Date: 01/06/2010
Source: FW De Klerk Foundation
Title: SA: De Klerk: Speech by Former President of South Africa, to the Cape Agri Employers Organisation, on land reform

It would be a mistake to underestimate the emotional commitment of many
black South Africans to the need for land reform. For them, the
revolutionary struggle will not be complete until a substantial - and
perhaps demographically proportional - area of South Africa has been
restored to black ownership.

ANC statements on land reform almost invariably refer to the historic
dispossession of black land by ‘colonialists'. Last week, in a speech to the
National Council of Provinces, the Minister of Rural Development and Land
Reform, Mr Gugile Nkwinti, once again referred to the ‘colonialist' use of
land to subdue the conquered population, to divide and rule them and to
break down the traditional system of ‘ubuntu'. He repeated the remarkable
statement that he had made in Parliament on 24 March that "all anti-colonial
struggles are at the core about two things, repossession of lost land and
restoring the centrality of indigenous culture to underscore all
nation-building endeavours."

The Freedom Charter calls for the redistribution of land among "those who
worked it" to end hunger and "hunger for land". The need for land reform has
been a constant theme of the ANC government. It was renewed at the 2005 Land
Summit which called for an end to the willing buyer, willing seller
approach. It was again evident in the resolution on land reform that was
adopted by the ANC's National Conference at Polokwane in December 2007.

The Polokwane resolution described organized commercial agriculture as "the
outcome of centuries of dispossession, labour coercion and state subsidy for
the chosen few". It renewed the call for "the redistribution of 30% of
agricultural land before 2014" and demanded the abandonment of
"market-driven land reform" and the immediate review of "the of
willing-seller, willing-buyer" principle.

The Polokwane resolution found expression in the controversial Expropriation
Bill in 2008 which, in effect, tried to by-pass the courts in determining
fair compensation for expropriated property. Fortunately, the Bill was
withdrawn after an outcry from civil society, organized agriculture and
foreign and local investors.

In a speech to Parliament on 24 March 2010, Minister Nkwinti launched a new
land reform initiative. He said that national sovereignty was defined in
terms of land and that land was a national asset. It was therefore ‘fitting
and appropriate' that his department had adopted a strategy of ‘Agrarian
Transformation'. The goal was a ‘rapid and fundamental change in the ...
systems and patterns of ownership and control of land, livestock, cropping
and community.'

The new strategy would be promoted by the introduction of a three-tier land
tenure system that would make provision for

state land under leasehold;
private land, under freehold with limited extent; and
foreign-ownership under "precarious tenure linked to productivity and
partnership models with South African citizens".
Presumably "freehold with limited extent" means that there might be a limit
to the number, or the size, of properties that South Africans can own. The
position of foreign land owners would be precarious and would require them
to enter into partnerships with South Africans if they wish to retain an
interest in their land. These proposals were supposed to have been set out
in greater detail in a Green Paper that should have been presented to
Parliament by the end of April - but which has still not appeared.

In a subsequent TV interview, Minister Nkwinti made it clear that one of his
goals was to break up large farms - despite the fact that they produce 80%
of South Africa's food. The Minister's position was in line with the
Polokwane resolution that called for the abandonment of all policies that
favoured large-scale, capital intensive agriculture and proposed a special
land tax to encourage the sale of under-utilised land and the
deconcentration of land ownership.

Before the agricultural community could fully digest the implications of
Minister Nkwinti's announcement, they were confronted with fresh and
apparently uncoordinated proposals for another form of land reform from the
Minister of Agriculture, Tina Joemat-Pettersson.

In an interview with Die Burger, she said that the ANC was considering a
share scheme for black farmers in terms of which commercial farmers would
relinquish 40% of the value of their farms to black shareholders. This would
help the government to reach its land reform target which she said had been
impeded by the ‘willing buyer, willing seller' principle. The proposal would
apparently be set out in new Black Economic Empowerment legislation for the
agricultural sector. This would presumably require the renegotiation of the
agricultural sector empowerment charter, which was signed in March 2008
after exhaustive discussions. The proposed agricultural share scheme will
apparently be discussed at the ANC's National General Council meeting in
September.

Joemat-Pettersson warned that "If we did not break the deadlock and solve
the land question together we were headed for a situation that would make
Zimbabwe look like a teddy-bear's picnic." However, President Zuma
subsequently denied that there would be "similar kinds of land invasions in
this country, because we do things within the law." He said that the current
land distribution method would have to be revisited and that significant
changes would have to be made in the "willing seller, willing buyer" model.
The government was looking for a less costly and more pragmatic approach.

It is clear from all these developments that we can expect far-reaching new
land reform initiatives later this year. It would be wise for all those
involved to consider the following realities:

Property rights are at the very heart of the negotiated constitutional
consensus. Section 25 makes provision for expropriation in the public
interest - which specifically includes land reform. However, compensation
must either be agreed by the affected parties or approved by a court in a
manner that reflects an equitable balance between the public interest and
interests of the landowner. Any attempt to deviate from this principle will
have very negative consequences for agriculture; for national unity; and for
future foreign and domestic investment in the economy.
Although land reform enjoys high priority with the ANC, the great majority
of black South Africans do not want to become farmers. According to a survey
by the Centre for Development and Enterprise in 2006 only 9% of black
non-farmers have clear aspirations to farm. Only 2% identified rural land as
a priority.
Although less than 6% of agricultural land has been transferred to black
South Africans in terms of government schemes, more than 25 million hectares
are either owned by the Government or are in the former homelands. Private
non-recorded land sales might have transferred as much as 7% of agricultural
land to black owners. All this land added together is not too far short of
the ANC's 30% goal.
5% of agricultural land comes onto the market every year. The main problem
is most often not that farmers are demanding exorbitant prices but that the
state bureaucracy is incapable of effectively handling the transactions.
Food security is a national priority. It is essential that redistributed
land should not result in reductions in food production.
Successful modern agriculture often requires large farms with high levels of
capital, expertise and luck.
Small scale farming does not present a panacea for black development. The
agricultural sector contributes only 2.6% to gross domestic product.
It is meaningless simply to set percentages as targets for land
redistribution. Ten thousand hectares in the Karoo can support fewer people
than 100 hectares in well-watered parts of the country.
By the end of 2009 29% of redistributed farms had failed and 22% experienced
declining productivity. One of the main causes of the failures was the
inability of government to provide the necessary support and assistance.
South Africa urgently needs successful and sustainable land reform. To
achieve this we should consider the following approaches:

Everything we do should be consistent with the letter and spirit of our
carefully balanced and negotiated constitution.
We need a comprehensive land reform audit. How much government land is
available for redistribution? How much land has been transferred to black
South Africans through normal sales? To what extent has the willing seller,
willing buyer principle actually failed?
We need a rapid and effective approach to granting farmers in the
traditional homelands proper freehold or leasehold title to the land that
they farm.
Urgent steps must be taken to improve the effectiveness of the government
departments and institutions involved with land reform.
We need genuine and effective consultation and cooperation between
government and organised agriculture on workable approaches to land reform.
Organised agriculture has proved repeatedly that it is willing to assist in
this regard.
We must not abandon the willing seller, willing buyer principle as the first
option for land reform. We cannot afford a situation where South African
citizens - simply because of their race - are forced to abandon farms which
their families might have developed over generations.
We must abandon ideological and racial approaches to land ownership. We need
to give very careful to consideration to the implications of Minister
Nkwinti's statement that "all anti-colonial struggles are at the core about
two things, repossession of lost land and restoring the centrality of
indigenous culture to underscore all nation-building endeavours." We should
pause for a moment to consider the implications of this statement:
the first is that the anti-colonialist struggle is not over;
the second is that white farmers are evidently still regarded either as
‘colonialists' - or as the beneficiaries of colonialists;
the third is advocacy of the centrality of the indigenous culture.
Presumably other cultures will play a peripheral role in the nation that
Minister Nkwinti is endeavouring to build.
Such attitudes are entirely irreconcilable with our Constitution and with
the need to promote national unity.

Just as it would be a mistake to underestimate the emotional commitment of
many black South Africans to the need for land reform - it would equally be
a mistaken to underestimate the emotional commitment of white farmers to
their land, to their profession and to South Africa. Land reform remains an
urgent priority for us all. We will not achieve success if we oppose one
another as ‘colonialists' and ‘anti-colonialists'; as indigenous and
non-indigenous; as those who claim a central cultural position - and those
who are consigned to the periphery. To achieve success we will all have to
work together as fellow South Africans, as equals and as fellow children of
the African soil.