Proceedings of the National Land Policy Conference

The Department Of Land Affairs

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LAND POLICY The National Conference on Land Policy which took place at the World Trade Centre on 31 August and 1 September 1995 was an historic occasion. For the first time in the history of South Africa, people from all sectors of South African society jointly deliberated the way forward in planning and implementing land reform. The conference was attended by 1,200 people. Of particular importance is the great number of rural people who were assisted by the Department of Land Affairs to attend the conference - more than 400 in all. For many of these people, it was their first visit to the city of Johannesburg. For many more, it was their first opportunity of making their voices heard at a consultative conference. Concerted efforts were made in the weeks leading up to the conference to enable representatives of historically disadvantaged communities to participate in the meeting. In addition, the conference was preceded by a briefing meeting for community representatives. The National Land Policy Conference will stand out in history as a milestone in the diverse and difficult struggle for land. The policy which will flow from the consultative process has been immensely enriched by peoples' contributions, and will illustrate a clear example of the practical benefits of democracy. The conference has taken us one step forward in building a new South Africa in which people can live in pride, dignity and peace. THE NEXT STEPS The material generated by the conference will be used as an input into the forthcoming Green Paper which will be widely circulated for comment in December 1995. A White Paper on Land Policy will be submitted to Parliament in April 1996.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. WELCOME

2. OPENING ADDRESS

3. QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION

4. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

   4.1 Challenges for policy makers
   

   4.1.1 The policy process should start with the people
   4.1.2 The policy process must empower the people
   4.1.3 The people must keep the score
   4.1.4 The policy must belong to the people
   
   4.2 Challenges for the people
   
   4.2.1 Share in the responsibility for making policy work
   4.2.2 The people must organise themselves democratically and their leaders must be accountable
   
   4.3 Pointers for the rest of the day

5. BRIEFING FROM THE PRE-CONFERENCE COMMUNITY BRIEFING WORKSHOP

   5.1 Beneficiaries of land reform
   5.2 Fears expressed by community representatives
   5.3 Expectations expressed by community representatives
   5.4 Democratic decision making
   5.5 Property clause
   5.6 Market-driven approach
   5.7 The State's financial constraints
   5.8 The role of government
   5.9 Redistribution
   5.10 Tenure
   5.11 Restitution
   5.12 General

6. INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICY DOCUMENT

   6.1 The aim of land reform
   6.2 Why land reform?
   6.3 Principles of land reform
   6.4 Constraints on land reform
   6.5 Targeting
   6.6 Summary of land reform legislation and institutions/commissions

7. BRIEFING FOR WORKING GROUPS

8. WORKING GROUP REPORT-BACK

   8.1 Group 1: Redistribution 1 (including valuation)
   8.2 Group 2: Redistribution 2
   8.3 Group 3: Redistribution 3
   8.4 Group 4: Restitution 1 (including valuation)
   8.5 Group 5: Restitution 2
   8.6 Group 6: Land tenure
   8.7 Group 7: Land administration
   8.8 Group 8: Land development
   8.9 Group 9: Public land management/land information
   8.10 Group 10: Human resource development/conflict management/communication

9. GENERAL DISCUSSION

10. SUMMARY

    10.1 Summary of main themes discussed
    

    10.1.1 Considerable progress with policy development
    10.1.2 The need for partnership
    10.1.3 The need for implementation on the ground
    10.1.4 The need for information
    10.1.5 The need to build capacity
    
    10.2 Main issues raised during the conference
    
    10.2.1 Dispossession before 1913
    10.2.2 Property clause
    10.2.3 The R15,000 subsidy
    
    10.3 The way forward

11. CLOSING ADDRESS

12. CLOSURE

Proceedings of the National Land Policy Conference

Thursday 31 August 1995

1. WELCOME

Mr Ezra Sigwela, the MEC responsible for public service and land administration in the Eastern Province, welcomed all delegates to the National Land Policy Conference, and in particular Minister Derek Hanekom, Deputy Minister Tobie Meyer, and panel members Mr Geoff Budlender of the Department of Land Affairs and Mr Jo Seremane, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner.

Mr Sigwela expressed the hope that conference delegates would summon all their resources to help each other to mutually focus on developing a land policy for the country. A clear policy on how land should be lived on, distributed, governed and developed would ensure food security not only for local families but for the rest of southern Africa and Africa, and even for other countries in the world.

Mr Sicelo Shiceka, Minister for Development Planning, Environment and Works, Gauteng Provincial Government, paid tribute to Minister Hanekom, whom, he said, was appointed minister in recognition of his contribution for 15 years to the struggle in South Africa. Both the Minister and his wife, Trish Hanekom, had been imprisoned for a number of years. Both also had extensive experience of agriculture, having been farmers themselves. Mr Shiceka said that the process of talking about policy would be intensified with this conference, the first major conference where people from all areas in the country were present to deliberate land issues.

2. OPENING ADDRESS

Minister Derek Hanekom thanked:

• Deputy Minister Tobie Meyer for his constructive role in land reform issues thus far
• MECs responsible for land, saying that land reform would not be successful without their efforts at provincial level
• members of Cabinet for giving him the opportunity of introducing bold legislation
• members of Parliament for expediting the new legislation
• President Nelson Mandela.

The Minister then delivered his opening address.

3. QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION

Delegates were encouraged to ask questions relating to land reform from the Minister and the panel. A total or 87 questions were received, of which those below were answered during the evening's session. The remaining questions were referred to the facilitators of the next day's working group sessions to deal with where possible.

Question: Would the land reform programme cater for 10 million children? (Mr Henk Smith, Legal Resources Centre)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: As far as adults were able to get land, children would also benefit in the process. People's land needs were varied, for example, land was needed for agriculture, recreational purposes, conservation, housing, and other needs, all important purposes. The Minister thought that Mr Smith would like to see that children's rights to land was constitutionally entrenched.

Question: How long should the landless communities wait for the government to deal with land issues? There were still some of the old government's officials in government. They were protected by the sunset clause, and they were delaying the process. (Mr Peter Ntshoe, Chairman of TLRC)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: People should not have to wait at all. There were excellent people in the Department of Land Affairs. The Minister requested that if any of his Department's officials did not cooperate, the matter should be brought to the attention of the relevant regional director, the Director General of the Department, MECs for land, or himself. Minister Hanekom said that it was not useful for people to make sweeping comments about old officials. Rather, people should point out where specific problems were being experienced, and this would be addressed.

Question: Would the Government of National Unity make available sufficient funds for an effective programme of land reform, given all the pressures on its budget? (Ben Cousins, University of the Western Cape)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Minister Hanekom said that a budgetary constraint would be only one of the constraints. He emphasised that the organisational or capacity constraint would be the greatest. For example it would take a great deal of effort for a community to come to the point to apply to government for support through government's redistribution facilities. The capacity of the Department of Land Affairs, the provinces and communities themselves would be the biggest limiting factor. In the end, he said, there would indeed be a financial constraint.

Question: What was the practical working relationship at present between the Department of Land Affairs and the Department of Agriculture both at national and provincial level? (Tessa Marcus, Chairperson: KwaZulu/Natal Land and Agriculture Technical Committee)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: The majority of the implementers of land reform at provincial level, i.e. the MECs, were also the MECs responsible for agriculture. It was hoped, therefore, that there would be no conflict. In addition, the Minister said that agriculture tended to have a narrow focus on land use, while the quality of land use should also be considered. Not only agriculture should be promoted, but also other land uses which could afford people an income, such as ecotourism. Efforts should concentrate equally on land access for residential purposes. The land policy should be regarded as an holistic policy.

Question: Since it was not the intention of government to repossess land which was already in the hands of other people (whites) and the fact that there was very little State land, what measures would be taken to ensure that land was distributed amongst the poor? (Bapeso Mamabolo, CBO, Gauteng).

Reply by Minister Hanekom: It was not the intention of government to take away land from people, but rather to create a climate where land could be made available to those without it. The Minister said that much of the onus was on the shoulders of those who were in need of land. He called upon such people to approach the Department with their requests, and to then leave it to the Department to deal with cases where land was not directly available. As such, the Minister said, the Department had already in the past managed to enter into successful negotiations in such cases.

Question: People living in rural areas had no right of ownership in Amakhosi areas. Who was the actual owner of such land? Was it the government or the Amakhosi? (Ms Mildred Madlala, CBO Iso Lenthothuko, Natal Midlands)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: The Minister replied that, in the purely technical sense, there was land in some parts of South Africa which was owned by the Government and where the Amakhosi played the role of custodians of such land. This role differed in different parts of the country. Further, the Minister reminded the audience that within the traditional tenure system the Amakhosi normally did not make decisions about the allocation of land. Generally, there was a council making such decisions. In Botswana, for example, there was a customary tenure system and the traditional leaders had no role in allocating land. Minister Hanekom said that traditional leaders remained very important figures, but they were not the owners of the land.

Mr Geoff Budlender, Department of Land Affairs, added that land under customary systems belonged to the people, whether such land was registered in the name of government, a chief or whoever. The chief looked after such land because it was the people's land. Mr Budlender said that what was necessary was that those living on tribal, communal or customary land must be secure and not able to be thrown off their land. Tenure reform was very difficult because it must respect both the right of the people and the authority structure. The question was, Mr Budlender said, how to manage it.

Question: After people had returned to their land, would there be compensation for losses of their homes, schools and stock? (Mr Freddie Bosman, Riemvasmaak Community)

Reply by Mr Geoff Budlender, Department of Land Affairs: Mr Budlender said that in reality it would not be possible to compensate people for such losses, because then it would also become necessary to compensate people for other kinds of losses, such as lost income for those who spent years in prison. Rather, he said, land reform must address the real reads of people. It must eliminate poverty and give people access to resources.

Question: How soon would government settle farmers on the available State land (trust land)? (Mr Tutu Mthethwa, ANC Extension Working Group)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: The Minister said there was trust land all over South Africa, and that some trust land was not occupied. There were also some government projects which fell under the former STK. A comprehensive inventory of all State land in the country had been compiled by the Survey General's office. The question was: why not give people the State land? He said that State land allocation took place in the same demand-driven process as all other land. The Department upon receiving a request for land would look at what land was available. Where State land was available it would become a possible source of land. However, State land was not always available, and often, in fact, was already occupied. The Minister said in regard to the former STK projects that an inclusive committee had now been appointed to investigate STK project land and to compile a report on which of this land would be available for redistribution.

Question: Why was there no mention of restitution or distribution of mineral rights to the dispossessed (Mr Alpheus Theledi, Bakgatla Tribal Authority)

Reply by Mr Geoff Budlender: Mr Budlender said that mineral rights were rights in land. According to the Constitution, people dispossessed after 1913 had a right to claim restitution. This meant that if land with mineral rights on it had been lost, peopled had a right to claim these rights. The principle of mineral rights was exactly the same as other land rights. However, Mr Budlender said that often mineral rights had been lost for other reasons.

Question: When would the sub-division of Agricultural Land Act (No 70/70), be repealed or enforcement relaxed? (Mr Owen Green, Tarboton Holder Ross and Partners)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Frank discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture were currently taking place. The Minister said that the Standing Committee on Agriculture had invited Minister Kraai van Niekerk and himself to debate this issue. This Act prevented people from subdividing land. Since some people could not afford to purchase a whole farm it must become possible for people to buy smaller pieces of land. It was recognised that people would not depend solely on agriculture for their income, and would obtain their income from other sources as well. The Minister said that he had argued that the Act should be repealed, but that others felt differently.

Question: I believe that the South Africa's rugby success was as a result of the facilities provided to white children in schools even in small towns and rural areas. Do you address this in the case of farmworkers because you seem only to address the question of residence? What about the other facilities that would build South Africa such as education, sports and business facilities? (Mr Tshepiso Ramphele, PHB, North West)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: The responsibility of the Department of Land Affairs was not to supply in all the needs of farmworkers. Other departments also had responsibilities in relation to farmworkers. He said that farmworkers would clearly need legal protection as workers. They constituted about 20% of the country's population together with their families. Ways must thus be found to directly benefit farmworkers. This could be by way of land reform, but perhaps also by other means. Some who would acquire land might also exploit farmworkers. Further, the Minister said that farmworkers could access government facilities to acquire land. Every household on a lower-income scale could access up to R15,000 to help buy land. For one farmworker that may mean a small piece of land only, but if a few wanted to combine their grants they could buy an entire farm, as was already happening. Secondly, the Minister said, it must be ensured that farmworkers were not excluded from the national housing subsidy. The Department of Land Affairs was working closely with the Department of Housing to ensure that farmworkers could access the housing subsidy in their own right. The policy of security of tenure must also apply to farmworkers. Therefore, land reform was only one measure that might assist farmworkers.

Question: Do cultural and traditional values fit in with land reform? I see nothing at the conference that they do. (Mr G J Xhalabile, Free State, Nama Bafutsana)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Minister Hanekom said that cultural and traditional issues were very important, and that there was no denying that people's association with land was steeped in culture. He said it was a pity that no cultural events had been organised to take place during the conference.

Question: How would land reform be handled in areas such as Moretele where tribal land was surrounded by urban areas, i.e. where there was no room for urban development since chiefs did not want to give their land for urban development? (Mr Joseph S Letlape, Greater Temba TLC, Moretele)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Minister Hanekom said that already people were negotiating and reaching remarkable agreements about land, gradually arriving at their own solutions, and not solutions imposed by the Commission or any other person. Mr Budlender added that agricultural land should not be taken out of production. On the other hand, there was a need for housing. Decisions would be made at provincial government level, who had the primary responsibility for this. The national government must create a legal framework within which this could take place. The Development Facilitation Bill was currently before Parliament.

Further, Mr Budlender said that the Budlender Commission had recently been appointed by the Minister to investigate corrupt land deals over the last three years. Evidence of corrupt deals was now needed, and he appealed to people to come forward where they were aware of problems.

Question: Was there a mechanism for addressing the growing conflict between landless people and emerging black farmers who were leasing the land from the State? (Mr Mashwabada Msizi, Eastern Cape)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Some of the lease agreements arranged by the South African government or the former TBVC States were granted under questionable circumstances. Such lease agreements, i.e. where they were the result of nepotism etc, were now being investigated. At the same time, a broader policy regarding the leasing of State land was needed. The Department was now exploring the possibility of extending those leases not in question for a three-year period, with the option at the end of this period to purchase the land, depending on how productively people had used the land. In other words, when dealing with State land, the Department would consider selling that land, but also would consider signing new leases with people on the same terms.

Question: Why was the government addressing the land restitution process only from 1913? What about dispossession that took place before that date i.e. during the Frontier Wars in the Eastern Cape? The 1913 Land Act only endorsed what happened in the past. (Mr Velelo Phiko, Community Representative, Queenstown, Eastern Cape)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: The Minister said that an effective restitution process, where people who were removed could gain access to land, was needed. However, he said that a situation was not wanted where for example the Zulu nation could lay claim to land on the basis of such land being their ancestral land occupied in the seventeenth century. The Minister gave another example, that of the Nama people in Namibia, a small group, who, shortly after independence, claimed almost half of the country based on their historical occupation. At the time, Namibian decided that no restitution would take place in the country because the matter was just too complicated.

Mr Jo Seremane, Chief Land Claims Commissioner, added that claims based on historical occupation could go back to 1652. Further, he informed delegates that the Commission was not trying to change policy. Rather, the Commission was the executors of policy, and implemented the Acts. The Commission, he said, was sensitive to difficulties and fears, and the Act empowered the Commission to make recommendations.

Question: One cannot but agree with the principle of land reform. One of the key determinants for the success of reform must be the effects of that on the productivity of capital - a scarce resource. How was this to be handled? (Mr Jan van der Walt, National Productivity Institute)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Use of land, Minister Hanekom said, was not only about output. Sometimes it took place at the expense of taxpayers or the environment. There was thus the broad environment to be considered. Environmental damage had occurred in the past. It must be ensured that people who accessed land had a supportive environment with good extension services, access to credit, access to agricultural markets etc, i.e. factors that often determined the success or failure of farmers. Sustainable land use had to be promoted and the various factors that impacted on sustainable land use, both financial and environmental, had to be determined. Situations where farmers got themselves into debt, unable to repay their loans as a result of overcapitalisation, had to be avoided. The topic was complicated. In essence, productive and sustainable land use must be encouraged.

Question: The Minister linked land reform to sustainability. What steps would be taken to ensure that land reform does not result in rural slums? (Mr Alastair Paterson, Stockowners Coop)

Question: As the land reform process would still take some time, was it not possible to have a national moratorium on evictions which could be honoured and not undermined? (Mr Dickson Motha, SA Agricultural, Plantation and Allied Workers Union)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: The Minister said that the Land Reform Labour Tenants Bill had been introduced, and that he had called for moratoriums on evictions but that since the moratoriums were not legally binding, they were not effective. Minister Hanekom added that, on the other hand, the Department would have to retain the ability to evict people, and gave the example of the authorisation he gave to Mr Sigwela to evict people who were illegally occupying State land. The question was who to evict justifiably, and how to do this.

Question: Did the minister agree that land distribution was based in the past on the principle of non-equality before the law dating beyond 1913? Then all previous land recipients were unlawful owners in respect of the new Constitution. Therefore, that land must be redistributed fairly and equally. The property clause prevented this. (Mr Sthembiso Cele, CBO Council, Ongoye District Community Development, KwaZulu/Natal)

Reply by Minister Hanekom: Minister Hanekom said that the inequality in today's situation resulted from the past, and that we would not model ourselves on what happened before. There were white farmers that were an asset to the country and whose land should not be taken away. At the same time, however, new opportunities for people to access land must be created. In addition, the Minister said that substance had to be given to the commitment to end all forms of gender inequality. Mr Budlender added that it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against women married in community of property. The Constitution would ensure that everyone had equal access to the benefits that government was able to offer.

Finally, upon closing the question-and-answer session, Mr Shiceka said that he was concerned that the current land owners who were producing the country's food were not asking questions. He expressed the hope that they would contribute a great deal to the next day's deliberations.

Friday 1 September 1995

Mr Kenny Fihla of the Gauteng Department of Development Planning, Environment and Works, who acted as principal facilitator, called on delegates to highlight both points of agreement and disagreement during the day's debate. He expressed the hope that the conference would take place in a relaxed atmosphere, and that people's different viewpoints would serve as enrichment of the discussions.

4. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Ms Bester said that the Department recognised the sensitivity on land issues as well as the valuable contributions that roleplayers could make to the policy debate. This conference, she said, was an indication of the Department's willingness to consult, as well as of people's interest in land issues.

The Department had appointed task teams consisting of both departmental and other staff to compile the conference document. Ms Bester paid tribute to the NGO sector for their outstanding contributions.

Ms Bester referred to the previous day's deliberations by representatives of previously disadvantaged communities, when their expectations and concerns were discussed. She said that the consultation process would continue today as well as after the conference. During the rest of the day, delegates would have the opportunity to make their contributions to the policy debate during a series of working group sessions. Thereafter, task teams would amend their papers, and a Green Paper would be produced and distributed for comment later in the year. It was expected that a White Paper would serve before Parliament in April 1996.

4.1 Challenges for policy makers

Ms Bester listed and discussed four challenges for policy makers:

4.1.1 The policy process should start with the people

Ms Bester said that policy makers gave labels to things they tried to explain, and so became barriers between themselves and the people. She quoted the example of the 1913 cut-off date for restitution, and said that the people felt that there was much more to restitution. Looking at how people were evicted, their homes were flattened along with their dignity. The people wanted to reclaim their right to decide for themselves what was best for them, with the respect and dignity that should be afforded to all the country's citizens.

In regard to current landowners, Ms Bester said that these people had for years battled the weather, and loved the land. Although monetary compensation was important, these people also wanted to be treated with respect.

The real challenge for policy makers, she said, was to look beyond the labels and the tangibles.

4.1.2 The policy process must empower the people

If policy making should start with the people then it must empower them. Policy was a set of ideas to be tested in the real world. Policy must not be handed down to people and engraved in stone with no room for people to make decisions. Policy makers must create conditions in which people could articulate their needs. They must listen and have the humility to recast the policy to suit the people's needs.

People could also be empowered through speaking plainly. The process must empower those denied of their needs in the past, especially women and children. Women were the backbone of communities, and children the future of the country.

4.1.3 The people must keep the score

Ms Bester said that the people were the judges of the success and failure of policy. Policy makers could develop sophisticated evaluation tools for judging the effectiveness of policy, but the people had their own stopwatches. People would judge the success or failure of policy not only if or not 30% of land was distributed in five years, or if there was an increase in the number of black farmers, but would also ask if the process respected them, if their quality of life had improved, and if they were happy. The people would keep the score.

4.1.4 The policy must belong to the people

Should there be agreement to the first three challenges, then the policy would belong to the people. Land reform, Ms Bester said, was the people's journey, unchartered in South Africa. The people knew where they wanted to be. The role of policy makers was to walk alongside the people at the people's pace and to help identify and remove obstacles along the way. If policy makers walked behind the people, the would not be able to see, and if they walked in front, they would obscure the way and dictate the pace of the journey. The challenge for policy makers was to allow the people to own the journey and plot their own course.

4.2 Challenges for the people

Ms Bester also listed challenges for the people:

4.2.1 Share in the responsibility for making policy work The people's challenge was to share in the responsibility for making policy work. Only in this way could people own land reform.

4.2.2 The people must organise themselves democratically and their leaders must be accountable The challenge was for people to be democratically organised, and for the people's leaders to listen them.

4.3 Pointers for the rest of the day

Ms Bester said that, in discussing policy during the rest of the day, delegates should ask themselves whether the people was the starting point, were people empowered, and would they be able to take responsibility for helping to make policy work.

She said that it was never easy to consult in a way that would leave everyone satisfied. This conference was an opportunity to establish the trust needed for policy makers and the people and for opposing groups to listen to each other and to help each other win. The conference was an opportunity for people to jointly address the challenges in order to make policy work.

5. BRIEFING FROM THE PRE-CONFERENCE COMMUNITY BRIEFING WORKSHOP

5.1 Beneficiaries of land reform

• The workshop proposed that all landless people be the main beneficiaries to land
• Special focus should be given to women, farmworkers and labour tenants
• Attention also needed to be given to victims of violence, refugees and squatter communities.

• People were concerned that the proceedings would be a mere rubber-stamping of government policies and the people's demands would not be addressed.
• Very poor and unorganised communities would be forgotten.
• White businesses would benefit from the process and that black communities would be excluded.
• Land reform policy did not take into account the historical conditions of the country and the history of land dispossession.
• Compensation of white farmers would be too costly and create problems.

• Land must be given back to the people and it must benefit the poorest and the landless.
• The land reform process must be transparent.
• The land reform process must correct land imbalances.

• Communities and civics must be involved in land reform.
• Women must be included in all decision-making processes. There must be a 50% representation of women on land reform structures.
• Some people felt that traditional leaders must be included in decision making processes.
• Both the government and community based structures must be accountable to the people.

• Most felt the Property Clause should be abolished as it did not benefit the landless people but protects present land holders.
• There were some that felt the property clause must be reviewed.

• It was felt that the market-driven process would not address the needs of the landless and the poor.

• The government must cut the high salaries of their officials.
• The private sector must contribute to land reform.
• Government must raise funds from other countries.

• Communities felt that the government needed to be more proactive and affirmative in its approach to land reform.
• The government should be transparent and accountable at all times.
• The government needs to be of more assistance to communities by:
  • giving more assistance to CBOs and NGOs in terms of capacity building
  • making greater efforts to reach out to poor communities and people
  • by researching on how to reach out to poor people
  • making more finances available to people for land.
• The government must avail the necessary resources to communities for development.

• People who were dispossessed and the poor should not have to pay for land.
• The R15,000 subsidy was not enough.
• The government should embark on expropriation of unused and unproductive farms and make it available to the landless and the poor.
• There should be a control on land pricing. Owners should not be able to sell land at high prices.
• The church should no longer be allowed to own huge tracts of land. The churches should make land available for redistribution.
• The needs of farmworkers and women should be given special focus.

• There should be a limit to the amount of land individuals could own.
• People should be able to convert communal titles to individual ownership.
• The 99-year-old lease should be replaced by freehold.
• People in urban areas should be given individual property rights to land that they occupy.
• There needs to be a transparent system of land ownership.

• Workshop delegates demanded that restitution pre-dated 1913.
• Government must expropriate land if farmers were unwilling to sell or make land available to restitution processes.
• The government must provide resources to people to help them develop their land.
• Those who lost land to the former homelands must be given back their land.
• The chiefs must not make claims on behalf of people.
• People who were dispossessed of their land for mining purposes must be given back their land.
• State land must be made available for restitution.

Concern was raised that only one hour was available for people to discuss the policy proposals put forward by government.

6. INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICY DOCUMENT

6.1 The aim of land reform

The aim of land reform was to redistribute rights in land to the landless, farmworkers, tenants, women and the historically disadvantaged for homes, subsistence and production to improve their livelihoods. To be successful it must include access to support services, basic infrastructure and water in order to enable people to make productive use of land. It would be implemented in a manner that strengthened democratic processes, local control and local government.

6.2 Why land reform?

Past policies resulted in racially skewed and inequitable distribution of land, overcrowding and poverty. Land reform forms part of the effort to create just and fair land distribution and to build national reconciliation and stability.

6.3 Principles of land reform

The following principles underlay land reform:

• demand driven
• government as facilitator
• participation, accessibility and democratic decision making
• poverty focus
• gender equality
• coordination of departments and levels of government
• partnership between the private and NGO sectors and government
• monitoring and evaluation (in order to change policies if they were not effective)
• economic viability (the land reform programme must bring real returns to households as well as the country at large) and environmental sustainability (preventing degradation of land and preserving the land for future generations)
• flexibility (government must set the broad principles within which to work)
• leverage of resources (apart from departmental resources, the land reform programme must ensure that other resources were able to be accessed).

There were the following constraints on land reform:

• constitutional constraints
• macro-economic and fiscal constraints
• political constraints
• capacity constraints (this was probably the most serious constraint - the government would have to develop substantial capacity in order to bring about successful land reform)
• physical resource constraints (for example, not all areas in the country were suitable to agriculture; other areas were arid or experience serious water shortages)
• governance (the nature of governance was complicated. In addition, the upcoming local government elections and other changes would impact upon land reform).

The principal beneficiaries of the land reform programme should be:

• the landless poor
• the historically disadvantaged
• agricultural workers/tenants; and
• women.

6.6 Summary of land reform legislation and institutions/commissions

Restitution:

There were currently the following acts and initiatives towards restitution:

• Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22, 1994
• Commission on Restitution of Land Rights
• Land Claims Court (currently there were about 1,900 rural claims and 2,652 urban claims)

The Provision of Certain Land for Settlement Act 126 dealt with redistribution. There were also the following other initiatives:

• The Land Reform Pilot Programme through which valuable lessons were being learned. The Programme consisted of the following elements
• A National task team
• A Land Reform Provincial Steering Committees
• District Offices
• Planning Consortiums.

Tenure:

The following legislation applies to tenure:

• Communal Property Association Bill
• Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Bill
• Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Bill
• Amendments: Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act, 199:

At present, there were in the order of 17,000 pieces of legislation pertaining to land administration. The following act and committee aimed to rationalise the fragmented legislation:

Land Administration Act of 1995

Land Administration Reform Committee

Land development: The Development Facilitation Bill and the Forum for Effective Planning addressed land development.

Public land management: The recently established Budlender Commission looked into public land management.

Land financing: The Strauss Commission investigated the issue of land financing.

Land tax: The Katz Commission investigated the issue of land tax.

7. BRIEFING FOR WORKING GROUPS

• first 15 minutes: facilitators to outline the processes. Members of the drafting teams to make a short presentation in broad terms of the content of the topic
• second 15 minutes: questions of clarity
• third 15 minutes: identification of key questions in priority order (some groups might at this point choose to break into sub-groups)
• rest of the time: group deliberations, with at most fifth of time to be spent on the introduction to the conference document, and the rest of the time on the actual group topic
• after the group session, each group's facilitators to consolidate contributions into one group report for the purpose of a short report-back to plenary in the afternoon.

8. WORKING GROUP REPORT-BACK

8.1 Group 1: Redistribution 1 (including valuation)

Facilitators: Glen Thomas, Hilton Toolo, Nick Vink

This group made the following points:

a) Redistribution

• Government should be clear as to whether the programme was a welfare programme, or geared to stimulate the economy
• The R15,000 subsidy was inadequate for emergent farmers:
  • special provision would have to be made for potential and emergent farmers
  • the proposed settlement subsidy might be sufficient for residential purposes
• People's own contributions must be included, and these should be flexible (provision of labour or an extended period to pay), i.e. either in kind or in cash
• Present commercial farmers wanted to, and should, make a contribution to land reform. They could do this for example by providing collateral, land or training
• The government should investigate the potential of obtaining mineral rights for communities
• There was agreement in the group that the market value should be determined by conditions as they existed
• A concern was expressed that land invasions should not be allowed to bring down the price of land
• A second concern was that white valuers would favour the interests of white farmers - this must be guarded against.

• More land should be accessed for people wanting to engage in commercial farming in the tribal authority areas
• Government should monitor development programmes in these areas
• There was a need for freehold opportunities in tribal authority areas - this must be investigated
• Tribal authorities must have a good, positive working relationship with local government.

8.2 Group 2: Redistribution 2

Facilitators: Dirk Grobler, Tebogo Makgobola

This group discussed three major issues:

a) Government's approach to land reform

Discussions focused around the extent to which government should (and could) intervene in the land market. Apart from the fact that the poorest should be accommodated and that there were different needs among different groups (such as the destitute, small producers, commercial producers including emergent farmers etc), there was little consensus around this issue, as follows:

• some group members wanted government to take land away from those that had it and to give it out free to those that did not have land
• some group members called for the scrapping of the property clause, while others wanted the clause entrenched in the Constitution
• others called for the targeting of specific land such as land belonging to government financing institutions, unutilised land and land belonging to absentee landlords.

In regard to this issue, there was agreement in the group on the following:

• the R15,000 subsidy was too little
• there should be flexibility on the choice of use of the subsidy, i.e. the subsidy should be made available to either individuals or groups
• different programmes should be established to assist those who wished to settle, and those who wished to farm
• the definition of "household" proved to be problematic, especially in regard to gender. This would present a difficulty in deciding who actually should receive the subsidy
• leases and renting were seen as a step to the ownership of land.

c) Production-related aspects

Here, the group noted the following points, mainly of disagreement:

• there was disagreement about whether emergent farmers should be given priority (the group did, however, record agreement that all should be accommodated)
• government should create an enabling environment through which people could access credit for development
• government should also support initiatives such as credit for on-farm development. Private-sector financiers needed to be indemnified by government.

Facilitators: Helena Dolny, Mike Kenyon

This group divided into three, and reported on three topics:

a) The package on offer

• The R15,000 subsidy should focus on satisfying basic needs and productive employment, with residence as a secondary goal
• Even those, the amount of R15,000 to satisfy these objectives was questioned
• The macro-economic sustainability of the R15,000 subsidy was questioned
• The two grants for settlement and planning should be used in a complimentary way, coupled with proper, integrated planning
• Flexibility was essential: communities should have the choice of how they wished to apply their grants; regional variation should be taken into consideration
• The varied use of "settlement land" should be explored already in the planning phase. The small farmer and small entrepreneur should not be the only options. People should have, for example, the option to pool land for land uses such as forestry or ecotourism, i.e. land should not necessarily be divided into small units. The group agreed that the use of the grant should be land-related: it should not be used as an open-ended small business development grant, i.e. the grant should not be used for a small business such as a taxi industry
• The grant should not be used for land purchase, but for land development
• The group called for clarity on the rules governing access, and for proper information dissemination such as on their rights, the rights of women, especially single women, etc
• It was proposed that the pilot route should be followed with as much learning as possible through a monitoring and evaluation programme.

• In regard to security of tenure, the group felt that security as such was the important issue, rather than the precise form of tenure
• The R15,000 subsidy was inadequate, and employers should be approached to contribute
• Agri-villages were thought to be appropriate under certain circumstances
• There were different opinions on retirement rights. Farm owners wanted lifetime retirement rights, while the NGO community opted for the right to inherit retirement rights
• In regard to legislation, farm owners felt that the stick approach would be counter-productive and lead to insecurities and evictions, and called for a more negotiated approach. Community and NGO representatives felt that legislation was needed to secure people's rights.

It was agreed that clarity was required in regard to roles and coordination, as follows:

• There was a wide variety of categories of potential beneficiaries such as individuals (farmworkers, labour tenants, other tenants, small farmers) and communities (new settlements, communities needing tenure rights and communities needing expansion).
• The needs of each category of beneficiary would be quite different, with different needs belonging to different categories, and differences within categories. These needs included land acquisition, basic needs, bulk services, residential needs, health, agriculture and others, and would be addressed by different departments. This would be problematic for people since they did not know which department had which role. It was thus essential to have a proactive communication and information strategy.
• It was felt that land and housing should not be separated. Integrated planning was essential. Even in the early, pre-planning stage should communities register their planning intentions, and receive multi-departmental assistance.

Facilitators: Star Motswege, Angela Bester

This group emphasised the urgent need for information dissemination and communication around the land reform programme.

A general comment made by the group was that the restitution process was limited, but that this should not be an excuse for not giving the process the priority resources and capacity that it deserved, otherwise land reform would not take place at all.

The group reported on the following topics:

a) Who could claim?

The group was divided on whether a chief could claim land on behalf of a tribe. It was, however, eventually agreed that the process laid down by the Act must be followed for people to lodge their claims, i.e. the Commission must assist where communities were divided, and the Land Claims Court could order in which manner the rights were to be held to ensure equitable access and no gender discrimination.

b) Pre-1913 claims

Many were dispossessed before the Apartheid laws and before 1913. The land reform process should deal with legitimate pre-1913 claims. The Minister should propose mechanisms to deal with this, and report on these publicly. For example, the Constitution could be changed, or special laws and policies could be developed to deal with pre-1913 claims.

c) The role of government in regard to sustainable development

The question of sustainability must receive attention in regard to people who receive land through restitution. All stakeholders, including all three tiers of government, and especially the provincial departments of Agriculture and of Housing, must be involved in the resettlement planning stage, without delaying the restoration of land and resettlement of people. The Minister should provide clarity on which provincial government department was responsible for what aspects of the programme.

d) Compensation

The group could not reach clarity about this topic. It was said that the property clause undermined the process of land reform and should be scrapped.

e) Capacity

• The Department and the Commission should assist claimants, and should organise group claims
• There should be more Commissioners so that claimants could be visited
• A time limit should be set by the Commission for all members of a group to submit their claims.

The group had no time to discuss this in detail, but it was said that all structures pertaining to land reform should be looked into in regard to gender.

8.5 Group 5: Restitution 2

Facilitators: Theresa Plewman, Vuyo Mbelani

This group also stressed the urgent need for information dissemination. The group addressed the following four issues:

a) Who qualified for restitution?

• Communities should submit claims through their legitimate leaders, which could include traditional leaders and local government structures
• People with a birth right to land
• Those who had been evicted
• Those who had submitted previous claims, i.e. to ACLA.
• Concerns expressed in this regard included:
• how to identify alternative land where land under claims had been developed
• the sincerity of old-regime officials in the Department of Land Affairs
• that people who lost houses in urban areas due to rent subsidy boycotts should have a right to claim.

b) Options for restitution - compensation

Some group members felt that compensation should not have to be paid by the present government. All the previous governments should have to contribute to a trust fund to be used for compensation payments. As such, a comfort clause should replace the property clause. White farmers objected on the grounds that this suggestion would be practically impossible and would affect stability in the country. Rather, the principles of the Government of National Unity should be focused upon. They also said that white farmers bought their land in the open market.

Communities said that some farmers did not pay for their land, and should thus not receive compensation. Government was urged to engage in a serious investigation of the prices paid for land and the amount of profit made. Only then should compensation be determined. White farmers said that this would be unfair to those farmers who did not make it.

It was also said by some group members that unproductive farmers should leave their land without compensation. Those who had been productive should be compensated (although not by the present GNU). A negotiated settlement with such farmers should be sought. But farmers should also be encouraged not to leave the country so that emergent farmers could learn from them.

People removed from productive land such as sugar cane farms should be given their land back and government should provide training for them to use the land productively.

If compensation was to be paid, people who received land should be given settlement support.

Government should determine in consultation with communities and claimants how land should be shared. If claimed land was still being occupied, the two parties should have equal status and the same rights to the land. An open and consultative process should be followed.

c) Urban claims process

• Group claims were complicated and people needed education and information
• Transparency in terms of compensation was essential
• Compensation should be shared by the original and present claimants
• Private companies that benefited from removals should contribute to compensation
• The R15,000 subsidy was inadequate
• People in urban areas were confused in regard to having freehold or not
• A moratorium on the sale of municipal land to developers was needed. Such land should be used for affordable housing, accompanied by security of tenure.
• How to deal with people who lost land through violence was an unresolved issue
• Uniformity and common guidelines for urban claims were needed
• Land for housing development should be closer to town.

• Simple cases should be prioritised
• The three-year period for registration of claims was too short - an additional year was recommended
• Five years for the Commission to finalise claims was too long
• Ten years for implementation was too long and should only be used to finalise complicated cases.

Facilitator: Ben Cousins

This group divided into five subgroups, and reported on the following key issues relating to tenure:

a) Tenure rights in communal areas

• The traditional systems should be flexible and evolve to accommodate stronger individual rights
• The policy should explore options to convert to individual tenure with community consent
• The role of chiefs must be fully explored through a proper consultation process

Problems arose from the historical situation in the country, with direct conflicts. Whites had legally secured rights, while land was taken away from blacks. A possible solution would be to:

• in principle acknowledge the different forms of land rights
• adjudicate conflicting claims
• offer different forms of land rights to express entitlements, i.e. security of rights to farmworkers, land to others, cash compensation etc.

• The group could not reach agreement on communal tenure or individual tenure (freehold)
• The property clause: some group members wanted the clause scrapped; others felt it would aid the land reform initiative
• The group recorded disagreement around expropriation
• The group agreed that rights and duties regarding land must be balanced.

• On farms, in rural villages, urban areas and informal settlements
• Support was expressed for a move to more secure and independent housing and access to finance.

• Legal reforms were essential and necessary in regard to customary, marriage and inheritance rights
• Major changes in attitudes were needed - women had a major role to play in this regard
• Access to financial resources should be possible
• In regard to representation, the group was in disagreement about the quota system, but in general agreement that affirmative action should be applied.

Facilitator: Brendan Pearce

This group said that land administration was critical to the land reform process, since the country had a complicated legislative and institutional framework with many pieces of legislation and many authorities. In addition, there were many institutional mechanisms such as regional offices of the Department of Land Affairs, the responsible provincial departments, provincial commissions on restitution of land and others.

a) Land administration powers and functions

It was critical that the various functions and powers at all three tiers of government be clearly defined, and that duplication be avoided between the three tiers. The following responsibilities were suggested:

• national government: policy formulation
• provincial government: remaining as it was now
• local government: delivery.

b) Avoiding land invasions and corruption

• Democratic structures at local level should be created to deal with land invasions
• Available land must be identified and occupied to avoid invasions.
• No services should be provided to land invaders
• Land earmarked for development should be developed with speed
• Land invasions should be investigated
• Mechanisms should be devised to deal with those who invade land for their own gain
• Corruption must be investigated and penalised
• Land-use control systems such as zoning should be considered.

• Local government should be properly staffed and officials should receive appropriate training. Adequate funding should be made available
• Communities should establish democratic committees to liaise with local authorities. Communities should also receive training, and should receive ample information on the land reform process
• All possible communication avenues should be used for the communication of land issues.

• All structures should be involved in the process
• Land allocation was an inclusive process. All stakeholders, and not only chiefs, should be involved
• A democratically elected Land Board should deal with land allocation.

The group had little time to deal with this topic, but said that this was a big problem in rural areas. It was also a political problem linked to the current political initiatives on local government.

8.8 Group 8: Land development

Facilitators: Ahmedi Vawda, Saliem Fakir

Group 8 raised a concern about the conference process, about having to synthesise discussions for report-back. It was felt that to synthesise would entail interpretation of what was being said. Rather, only a summary of the issues raised should have been called for.

This group divided into four to discuss respectively urban land, rural land, the institutional framework and the legislative framework, and reported on the following issues:

a) Community involvement

• Government should establish a legislative mechanism and a process for representation in the development process
• The extent of essential participation must be defined, i.e. who, when and how, and how people could participate.

• Government's role in respect of the three tiers of government was unclear. People must be informed of government's respective roles.

• There was an absence of economic aspects in the conference documents
• There was a need for wealth creation beyond basic needs
• Physical, spatial and development planning was needed but must be revisited in the light of economic aspects, i.e. town planning for development, and including agricultural markets
• Government should create tools for economic development opportunities, as well as a fiscal and financial framework to support land development
• The incremental nature of land development required a policy framework and strategy to guide capital investment, operations and maintenance
• The urban/rural interface was not covered in the conference document:
  • there was an absence of policy in grey areas and peri-urban areas
  • diverse income sources should be recognised
  • complex survival networks that operate across urban/rural definitions should be recognised
• A development framework which generated involvement, roles, definitions and access to development and policy processes needed to be created. This would cut across not only tiers of government but also other sectors of society
• Clear mechanisms to ensure recipient control should be devised
• The R15,000 subsidy was too low and not sustainable
• Contested land use required agreed planning frameworks
• Financial services must be created for the rural poor.

Facilitators: Tony Wolfson, Pat Manders, Johannes Rantete

This group reported on the following issues:

a) Introduction

• An explicit overall framework was needed at all levels in regard to disposal and ownership
• The link between land administration, management and land information must be brought out fully.

• The group could reach no agreement in regard to users having to pay for information. The general principle was accepted, however, on condition that people be subsided
• All data related to the land asset should be readily available and easily accessible to all parties wishing to use the information.

There was significant disagreement in the group around this topic.

• The State had an interest in all land use, not only in use of State land. What role then should the State play: should it play no role, or an influencing role through incentives and disincentives? Should the landowner be left to decide on appropriate land use? Many questions were raised
• The group did agree, however, that the State should create an environment which promoted wise and productive use of land.
• The group also agreed that decisions about the appropriate use of land should be made at local and not national level.

Three options were posed:

• The State should only retain land to carry on with its functions, with the rest of all land in private hands. A concern was expressed, however, that this would lead to speculation, that the process would be influenced by market activities and increase the poverty gap. Certain conditions would thus be needed
• A second option was that the State should acquire as much land as it could, i.e. all land to become State land, and lease this land
• The third option was that the State needed to balance short-term with long-term objectives, i.e. keep only enough land (strategic holdings) that would be required for future schools and other State functions.

• Disposal of State land should take place in a way that those with the needs would benefit
• Discounts in terms of land value were required in the process: people had paid through earlier losses; in certain high-price areas the discount was needed to meet development objectives
• No distortion must be allowed
• There might be a question of double subsidies, but there was a need to ensure that subsidies benefited the end user and not the middle man.

The group agreed on the principles contained in the conference document. Key issues raised were:

• The need to formulate and prioritise the needs of communities in consultation with them
• Restructuring of the Department of Land Affairs was an essential issues and needed debate
• The resources of NGOs and CBOs should be enlisted to assist the Department
• The roles and responsibilities of all regarding human resources needed to be defined
• Clarity was still needed on
  • central coordination of human resource development in government in order to avoid duplication
  • restructuring of the Department (reorientation of officials, training, accessibility of land-related information, improvement, viability and role of the regional offices)
  • formulation of a policy regarding the relation of the Department with NGOs and CBOs especially in terms of funding
  • roles: government should create an enabling environment, coordinate and facilitate; NGOs and CBOs should coordinate and facilitate, assist in articulating people's needs and in project implementation; the private sector should provide financial support, training and facilities. The government should, however, retain overall responsibility and accountability.

Facilitators: Dean Van Rooy, Elna Hirschfeldt

8.10.1 Communication The group made the following points about communication:

• Land reform was the bricks, while communication, together with human resource development, was the cement
• Communication was a two-way process
• Communications must be accessible and well-targeted, and the following issues must be considered: language; type of media; distribution; the use of existing resources such as NGOs and CBOs
• Communication must be strengthened at all levels:
  • interdepartmental communication must be improved
  • cooperation between national, regional and local levels must be improved
  • training of communicators and employing them at regional and local level
• The Department of Land Affairs should improve its communication with its clients, especially in regard to the amount of time taken to respond to communications by letter, fax and telephone
• All participants should take note of the Government Communication Policy Task Team to consult widely including with NGOs and CBOs.

a) Government's primary responsibilities

• Involve the appropriate government departments, especially the Ministry of Justice
• Policy development
• Outline the responsibilities and obligations of other stakeholders
• Facilitate policy formulation in consultation with all stakeholders
• Engage in a continual consultation process
• Deal with intra-governmental conflict
• Establish contingency plans for KwaZulu/Natal due to the high level of conflict in that province
• Undertake a feasibility study to inform a dispute system model
• Legislative alternative dispute resolution.

• Communities at local level to initiate discussions with the Ministry
• The Ministry of Land should support capacity building
• A culture of sharing of responsibilities should be developed

• Involve other departments to address for example unemployment and RDP needs
• Location of informal settlements
• Local leadership to assume shared responsibilities.

• To empower local government officials
• To deal with informal disputes
• Linkages with NGOs were needed
• The nature of disputes should be identified at local level.

9. GENERAL DISCUSSION

Mr Fihla invited delegates to submit further comment after the conference to the Department of Land Affairs for the development of the Green Paper. He then called for brief comment and questions on any of the issues raised by the groups for the Department to take forward. The following contributions were made from the floor:

Mr G A Reinstorf, SA Timber Growers: Mr Reinstorf said that he was a member of the land tenure group, and wished to put on record that no consensus decisions were taken in the group, and especially in regard to land rights where it was said that both tenants and owners had land rights. He recalled it being said that both had rights, but not necessarily land rights. Mr Reinstorf said that a five-minute report-back after a few hours' deliberations would of necessity not be able to cover all the issues. He undertook to submit comment after the conference on the issues not covered.

Mr W V Lacey, SA Chamber of Business: Mr Lasier felt that rather than using the term "land reform", the term "agrarian reform" should be used since a land tenure system was under consideration. He also wanted to know if the many land reform activities this century in South America, Asia, Hungary and elsewhere had been studied and brought into consideration in the conference document.

Mr Peter Ntshoe, TLFC: He said that all the groups which discussed the Restitution Act believed that the property clause should be scrapped. He asked government on behalf of communities to repeal this clause.

Mr Chris Wagner, Transvaal Agricultural Union: Mr Wagner called upon the conference conveners and participants to formulate before the end of the day a message which would satisfy all involved, referring to a complex balancing act of the expectations of the millions without land and those involved in first-world economic activity, but with sufficient indication that the matter of illegal title was not be eroded or degraded.

Mr Charles Baber, Transvaal Agricultural Union: Mr Baber said that what was important was not so much the ownership of land, but the care of the land. The sustainability of land should receive more attention - unless the land was cared for and every square metre kept productive, we would live in the desert.

Mr Sthembiso Cele, CBO Council, Ongoye District Community Development, KwaZulu/Natal: Mr Cele assured Mr Baber that land would be put to good use in the hands of the people, the black majority, who had always been working the land. Mr Cele suggested that the Department established a task team to involve community-based people in the development of the Green Paper, to ensure that contributions made during the conference were included in the Green Paper. Mr Fihla emphasised that this was a serious concern, and that the intention of the conference was not to be merely a talk shop.

Mr Graham MacIntosh, Natal Agricultural Union: Mr MacIntosh congratulated the Department for having organised the conference, calling it the most interesting and important two days which he had spent in a long time. He expressed confidence that the contributions made during the conference would be taken up in the Green Paper, and listed three broad issues which were not covered in the conference document:

• population growth: the population had increased enormously since 1913, and the reality of congestion should be borne in mind
• urbanisation (a world-wide phenomenon) created squatter camps with resultant urban poor. The decline in South Africa's rural population would be inevitable
• only in section 6.3 of the document was there one paragraph which referred to environmentally sustainable land development. There should be a stronger emphasis on the environment.

Chief M Mankuroane, Taung: The chief said in relation to restructuring of the Department that when considering the Department's organisational structure, a copy of which was handed out during the conference, that there was improper representation, and that african people did not fit into the structure. Chiefs did not feature in the structure although they were supposed to be advisors. Secondly, Chief Makwurwane was of the opinion that the conference should have been addressed by people from neighbouring countries so that South Africa could draw from their experience especially in regard to customary law. Thirdly, he said that traditional leaders needed their own conference because many issues were still unclear. Fourthly, the chief said that traditional leaders believed in consultation, and would take decisions as a chief in council. He recommended further workshops for chiefs with their communities.

Mr A O Nkabinde, Rural Voice: Mr Nkabinde said that farm people and rural people were still being evicted, often with a 14-day notice. He appealed to the conference for an interim arrangement that would prevent such evictions, and stated that some of the evicted people were unable to attend the conference to come and speak for themselves.

Ms Vivian Mashaba, Welverdiend: Ms Mashaba said that her community had submitted various requests to the Department in regard to land and have thus far only received promises. Her people had to steal water from neighbouring farms. She wanted a definite, written reply to take back to her community.

Mr Hoorwald, Southern Cape: Firstly, Mr Hoorwald said that his people wanted the property clause to be scrapped altogether because it would inhibit a successful land reform programme. He also said that finances would be a big constraint. Further, Mr Hoorwald said that the report-back from his group did not capture precisely what was said during the group session. He elaborated on the points made in regard to compensation, as follows: There would be two kinds of dispossessions: people who legally owned the land, and those who stole the land. Those who could be proved to have stolen the land should not receive any compensation at all. In fact, these people should rather compensate the people whose land they had stolen. However, those that acquired land in a legal and fair manner should be compensated. Funding for this should be obtained from the representatives of the previous government that by way of laws dispossessed people. A trust should be formed to administer funding thus obtained. Funding for compensation for those who had been dispossessed in the past should be obtained from those who had use of such land for decades.

Representative from Rural Women's Movement, Ekangala, KwaNdabele: She was pleased that so many ministers were present at the conference to hear people voice their problems. She said that her community moved to Ekangala in 1983 and still today was unsure of the kind of land it had. Not knowing whether they resorted under Section 10 in urban areas or not posed a problem for where to vote, where to register etc. She appealed to the Minister that the problems of those dumped at Ekangala be resolved, including their very bad living and housing conditions.

Ms Gertruida Schoonbee, Cape Rural Areas: Ms Schoonbee said that the concept of integration should receive proper attention, referring to educational. She quoted the example of schools which syllabi included agricultural subjects, but where there was no land available close to the schools for pupils to receive practical tuition. She said that it was of no use to create structures which could not be practically implemented. She suggested that the Green Paper included the issue of tuition in agricultural science, environmental studies and extension.

Mr T J Sindane, Kwaggafontein, KwaNdebele: Mr Sindane said that his question about how the land would be shared had not yet been answered, and secondly, was concerned that the privileged would be assured a future and others not.

Mr S Phadi, Van Stadensrus TLC: Mr Phadi said that the country was in a transitional period during which the lives of communities would be levelled and equalled with that of others, but without discrimination. He pleaded by way of an analogy of a father with 10 children and only five loaves of bread that everyone should benefit equally.

Mr Pillay Mati, CBO convener, Northwest Province: Mr Meti said that those in the townships that voted for the current government wanted land. He said that in the townships people had small, four-roomed houses with no room for children to play or to hang the washing, while comrades in towns had big houses. Most of the land belonged to the whites. The government should buy land for the people in townships. The R15,000 subsidy was simply inadequate, with at least R7 500 going to infrastructure.

Ms Penny MacKenzie, Group for Environmental Monitoring: Ms MacKenzie was concerned about land under military control land and said that the military, as part of the State, was thus an obstacle to land reform. If the rest of the country had to take land reform seriously, then so must the military as an instrument of government.

Mr L Foketo, SANCO Eastern Cape: Mr Foketo made a suggestion for a different kind of process to be followed in the policy development of the White Paper on Land Policy. Mr Fihla ask him to submit his suggestions to the secretariat.

At the end of the discussion session, Mr Fihla asked all delegates who did not get a chance to speak to submit their comments to the Department in writing. He emphasised that the conference was not intended to reach consensus, but to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement and the key issues people would like to see in the policy document. He added that it was important to know that land reform in South Africa was not taking place out of context with what was taking place in other land reform initiatives in the world. However, upon investigation of other initiatives it had become clear that there was no single programme that could be transported unchanged into South Africa because of the country's own particular situation.

Finally, Mr Fihla said that the proceedings of the meeting would be distributed to everyone as a basis for further discussion.

10. SUMMARY

Mr Geoff Budlender of the Department of Land Affairs presented the summary address to the conference. He said that this had been an amazing event. Those that attended came from all walks of society, both rural and urban. Never had there been so many rural people involved. Many hundreds of people had wanted to attend, but could not be accommodated due to the lack of space.

Mr Budlender said that everyone agreed that land was the heart of the problem in the country. Land was also about who owned South Africa. People were entitled to be angry when they had been dispossessed. But despite the anger and the emotions involved, people had managed to debate the issues during the conference. For two days, people had made suggestions for solving the problems. This was a remarkable achievement, Mr Budlender said, considering the terrible conflict in the country of a few years ago, and considering that barely two years ago armed men had taken over the World Trade Centre.

It was possible for people of diverse backgrounds to deliberate land issues at the conference because most South Africans, including white South Africans, agreed that land reform was a necessity because it was essential for the future of the country. There were still those that cling to the past, but those that agree to land reform must leave them behind. Of course the problems were many, and people would not be able to agree on all issues, but the goal was to make land reform a reality.

10.1 Summary of main themes discussed

Mr Budlender summarised the five main themes that were discussed during the conference as follows:

10.1.1 Considerable progress with policy development The policy development process has progressed to the extent where the overall framework had been set, with the details now being filled in.

10.1.2 The need for partnership The conference had clearly shown that the government could not do all the work on its own. Government, not only the Department of Land Affairs but also other government departments, would be only one of the partners in the process. Other partners would be:

• community groups, i.e. those who need the land
• NGOs, who had been doing this kind of work for years, and who had the skills that people needed
• commercial farmers, who had been on the land for many years - they had the knowledge, skills and resources
• commercial institutions, who were partners in finance.

10.1.3 The need for implementation on the ground Many matters and concerns relating to implementation were discussed at the meeting. Mr Budlender said that, in truth, there currently were both land and finances available. When the existing resources had been depleted, further resources would have to be found. The most important aspect was now to start the implementation process moving.

10.1.4 The need for information It was clear that the lack of information caused problems and led to conflict because of unrealistic fears or expectations. The fact that there could be conflict was clearly illustrated recently around the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Bill. People who knew better in fact stirred up conflict. Mr Budlender said that such misinformation would cost the country as a whole.

A further illustration about the problems caused by lack of information was that of the Welverdiend community (see section 9 above for Ms Mashaba's comment during plenary discussion). Mr Budlender said that the present owner had already agreed to sell the land in question to the government, and the people of Welverdiend would get their land back. This fact was already known to some people within the community. In other words, there was also a lack of communication within communities.

On the other hand, the government had also failed to communicate adequately. The Minister had today made a commitment to address this by organising an extended series of information meetings all around the country to tell people about the policy and procedures and to listen to people's questions.

In summary, there was a clear and immediate need for holistic information and communication action.

10.1.5 The need to build capacity Part of the solution towards building capacity lay in building the partnership mentioned in section 10.2 above. The skills were within the NGOs, communities and the commercial sector. Mr Budlender also said that a demand-driven process would fail for those in the rural areas if people in Pretoria expected that those without capacity should approach them. The process therefore had to be more accessible.

10.2 Main issues raised during the conference

Mr Budlender listed the three issues which were raised over and over again during the meeting, as follows:

10.2.1 Dispossession before 1913 Mr Budlender said that proven dispossession that took place before 1913 would have to be dealt with. However, restitution through the Land Claims Court was not the way to do this. Pre-1913 claims would lead to conflicting historical claims to the same land, and ethnic mobilisation as a means of redressing land hunger. Further conflict would result. The redistribution process must deal with land hunger arising from colonial dispossession.

10.2.2 Property clause Many had called for the property clause to be scrapped. Mr Budlender said that, on the other hand, there was no dispute that those who had bought property in a fair way would have to be protected, whether they were black or white people. The question was how this could best be done, whether by a property clause or other means. This was currently being debated by the Constitutional Assembly. Whatever was in the Constitution it was essential that it should not prevent land reform.

10.2.3 The R15,000 subsidy Many had said that this subsidy was inadequate. In reality, Mr Budlender said, this amount was not very much. But the government also had only a limited amount of money. Either a small amount could be given to everyone, or large amounts could be given to a few only. The amount R15,000 had been suggested since it was the amount determined during the Department of Housing process. The right amount to give real help to a substantial number of people would have to be determined.

10.3 The way forward

Mr Budlender said that this was not a token conference, illustrated by the fact that it cost nearly R1 million. It would be a waste if the conference was to be only to be a window-dressing exercise. The aim of the conference was to consult with people and hear their views. Contributions made must be used to develop a fair and effective policy. Mr Budlender also said that the conference was unusual in the sense that a deliberate decision was made that Members of Parliament, Ministers and MECs would participate in the conference along with the people.

The proceedings of the conference plenary sessions would be sent within three weeks to everyone who attended.

The material generated by the conference would be used by the Department to compile a Green Paper, which would be circulated for comment, and which would be used as the basis for provincial discussions. Mr Budlender invited delegates that wished to hold their own meetings in order to discuss the Green Paper to approach the Department if they needed a departmental staff member to attend or address their meetings.

A White Paper on Land Policy would be submitted to Parliament in April 1996, whereafter there would be further opportunity for consultation and contributions.

Finally, Mr Budlender said that this conference had been a major step forward in achieving the goal of sharing land in a way that would be fair and just, and at the same time provide food for all South Africans. He said that land reform in many other parts of the world had been a failure. South Africa had a particularly difficult history and problems, and its land reform process would take some time to be effectively implemented. But meanwhile the process was under way, people were participating in its design and in the end it would be a success. It had to be.

11. CLOSING ADDRESS

The closing address was delivered by Deputy Minister of Land Affairs Mr Tobie Meyer who said upfront that he used to be part of the old regime, but now was available to be called upon by the people.

Mr Meyer said that policy formation was about a clear vision and mission of how to execute the policy, and that this conference was part of the process to obtain clarity on vague issues and together to find common ground on the disputed and unclear issues. With certainty, there would be economic and political stability in the country.

The Deputy Minister said that it was very important that different interest groups and opinions be afforded the opportunity to talk to each other, as was done during the meeting. He congratulated delegates for doing this well. He said that during the conference deliberations, a number of aspects made an impression on him:

• Growth in South Africa: If there was no growth in South Africa, the country would not be able to afford land reform. Land it itself did not create wealth, but was only a means of creating wealth. He provided an example: close to the Kruger Gate there were 60 farmers on 60 ha of land, with the land worth about R600,000. To make that land viable, an investment of R12 million would be needed for these farmers to compete with commercial farmers. If the quality of life of everyone could not be improved, there would be no political stability.
• Mr Meyer said that he thought the country needed a property clause in the interest of people's security of title and economic growth. Forced removals took place in the absence of a property clause to protect people's land. At the same time, however, if the country wanted security of land, then access to land must be broadened. But those that become legal owners of land must be protected. Also, if the land reform process took too long to deliver, it would result in land invasion and unsuitable use of land.

• The role of the commercial sector Referring to the partnership mentioned by Mr Budlender (see 10.2 above), and stating that he was a commercial farmer himself, Mr Meyer said that it was certain that the commercial sector could play a role in land reform. But, he said, the sector should be encouraged by incentives to participate, and not by being penalised. He said that a triangle between those that have, those that have not and the State must be created, with the State playing a facilitative role and providing assistance in planning. This approach would enlist the cooperation of the commercial farmers.
• Land for settlement: Mr Meyer said that although land for farming had received a lot of attention during the conference, there was a definite need also for land for settlement of people. State land was a basic resource for this and must be used soon, otherwise there would be invasions.
• Empowerment and capacity building: Training and skills development were especially important and would provide the potential that was needed.
• Involvement of communities, as was the case during the conference, was what was needed in South Africa to achieve the goal. Communication was of the utmost importance, otherwise the wrong expectations would be created.

• Minister Hanekom for the initiative of convening this conference
• political leaders and the MECs for land who had played a prominent role in the dispensation of today
• the various Embassies for attending, and especially the Dutch Embassy for its financial contribution
• The Department of Land Affairs, its Director General and staff. Mr Meyer said that if the Department did not produce results as quickly as expected, it was because of a lack of capacity, and not because of a lack of intent
• the Land and Agriculture Policy Centre (LAPC) who organised the conference and played a major role in the land reform process thus far
• members of the Technical Task Teams who compiled the conference document
• Tisha Greyling who provided the secretariat and Margarete Lössl who took care of logistics
• the National Land Committee for facilitating discussions with communities
• facilitators and presenters
• the manager of the World Trade Centre and the translation services
• delegates who participated in the discussions and came a long way to do so. Mr Meyer called upon delegates to ensure that their communities were kept informed of the deliberations of the conference
• Mr Kenny Fihla, the principal facilitator

12. CLOSURE

Minister Hanekom closed the meeting by saying that he and his staff were immensely enriched by people's contributions. He said this conference marked an important moment in South Africa's history, and that it would stand out in history as part of the resolution of a diverse and difficult land struggle.

The Minister said that although it might not be possible to incorporate every single sentiment expressed during the meeting in the forthcoming documentation, people should never consider the dialogue they had during the conference as a waste of time. It was part of building a new South Africa where people could live in pride, dignity and peace, and this conference had been one step in this process.

Mr Hanekom wished delegates from all corners of the country a safe journey home.

The National Anthems were sung, and Mr Sigwela closed the meeting with a prayer.