysis (2007b, p. 2) of different livelihood impact case shows
that the “implications for livelihoods of maintaining or changing land use are contextual”,
and can not be predicted without taking the particular social, political and natural
circumstances into account. For improvement livelihoods through land reform, constraints
encountered by beneficiaries should be identified. For this identification, the local situation,
people’s actual use of the land in all its variety of uses and strategies have to be taken into
account. Land reform policy should be broader in view, and be able to identify and aim for
alleviating these constraints.
Hall (ibid.) writes that there is a lack of empirical studies that show the relationship between
land reform and improvement of livelihoods of land reform beneficiaries. There is also a lack
of data about post settlement processes in general. There is no clear view of the effect of post
settlement needs. The problem is that from a policy view land reform has ‘succeeded’ when
land claims are dealt with, and more people have acquired land rights. However, as different
case studies in Hall’s report show, most problems begin after claims have been settled..
DLA’s second ‘Quality of Life’ survey in 2000 concluded that beneficiaries were better off
than the rural population on average (ibid.). However, the report ‘failed to demonstrate
whether or not this was as a result of their improved access to land – or whether this
correlation was due to the better off being more likely to be able to access the program’ (Hall,
2007b, p. 4). Hall rightly wonders whether these land reform beneficiaries were better off
because they were land reform beneficiaries or if they managed to become land reform
beneficiaries because they were better off (ibid, p. 5). ‘Better off’ here can refer to people who
are literate, have access to communication infrastructure, means of transport, and/or have
contacts with people with authority in local, regional or even national politics. Again it is
empirical data that is lacking: there is almost no information about the life and the profile of
people before they entered land reform program (Hall, 2007b, p. 5).
Strategies for diversification
In this section some possible paths for small-scale agricultural development are described.
There are different ways in which a farmer can diversify (see: figure 1). One possibility is the
diversification of crops and animals. Different crops and animals have different
susceptibilities to pests, diseases and climatic stress. This means that if a natural disaster
occurs, for example a draught or the outbreak of a pest, the chances are higher that some of
the harvest will remain intact when you have multiple crops and/or animals. Similarly
farmers can diversify in the face of market price fluctuations. So for example if the price of
maize drops you can always sell another crop. You can also diversify by using your farm to
engage in other activities. For example by processing maize into flour or by engaging into
agro-tourism. This enables farmers to create additional value from their farm. Diversification
is also possible by engaging in off-farm activity by for example finding a job next to farming.
35
The reasons to diversify then can be to minimize risks. It can also be used as an
entrepreneurial activity (Ellis, 2000).
Figure 3: Forms of Livelihood diversification. Source: http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/index.php?id=39
Another strategy through which small-scale farming can be strengthened is internalisation of
costs or farming economically (Van der Ploeg, 2000). Because of the squeeze on agriculture,
which entails an increase in costs and decrease in the price of agricultural products, farming
becomes increasingly difficult (see: chapter two). One way to deal with this is finding other
sources of income as has been discussed above. Another way is to substitute market
purchased inputs by own created inputs. This can be done by substituting chemical fertiliser
by cattle manure. Households also internalise by producing their own food rather than
having to buy it from the market (farming economically).
Farmers can also be involved in other forms of exchange than only through the market. This
can entail barter exchange amongst farmers and sales within villages. These forms of
exchange may allow for more negotiation (about the price and quality) between those
involved in the exchange compared to exchange through the market (Van der Ploeg, 2000).
They also have the advantage that relatively short distances have to be travelled. These
strategies can be used by people to secure their livelihoods. Such strategies may be usefully
combined with market sales. Many of these strategies were used by an old peasantry that
used to exist in South Africa. These peasants were not only able to produce for themselves,
but also produced a surplus which was sold (Hebinck, 2007). This shows that such strategies
36
are not necessarily paired with a decline in production. The advantage is that these farms are
often very resilient to economic crisis and natural disasters. These strategies can contribute to
what Chamber and Conway (1991) defined as sustainable livelihoods. What particular
strategies are adopted and why, depends on the local conditions and requires field analysis
of the farmers involved.
Finally, the ‘informal economy’ is something that is often overlooked in policies. Farm
produce can be exchanged with neighbours in exchange for their work or produce in
demand by the household. Informal economies are actually quite dominant worldwide.
Think of the statistics you hear about people living on one dollar per day. How do they
manage? Because most of what they need is available without money: by colleting or
producing for own consumption and by sharing: investing in social networks and sharing
and exchanging access to resources. Policymakers tend to overlook the informal economy,
since it formally does not exist (it is not taxed). Contradictory, a flourishing informal
economy can greatly increase the general well-being of the poor. Attempts to regulate and
control this trade could hinder the positive effect on the general well-being of the poor, since
such measures mean extra barriers to successful trade for this weak group. More insight into
the dynamics of these informal economies could lead to a better understanding of the ‘poor
mans logic’ behind seemingly irrational economic behaviour, and to (possibly) stimulating
local livelihoods by better linking policies to actual risk-minimizing and survival practices
‘on the ground’.
The different strategies that are shortly discussed above belong to a rural development
framework that is embedded in an actor oriented approach, which contrasts to the
modernization en liberalization perspective where the adoption of technology and scientific
sound ways of farming is put central. Although there are heavy debates between the
proponents of the two paradigms farmers seem to have no problem in combining both. The
result is a diversity of farming strategies or styles (see: Averbeke & Mohamed, 2006).
Mapping these strategies requires a livelihood approach through which categories can be
created based on the logic of the farmers. This entails acknowledging the diversity of farmers
rather than placing them in a dichotomy of subsistence versus commercial farmers (Ainslie,
et al, 2003).
Additional literature R. Chambers, & G.R. Conway - Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the
21th Century
This article deals with livelihoods: what is it? How can it be defined? What are the
determinants for a ‘sustainable’ livelihood? The article also explains the concepts ‘equity’,
‘sustainability’ and ‘capability’ as crucial aspect of livelihood. A distinction is made between
social sustainability and environmental sustainability.
http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/DOC12443.pdf
I. Scoones - Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis
This paper outlines a framework for analyzing sustainable livelihoods, defined here in
relation to five key indicators. The framework shows how, in different contexts, sustainable
37
livelihoods are achieved through access to a range of livelihood resources (natural,
economic, human and social capitals) which are combined in the pursuit of different
livelihood strategies (agricultural intensification or extensification, livelihood diversification
and migration). Central to the framework is the analysis of the range of formal and informal
organizational and institutional factors that influence sustainable livelihood outcomes. In
conclusion, the paper briefly considers some of the practical, methodological and operational
implications of a sustainable livelihoods approach.
http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001493/P1833-Sustainable-rural-livelihoods_IDS-
paper72.pdf
R. Hall – The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods
This report discusses a number of case studies of land restitution and shows that in many
cases livelihoods did not become better through the land reform initiatives. It becomes clear
in this report that despite all these livelihood initiatives, there was not much profit for the
beneficiaries, although land rights were effectively transferred. Different constraints are
identified, among which the lack of information on the side of the beneficiaries, of which
more commercially – oriented parties often take advantage.
http://www.plaas.org.za/publications/research-reports/PLAAS_RR32_Hall.pdf/
M. Adams, S. Sibanda, S. Turner – Land Tenure and Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa
This paper reviews land tenure reform on communal land against the background of the
repossession of private land occupied by white settlers. The purpose and scope of the
proposed tenure reform in the former homelands of South Africa are described, as well as
the attempts by South Africa’s neighbours to resolve tenure problems in the communal
areas.
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00002412/01/odi_nrp_39.pdf
Websites about livelihood:
• IDS Institute of Development Studies: http://www.eldis.org/go/livelihoods/
• WUR: http://livelihoods.wur.nl
These websites offer free papers, documents and introductory information on development
related issues.
Points of discussion
• In case of land reform, how important is (in your opinion) the environment in the
evaluation of sustainability of a land reform project? Why?
• Read the case of the Gallawater Farm. What livelihood ‘capitals’ can you identify in
the case? Can you think of some more?
• How can you assess whether a sustainable livelihood is achieved or not? What are
according to you the relevant outcome indicators? (use the article of Scoones, 2005).
38
South African society can be seen as a (post-)plural society. For Furnivall (in: Kuper, 1969, p.
10) the social basis of a plural society is a medley of people, who live side by side, but
separately. During apartheid the country was divided into two ‘societies’: a black society and
a white one. A tradition in regard to the nature of a plural society is the creation of an
agreement in which different groups in society manage their relative distance to each other
and through which group interests are more or less safeguarded (Kuper, 1969, p. 7). During
apartheid the different ethnic and racial groups in society came to a certain agreement,
although it was not an agreement of free will on the side of the black population. During
apartheid the separation of people along racial and ethnic lines became highly geographical
as well, as people were sent by the government to black, white and Indian areas. The
separation of people, which even took a geographical dimension, has caused some extra
difficulties for the implementation of land reform projects. First of all, the displacement of
people during colonial times and through apartheid policies, and the fact that whole villages
and even tribes have been removed from the land they resided on, forms the direct
historical-political background of the justice aspects of land restitution. However, people in
South Africa have always been on the move, and although a strong symbolical relationship
with the land is a common theme in South African society, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
identify objectively the ‘roots’ of a particular groups of people to a piece of land. And so in
land reform competing claims come up from different communities and individuals, to the
same piece of land (James, 2007, p. 79-103). Another difficulty that arises from South Africa’s
history of segregation policies is that trust and collaboration between ethnic and racial
groups in society is a sensitive issue, and something that can be stimulated through
communication and integrative platforms for cooperation.
This chapter will focus on the social side of land reform: social capital that forms a crucial
element for the success or failure of land reform implementation. Below several aspects of
social capital will be discussed, and illustrated with examples from land reform projects:
social cohesion, the role of leadership and communication of values and interests between
different stakeholders in a land reform project.
Learning goals:
After reading this chapter, you should...
• Be able to give a description of the characteristics of a plural society
• Be able to mention some causes of conflict in the sharing of a piece of land by
different farmers
• Be able to explain the importance of social cohesion and apply this knowledge in
practice
• Be able to mention the pros and cons of strong leadership in the functioning of a
(farming-)community
Chapter 4 The social side of land reform
39
4.1 Different perceptions__________________________________________
During the implementation of a land reform project, different stakeholders, like the project
workers and the local community, have to come to an agreement on how the project is
executed. In previous chapters it became clear that often projects do not work out the way
they were intended beforehand. When conflicts arise, for example, because of competing
claims in a restitution project, projects workers have to find a solution that all parties can
agree on. For this the needs and aspirations of all direct stakeholders should be taken into
account, something that is only possible though communication between policy workers and
(representatives of) the local community, farmers, consultants, business people and local
people of authority. A complicating factor in this is that these parties often have different
views, backgrounds and even ‘speak a different language’ (policy workers use a different
vocabulary than farmers). Different parties can also have different views on the development
of land. And when the distance between parties is large, they may view the opinion of the
other party as illogical or incomprehensible. Looking at a few case studies of the ARC, it
becomes clear that project workers often have no clear view of the needs and values of the
people they deal with in the local ‘land reform’ situation. People that live on the land that
policymakers want to develop often have their own idea about how their land(-use) should
be improved and which animals they want to use for livestock farming.
The following case study (ARD Report Series #12, 2004) is a good example of how
contradicting perceptions influence the way a project evolves. This case shows a difference in
perception, between the local community and the development workers, about what should
be developed and what direction this development should take. The case study was done by
the ARD, in 2004, in the Limpopo Province and the report they wrote about the study is used
to describe the case below. An important note is that the situation below is described from a
project worker point of view.
Just in Case: goats
The Sekhukhune district has a semi-arid type of climate and thorny acacia bushes dominate the
vegetation. These conditions are good for the production of goats, because goats are sixty percent
browsers. Goats are the most common livestock of the communal farmers and they do not make an
important contribution to the economy of the place.
Livestock and especially goats are often used for ceremonial activities by
the Sekhukhune population, so some animals are kept apart for other
reasons than animal production. In the area there are a lot of predators
and theft of goats by animals like wild cats and jackals is a major
problem in the area. This problem de-motivates the farmers to invest in
their goats, because they loose their goat populations.
The area of Sekhukhune is one of the poorest regions in South Africa
and larger markets are far away from the region. The farmers do not have the assets to transport the
40
goats and their meat and milk to markets nearby to make a profit of it. Especially farmers with a small
stock size do not have the means to hire a vehicle to transport their cattle. The farmers have problems
with the selling of their goats because they lack the knowledge of selling and market information. Not
only has the lack of knowledge about goats influenced the amounts of goats that are sold on markets.
The unpopularity of buying goat meet is also influenced by other reasons. Traditionally, people in the
Sekhukhune district associate goats with ceremonies for their ancestors and that is why the
consumption of meat from a goat is not seen as normal as the consumption of chicken or beef meat is.
A combination of the problems mentioned, make that the goat production project in Sekhukhune
districts has faced many difficulties.
In the case that is summarized above, the social aspect, the perception of the people who are
living in the Sekhukhune district was hardly included by the project workers. A deeper
insight in the social background of the population is lacking, because the focus was mainly
on reaching agricultural goals. The development workers saw the goats as an asset to sell on
a market or to use and eat in a healthy diet. They have looked to the specific environmental
circumstances, and they came to the conclusion that keeping goats is very suitable according
to the local environmental circumstances. But for the people, who own the goats, the animals
have a special meaning in ceremonies and that is the reason that some animals are kept apart
by the owners. In Sekhukhune, goats are associated with their ancestors and that is why it is
not respectful to use the animals as consumption or trade. This fact was mentioned in the
case study, which means that the project workers were aware of it, but nobody dealt with
this during the research. Owners of goat are only forced to sell them, when they have
financial problems, but it is not a popular solution. Also, cultural perceptions made goat
meat unpopular for consumption. But since this was not asked by the project workers, all
they were left with were their assumptions about increasing production and market value.
Communication, knowledge and awareness
The lack of communication between the project workers and the Sekhukhune population has
resulted in a project that is disappointing for both parties. The project was focused on the
improvement of the commercialization of goats and their by-products, but this did not fit
into the expectations and needs of (most) local people. This is also obvious when the
interview questions are taken into consideration, which are mentioned in the report written
by the ARC (ARD Report Series # 12, 2004, p. 111). Although most questions were about the
importance of goats for the livelihood of the interviewees, the questions were mainly focused
on the animals as a potential business product. However, in this case local people would
only sell a goat, when they are in urgent need of money. So, it is true that farmers keep some
goats in Sekhukhune, but not because of the potential business success they can have with
these animals. Goats are kept for financial security reasons and for personal and traditional
reasons.
The Limpopo case makes clear that project workers are often not (enough) aware of the local
perceptions about certain animals and local habits. What remains unclear in the report is
whether this lack of insight is due to time constraints. The importance of this awareness in
project work is argued by Arce and Long:
41
“Implicit in the notion of counter-tendencies to development is an approach which offers a useful vantage
point for understanding the diversity of difference, and allows the [researcher] to engage with local
people’s images and discourses that give meaning to their actions”. (Arce & Long, 2000, p. 18)
This engagement and interaction is of utmost importance. Communication is the key word
here. When there is not enough communication between the project workers and the local
population, the danger exists, that a project does not work out as envisioned by the project
planners. But for meaningful and effective communication and collaboration, people need to
share a certain level of similar perceptions, for example perceptions about a problem
situation. Often this is where it goes wrong, because land reform beneficiaries are not
familiar with the way project workers are reasoning and vice versa.
There is also a lack of knowledge on both sides. The farmers lack knowledge about the
working of the market and about using their goats more effectively for commercial purposes.
The project workers on the other hand, lack knowledge about the local perceptions of goats.
The position goats have in the lives of some villagers in Sekhukhune and the value the
farmers and other villagers attribute to these animals is one reason the animals do not make
an important contribution to the economy of the area. It is not clear here if better
communication could have turned this project into a success, as we lack data for further
evaluation. However, it could be that project workers missed opportunities because of their
preoccupation with the commercial role of goats. Maybe the farmers had been more willing
to cooperate if the focus had not been on goats, but on other animals and their by-products.
The success of this project (and similar projects) can be enhanced by including the opinions
of the project beneficiaries, and by bringing the goals of the project more in line with the
needs and values of the local community.
Different valuations of land
Racial inequality in access to land ownership has been addressed by the post-apartheid
government by making grants available for black farmers to buy a piece of land, and by
restitution of land rights to former occupants. But during the land redistribution process it
became clear that people claim land because of different reasons. One of the reasons might
be to use the land for farming; another reason is to have land to build a house on. A group of
people may claim land because it is the place where their forefathers are buried. Because
poor claimants often cannot pay the required contribution for the land on their own, there
are many cases in which land is given to a group of claimants who have to share the land.
The fact that different people, with different backgrounds, experiences and goals have to
bundle their money and power, can cause struggles, not only because they are often not
familiar with each other, but also because they can have different interests regarding the use
and purpose of the acquired land. In the case study below, it will become clear which
problems occur when different farmers are forced to cooperate, but have different purposes
for the land they receive. Social cohesion is an important parameter for the way farmers feel
responsible to cooperate. The meaning of social cohesion and the importance of it for the
functioning of a community will be clarified in the next paragraph.
42
4.2 Social cohesion_______________________________________________
The way people in a community feel connected to each other and form a social network is
called social cohesion (Kawachi & Berkman, 2004, p. 175). It can be manifested in different
ways in a community.
Sharing a history
A feeling of sharing a similar history is one element in the way members of a community can
feel connected to each other. But a community is not a ‘thing’ with clear boundaries. A
community is created and recreated by the individuals that make up the group, as it is
people that make personal connections. Without the actions, expressions and decisions of
people and without social relations, there is no community. Social capital or social cohesion
is a kind of trust and accountability between different members and positions within a
community (ibid.). Therefore a social network is dynamic, open and changing. What makes
the idea of social cohesion even more complex is that the ‘actions, expressions and decisions’
of people are on the one hand influenced by the personal, individual backgrounds and
preferences of people, and on the other hand by the social networks they are in. So the
development of social capital is a two-way process.
Leadership
Strong leadership is, besides the perception of sharing a similar history, a second factor that
can contribute to a stronger sense of social cohesion. This feeling of togetherness can result in
a successful land claim, since it is more convincing when land is claimed by a group with
similar motivations. The task of the leader is to advocate these motivations into one single
goal. This successful leadership is not only applicable to land claims, but it also contributes
to cooperation between farmers.
In the cases of the Amakolwa and the Makuleke, a strong leader leads the communities. This
does not only strengthen the social cohesion within the communities, but it also creates the
image of a united community to the outside world of policy makers and NGOs. The leader is
the visible personification of a community, its identity and their shared history. In the book
Landmarked, Land Claims &
Land Restitution in South Africa
(Walker, 2008), a case study is
mentioned about the members
of a small group called the
Amakolwa (the (Christian)
believers), who claimed a
former ‘black spot’ in the
north-western part of
KwaZulu Natal. This case shows how important a strong sense of cohesion within a
community is for a land claim to be successful (ibid., p. 28). When the members of a
community are able to unite, their claim on land is much more powerful. The Amakolwa, for
Social Cohesion is… 1. The absence of latent social conflict 2. The presence of strong social bonds
(Kawachi & Berkman, 2004, p. 175)
43
example, protested together, both in court and through sit-ins on the land they claimed back.
The members of the Amakolwa community shared the trauma of the loss of their land in the
past, the promise of return to ‘their’ land when they did not have access to it, and the sense
of victory when they received back their land.
A similar case is the case about the Makuleke community, who successfully claimed land
that was formerly owned by them within the borders of the Kruger National Park, now part
of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. According to Robins & Van der Waal (n.d., p 13)
the Makuleke community is seen as a relatively cohesive and consensual community by
NGOs and donors. This makes it easier for policy makers to negotiate and implement policy,
because there is consensus within the community about their goals. Besides the importance
of a strong leader for social cohesion and a strong position towards the outside world, strong
leadership is also important for organizing the work that has to be done on a farm and
within a community. This can be applied to farmers who are sharing a piece of land, but do
not feel connected and responsible for each other and for the result they are getting from
their agricultural activities.
Of course, strong leadership is not always a positive element in the way social groups are
organized. Also negative examples can be mentioned, where strong leaders used their status
to improve their own position. Conflict between the leader and the local community can
occur more easily then. Conflicts often arise due to the unequal power relations between
local people and government and conservation agencies engaged in joint decision making
(Kepe, Wynberg & Ellis, 2003, p. 20).
Outside support
When dealing with a new project on land reform where new beneficiaries from different
locations are settling in, then coordinators are necessary to organize cooperation and to
create a platform for communication between stakeholders and among beneficiaries. These
coordinators can be members of development organizations, trusts, governmental post-
settlement support agencies, or representatives or leaders of the land reform beneficiaries.
Projects differ greatly in the way local people (or their representatives) have been involved in
the coordination and implementation of land reform.
In the case of the Makuleke community, a group of advisors was formed with experts from
outside their community. The team consisted of four freelance consultants, who had
developed a long-term relationship with the Makuleke (Spierenburg et al, 2006, p. 24). A
team of experts represented the presentation and position of the Makuleke to the South
African National Parks (SANParks) management board, which improved the relation
between the SANParks and the Makuleke (Robins & Van der Waal, n.d., p. 13). Because of
the relatively successful collaboration between the local community and the advisors, both
parties were willing and able to discuss and negotiate the content of the Makuleke land
claim.
But the help from external experts does not always have a positive influence on the situation
of a community. It can also happen that the experts have other interests than the local
community. When they do not inform each other about their purposes, the cooperation (or
44
rather the lack thereof) can have a negative impact on the result. It is only logical that
different parties have different stakes. Again, communication is needed to have a good end
result. Besides this, a good relationship between different stakeholders needs time. The
‘Friends of Makuleke’ had been involved in the land claim of the Makuleke in the Great
Limpopo Transnational Park for a considerable time. The different parties therefore already
had time to improve their mutual understanding, which improved their relationship and the
effective negotiation over their goals and stakes.
Just in Case: social cohesion
In the Limpopo Province, a farming project has been conducted to make the land more profitable. The
land, which was formerly owned by one white farmer, was now owned by a large number of black
farmers. The former owner was willing to sell his farm and this resulted in the sharing of the land by
115 smaller black farmers. All these farmers expressed their desire to farm actively and they were
allocated 0.5 ha of land, where the farmer could farm him or herself. Eleven hectares were used for
commercial farming to generate income to be able to finance management overhead on the farm.
Soon after the land was allocated to the different people, problems arose. Conflicts between the
different farmers were enhanced because of the different visions and
objectives each had for the acquired piece of land. Farmer A used the land
he received to grow maize for his own family consumption and when he
had some maize left he sold the maize at a market nearby. Farmer A
needed water from the river nearby to grow the maize, because his land
was very dry. But to build a irrigation canal, he had to cross the land of
Farmer B. Farmer B had some cows and used the milk from the cows for
his own consumption. He also sold the milk to a local milk company, who
in turn sold the milk to local supermarkets. Farmer B also needed some
water from the river for his cows, but he did not have the means to build
an irrigation canal like Farmer A. Because the canal of Farmer A would
cross farmer B’s land, Farmer B asked Farmer A for some money for the
use of his land to build the irrigation canal. Farmer A did not have a stable
income and was not sure if he would be able to pay the money to farmer B
every month. At the end, they came to an agreement. Farmer B would use some water from the
irrigation canal for his cows, and the canal could cross his land. Farmer A still had one problem to
solve, though. Between farmer B and the river was the land of farmer C. He did not use his land at the
moment. He had claimed the land, because his father was born on the farm during the ownership of
the white farmer. The grandparents of farmer C were buried somewhere on the land. Farmer C was
doing construction work in the Western Cape and he did not visit the Limpopo Province often. But he
and his wife wanted to life on the land after their retirement. He was already busy with building a
house on the plot for after his retirement. Farmer C was not happy with the fact that Farmer A wanted
to use his land to build an irrigation canal, because he was afraid that in his absence bad things would
happen to his house, like somebody breaking in. Farmer C therefore asked a lot of money of Farmer A
in return for his cooperation. Farmer A could not afford that much money and so his maize died
because of water shortage. The only possibility left for farmer A was to cross the land of Farmer D.
The disadvantage of this was that this canal would have to be much longer than when the canal
would cross the land of farmer C. But for now this seemed the only solution.
45
The farmers had to work together to run the commercial farm. A complicating factor in these cases is
that it is sometimes difficult to receive subsidies, because all the farmers have to sign the subsidy
proposals. Farmers like farmer C, who do not life on their land, make it almost impossible for the
other farmers to apply for subsidies.
The Limpopo case makes clear what the role is of social organization, collaboration and
communication between the different farmers and other stakeholders, like community
workers, in the way a project and the shaping of a social network can result in a success. A
lack of social cohesion becomes clear through different stages in land reform: in the
organisation, in the way farmers feel responsible for their own success and for the success of
the other farmers, and in the way farmers often miss the social fabric, or a coordinating body,
for working together efficiently.
Trust, effectiveness and communication
In the case it was visible that the forced living together of different farmers causes problems.
Farmer A could not work effectively because he depended on the willingness of other
landowners, to irrigate his land. The different beneficiaries did not know the exact intentions
of the other partners who were involved in the same project. Some farmers in the Limpopo
case had an interest in landownership, without a clear understanding of the importance of
their new resource for their neighbours. Farmer C did not want to use his land for farming,
but he made it impossible for Farmer A and B to use their land for farming purposes in an
optimal way. In South Africa many new landowners stay far from the land they own, like
was the case with Farmer C.
Ideally, all stakeholders should work together to reach the goals they set out when claiming
land. The land should be seen as a shared responsibility. Policy makers and government
officials often see this as something that will happen naturally and inevitably. This is not the
case, though. One of the problems is that the new landowners are often strangers to each
other and feel no sense of cohesion. They have no previous connection and do not share the
same history. It is therefore difficult for the farmers to trust their neighbours and the other
landowners. In the case, farmer C did not trust farmer A to use his land for the irrigation
canal, while he was absent. It would have been much more effective if farmer A, B and C
would have bundled their powers to build an irrigation canal. In the future, when farmer C
is going to live in the house he is currently building, he will also need water taps in the
house. This means that at some point, he will have to connect pipelines to the river. It would
be much more effective and cheaper for everyone, if farmer C would cooperate with the
other farmers now to make the pipeline and irrigation canal possible. In this case a lack of
knowledge and trust that prevents this from happening.
Of course there are more reasons why the cooperation between farmers fails. A lot of people
are so used to receive guidance, that they become dependent on this guidance. There is a
major difference in owning a farm and working on a farm. Since many land reform
beneficiaries were not allowed to own land for a long time, they often lack a sense of
responsibility for their land, or skills and knowledge to use their land effectively. What
becomes clear in the above-mentioned case is that there is not one problem and one solution.
46
The lack of social cohesion is caused by several factors and this lack of cohesion itself also
causes many interlinked difficulties for the new landowners. It is important for government
officials and policy makers to be aware of this. A conclusion that can be drawn is that for
successful land reform implementation post-settlement support should be in place that is not
only aimed at the training of skills and knowledge among beneficiaries, but also at giving
support to collaboration between beneficiaries and setting up platforms (organizations,
infrastructure) for effective communication and the exchange of knowledge.
Additional literature • Website on plural society
On this website the relation between a plural society and a colonialist history is
elaborated on.
http://www.john-rex.com/docs/Plural%20Society.pdf
• ARD Field Study #4
To read the full report about the Sekhukhune case
http://www.icra-edu.org/objects/public_eng/RepFSSouthAfr2004.pdf
• D. Chidester, P. Dexter & W. James (eds.) – What holds us together: Social
Cohesion in South Africa
The book is about the sense of social cohesion in changing South Africa, after
apartheid.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=__ycVguikuQC&dq=what+holds+us+together+africa
&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=4-
QF15PHqf&sig=OH9EG1wPcrBBGESip75PoGUBGcs&hl=nl&ei=5RA6SqGjD43R-
QamrZzzAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA8,M1
Points of discussion • Discuss what the function of an external expert can be in the way a land claim is
eventually resulting in a successful claim?
• Which examples of social cohesion do you see, when you look around at the place
where you live?
47
Transect Walk
A transect walk is a tool to gather information from the field. It is a (straight)
walk from point A to B along an imaginary line through an area that is
interesting to study. During a transect walk, data is collected for further
evaluation afterwards. This tool is useful to observe what kinds of resources are
available in the area and how the livelihoods of local people are organized.
Hereby, natural resources, land use, vegetation, housing types, crops, animals,
infrastructure, etcetera, are identified in their spatial context.
How can a transect walk be useful in studying livelihoods?
A transect walk can assist in exploring the way in which people in a particular
place (a village and surrounding fields) organize their life at the practical, local
level. Through observation along the walk through the village and the
surrounding area, participants should get more insight in the characteristics of
people, infrastructure, natural resources, land and the village. Along the way
more information can be asked at farmers or people in the village. The purpose
of this exercise is to build a bridge between the theory of livelihoods and the
practice of everyday situations outside of the classroom. By walking a transect,
you are able to observe directly the context in which people organize their
livelihood. The advantage of this tool is that students are stimulated to go out of
the classroom and observe local reality directly and interact with people that are
(possibly) affected by land reform policies. Through reflection on the different
observations that were made during the transect walk in a discussion
afterwards, students can reflect on the selection they have made in their
observation and assumption that they had about local people. Through
discussion students are stimulated to reflect on their assumptions and to
exchange experiences and new insights obtained from the field situation.
Learning goals After this assignment you should…
• Be able to apply your knowledge about livelihoods, acquired in this
course, in the field
• Be able to recognize livelihood strategies
Preparation
When executing a transect walk, a plan is required. A suitable village needs to be
within range of the participants to study. Some investigation in the village needs
to be done in preparation of how much time will be spent, and whether it is
safe/allowed to walk there. Stakeholders should be contacted to ask for
permission when transects through private property are proposed. Then the
chief or owners of land should be contacted and informed that the participants
will come to do a survey.
Assignm
ent 1 Transect W
alk
48
The length of a transect depends on the information density along its
pathway. Information diverse areas (when different kinds of land use and
livelihoods are present in a small area) consume time in data collection, this
should be taken into consideration. The transect walk can best be executed as a
cross-section of a rural village where multiple livelihood activities take place.
The line should take both the centre and the periphery of this village into its
path to get a good spatial overview of the local community. It might be useful
to contact someone in the village to assist with the walk to relieve tensions that
may emerge from trespassing.
To collect data; sheets of paper and writing material are essential, along with a
clipboard. When interviewing local people a voice recorder might be used as
well (if available). Furthermore, a photo camera can be useful to record
features and assess them afterwards (if available). Groups should consist out
of approximately five people. Having multiple persons available is useful
when recording data.
Recording data
The recording of a transect walk can be written down in a transect diagram
(figure 1). It is a table with a drawing of the transect on top and different
categories that can be observed in the left column. It is essential to understand
which data needs to be collected before starting. A soil scientist needs other
data than a social scientist. When studying livelihoods, one can use the five
capitals that were discusses in chapter three.
Figure 4: example of a transect data sheet (IAPAD, n.d.)
These five different capitals can be put into the category ‘boxes’ in the
diagram, however, they might be made more specific. A way to do this
efficiently is by making individual participants responsible to record data of
one specific capital. e.g. one person of the group is recording natural capital,
Assignm
ent 1 Transect W
alk
49
another one physical capital, etcetera., all making a diagram for that particular
‘capital’. The recording can be done individually, however observing and decision
making of the recorded capitals has to be done participatory, because during
execution it might be discovered that different people will see different things,
especially if they come from different disciplines. This could challenge the
perceptions of the participants and that is a purpose of this exercise.
When data is recorded, a (simplified) diagram for a participant recording natural
capital could look like this (see: table 2.1 & table 2.2):
Table 1: Participant recording natural capital
Natural
capital
Section1 Section2 Section3 Section4 Section5
Plants/crops Forest Grasses Hedges Swamp Garden
flowers
Water Dry soil Pond/wetted
soil
Dry soil Wet Irrigation
ditch
Land use Nature
reserve
Pasture Farmyard Fallow Village
Soil Sandy Clayish Sand Peat Paved,
concrete
Animals Game
animals,
birds
Cattle (goats
and cows)
Livestock,
dog,
birds,
Mosquitoes Dogs,
birds,
cats
Consequently, the (simplified) diagram for participant recording physical capital
could look like this:
Table 2: Participant recording physical capital
Physical capital Section1 Section2 Section3 Section4 Section5
Transport Animal
paths
Dirt road Dirt road canal Asphalt road
Buildings Hunter
hut
none House +
shed
none Grocery store,
houses,
workshop,
Utilities (power,
water,
communication)
none none Power,
pump
well,
phone
connection
none Bad water
service, basic
electricity,
mobile phone
mast
Assets none feedstock tractor Fishing
boat
Pickup truck,
bicycles
Assignm
ent 1 Transect W
alk
50
Human and social capital can be investigated by observing people’s behaviour
and having prepared questionnaires. Human capital questionnaires focus on
peoples’ own skills and knowledge (internal social power), like the work they
are executing and the level of education they have. On the other hand, social
capital questions should be more focused towards interpersonal relationships
(like getting support from your family, belonging to a church, and trade
relations). Social capital consists out of services people can derive from
connections to other people (external social power). Information about human
and social capital can also be obtained through observation. For example, the
presence of a school, a church or a market place. Furthermore, demography can
be assessed. For instance are there people in all age classes? Do women work on
the land? Are there migrants in the village? Or are all residents recent settlers?
Are there differences in housing, from which you could learn something about
differences in wealth?
Financial capital can be assessed by looking at the wealth of the houses and
assets. Land ownership (titling) might as well be translated into financial capital
when it can be leveraged as collateral for a loan. Furthermore, expensive assets
that require monetary investment can indicate financial wealth of the owners, or
the municipality when they are part of the public sector.
Furthermore, the following points can be taken into consideration when being in
the field:
• When talking to the villagers formulate question using the words: when,
what, how, where, why and who, as these are focused on specific
information
• Make notes (and photographs) of important information gathered and
draw sketches wherever necessary, this means that not every miniature
detail has to be recorded (a big house that shows wealth can be quickly
sketched down as a big house; avoid wasting time in drawing every
brick)
• Travel slowly and patiently and try to understand the livelihoods in the
village from different perspectives
At the end, the different diagrams and questionnaire reports should be
combined into a spatial overview which shows the presence of the different
capitals in their spatial context. This overview is needed for the next step;
evaluation.
Evaluation
In the evaluation observations of livelihood strategies need to be challenged in
relation to assumptions, perceptions and theories that students have (learned).
This can be done through a discussion. In order to have a fruitful discussion,
useful information is required as input for the discussion. The spatial overview
made from the combined diagrams can be used to evaluate the collected data. A
way to do this is to have a list of questions to guide a discussion about the
Assignm
ent 1 Transect W
alk
51
information gathered during the transect walk. Key questions to initiate a discussion
might include the following examples (Worldbank, n.d.):
• What resources are abundant or scarce?
• How do these resources change through the area?
• Where do people obtain water and firewood?
• Where does livestock graze?
• What constraints or problems are observed in the different areas?
• Are these problems new to you or are they identified due to prior knowledge?
• What possibilities or opportunities do you see in the different areas?
• Where do different population sub-groups live? Are they segregated or mixed?
Do the poorest households live in certain areas (such as at the rim of an area or a
community)?
These points might be discussed within the group, but could be discussed with people
in the community as well. A pro of a discussion with community members is that
participants’ assumptions about the environment are challenged, whereas a con is that
such a meeting needs to be facilitated. Also, the information that is received from such a
discussion with a ‘local’, depends on whom is invited. A chief will draw his attention to
other issues than a local farmer. Also, power relations amongst community members
should not be ignored. Some people might not say things in presence of other people.
Assignm
ent 1 Transect W
alk
52
53
Role Playing
A role play is a training session in which there is a set-up scenario, where people are
assigned different roles, especially roles they will encounter in real work situations. It
is important for participants to be able to see the situation in the field in general, and
especially from a perspective that they will not take in reality. This will result in more
sensitivity for other people’s ways of experiencing the situation. According to Bartle
(2009), role playing games are an effective method of increasing awareness,
enhancing participant analysis of field situations, and familiarizing people with the
roles, aims, perspectives and positions of people whom they will meet in the field.
Roles will be acted out by groups of four to five students. This role can first be
discussed within the group, so the group can decide what the role’s opinion about the
subject is and how to safeguard their interests (combination of group discussion and
role play).
In line with the fourth chapter, the emphasis in this role play assignment is on finding
out what the different interests and needs are that bring people to particular claims or
taking particular positions in a conflict situation. As was explained in the previous
chapters, land may have different meanings and values for different stakeholders,
and people may want access to land for different purposes. Through listening to each
other and the sharing of information this becomes more explicit, and often more
options appear for a solution that is satisfactory for all parties (Fisher & Ury, 1999, pp.
33-35, 41-57).
Learning goals After this play, you should...
• Be able to apply your knowledge, skills, and understandings about land
reform in a ‘field situation’
• Be able to speak, reason, and act from different, assigned perspectives
• Become aware of the goals and opinions of others by discussion and
negotiation
• Become aware of your own prejudices and assumptions by discussion and
negotiation
(Barkley, Cross & Major, 2005, p. 150)
Assignm
ent 2 Role P
lay
54
Case Scenario
The following scenario will be used for the role play. To see how a role play is
organized, see appendix 3.
Short role descriptions:
After reading the case about Ubuntu, the class will be divided in groups of four
to five people. Each group receives a certain role and a description of this role.
First the groups will discuss separately what their ideas about their roles are. At
the same time, they will have to prepare for a negotiation and discussion with
other groups. Below, the roles for the Ubuntu case are written down.
Just in Case: Ubuntu Ubuntu Nature Reserve is a popular nature reserve in Mpumalanga. It is not far from the
Panorama Route, where thousands of tourists pass every year. A lot of these tourists also
visit Ubuntu for its unique variety of birds and many waterfalls. Ten kilometres outside the
nature reserve, is the village Broek River. It is a small, mainly agricultural village with 620
inhabitants. Most of the villagers belong to the Mashudu, an ethnic group that has lived in
the area for hundreds of years. The other inhabitants are migrants from
Zimbabwe and Mozambique who work as wage labourers on the farms
of the villagers. Before the Department of Bantu Affairs forcibly
removed the Mashudu from their land in 1968, they lived within the
borders of what is now Ubuntu Nature Reserve. Even though they lost
ownership of their land, they have always kept strong ties to the land.
In 1998, the Mashudu organized themselves, went to the DLA and the Land Claims Court,
and lodged a claim for the restitution of their land. The claim of the Mashudu rested on the
following grounds:
• They were deprived of their land rights in terms of discriminatory legislation and by
means of discriminatory policies
• They never agreed to the exchange
• No adequate compensation was offered to them for the land and possessions lost
After the claim was lodged, a few problems arose. First of all, the land that was claimed is
nowadays a nature reserve with huge economic value for the region. SANParks (SANP),
tourist offices and the local government prefer to keep the nature reserve and therefore
protested against the claim of the Mashudu. SANP is also afraid that the unique wildlife in
Ubuntu Nature Reserve will be destroyed by the permanent presence of the Mashudu.
Experts from DLA have looked at the problematic situation, but have not been able to come
up with practical solutions for the problems.
Now, after years, this land restitution claim has still not been settled. The different
stakeholders have been asked to come together and to try to find a solution that is
satisfactory for everyone.
Assignm
ent 2 Role P
lay
55
Makuleke
o Historically strong ties with the land; the land determines identity.
o Current living situation is bad; the land in the nature reserve is much
more fertile
SANParks
o Are afraid the nature in Ubuntu will be destroyed by the permanent
presence of the Makuleke
o Laws prohibit living among animals (e.g. it is prohibited to hunt birds)
Local government
o Has been assigned by the national government to give back a certain
amount of land
o Wants to prevent the loss of economic activity and resources in the area
Tourist offices
o Tourism is important in the area; the tourist offices fear a loss of jobs,
economic resources
o Nature reserves are important tourist attractions
Experts from the national government
o Emphasize the economic benefits Ubuntu would bring to the Mashudu.
They propose to improve agricultural production in the current living
area
It is very useful and informative to write down your feelings and experiences during
the role play. Afterwards, you will discuss about and reflect upon the role play. Have
fun!!!
Assignm
ent 2 Role P
lay
56
Appendix 1: Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning
The Kolb cycle is about knowing, experiencing, understanding and applying. The cycle looks
as follows:
1. Is about the concrete experience people already have
2. Is about reflection on this experience
3. Is about theory and abstract conceptualization
4. Is about exercises and experiments
It does not matter where you start in the cycle, as long as you finish all the steps.
Source:
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~infed/images/explrn.gif&imgrefurl=htt
p://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~infed/handouts/experiential_learning.htm&usg=__wPBE89sNbU1Ea_qPpYVhb4
y0zvg=&h=453&w=705&sz=11&hl=en&start=22&um=1&tbnid=75xDs1MiGjPkPM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=140&prev=/im
ages%3Fq%3Dkolb%2Bcycle%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1
57
Appendix 2: Land reform legislation
Table 3
Legislation Purpose
Provision of Land and
Assistance Act 126 of
1993
Empowers the Minister of Land Affairs to make available grants
for land purchase and related purposes to individuals,
households or municipalities
Restitution of Land
Rights Act 22 of 1994 Establishes the right of people dispossessed of property after 1913
to restitution of that land or alternative redress
Land Reform (Labour
tenants) Act 3 of 1996 Provides tenure rights to labour tenants living on private farms
and enables them to apply to acquire full ownership of the land
they already reside on and use
Communal Property
Association Act 28 of
1996
Enables groups of people to hold and manage their land jointly
through a legal entity registered with the Department of Land
Affairs (DLA)
Interim Protection of
Informal Land Rights
Act 31 of 1996
A temporary holding mechanism to protect the tenure rights of
people who occupy land in the former homelands without formal
documented rights, pending promulgation of an Act regulating
communal land tenure rights and renewed annually
Extension of Security
of Tenure Act 62 of
1997
Protects farm dwellers from arbitrary eviction and enables them
to acquire long-term secure tenure rights, either on the farms
where they currently reside or elsewhere
Transformation of
Certain Rural Areas
Act 94 of 1998
Repeals the Rural Areas Act 9 of 1987 and establishes procedures
for upgrading the tenure rights of residents to commonage and
residential land in the 23 former ‘coloured’ reserves
Restitution of Land
Rights Amendment
Act 48 of 2003
Empowers the Minister of Land Affairs to expropriate property
without a court order, for restitution or other land reform
purposes.
Broad-based Black
Economic
Empowerment Act 53
of 2003
transform South Africa’s economy and society as a means of
achieving black economic empowerment, by replacing white
middle class (farmers) and the white managerial industrial top by
black people
Communal Land
Rights Act 11 of 2004 Provides for the transfer in ownership of land in the former
homelands to communities residing there, or alternative redress
Expropriation Act of
2008 Follow-up on the Act of 1975. But whereas the 1975 Act narrowly
focused on the market value as the sole determinant for the
negotiations preceding expropriation, the proposed new Bill, in
line with the Constitution, takes the holistic view and considers
other relevant factors such as the current use of the property,
"...the history of the acquisition, the extent of the direct state
involvement and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital
improvement of the property." (Gabara & Appel, 2008)
(Sources: Hall, 2004; Gabara & Appel, 2008)
58
Appendix 3: Role Play
Source: Bartle, 2009
What does a role play look like? In a standard role-play session, there are three stages:
1. The set-up of the play At this stage, the role-play scenario is described and the different roles are assigned to the different groups of students. These roles can be worked out by the players at the moment of the role-play, but pre-fabricated / pre-designed roles can also be used.
2. The play stage At this stage, the role-play is carried out and the students act out their roles. Student groups discuss and negotiate with each other about the scenario or a certain case study.
3. The follow up At this stage, the student groups will discuss together what happened during the role play. Why did certain groups/ individuals take a certain position? The explanations and the discussions are important to get a better understanding of the social dynamics that are inherent to every field situation. Reality is never black-and-white.
59
Adams, M., Howel, J. (2001). Redistributive Land Reform in Southern Africa Natural Resource
Perspectives, 64, pp. 1-6. Adams, M., Sibanda, S., & Turner, S. (1999). Land tenure and rural livelihoods in southern
Africa Natural Resource Perspectives, 39, pp. 1-14 [online available:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00002412/01/odi_nrp_39.pdf ]
Ainslie, A., Andrew, M., & Shackleton, C. (2003). Evaluating Land and Agrarian Reform in
South Africa. [Occasional Paper Series nr. 8: Land Use and Livelihoods]. Cape Town:
Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies.
Arce, A. & Long, N. (2000). Reconfiguring modernity and development from an
anthropological perspective. In: Arce, A., & Long, N. (eds.). Anthropology, Development
and Modernities: exploring discourses, counter-tendencies and violence. London:
Routledge.
Andersson, J.A., Twine, W., Murwira, A., Giller, K.E., Mashingaidze, A.B., & Slingerland, M.
(2007). Land, productivity, and agricultural research: Towards an understanding of the
multiple meanings of land. Johannesburg: Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
(FARA).
ARD Field Study Series #1 (2004). Improving post-settlement support services in the Free
State Province, South Africa: some hypotheses for discussion.
ARD Field Study Series # 4 (2004). Development of a project framework for land reform in the
Vaalharts Irrigation scheme in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa.
ARD Report Series #12 (2004). Goat production and livelihood systems in Sekhukhune
district of the Limpopo Province.
ARD Report Series #7 (2005). Peri-urban renewal through agriculture: A case study of
identifying opportunities to alleviate poverty in JB Mafora Free State Province, South
Africa.
ARD Report Series #11 (2005). Investigating land use in the Mbashe Local Municipality:
Improving community based access to agricultural services and programmes.
ARD Working Report Series # 133 (2008). Can it be achieved? Partnering towards improving
livelihoods in Ganspan Settlement.
Barkley, E.F, Cross, K.P., & Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative Learning Techniques: A
handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bartle, P. (2009). Role playing and simulation games: a training technique. Retrieved on June 10,
2009, from http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/tm-int.htm
References
60
Bernstein, H., (1986). Capitalism and petty commodity production, in: Social Analysis:
Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 20.
Bernstein, H. (2007). Agrarian questions of capital and labour: some theory about land
reform (and a periodisation). In: Ntsebeza & Hall, R. (eds.). The land question in South
Africa. The challenge of transformation and redistribution, Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Boddy-Evans, A. (2009). African history: influx control. Retrieved on June 10, 2009, from
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/apartheidterms/g/def_influx.htm
Chambers, R., & Conway, G.R. (1991). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for
the 21th Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Retrieved from:
http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0708/DOC12443.pdf
Commission on Restitution of Land Rights. (2007). Annual Report 2006/2007. Pretoria:
Commission on Restitution of Land Rights.
Department of Land Affairs. (2008). The Land and Agrarian Reform Project (LARP). The
Concept Document. Department of Land Affairs.
Department Provincial and Local Government. (2006). ISRDP and URP. Retrieved on May
30, 2009, from http://isrdp.dplg.gov.za/
Didiza, A.T. (2006). Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa: 1994-2006. Presentation for
the international conference on agrarian reform and rural development, Brazil.
Retrieved on May 30, 2009, from
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:cAoPUGXr314J:www.icarrd.org/en/icard_doc_do
wn/national_SouthAfrica.doc+land+reform+south+africa+dates&cd=7&hl=nl&ct=clnk
&gl=nl
Du Toit, A. (2009). Adverse incorporation and agrarian policy in South Africa, or how not to
connect the rural poor to growth [draft version]. Cape Town: Program for Land and
Agrarian Studies.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Farouk, F. (2009). Rural Women and Land Reform: When will we move beyond the rhetoric?
South African Civil Society Information Service. Retrieved on June 3, 2009,
http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/news/detail.asp?iData=161&iCat=253&iChannel=1
&nChannel=News
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1999). Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement without giving in.
London: The Random House Group.
61
Gabara, N., & Appel, M. (2008). South Africa: New Expropriation Bill to Advance Land
Reform. Retrieved on May 30, 2009, from
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803260886.html
Giller, K. E., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J.A., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A., Frost, P., Hebinck, P.,
Heitkönig, I, Van Ittersum, M.K., Koning, N., Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Udo, H.,
Veldkamp, T., Van de Vijver, C., Van Wijk, M.T., & Windmeijer, P. (2008). Competing
claims on natural resources: what role for science?. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 34.
Retrieved on June 15, 2009, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art34/
Hall, R. (2004). Land and agrarian reform in South Africa: a status report 2004. Cape Town:
Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies.
Hall R, (2007a). Transforming rural South Africa? Taking stock of land reform. In: Ntsebeza
& Hall, R. (eds.). The land question in South Africa. The challenge of transformation
and redistribution, Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Hall, R. (2007b) The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods. Research
Report 32. Retrieved on May 28, from:
http://www.plaas.org.za/publications/research-reports/PLAAS_RR32_Hall.pdf/
Hargreaves, S. (1999). Land reform: putting gender in the centre. Agenda, 42, pp. 42-48.
Hebinck, P. (2007). Examining rural livelihoods and landscape: an introduction. In Hebinck,
P., & Lent, P. Livelihoods and landscape: The people of Guquka and Koloni and their
resources. Leiden/Boston : Brill Academic Publishers.
Hebinck, P. (2008). Land reform, scripts and social space: emergent properties in rural South
Africa. In: Hebinck, P and Slootweg, S. (eds.). Tales of development: people, power and
space. Assen: van Gorcum.
Hickey, S., & Du Toit, A. (2007). Adverse incorporation, social exclusion and chronic poverty.
Working Paper No. 81. Chronic Poverty Research Centre.
Hunter, J. (2004). Who should own the land? Windhoek: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung &
Namibia Institute for Democracy.
IAPAD [Integrated Approaches to Participatory Development]. (n.d.). Transect Mapping.
Retrieved on June 12, 2009, from http://www.iapad.org/transect_mapping.htm
IRIN News. (October 23, 2008). SOUTH AFRICA: Land redistribution back on the front
burner. Retrieved on June 9, 2009, from
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=81089
James, D. (2007). Gaining Ground? ‘Rights’ and ‘Property’ in South African Land Reform. New
York: Routledge.
62
Jacobs, P. (2009). Agricultural Market Reforms and the Rural Poor in South Africa. PLAAS
Working Paper. Paper prepared for presentation at Working on the Margins
Conference, 26-27 March 2009. Unpublished typescript.
Kawachi, I & Berkman, L. (2004). Social Cohesion, Social Capital, and Health. Retrieved on June
15, from http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/fox/WST206F’04/kawasoci.pdf
Kepe, T., Wynberg, R. & Ellis, W. (2003). Land reform and biodiversity conservation in South
Africa: Complementary or in conflict? Cape Town: School of Government University of
the Western Cape.
Klingen, K., & Van den Berg, L. (2008). A Baseline Survey of Small Scale Farmers
Converting to Conservation Agriculture in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa.
[MSc Internship report]. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
Kuper, L. (1969). Plural societies: Perspectives and Problems. In: Kuper, L. & Smith, M.
(eds.). Pluralism in Africa. University of California Press.
Lahiff, E. (2007). ‘Willing buyer, willing seller’: South Africa’s failed experiment in market
led agrarian reform. Third world quarterly, 28 (8), pp. 1577-1597.
Lahiff, E. (2008). Land reform in South Africa: a status report 2008. Research report No. 38.
Cape Town: Program for Land and Agrarian Studies.
Lebert, T. (2006). An introduction to land and agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. In Rosset, Patel,
& Courville (eds.). Promised land: Competing visions of agrarian reform. Oakland, USA:
Food First Institute for Food and Development Policy.
Long, N. (2001). Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Lyne, M., & Darroch, M. (2003). Land redistribution in South Africa: Past performance and
future policy. Madison, USA: University of Wisconsin BASIS CRSP Management
Entity.
Mohamed, S.S. (2006). Livelihoods of plot owners at the Dzindi smallholder canal irrigation
scheme. [thesis]. Pretoria: Tshwane university of technology.
Nieuwoudt, S. (2008). South Africa: digging for hope in land reform. Retrieved on May 31,
2009, from http://allafrica.com/stories/200808130005.html
Palmer, R. (April 22-23, 2008). Land reform in the broader context of Southern Africa. In:
Land reform from below: decentralized land reform in Southern Africa, Kopnong
Hotel, Johannesburg [conference].
Razavi S. (2009). Engendering the political economy of agrarian change. Journal of peasant
studies, 36(1), pp. 197-226.
63
Robins, S. & Waal, K. van der (n.d.) ‘Model Tribes’ and Iconic Conservationists? The
Makuleke Restitution Case in Kruger National Park. [Non-published paper]. Stellenbosch:
Stellenbosch University.
Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihood perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 36 (1), pp. 171 – 196.
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/189633__911010105.pdf
Spierenburg, M., Steenkamp, C. & Wels, H. (2006). Resistance of local communities against
marginalization in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Focaal –
European Journal of Anthropology, 47, pp. 18-31.
Terreblanche, S.J. (1999). The ideological journey of South Africa: from the RDP to the
GEAR macro-economic plan. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
Tupi. (2006). South Africa's Land Woes. The Washington Times, March 6, 2006. Retrieved
from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6334.
United Nations. (n.d.). Land. Retrieved, June 11, 2009, from
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/safrica/land.pdf
Van Averbeke, W,. & Mohamed, S.S. (2006). Smallholder farming styles and development
policy in South Africa: the case of Dzindi Irrigation Scheme. Agrekon, 45 (2), pp. 136-
157. [http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/31712/1/45020136.pdf]
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2000). Revitalizing Agriculture : Farming Economically as Starting
Ground for Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), pp. 497-511.
Varian, H. (2003). Intermediate microeconomics : a modern approach. New York: Norton.
Verschoor, A. (2003). Agricultural development in the North-West Province of South Africa
through the application of comprehensive project planning and appraisal
methodologies [PhD]. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Walker, C. (2005). The limits to land reform: rethinking ‘the land question’. Journal of
Southern African Studies, 31(4), pp. 805-823.
Walker, C. (2008). Landmarked: Land Claims & Land Restitution in South Africa.
Johannesburg: Jacana Media.
World bank. (n.d.). Transect walk. Retrieved on June 12, 2009, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPPSISOU/Resources/1424002-
1185304794278/4026035-1185375653056/4028835-1185375678936/1_Transect_walk.pdf
Wageningen University and Research centre. (2006). Towards a livelihood framework. Retrieved
on May 28, 2009, from http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/index.php?id=59]
64
Xingwana, L. (August 26, 2006). Keynote address delivered by the Honourable Minister for
Agriculture and Land Affairs, to the Rural Women in Agriculture and Land
Initiatives Summit, Elangeni Sun Hotel, Durban. Retrieved on June 3, 2009, from
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2006/06083114451001.htm
