Paradigms+of+land+reform+in+SA,+Roger+Roman,+Land+for+Peace

=Paradigms of land reform in South Africa=


 * Roger Roman, Land For Peace, 16 January 2008**

Albert Einstein wasn’t thinking of land reform in SA when he said:

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved At the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

He was referring to the strength of paradigms, and how they shape our ability to identify and resolve complex problems. In essence he is saying we have to change not merely our thoughts, but the entire level or paradigm of our thoughts. The purpose of this document is to apply Einstein’s statement to a current paradigm of thinking about land reform in SA.

The paper “Policy options for land reform in South Africa: New Institutional Mechanisms?” published by Plaas in Policy Brief 26 of 2007 makes the following statement in its Abstract:

“A new phase of land reform located within a wider agrarian reform is needed and will require new institutional arrangements.”

This statement is foundational to the thinking and analysis that follows in the paper’s examination of international models, and conclusions for our own land reform programme. In other words it is the fundamental paradigm within which the rest of the analysis is located. It is not a controversial statement, being typical of many similar statements in most papers and debate about land reform in SA. In fact, it is the operating paradigm of our current actions to achieve land reform delivery.

This paradigm essentially locates land reform within the agricultural sector, specifically within farming, and proceeds from this starting point. The legislation, policies, and institutional mechanisms of our national land reform programme are grounded in this thinking, thereby reflecting and reinforcing it. Examples of institutions reflecting this paradigm include both DLA and Plaas. The closest thing we have to a national vision for land reform, i.e. the 30% of agricultural land target, reflects the same paradigm. The range of civil society and private sector organizations with which government interacts regarding land reform is similarly located primarily within the agricultural sector.

Two consequences of this thinking are worth highlighting. One is that in seeking to establish land reform projects we look for opportunities and options within the limits of agriculture, specifically farming, only. (E.g. the Policy Brief). The other is that, taken to its logical conclusion, this paradigm holds that if we deliver successfully on land reform within agriculture we will have succeeded in meeting our national land challenges.


 * An Alternative Paradigm**

With a single word change, the above statement from the Policy Brief would read:

“A new phase of land reform located within a wider //__economic__// reform is needed and will require new institutional arrangements.”

Within this paradigm a fundamentally different land reform programme, and set of institutional arrangements, emerges. In this paradigm land is located within the far broader context of the current economy of SA, not within agriculture alone. Its land reform programme would therefore have to recognise and respond to the spectrum of diverse ways in which today’s economy and society value, utilize, and benefit from land - across all relevant economic sectors and value chains. This paradigm recognises the entire private sector, and specifically the full range of landowners, as direct stakeholders in land reform - and its strategic success or failure. Not the farmers/organized agriculture only.


 * “The land is the economy!”**

The first time I encountered this statement was on Zanu-PF’s posters of the 2000 election campaign. It appeared again in the SACP’s 2004 Red October campaign to facilitate a broad civil society alliance ahead of the Land Summit of 2005. Debate on this statement during the consultative meetings that established the Alliance of Land and Rural Movements (ALARM) was conducted partially within a Marxist economic analysis, and partially within a social movement framework of liberation and empowerment. What emerged was a range of social and economic needs and usages for land, and demands for land reform, that cannot possibly be met by land reform located within an agrarian environment only. Research since this debate into the varied roles land has in the modern economy certainly suggests a variety of good reasons to question the validity of continuing with our current land reform programme restricted to agriculture only. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that persisting with this paradigm will itself ensure the ongoing strategic failure of land reform in SA to respond the “the land question”.


 * Land and Wealth Creation and Distribution**

The Gini-coefficient is a widely accepted instrument to measure the wealth creation and distribution of a given economic system such as a state, sector or company. It is the basis of the international measurement regime indicating South Africa’s current wealth distribution to be one of the most unequal in the world. Not only is the gap between the two groups measured already greater than in almost any other society in the world, it is increasing, especially post 1994. To understand the importance of land to the economy it is logical to examine the role land ownership and access have played in defining the two groups and the extent of the gap between them in SA. I have not come across a researched analysis of the role of land within the Gini-coefficient, and have therefore had to rely on my own limited research capacities. What emerges is that land is absolutely central to the historic and current wealth patterns of the national economy of all states, as well as to efforts to strategically change those distribution patterns. This applies, with different expression, in economies based on the private ownership of land, those based on state ownership, and those with dimensions of both.

Certainly the South African economy, as measured by the Gini-coefficient, reflects that land ownership was, and still is, a central determinant of the current wealth distribution and the extent of the gap.

The Native Land Act of 1913 was fundamental to the current land ownership pattern of SA. The economic logic at the time of passing it was two-fold. Through restricting land ownership of black citizens it sought to protect white farmers from competition, and simultaneously to create the migrant labour force that would build South Africa’s mining based economy. Even in 1913 the economic value of land in SA was multi sectoral and not restricted to agriculture alone. This point is well illustrated by considering the relative contributions made by agriculture and mining to the wealth creation and distribution patterns of the SA economy. Land ownership was fundamental to the wealth creation of the rich group in SA, but it generated far greater wealth via mining and other non-farm usage than through agriculture.

The resources extracted through mining the land became the foundation of the economy of SA, and the laws restricting land ownership by race were the foundation of the economic edifice of the apartheid state. The rapidly industrializing economy extracted coal to build our energy sector ( Eskom, Sasol etc), iron ore (Iscor, Highveld etc) and a range over 130 minerals that form the basis of the chemicals, construction, manufacturing and industrial sectors.

Primarily in order to enable the mining and other sectors to function, SA developed a sophisticated banking and financial services sector. These sectors are still fundamentally dependent on private ownership of property, especially immovable property i.e. land.

What could be grown on the land of SA established our commercial agriculture, food processing, beverages, furniture, paper and pulp, textiles, and increasingly bio-fuels sectors.

The trading of land as a commodity has established the property sector (residential, industrial, commercial and retail), as well as the brokers, financers, developers, investors (foreign and local), estate agents, and professionals (e.g. legal) which service and enable land transactions. It is worth noting that the residential property sector has experienced a global leading upward trend post 1994 and is a significant contributor to the growth in inequality reflected by the Gini-coefficient in SA.

At the individual and family levels land ownership represents tenure and security, access to capital, a family heritage, and all the wealth accumulation potential that derives from ownership of one of the fundamental factors of production. It is fundamental to cross generational wealth and opportunity transfer.

The above are a few examples to illustrate the point that land is fundamental to the national and personal patterns of wealth accumulation in the current economy of SA. It defines the nature, strengths and international competitiveness of our economy within a global economy.

This paradigm accepts the centrality of land to the modern SA economy, and therefore in contemplating national economic reform it regards land reform as a crucial economic factor. It locates land reform as central to the developmental state and its economic transformation, rather than a “quirk” in one sector alone.


 * Agrarian reform**

Within this economic paradigm agriculture is viewed as operating within the food, textile, energy and other sectors that it supplies. Therefore, to achieve economic transformation of these sectors, agricultural land is valued as a fundamental factor of production, and therefore represents a fundamental opportunity for economic transformation.

The example that follows is in the food sector, but the same pattern and opportunity apply in the other sectors supplied by primary agriculture. Within the food sector the power of a handful of supermarkets in SA to dominate the farmers and food processors is well known and established, and fairly typical of international trends. To a large extent they determine the product itself (which cultivar, its required shelf life, appearance, additives, packaging etc) the bio security standards of the processing, and the prices paid to suppliers. Essentially they set the standards, and ensure compliance through programmes of monitoring and inspection, and pressure on management to conform.

With such proven capacity to influence their supplier operations they constitute the most logical economic fulcrum through which to bring about change in the agricultural sector which they effectively dominate. Compliance by commercial agriculture with the transformational requirements of the AgriBEE Charter is entirely consistent with the transformational objectives of the food sector overall, including those of the food retail companies themselves. In other words, in pursuit of their own BEE ratings and standards Pick n Pay can enhance their corporate profile, their corporate responsibility and achieve a sustainable development framework.

Therefore it would be logical within this paradigm for government and the food sector to jointly establish goals for the progressive implementation of compliance with these criteria on the part of the suppliers to the supermarkets. Within this framework the capacity of the supermarkets to determine the standards of their suppliers would be extended to include compliance with land reform requirements. The infrastructure they already have to enable standard setting and on site monitoring can be expanded to include these additional factors. Imagine, for a moment, the impact of Pick n Pay making it clear to their suppliers that conformance with land equity standards etc is the only way to retain their supplier status, supported by options, and say a 5 year process to achieve this together. This would be a far more compelling and effective catalyst for change in the operations of the commercial farmer than some distant agreement signed between organized agriculture and government to which the average farmer is neither a signatory nor committed.

The potential for sustainable agrarian reform is significantly enhanced through partnerships such as this, when compared with programmes generated and delivered by government and the farmers almost in isolation as today. More inclusive partnerships with all the supply chains within which primary agriculture operates gives us a far greater chance of achieving both substantial and sustainable land reform in agriculture.


 * Rural Land Reform**

The rural economy of SA today is a multi sectoral and mixed economy. It comprises a cluster of sectors including agriculture, mining, forestry, parks and conservation, tourism especially eco-tourism, and a variety of other sectors. In any given area, the range of land usages and therefore the range of options for land reform is multi sectoral. Any coherent area based land management system will therefore reflect land reform in all the key sectors that constitute the local economy and its projected trends, not just in agriculture alone.

Within this paradigm we would seek opportunities to establish land reform communities with multi sectoral income streams and opportunities. A land reform project supported by say a furniture workshop, a tourism destination such as a B and B, and a construction company, in addition to farming, is still land reform! We seem to have almost developed a fixation that land reform means the beneficiaries must farm. Surely we create the possibility of greater economic sustainability for land reform communities when they derive their income from a variety of sources, instead of total exposure to one source only.

To put all our eggs in one basket, particularly when it is that sector is uniquely vulnerable to the vagaries of weather and climate change, is highly risky and dangerous. In doing so not only do we lose many other opportunities for economic and land reform projects, but we also are certain to damage the agricultural sector, not improve it. If the entire national imperative for land reform, political and economic, is placed on the white owned farms alone we create intolerable pressure and expectations on agriculture. It cannot deliver land reform alone, and to expect it to is simply delusional. The desperate need for land reform in SA requires us to expand, and not to limit, the range of options for delivery. The cluster of sectors that constitute the rural economy of SA must become part of our land reform programme thinking, resource base, and infrastructure.


 * Urban Land Reform**

Within the paradigm of land reform located within a wider economic reform it becomes immediately evident that rural land reform in SA cannot meet the land needs of the peri-urban, urban and inner city economies and communities. Internationally, and in SA, the rural to urban population shift is well established and significant. In developing economies such as our own the current 50% of the population living in urban areas is predicted to rise to 80% within one generation. In the process the demand for land in urban and peri-urban areas is growing exponentially. Also growing exponentially are the protests and demonstrations in peri-urban and urban communities of SA. The lack of available and suitable land for housing, infrastructure and community needs is at the core of a majority of these protests. This is as much a part of our land reform challenges in SA today as is the need for rural land reform. Not one or the other, but both.

If we continue to operate with the paradigm of land reform within agrarian reform we run the risk of failing to address this growing demand for land for peri-urban and urban communities. The political risk of this is greater for SA and government than failure in rural land reform if one considers the relative levels of organisation and capacity of the urban landless and homeless compared with their rural counterparts. The 2010 World Cup in SA has already negatively impacted peri-urban and urban landless communities with land dispossessions for soccer stadiums, and will increasingly result in evictions of shack dwellers and street traders as the time for the world’s media and tourists to arrive approaches. It will also provide the increasingly well mobilized and organised urban landless with the perfect opportunity for activism and protest. We should not underestimate the potential impact of 2010 on our civil society in general and urban social movements in particular. If we fail to fast track comprehensive land reform across the continuum from deep rural to inner city society we guarantee the growth of massive urban slums and all the concomitant social, political and economic results.


 * New Institutional Arrangements for Land Reform**

The Plaas Policy Brief paper focuses on institutional arrangements for land reform located within a wider agrarian reform, and so it would be logical to speculate what the institutional arrangements for land reform located within a wider economic reform might be.

Probably, the first logical consequence for our existing institutional arrangements would be to separate Land and Agriculture at Ministry level. This dedicated Land Ministry would include the state land and related responsibilities currently located within Public Works. Perhaps the separation of land and agriculture, both in the Ministry and in our minds, is one of the most constructive and catalytic steps we would have to take. Perhaps, like conjoined twins, they belong apart, and once separated will thrive and develop their individual strengths and characters. There is much to suggest that agriculture will itself also benefit from such a separation. This Land Ministry would incorporate an agricultural desk, alongside similar capacities in mining, forestry, tourism residential, etc.

It would recognize that partnerships with civil society and across the private sector are fundamental to the delivery of land reform that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, and that the institutional arrangements need to be multi stakeholder. It would recognise that in Nedlac we have an appropriate institution through which to engage the social partners in a new phase of land reform. Located within a broad economic reform programme it would engage the private sector at the level of organised business (BUSA), at sectoral level, and at corporate level to integrate land reform within a developmental state and economy.

It would seem logical for the Land Ministry to interact with its counterparts in other developing economies in Africa and beyond, but specifically including Brazil, India, and China which, like us, are strategically challenged by the demands of land reform in vastly unequal societies and complex economies. The focus of such multi lateral interactions on land reform would be to develop new international models for land reform in modern developing economies. The early models of post colonial land reform in Africa, South America and Asia were located in economies that were essentially agricultural and pre industrial, and in societies that were primarily rural based. The old models must be replaced by more relevant alternatives.

The ultimate success of our land reform programme will be determined by its ability to deliver “on the ground”, in other words at the level of sustainable projects. Therefore it would seem logical that the infrastructure and partnerships for land reform need to be strongest at local level. A land forum engaging government, civil society and the private sector in every one of the 284 municipalities would seem to be an indispensable minimum requirement of the institutional arrangements.


 * The Power of Paradigms**

In writing the above I have tried to advance a conceptual and logical argument to question the validity and impact of our current paradigm of land reform in SA. Perhaps the most persuasive reason for doing so, however, lies at the practical level of delivery of sustainable projects. The paradigm locating land reform within a wider economic reform creates vastly more opportunities and resources for practical delivery. It in no way reduces the number of opportunities and options that exist within the agrarian paradigm. It increases the range of opportunities within agriculture itself, adds opportunities in the other sectors that constitute the rural economy, and adds the opportunities to respond to the peri-urban and urban land requirements. In other words all the opportunities we foresee in the existing paradigm, instead of constituting the full 100% of scope for land reform delivery, become something closer to 20 – 40% of a far bigger pool of opportunities. Similarly, the pool of resources to deliver sustainable land reform including skills, funding, market experience and creativity is increased exponentially. The current crisis in land reform in SA surely requires us to be expanding both the options and capacity for projects in every way we can to fast track delivery.


 * Ends**

By e-mail

3282 words