AGRI EASTERN CAPE COMMENTS ON THE RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL OF 2013
Re-opening the land claims process is the worst land reform option available to the South African government. Land claims require a judicial procedure that takes years and considerable expertise to finalise, and this adds enormously to the cost per hectare of land transferred. If the clear incompetence of Provincial Land Claims Commissioners is added to this equation, it becomes a short-sighted and idiotic path to follow. Proof of this can be seen in the fact that, fifteen years after the previous closure of claims, new claims are still being gazetted, while others have not even reached the gazetting stage, because the preliminary research has not yet been completed. It will take decades before these claims are finalised, by which time the present claimants will all be deceased. It is small wonder that the restitution process has given rise to such frustration.
The truth is that it would be far cheaper and more effective simply to purchase land through the normal land reform process, and to transfer it to aggrieved beneficiaries. Namibia understood this when they decided to avoid using the restitution process altogether, and quickly set about acquiring land to satisfy the needs of disgruntled communities – in nearly all cases the land which they had earmarked for themselves. This government would be well advised to do the same.
The overwhelming majority of land claims to date (92%) have been settled through financial compensation. This compensation totals over R6 billion, which could have purchased at least 1,5 million hectares of ground (valued at R4000 per hectare, which is the average national value of agricultural ground). Because this money has been spent on land reform, but without adding to the hectares that have been transferred, the hectare equivalent of this money (i.e. 1,5 million hectares) should be added to the percentage of ground transformed to date. While this would assist the government in meeting the targets it has set for itself, it does illustrate rather graphically how the restitution process is distorting land reform achievements. This is another compelling reason why it should be abandoned, and not re-opened.
When land claims were originally opened, the government refused to allow Betterment claims. It has now changed its mind concerning these, and is using this as one reason for reopening land claims. It is unfair that all landowners in South Africa should bear the consequences of a government blunder, so we believe any re-opening process should be restricted to Betterment claims alone.
To date, nearly all successful land claims have resulted in highly productive farms being given over to communities, and becoming unproductive, with total destruction of their infrastructures. It should be clear to even the most fanatical demagogue that turning productive commercial farms into communal farms is a certain way of terminating food production on those properties. The track record speaks for itself. Since this is clearly a by-product of the restitution process, it should be fairly obvious that restitution is a threat to food security as well as agricultural exports, and should be terminated as an option.
It should also be obvious that reopening the land claims will undermine confidence in the agricultural sector, and therefore investment. This should help to put the country on the road to starvation – especially since the development of farms with land claims requires the permission of the Land Claims Commissioner.
The totality of the above leads Agri Eastern Cape to conclude that, for every reason, reopening the land claims is a foolish option. We therefore conclude that this is being done only as a means of buying votes in the forthcoming election through the promise of free land, as well as through reawakening historical racial antagonism. It is the oldest trick in the book, but one which was correctly rejected by Nelson Mandela in 1989, when he helped to place South Africa on the path to democracy and racial reconciliation. The Government should heed his example, and avoid going this route.
EL PRINGLE
PRESIDENT
