Table of headlines

1. Uyawuz' umoya

Immediately after the approval of the Restitution of Land Rights Bill by Parliament last year, the media reported that there were accusations that the Redistribution Programme of the Department of Land Affairs had contributed to the weakening of the rand against other currencies world-wide. I am sure these accusations might have been directed at Restitution and not Redistribution. In all the years that I have been here, I have come across many media practitioners who do not differentiate between the two. This really set me thinking.

I have been aware that land is an asset that is central to any economy in the world. But my own thinking was centralised around the products of a specific country. As an example, we can talk about the minerals that come from that country; the oil that comes from that country or the food that is produced by that country.

Those who were with me at school may be surprised to hear me talking like this because they know that I was once in an economics class. That is where I was exposed to terms like scarcity, supply, demand, optimum, micro and macro. I remember one guy exposing us to scenarios of "all other things being equal". When they introduced us to graphs they began talking about mathematical economics. That is when I decided to "escape" from that class. Even now I think about all those figures and curving lines on the white board being "inside out and upside down". Some with their silos still look like a maze to me. How could I have survived there?

Before side-tracking let me say to people like me, the rand is just an enigma. I think it is between 2000 and 2002 when as a result of its weakness against currencies like the US dollar, the Euro, the Pound and the Pula, it was becoming a burden to the consumer. One can argue and even say it was becoming a liability. In that process, it was opening holes bigger than the Kimberley one in people’s pockets.

Those having mortgage bonds at that time were literally crying. I was one of them and to be honest I was cursing the day I ever involved myself with it. The interest rates were rocketing skywards only. I heard that some people had their cars repossessed. At that time going to the bank regarding some arrangement that could lighten the burden was a nightmare or perhaps a "daymare" if there is something like that.

With all what was happening to it, for whatever reason, it did not bring joy to those who possessed it. Banks in this country started to talk about "Off-Shore Tax Free Investment". I know someone who joined that queue and invested R 50, 000 –00 for a five year term. Then 2003 came and the rand recovered at a very rapid rate. Surprisingly, my dear friend received a letter from his bank telling him that his investment is now worth a little more than R32, 000 –00. Just imagine. This looks like highway robbery.

During the festive season I met a pineapple farmer at Peddie in the Eastern Cape. He was damned worried by the strength of the rand. He told me that he primarily exports his pineapples to the US, to many European countries and the Far East. He is selling in US dollar rates and the other countries’ currencies. He said while the rand was strengthening all the time, his returns were dropping by the day. He added that if the rand were to keep on behaving like that, he would be compelled to let some of his workers go.

I asked him why was he not reverting to the rand. I suggested that could also portray some patriotism on his side. He disagreed and said the rand is unreliable and very elusive. He whispered in my ear that we are living in the real world where one has to fend for himself / herself. He also said patriotism and business do not mix. Mama! Mia!

Returning back to Restitution, or Redistribution as some media people have been saying, I think the programme is just made a scapegoat. Something else must be the real cause for the unsettled rand. This is highly improbable when things are done - if I may quote Mgoqi -:

Under the Rule of Law

The Orderly Way

The Peaceful Way

The Patriotic Way

The Sustainable Way

The South African Way

The African Way.

As an afterthought, I hope the resignations of Irvin Khoza from the South African Football Association and Morne du Plessis from the South African Rugby Football Union have not done any damage to the poor rand.

(Uyawuz'umoya? = Can you hear the wind?).

Top

Bill to bury the past

By Abbey Makoe

Land tenure edict one of greatest laws.

There are about 13 million people who occupy and use communal land in South Africa. The set-up is an unfortunate hangover from the abominable apartheid system.

Ten years into our fledgling democracy, things can surely not remain the same. In short, the Communal Land Rights Bill (CLRB) is, in my opinion, a revolutionary piece of legislation seeking to bury the colonial and apartheid legacies in the ownership and administration of the land in question.

It will also unashamedly inject a bold transition from old order rights to new order rights where a persons or a communities become the architect of their own destiny.

For the uninitiated, this is in accordance with Section 25 (6) of the Constitution, which reads: "A person or community whose tenure of land is insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress".

A number of concerns have been raised by organs of civil society, land activists and some academics regarding the bill's capacity to transform the system of patriarchy, which has placed women in a subservient position from time immemorial.

The objectors to the CLRB also raise concerns about the endorsement of customary law in certain sections of the CLRB.

But the CLRB's approach to the question of women's rights and land is interesting. Women are not only given constitutional entitlement to secure tenure, but are also fully protected, along with the poor and vulnerable.

This new dispensation serves as a springboard for the national government's ongoing review of related laws such as the law of succession to further repeal the vexatious provisions of all old order laws and transform customary law in line with the Constitution. Of greater importance, the CLRB provides for the entitlement of women in their own right, irrespective of marital status, to the same land tenure rights, or rights in land, or even interest in land, as men.

Section 4 of the CLRB states: "A woman is entitled to the same legally secure tenure, rights in or to land and benefits from land as a man, and no law, community or other rule, practice or usage may discriminate against any person on the ground of gender of such a person".

Women, contrary to what detractors would have all and sundry believe, are also guaranteed a significant amount of seats on the traditional council, the highest decision-making body in a community. Need I say more?

Some of the well-known and loudest opponents of the CLRB have themselves never lived in the communal lands in question, nor under any African traditional authority.

We know very well, following wide-ranging consultations, that the bulk of the beneficiaries under the new proposed conditions have expressed immense joy at the eventual removal of the shackles that have bound them for far too long.

This majority, often sarcastically referred to in some quarters as the "madding crowds", form the cornerstone of our democracy and breath life into our Constitution.

These are not the masses that are to be found in the air-conditioned offices of academic institutions, surfing the net or penning nefarious articles for world distribution.

Neither are they to be found behind high walls and electrified fences in the leafy suburbs.

They are into tilling the land - their main, if not only, means of survival in our brutally skewed economic landscape.

Nonetheless, as we celebrate a golden decade of humanity and greatness as a nation, we must never forget that in this country we have for far too long lived in bifurcated state. A state of two economies of uneven proportions in which the weird thinking of the day was that we were separate but equal.

The mandate of the government is to ensure that transformation must benefit those, in particular, who have endured the wrath of discrimination in the past.

Indeed, we would be failing if we did not use the Constitution, hailed even by some of the detractors of land reform as the best in the world.

Guaranteed freedoms - of association, speech, thinking, choice for one's destiny - are all that makes us a better country, a wonderful nation, a prosperous people in spite of the vicissitudes of life.

The CLRB, having been adopted by the National Assembly in February, is well on its way to becoming one of the greatest pieces of legislation to come out of post-apartheid South Africa.

(This article is an edited version of the one first published in Sunday World).

Top

DLA Deputy Minister, Dirk Du Toit, described the main trend of the recently launched book "The great South African land scandal" by Philip Du Toit (no relationship) as attacking the beneficiaries of land reform. This he said at a celebration of the settlement of the Khuis claim in Middelputs in the Northern Cape on the borders of South Africa and Botswana in mid-February.

He said the book is undermining the progress that has been made by the Department as far as land reform is concerned. He indicated that the book has not been properly researched.

He referred to the book as saying black people cannot farm and encouraged the beneficiaries in their activities after receiving their land to disprove Philip Du Toit’s allegations. He said there are many black people in South Africa who have succeeded as farmers.

Advocate Du Toit conceded that farming is a very difficult venture. He said communities can only fail when they are not pulling together in their farming ventures and urged them to be united all the time.

"There has to be a retraining that takes place here. You must be empowered so that you become successful in your farming venture ", he said.

He reminded the community that if they are successful, there would always be those who will be trying to undermine them. He said this is exactly what is happening in South Africa.

"Some of those who oppose the government are intent on distracting it from its progressive activities. About five years ago we were attacked for non-delivery on restitution. But now that the government is delivering on restitution there is a conspicuous silence about non-delivery", he said.

From her side, MEC for Safety and Liaison in the Northern Cape Connie Seoposengwe, representing Manne Dipico, the Premier for the Northern Cape, said the settlement of the Khuis claim should be seen as the government’s efforts to accelerate the process of undoing the wrongs of the past and to push back the frontiers of poverty. She explained the event as the speeding up of land delivery.

"When we said we wanted a better life for all our people, we meant exactly that. We are now witnessing our pronouncements that we are going to speed up land delivery", she said.

MEC Seoposengwe added that the settlement of claims and return of property is intended to be part of a process of community rebuilding, development and empowerment. She said the return of land reverses previous losses through confiscation or the operations of the Native Land Act of 1913.

The Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya, alleged that there were many people who came and misled people not to trust the government. He said they came under the false pretence that they represented the people.

He announced that the Commission had settled around 45, 000 out of the 68, 000 claims lodged. He said the government has spent more than a R 1 billion to buy land and support projects for beneficiaries.

"Beware of those who want you to sell your land to them. The return of your land is to ensure that it stays with you and is never taken away from you again", he said.

He said the people of Khuis would never be termed landless again for they now possess their own land. He said they would never be unemployed for they would be working their own land.

"Tell all the doubting Thomases that people are now living harmoniously with their white farmer counter-parts in South Africa. Those who were stopped from living in the suburbs are now living and walking freely in all towns of this country", he said.

The Khuis land claim was lodged by Mr Bethuel Leboko on behalf the community through Deneys Reitz Attorneys with the now defunct Advisory Commission on Land Allocation (ACLA) in terms of the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act of 1991 in June 1992.

The claimant community consists of 214 households who are presently residing in Kuruman at Bosra, Penryn and March farms that were bought by the Trust to resettle them after their removal in 1968. The Baga-Motlhware tribe under the leadership of Chief Tae Leboko occupied the Khuis Native Reserve or Khuis Gronde as from 1884.

After the removal, the land was first used by the South African Defence Force for a while and later it was taken over by the Department of Agriculture which leased it to a white farmer whose contract expired in 2002.

The land in question is 22 489 hectares in extent. The community has formed the Khuis Communal Property Association chaired by Mr Bethuel Leboko.

Some of the land will be used for residential purposes. The bulk of the land will be used for grazing and some 5 000 hectares for game farming because of the presence of game on the land. There is a possibility to harvest the Devil’s claw plant, which grows in that part of the country for export purposes.

The Land Bank was requested to do a valuation of the property. They have estimated its market value at R5 038 000.00 and its productive value to be around R2 330 000.00.

Khuis is within the Kgalagadi District Municipality declared by the President as a node, situated 45km from Van Zylsrus on the Botswana border. It is envisaged that it will also benefit from some of the nodal programmes. At present the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Nature Conservation of the Northern Cape is in the process of making an assessment of how much the establishing of grazing camps and providing water will cost. Once the plan is completed it will be discussed with the Regional Land Claims Commission and other departments to secure funding for its implementation.

Top

DLA Minister, Thoko Didiza revealed at the celebration of the settlement of the Marobala-O-Itsose claim at Dendron in Limpopo in January that 1 400 claims have now been settled in Limpopo as against only a single one in 1999. She explained that the Restitution Commission has to finish its work by 2005 and the Department of Land Affairs land reform in general by 2015.

She told those present that the land in question consists of 12 farms, but only eight land owners have agreed to sell their farms to the government for the settlement of the claim. She commended the eight for their co-operation and promised that the Commission will continue to negotiate with the four that are still resistant to selling.

"But we cannot negotiate endlessly. There is a point where we should agree with the farmers. All people want to return to their homes and I hope those concerned will sign before the end of March", she said.

Minister Didiza argued that there is reason to celebrate 27 April 2004. She said if the government had not embarked on land reform, it would not have done anything for the emancipation of the oppressed in South Africa.

"We celebrate because of the success of this claim. In that spirit we must remember those of us who have since passed on", she said.

"I am encouraged by the spirit of the chairperson of the claimants, Mr M Mathopa. His commitment to seeing that these farms become successful after hand over is an inspiration", she continued.

To the claimants, Minister Didiza expressed her appreciation for their humility. She was congratulatory on their patience and commended them for abstaining from using force to get their land back.

She assured them that the Department of Land Affairs would not abandon them now that they have received their land but will assist them till they are able to fend for themselves. She asked them not to ignore the local government in Dendron and the Provincial Department of Agriculture.

The celebration was attended by a wide spectrum of people, which included among others traditional leaders, the Landless People’s Movement and the Inkunzi Development Agency. The Minister acknowledged their presence.

Earlier on Mr Mathopa had indicated to his fellow claimants that no one should tell them to wake up and work their land, but that must be out of their own initiative. He said there is no one who is going to develop them, but they have to do that themselves.

"Our parents and ourselves were living on agriculture here. We used to grow dry beans and send them to Pietersburg for marketing", he said.

He added that those who say black people are unable to make a success with farming are lying. He said they have been doing that for ages but conceded that they need technical skills.

"We are confident that we are going to make it here. As commercial farmers we want the Department of Agriculture to assist us in our farming activities", he said.

"Presently we are termed emerging farmers but I promise you that by this time next year we will be called commercial farmers", he declared.

Mr Mathopa also mentioned that they are ready to co-operate with anyone and any farmers willing to assist them would be welcomed. He said in their venture they want to be an example and want the world to see them as producers.

On behalf of the former landowners, Johnny Vogel described the settlement as an important milestone in the history of  Dendron. He said in the past they had been supporting each other as farmers and pledged that it will also be the same with the new farmers who will be joining them in the area.

Before the official function there had been a guided tour of one of the farms previously owned by Ms Chummy and Nick Botha. Agricultural activity there is predominantly stock and game farming.

Traditional music and dance was the order of the day at the occasion. At the end of the proceedings revolutionary songs and dance dominated.

The Marobala-O-Itsose Community lodged their claim on the 02 July 1996. This community consists of members of the Moletji tribe who were forcefully removed from the farms Appelfontein, Boomzien, Combro, Inderhiken and Potsdam in Dendron. The land was historically known as Marobala and was one of the headmen’s wards of the Moletji Tribe. The Marobala ward was under headman Ramapanta Moloto.

The community was dispossessed of its rights in land between 1941 and 1965 when its members, who refused to be reduced to labour tenants on land they had occupied since time immemorial, were issued with trekpasses by white people who acquired the land from the then government. What prompted a massive exodus of members of the Marobala-O-Itsose community was the murder of a member of the Mokwele family by a certain Thymen Jongbloed on the farm Appelfontein in the early 1960s. As a result of this horrendous deed, members of the community left their land and squatted in various villages around Moletji, Bochum, Botlokwa and as far as Dennilton in Mpumalanga.

Top

This story is an edited version of a speech delivered by the Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya, at the celebration of the settlement of the Marobala-O-Itsose at Dendron in Limpopo in January.

Ten years ago in South Africa we saw the ushering in of democracy, freedom, equality and justice. One of the crucial pieces of legislation that were passed by the new Government of National Unity was the Restitution Act No. 22 of 1994. It was acknowledged that millions of South Africans, including the Moletji tribe and Marobalo-O-Itsose Community, lost vast tracks of land as a result of racial dispossessions perpetrated by the colonial and apartheid governments.

The Restitution Act was passed to ensure that all the victims of racial dispossession who lodged their claims have their land rights restored and receive just and equitable redress. The Act established the Land Claims Court and the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights for the processing of these claims.

There are but a few vocal people who believe the worst about the new South Africa. They don’t believe that blacks can bring about change. These prophets of doom see black when all is green, they confess negative despite the obvious changes. Most of them have never wanted to see the change and consequently they don’t see any difference.

Since the Commission was established in 1995 we have settled 47 516 claims, we have transferred 810 292 hectares of land to beneficiaries, more than 115 504 households have received their dignity back and thus more than 606 033 beneficiaries to the restitution programme. More than R1 020 199 940.00 has been spent on land acquisition, R1 651 680 127.33 on financial compensation and R294 861 073.69 on development grants to support claimants when taking over the land.

Go out and tell the Doubting Thomases; that:-

* the landless people of Marobala-O-Itsose now have their own land measuring in extent of 7 147 hectares plus 3 000 more hectares.

* ours is a peaceful, lawful and sound land reform in South Africa.

* the current landowners have been paid a fair market value for their land  (R18,4 million) and that value has been passed on to the claimants, the new landowners.

* claimants of Marobala-O-Itsose have been given support amounting to R614 880 to enable them to settle on the land.

For those who do not see the difference in the ten years of our democracy go and tell them that:

- the lame can now walk on their land without fear of being killed as trespassers.

- the jobless can now work harder on their own farms as opposed to working for "an employer".

- those who were blind, blinded by apartheid, can now see their own animals and crops on their own land. They can see that landowners who are black can live in harmony with white landowners, supporting one another in agricultural production, just like many did before dispossession.

- those who were deaf can now hear, yes hear the message of reconciliation, land restitution, redistribution and secure land tenure for all South Africans.

- those who were dumb, those who could not even lift a finger to the oppressive apartheid government, can now stand up and talk freely about their land rights. They can now talk to a government that listens to their land needs and concerns around land use.

- those who are hungry and poor can now produce their own food from their own land.

- those who are homeless now have a place they can call home. They can rebuild their broken homes on their own land.

- those who were stopped from owning land in white suburbs can now move freely in the streets of Polokwane, Pretoria, Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth, without any fear of being caught by police for failure to carry a "Dompass".

Go out and tell everybody that what you have seen here in Marobala-O-Itsose is not a cosmetic difference but a reality that has been brought about by the new government.

Go out and tell everyone that:

Koloi ya lefatshe, ha e duma ya tsamaya

Koloi ya Didiza

Top

In thanking the Halls family and the Mdluli clan, the Deputy - Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Advocate Dirk Du Toit acknowledged that it was their co-operation that had made things easy for the settlement of the Mdluli claim. This, he said at the celebration of the settlement of the claim at Matsafeni Farm near Nelspruit in December.

He said this co-operation had seen the claim dealt with speedily and he hoped that the settlement would bring harmony between the Matsafeni community and the Mdluli clan. The Matsafeni community is composed of 800 families that reside on the farm with 3 500 of them working for HL Halls and Sons and there are seven schools on the farm. The Mdluli clan members at that time were staying outside the farm.

The crowd could not contain itself when the Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya announced that R71 million has been paid to the Halls family so that the Mdluli clan can occupy Matsafeni Farm. While dancing, they cheered and sang praises to the government and one of the songs was entitled "Siyabonga Du Toit nawe Didiza".

According to Gwanya, current statistics indicate that 1 320 claims have been settled in the Mpumalanga province since the restitution programme came into being in 1995. The agreement between the concerned parties is that Hermansburg, which is the largest portion of Matsafeni shall be given to the Mdluli clan to use for agricultural activities while other portions are to remain with the company, HL Halls and Sons.

Matsafeni Farm is made up of seven other portions namely Riverside, Woodehouse, Boschrand, Marathon, Dingwell, Boschkop and Hermansburg and boasts a total of 6 000 hectares. Previously the Halls family owned the farm and five generations of the family have occupied it.

Terry Mdluli, who is the representative of the Land Claims Committee, lodged the claim with the Department of Land Affairs in 1998. Approximately 2 000 members of the Mdluli clan will benefit from the settlement of the claim.

Farming activities at Matsafeni are mainly for commercial purposes. Farming there ranges from planting crops (maize, beans, and vegetables) as well as fruit such as litchi, bananas, avocados, strawberries and apricots.

Livestock farming is also practised and kept at commercial level.

Matsafeni Mdluli, the initial owner of the farm was a leader of a secessionist group that broke away from the Swazi kingdom. His descendants had lived on the farm since 1840 as members of the Mdluli clan.

In 1880 HL Halls requested permission from Matsafeni Mdluli to occupy the farm with his family. Halls in the long run had a business undertaking on the farm and was a supplier of food to the mines and to the railway people. Because of his contribution, the railway administration recognised HL Hall as the rightful owner of the Matsafeni farm and his company, HL Hall and Sons became a registered company in 1921.

Because of the fear of being evicted from the farm, the Mdluli clan had no choice but to stay on the land and work for the company. Most of the Mdluli descendants were evicted from the farm in 1950 because of their intolerance towards the Halls family. This was because they could not subject themselves to the conditions of labour tenancy in the land, which they regarded as their own.

Top

DLA Minister, Thoko Didiza, emphasized the importance of unity amongst South Africans at the celebration of the settlement of the Grootvlakfontein restitution claim. This took place at Reivilo in the Northern Cape in January.

Outlining the achievements that have been made by the government in ten years, she mentioned that basic services have been rendered to the majority of the people of the country. "People no longer have to share water with animals or be carried to hospitals on wheelbarrows", she pointed out.

She also counted the upliftment of the status of women in the past ten years as a major achievement. She made an example of the role the department had played in ensuring the inclusion of women in land reform programmes.

Minister Didiza encouraged the beneficiaries to use their land profitably. "We want to make a contract with the people of South Africa to fight poverty. By receiving your land back, you are saying, yes we will do what we can do, you have given us an asset, ours is to do better", she said.

She called on the Galakgadi Cross Border Municipality to take over and assist in the development of the area.

In his remarks Northern Cape Premier, Manne Dipico, said there would be no more reason for the Grootvlakfontein community to illegally occupy their forefathers land. In the past the people of Grootvlakfontein did just that to show their dissatisfaction at the slow pace of their claim.

The Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya congratulated the Grootvlakfontein community in opting for the return of their land rather than financial compensation. He stated that during the sixties the land in question had a high agricultural profile and reasoned that the claimants can still bring back to the land its high productivity rate.

Referring to those he said were behaving like the Israelists to Moses during the Exodus, he said Grootvlakfontein and all other settled claims are an indication that there is a change in the country. Therefore, their argument that there is no change in the country holds no water.

In his concluding remarks he said, "While the whole of South Africa is celebrating 10 years of democracy, the commission has decided to celebrate this decade of freedom by giving more land to the people".

The Grootvlakfontein community established a Communal Property Association for its land, called Metsimatswe. Its chairperson, Petrus Motsamai told the beneficiaries that, getting their land back is going to give them access to financial institutions and called upon them to use the opportunity to eradicate poverty and joblessness.

"In three years’ time there should be a big difference here. Like our fathers who produced wool in the past, we should also be able to follow their trend by doing well", he said.

The people of Grootvlakfontein were forcefully removed from their land in 1966 by the apartheid government. They had been in the area since 1850. They were dumped in Kuruman and were not compensated for their loss.

They lodged their claim in 1996 and in 2001 because of the slow pace of the settlement of the claim, they lost their patience and illegally occupied the land. They were arrested.

Negotiations between the claimants and the Commission continued and there was an agreement that they will exercise their patience and refrain from illegally occupying the land.

Two years after the illegal occupation of the land, 198 beneficiaries were compensated. The land in question is 6 821 hectares in extent and was purchased at R 6,5 million for the claimants.

Top

The Minister of Land Affairs, Thoko Didiza, reminded them that just like in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, people could never reconcile until they come face to face. She said people should free themselves of hatred and walk hand in hand in their diversity while not forgetting the legacy of their past.

She urged those who are doubtful to look at each settled claim as a reminder of how many more would be settled. When talking about Luyolo, she said the place is one of the areas that can never be returned to their previous owners, therefore alternative land would be sought for claimants and went on to warn those having opted for financial compensation to use their money wisely.

On this day, 04 December 1993, we commemorate the forced removals of our people from Simon’s Town and other surrounding areas under the infamous Group Areas Act of 1959 by the ruling government.

On this day, we declare our intention to remind ourselves, our children and fellow South Africans of the evils of forced removals.

We dedicate ourselves to a free and just society for all South Africans and wish to ensure that adequate reparation of original property and fair compensation takes place.

We remember those who suffered the same humiliation and died as a result thereof.

We shall remember them!

It took nine and a half years for their hopes to be realised and that brought tears of joy to the eyes of, among others, 80 year old Mrs Koebrah Manuel, a member of the Waterfall Road Voluntary Association. While addressing the beneficiaries, Mr D Jackson a member of the Association narrated the obstacles they came across before realising their dream.

He expressed his wish to see the same happening to his brothers and sisters who were not yet compensated even though they had been the first to be evicted from their land.

Top

With the 2005 deadline for the completion of the Restitution programme approaching, many questions are asked and the most common one is, "Would there be another chance for those who failed to lodge their claims on or before the 31 December 1998 deadline?" The process of lodging claims had begun in 1995.

Many in South Africa have been fortunate as their prayers and wishes of many years were fulfilled through the Restitution programme. Now that people are compensated all over the country, a yearning from those who failed to heed the call is growing.

Enid Shanker was at a celebration of one of the successful restitution cases in Simon’s Town in December. While everyone was in a jolly good mood for receiving their land back, she was not. Regret was written all over her face, since she could have been one of the beneficiaries celebrating. What happened? Why was she not one of those compensated because her family was one of the victims of forced removals of the past?

Like many that failed to heed the call, Enid said her family was not aware.

Enid said the only option they had to save them from being forcefully removed and keep their Shoe Repairing shop going was to change their identity from Indians to Coloureds. They did not use the option because they felt changing their identities in whatever way was degrading.

Enid does acknowledge that her husband’s friends who were victims of forced removals were compensated but, on their part, attribute blame to the lack of information about lodging claims. She said getting help from others was impossible, and it was everyone for himself/herself.

In an attempt to bring light to people like Enid, who yearn for a second chance, I spoke to the Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya. This is how the interview went:

Q: - It is common knowledge that the Commission will be finalising its work at the end of 2005. Would people who failed to lodge their claims be given another chance?

A: - No, not at all, unless Clause 46.2 B of the Restitution Act of 1994 can be amended or an extension of time be granted by government.

Q: - Was the decision not to grant another chance for the lodgement of claims due to financial constraints or a fear that new claims would disrupt claims already settled?

A: - No, it was not a question of finance although perhaps there could be problems. People should understand that the spirit of restitution was a gesture of the new government to say "we condemn what the past did to you," it was a form of a reparation even though it could not address the question of the pain suffered in the past.

Q: - The fact that certain people claim that they were not aware of the whole process until it was too late thus implying that the process was not well communicated, what is your response to that?

A: - Looking at the amount that was spent in our campaign to create awareness regarding the process one could see that we did the best. We made use of all forms of media in all languages to ensure that the message reached all the people. On top of that we even extended our deadline from March 31 to December 31,1998. In that nine months extension, we tripled our campaign to such an extent that the number of claims lodged doubled.

Q: - If the lack of proper communication was not the issue, what do you think could have been the cause for some not to heed the call?

A: - I can say ignorance and the lack of faith that Restitution would turn out to be successful were the major reasons for people not to lodge their claims. Just like in the driving license issue, people relaxed and never bothered to lodge their claims. In other cases, as an example, the District Six Case, people failed to claim due to political propaganda, being told that by submitting their IDs that would mean that their names would appear in the African National Congress (ANC) voter’s roll.

Q: - There is always a concern that people expect the democratic government to achieve the impossible overnight. Don’t you think it is unfair to expect the Commission to address injustices of the past having taken place over decades in just ten years? Was the time given enough?

A: - I know there can be an argument on this issue. For instance in my discussion with Palestinian representatives, they raised the same concern about past injustices taking place over years and a short lodgement period. The suggestion was that like in Australia, the process should have been made continuous. But in South Africa it was foreseen that adopting a continuous format would be problematic. As said earlier, this is a token from government to say we acknowledge that what happened in the past was wrong therefore restitution could not be entertained endlessly.

Q: - What message could you convey to those who believe that there should be another chance?

A: - The government has expressed its commitment to redress the ills of the past, those who did not meet the accepted criteria as outlined in the Restitution Act of 1994, there are other forms of government progammes that can be accessed. People should not only take Restitution as the only resort but can also look at other options that can bring about redress, the redistribution programme, as an example.

Top

The North-West State Land Disposal Committee (NWSLDC) held their first ever workshop on the vesting of land at the Embassy Hall in Mafikeng at the end of 2003. The committee is composed of representatives from the:

• North-West Provincial Land Reform Office
• National Department of Public Works
• Provincial Department of Public Works
• Provincial Department of Developmental Local Government and Housing
• Provincial Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment

Mr Sello Kolokoto described the purpose of the workshop as to:

• raise awareness about the significance of vesting and the need to accelerate the vesting process
• familiarise land / property managers with processes and procedures for vesting
• familiarise land / property managers with institutional arrangements

Public land is land held by provincial and national governments, land owned by local authorities and land belonging to parastatals or other enterprises wholly owned by the government.

"State land is land held by the national and provincial governments, but excludes local authority and parastatal land. It includes former South African Development Trust (SADT) land and land already allocated to communities and individuals in the former homelands and former coloured reserves", he said.

He added that the two custodians of state land held under national government are the Departments of Land Affairs and Public Works. He said the Department of Agriculture has been given the power of attorney in respect of administration and disposal of part of this land.

Ms M Gaobepe from the National Department of Public Works described the function of the National State Land Disposal Committee as twofold. Firstly, it has to recommend to the Minister of Land Affairs to confirm vesting of state land by signing and issuing item 28 (1) certificates in terms of Schedule 6 to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996). Secondly, to recommend to the respective Ministers the disposal of parcels of land to the previously disadvantaged.

She stated that the Provincial State Land Disposal Committees (PSLDCs) were established in each province with the primary sanction to make recommendations to the relevant Ministers regarding the disposal, leasing and vesting of state land.

Gaobepe said in 1997 an agreement was reached between the Directors-General of the Departments of Land Affairs and Public Works focussed on rationalising state land custodianship, administration and disposal functions of the Departments into distinct and complimentary responsibilities. In terms of that agreement, the NSLDC was established to co-ordinate policy in respect of the PSLDCs and to resolve disputes within PSLDCs regarding recommendations.

She explained the structure of the NWSLDC. From that it transpired that the chair of the committee rotates every six months.

On the guidelines for vesting, Mr Labius Mosadi mentioned the following:

• Use or intended use of land on or before 27 April 1994 and he made an example of housing, urban/rural development, education, agriculture or tourism
• Schedule 6 function
• Legislative competency – legislative instruments to administer or deal with the property

On the procedure to be followed for vesting, he said it involves research on land use and ownership. A presentation has to be made to the PSLDC regarding property description, title deeds, surveyor-general’s diagrams, the history of the land/property and at the end there has to be recommendations to request the Minister to issue an Item 28(1) Certificate.

If the Minister of Land Affairs accepts the recommendations he/she may issue an Item 28 (1) Certificate and the relevant department will send it to the State Attorney for endorsement on the Title Deed at the Deeds Office. After the certificate has been issued, that can lead to the following:

• disposal of properties
• registration of long-term leases
• registration of servitudes
• relevant sphere of government effecting developments including sub-divisions and planning

Later a case study on the Madikwe Game Reserve was given to participants to study and come up with solutions to problems identified in the case. A debate ensued about information seeking and clarified grey areas.

One question that stuck with the workshop throughout was the position of municipalities regarding land ownership. It was explained that together with other spheres of government and their departments, municipalities are clients of the Departments of Land Affairs and Public Works, which are the custodians of state land in South Africa.

Top

Free State Premier, Ms Winkie Direko commended the Department for providing land to the Kgauhelo Home Based Care Centre which provides for HIV/AIDS positive people. She extended her accolades at the celebration of the title deed hand-over of Plot 202 Lake View in Bloemfontein to Kgauhelo.

The land in question is a smallholding with a big house and is about ten kilometres from the city centre. It has reasonably good land for gardening and it can carry a few head of livestock.

Premier Direko said the government’s home-based care programme is aimed at providing nutritional care and support to the doorstep of any community member in need of such services. She said it is important that the home-based care programme is viewed as complementing hospital care rather than substituting it.

"Home and community-based care is a very important component of our response to HIV and AIDS, TB and other debilitating conditions. It is centred on the principles of Batho Pele and service to the people and it is geared towards community empowerment. It takes a holistic approach to the challenge of diseases related to poverty that is affecting our people and takes into account the cultural beliefs and values of individuals", she said.

She also mentioned that the impact of HIV/AIDS as well as TB places a heavy burden on our formal health care and the social security system. An increase in bed occupancy rates and average length of stay in hospitals put additional pressure on human and other resources.

"Partly as a result of all these factors, government prioritised home and community-based care and support as a key intervention to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS and TB", she added.

In her concluding remarks Premier Direko thanked those who had volunteered to help the sick and the frail at these centres. She conceded that the selflessness and dedication of the people who work at the centres like Kgauhelo should be commended.

Representing the Free State Land Reform Office, Gani Ramagaga reminded all present that one of the DLA’s commitments to the Partnership Against AIDS is that:

He said his office’s HIV/AIDS committee could stand proud on working hard to render support to a local AIDS organisation. The DLA is a committed partner in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

"Today, we are proud to contribute to our country’s poverty alleviation strategies by handing over the grant of R280, 000 – 00 for acquisition of Plot No 202 Lake View, Bloemspruit to Kgauhelo Home-Based Care Centre", he said.

He added: "The DLA would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Free State HIV/AIDS committee for working tirelessly to achieve the goal of supporting Kgauhelo Home Based Care Centre. This committee has set a precedent for other DLA HIV/AIDS committees in their work with a community demonstrating their care and support".

Ms Masebe Sethonya from Khauhelo said when they started their project they were struggling and moving from door to door seeking assistance. In that process they came to the door of the DLA and that is why they are proud owners of Lake View today.

"Earlier on we were a support group but the Welfare Department advised us to be a home-based group. We are not only confined to HIV/AIDS related patients, but also cares for orphans and the elderly. In all our efforts our major problem has been accommodation and the DLA has come to our rescue by giving us land", she said.

She said they are grateful to the government as a whole because a number of government departments that support them. At the occasion there were representatives from the Health, Social Development and Defence departments.

Throughout the day the Goodwill Male Pioneers entertained the audience with their unique choral music. Their music is a variety of genres but they have a sound that can be described as belonging only to them.

Top

The Land Tenure Service (LTS) company hosted a prize-giving ceremony for participants of a drawing competition at Fathlogang Primary School in Stinkwater, north of Pretoria in November last year. The competition’s main objective was to enlighten the community of Stinkwater, particularly children, on the importance of land reform. This entailed to:

• educate the community in the proper management and protection of land as a scarce resource, and
• help open doors for young artists to show their talents to the public

150 pupils form six different schools in the area entered the competition. The participating schools were: Modilati High School, Tipfuxeni Secondary School, Bokamoso High School, Motsibosane Primary School, Namo Primary School as well as Fathlogang Primary School.

From each school 25 pupils, who excel in art, had to be identified by their teachers and principals. The principals/teachers from the six schools attended workshops by LTS on land reform issues. The information obtained from workshops was passed on to the participating pupils so that they would know which angle to take when putting their artistic abilities to use. It was stipulated that any picture not drawn in line with the theme of land reform or related issues would be disqualified.

When the winners were announced, the relevant schools gave the desired cheers to the winners. The following pupils made it to the top three:

Secondary Schools

1st place- Phillip Mashao, Bokamoso High School

2nd place- Derrick Mashapo, Modilati Secondary school

3rd place- Raymond Mafodi, Tipfuxeni Secondary School

Primary Schools

1st place- Bongani Madonsela, Fatlhogang Primary School

2nd place- Johannes Maena, Fatlhogang Primary School

3rd place- Charles Manganye, Fatlhogang Primary School

There was a total of 26 winners, 13 from each category. The winner of each category received a trophy. The top three winners from each category received cash prizes, art items, a cash contribution to the school to be administered on behalf of the child, and an LTS cap, T-shirt and a pen.

The remaining ten contenders in both categories each received consolation prizes of R100, LTS T-shirts, pens and caps.

The competition was open to pupils in schools around the area and was based on the formalisation of Stinkwater.

The winning drawings, which were professionally judged, have been compiled into a calendar and a diary for 2004 with land reform as a theme. These calendars and diaries were distributed to selected people within the regional, provincial and national offices of the Department of Land Affairs, local authorities, principals of participating schools, project steering committees and other government departments.

North-West Provincial Director, Paula Mongae said she found the whole project very encouraging when seeing children doing what they love, and which would contribute to their personal growth. " What LTS has done for the children not only motivates but instills confidence," she said.

In his speech Mr Ephraim Peu the Principal of Bokamoso High School expressed his gratitude to LTS for giving their pupils a chance to expose their talents which will contribute immensely on their future.

Formalising Stinkwater started in 1998 and was approved by the Department of Land Affairs in 2000. The aim of the formalisation project is to transfer the 2 200 stands of the Stinkwater settlement to land reform beneficiaries by means of title deeds.

Mr D J Barnard, the project co-ordinator from the Department of Land Affairs’ Brits District Office, stated that this was the second project they had been involved with in the surrounding area in terms of formalising the rights of individuals in a community. New Eersterust, which is in the same vicinity as Stinkwater, was the first one to be formalised.

Top

Kwanzimakwe community at Port Shepstone in KwaZulu-Natal celebrated receipt of a title deed for commonage land at the end of November 2003. Dr Jabulani Jwara representing the MEC for Agriculture and Environmental Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal, Dumisani Makhaye, handed over the title deed to the community.

"It is indeed an honour for me to hand over this title deed to this community after thousands of years of struggle and sweat. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the community of Kwanzimakwe for their diligence, commitment and support for government’s land reform programme", he said.

Hibiscus Coast Mayor, Nolwazi Shusha alluded to the fact that challenges currently facing her municipality include the lack of resources and as soon as they are available will enable them to reduce the huge divide between the well developed coastal strip and the hugely underdeveloped rural component. She said that requires an integrated approach that involves governmental organisations, civil society, the private sector and non- governmental organisations.

The Nzimakwe commonage is a joint project between the Department of Land Affairs and the Hibiscus Coast Municipality. It is an example of co-operative governance with both spheres of government allocating resources and processing the project.

The project application was lodged with the Ugu Regional Council during the late 1990s. It was then given to the Hibiscus Coast Municipality.

In July 2002 the Port Shepstone District Office and Hibiscus Coast Municipality and the Department of Economic Development prioritised the application.

The Department of Land Affairs allocated R1 200 000 to fund the land acquisition and infrastructure development costs, and to enable the municipality to take ownership of the land. The Hibiscus Coast Municipality allocated funds for developing a land-use management plan.

The necessary resolutions and project approvals were obtained and the project was transferred at the end of January 2003 from a private farmer to the Hibiscus Coast Municipality. As it is a commonage project, there is a notary deed attached to the title deed.

The land is to be used by a user association for grazing purposes. The User Association has 50 members who have a constitution, and are in the process of entering into a lease agreement with the Municipality.

The land comprises two portions of the farm Broomsgrove totalling 441 hectares in extent, which is situated within the Ugu District, Hibiscus Coast Municipality – near Port Shepstone.

The Department of Land Affairs is currently implementing the approved infrastructure plan – fencing camps and a crush pan. A Management Committee comprising the Departments of Agriculture, Land Affairs, the Local Municipality and the User Association is also in the process of being established to manage the land.

Top

The International Day of the Disabled was celebrated with a difference at Calvinia in the Northern Cape in that a title deed was handed over to 10 disabled beneficiaries late last year. The beneficiaries are five males and five females who are ready to prove through their agricultural activities that disability is not inability.

The scorching heat of the Karoo did not in any way stall the celebration of that day. Hundreds of people with disabilities from all over the province gathered at Calvinia.

"This is a dream achieved albeit at a price. It is fitting therefore that we pay tribute to the heroes and heroines who did not live to see the dignity restored of those they struggled for, enjoy the fruits of their hard fought liberation", said the MEC for Agriculture and Environmental Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal, Dumisani Makhaye.

Mr Makhaye handed over title deeds to the Loteni, Ukhahlamba and Sea Forth communities at the end of December last year. He said the title deed celebration ceremony was the realisation of a dream.

He said using land productively in the fight against poverty would be honouring the heroes and heroines and that would prove that their sacrifices were not in vain. "Surely they must be celebrating as they see their sons, daughters and comrades return to the land of their ancestors", he said.

He revealed that the government had spent an amount of R1 021 625 million on the purchase of land for the redistribution programme in the three areas. About 98 households are set to benefit from this programme.

"A new era is dawning for our previously excluded people, only the visually impaired cannot see it. I wish to thank the communities here for being patient while their applications were processed", he said.

The Loteni project started with the Loteni Land Crisis investigations in 1995 that originated as a result of overcrowding, high tenant population and no access to grazing for tenants. This caused poached grazing on surrounding farms as well as on property of the then KwaZulu-Natal Parks Board.

As a result thereof, tensions developed between the surrounding farmers, Nature Conservation Services and the Loteni community. The investigations led to the then Minister of Land Affairs, Derek Hanekom visiting the area in February 1995 and a commitment was given to resolve the issue through land acquisition.

The Sibonginhlanhla community form part of the greater Loteni. They are the first group to acquire land for agricultural purposes under the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD). The Diocese of Mariannhill previously owned the land. The Department of Land Affairs has purchased implements for the group for agricultural development.

Loteni will soon have a training centre for skills development.

The Ukhahlamba community originates from farms within the Underberg, Drakensburg Gardens and Bushmen’s Nek areas. They were forcibly removed from the farms in the 1970’s. The evictions brought about substantial social upheaval in the people’s lives. All people who resided in areas with high potential for agriculture were moved to settle in unproductive areas such as Machibini, Nkwezela, Gqumeni, Kilimone and Drakensburg.

Many others had to seek accommodation with relatives. They lost most of their livestock and did not have a chance to harvest what they had ploughed in the year of removal. The farms acquired by Ukhahlamba community in Underberg will be used for settlement and agricultural purposes.

Top

The MEC for Agriculture and Environmental Affairs in KwaZulu-Natal, Dumisani Makhaye in December last year in Richmond handed over title deeds to four communities. They are Kwagengeshe, Liliefontein, Hartcourt and Rose Cottage which fall under the Umgungundlovu District Municipality.

MEC Makhaye said this had happened after people had travelled thousands of miles fighting for freedom and for something that belongs to them. He said during the era of land dispossession many Black people lost their land, a process that was formalised by the 1913 Land Act.

He added that records have also shown that the 1936 Land Act also deprived people of their last pieces of land. This, he said, resulted in many communities becoming landless in Richmond.

"All of the Black people that had stayed on in the area had to work for White farmers in order to survive. People lived under harsh conditions and were prohibited from attending schools. People were forced into providing labour on neighbouring farms. Evictions continued throughout the eighties, leading to grave poverty in Richmond and affected black communities", he said.

MEC Makhaye said that within the context of South Africa’s history, apartheid and colonialism resulted in the conscious policy of dispossessing black people of land in order to force them into the labour market and to reduce the competition in terms of agricultural production. He described KwaZulu-Natal as having one of the most skewed patterns of land distribution in South Africa often resulting in a bewildering variety of tenure arrangements.

"Within this fraught reality the area of Richmond embodies important insights for strategies to initiate cycles of social reconciliation. It is widely recognised that the issue of land has the potential to disintegrate communities and countries. However, in Richmond land has become a unifying factor", he proclaimed.

He concluded by indicating that the introduction of the land reform programme has provided security and protection of communities from unjust evictions and landlessness. He said the title deeds hand-over was tangible proof that the Land Reform Programme of the Department of Land Affairs is indeed working to push back the frontiers of poverty and improve the quality of lives of the previously disadvantaged communities.

Land reform is regarded as the key element for job creation, poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods in Richmond. Just like all the South African communities, Richmond is characterised by inequities in terms of ownership of land.

The communities that were receiving their title deeds form part of the seven land reform projects that have been implemented in Richmond, namely, KwaGengeshe, Rose Cottage, Leliefontein, and Harcourt.

There is ample opportunity to implement the LRAD programme in the Richmond area, which is aimed at providing land not only for settlement but also for commercial agricultural purposes.

The Department of Land Affairs, has to date committed R2 488 000 towards improving the quality of the lives of the landless people in Richmond. This translates to almost 153 households benefiting from 1 820 hectares of land.

Land reform has unlocked development for the community. Young people have access to recreational facilities to stimulate their physical, social and psychological development. There is a school, a creche, a training centre and a sports field built on the land that was transferred to the communities.

Top

DLA Deputy Minister, Dirk du Toit commended the leadership of Klipgat near Britz in the North-West for their long-held vision of having secure land ownership. This he said while handing over title deeds to beneficiaries who in the past only had Permission to Occupy (PTO) certificates for their land.

He referred to the handing over as a new lease of life because residents can now rebuild their lives fully knowing that their children have a secure future. "By upgrading tenure rights, doors are opened for government to release land held in trust," he said.

He further referred to the upgrading of tenure rights as an economic empowerment tool that would enable them not only to have surety of ownership but open chances of investments. He said land that is four times the size of Netherlands would soon be handed out to people throughout the country.

Advocate Du Toit explained that the experience gathered in converting PTOs to title deeds at Klipgat will assist the Department in implementing the Communal Land Rights Bill when it has been promulgated into law. He also mentioned that the bill would do away with the old order rights, which gave land only to men and introduce the new order rights, which will accommodate women as well.

"We will bring security of land rights to women, who have been occupying land for generations," he pointed out.

The Klipgat project has three phases and the handing-over event completed Phase A.

The Executive Mayor of Madibeng Local Municipality, Raymond Motsepe emphasized the importance of joint ventures between government and municipalities. He said the government advocates that land should go to the people, but that is disadvantageous if no infrastructure exists on that particular land because municipalities cannot service unsurveyed land.

He said approximately R10 million is needed to complete the Klipgat project.

Klipgat is a Black settlement located in the Madibeng Municipality within the newly demarcated Bojanala District Municipality in the North-West. Black people have been living in Klipgat since 1912.

For 90 years people in the area had no rights on the land they occupied. They were only allowed to stay in the area under PTOs when the former government took over the area from a white owner during the sixties.

In 1999 the Makanyaneng Community Authority of Klipgat approached Urban Dynamics Incorporated, with a request to assist the community to obtain formal ownership and to develop Klipgat. After consultations among the community, Urban Dynamics, the local authority and DLA representatives, it was agreed that the upgrading of tenure rights in the area be prioritised.

Later, a mandate was given to the Madibeng Local Municipality by Bojanala District Municipality to proceed with the development. Urban Dynamics was employed as a service provider.

An amount of R 5.9 million was budgeted for the project. The first phase (Klipgat A) benefited 4 000 households and 520 hectares of land were transferred to these people.

Top

Northern Cape’s 2001 Female Farmer of the Year Award winner, Anna Eileerd, was among a group of 31 women who received land under the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) programme near Kuruman late last year. The Department handed over to them Gamahoudi Farm measuring 1 310 hectares in extent at Wrenchville in Kuruman in the Northern Cape which they previously leased from the Kgalagadi Municipality.

For the purposes of their farming these women are known as Wrenchville Kleinboere Vrouvereniging LRAD Project. They will be using the farm to breed livestock.

This is a women’s project and the women made significant inputs in its planning and in drafting their legal entity. Most of them possess livestock and they will all be fully involved in the farm. Those that do not have livestock will grow vegetable gardens on a five hectare piece of land. Their aspirations are to become stock farmers in the future.

The beneficiaries do not intend to settle on the land. All the members are permanently residing in Wrenchville where they have their own houses. The farm remains the property of the Trust, and will be communally owned.

The group members drive to the farm because most of them have their own transport.

At the time of writing they still had to identify a farm manager amongst themselves who would be the only person allowed to reside on the farm.

The farm is managed in terms of the prescripts as outlined in the trust document. Trustees on behalf of the trust members will manage the land. Members have a right to vote for the persons of their choice as Trustees.

Top

As millions of displaced Angolans arrive back home after a devastating 27-year war, arguments over land ownership and access are on the rise, raising concerns over the potential for serious conflict.

Aid and humanitarian agencies are worried that the poor in both rural and urban areas, already in a vulnerable position, will have insufficient access to the benefits of the government's proposed land law, which has itself come in for criticism.

Already, displaced people are returning to their land, sometimes after years away, to discover that others are farming it. Meanwhile, in the big cities, properties occupied by the poor are being eyed by both business and the government as a real-estate opportunity.

"It is a very complex situation and there are not yet enough capabilities and resources to deal with that complexity," said Paolo Groppo, land tenure systems analysis officer of the Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Rural Development Department.

"It's a confusing and difficult situation. If an appropriate legal framework is not established, there is a possibility of increasing conflict, which could lead to a more serious problem," Groppo added.

Non-governmental organisations (NGO) are calling on the government to hold fire on the land law until they can better gauge its impact in both poor rural communities and in city-centre and suburban slums. And there are serious concerns that the fragile justice system is not strong enough to implement the law in an equitable way.

Angola does not have to look far back into its history to see the devastating results of land conflict. The appropriation of land by Portuguese colonists in the years before independence in 1975 was one of the main drivers of discontent that sparked the liberation war.

"Have Angolans not learned their lesson?" asked Fern Teodoro, director of World Learning, part of a coalition of NGOs known as the Land Network or Rede Terre. "Today the same thing is happening – will this be another huge conflict in the future?"

Rede Terre has begun collecting case studies on land issues in Huila province, in the south of the country, where it alleges prime agricultural ground is being taken away from the poor.

"Each day the ministers and the military people are occupying more land. One day there's a fence, the next day the people wake up and the fence has moved a little bit wider," said a report by Rede Terre. "These people feel really unprotected."

When the bulldozers come, the local communities have neither the confidence nor the capability to fight their corner. "They don't have enough lawyers, they don't have the means," the report noted.

Some people were driven from their homes by Angola's long civil war, whereas others stayed and farmed their land, creating a hugely complex and sensitive problem.

"What happens when the owner comes back and says, 'this is my land'? How do you resolve that conflict? They've both got a point, so what do you do?," asked Teodoro.

She argues that customary or traditional law is being ignored, and that the situation in Huila is just the tip of the iceberg. "This is happening all over the place. It's a huge problem everywhere and nobody is dealing with it. It's very sad," she said.

Nor is the problem confined to agricultural areas.

In the major cities, especially around the capital, Luanda, many families who fled fighting in the countryside occupied or bought land on the informal market from people who typically had no legal title.

Earlier this month, London-based rights group Amnesty International (AI) called for a moratorium on compulsory evictions, claiming that more than 5,000 people had been forcibly removed from their homes in three incidents between 2001 and 2003.

AI said people had been killed after police opened fire, and others beaten by members of the Luanda provincial government's eviction and demolition squad. NGOs fear there could be more clashes to come.

"This could become a major point of conflict in the future here, if people's occupation rights are ignored," said Allan Cain, director of Development Workshop, a non-profit organisation that helps people living in settlements with shelter, water and sanitation.

"They've invested in their land, their houses, and if they lose the right of access, they are excluded both socially and economically," he added.

The irony is that land conflict in Angola appears to be a peacetime problem.

Allan Cain commented: "Under the constitution the land belongs to the state, but people have occupation surface rights. At the present time, many occupy without title, but it's not illegal. They have some protection; some recognition of occupation under the civil code. Under the first draft of the land law, residents in peri-urban areas would lose more than they would gain. It risks annulling all these informal occupations and making all of those people who occupy land informally, illegal. That's a big concern."

Top

Recognition of the right of the poor to land is vital to forestall future conflicts over ownership and access in post-war Angola, according to Allan Cain, director of the respected NGO, Development Workshop.

Aid and humanitarian agencies are concerned over a draft law proposed by the government and have criticised it for failing to safeguard the interests of rural peasant communities - where fertile, agricultural land is in high demand - against more powerful interests.

But the problem is as serious – if not more so - in urban areas.

In the major cities, especially around the capital, Luanda, many families who fled fighting in the countryside ended up occupying or buying land on the informal market from people who usually had no legal title to it. In peacetime, this is now prime property for commercial interests and the poor run the risk of being turned out of their homes as businesses with deep pockets clamour to snap up city-centre and suburban real estate.

IRIN spoke to Cain about the problems facing this substantial peri-urban population, and how solutions proposed by his organisation could help alleviate poverty and boost government revenue.

QUESTION: We have heard a lot about the potential for land conflict in the rural areas, but what is the scale of the problem among urban populations?

ANSWER: The peri-urban community around the major cities is probably the largest sector of the population, and the fastest growing sector. Well over 50 percent of Angola's population is in urban areas and we're talking about 80 percent of those people. That is a huge block of the country and, in Luanda, it accounts for three million people.

During the war there was big migration into the cities. Many of those people settled and purchased plots of land through informal markets. For the poor and the displaced people in the country there has been almost no land made available officially on the commercial market. What little bit of land which has been made available, is more for middle- and upper-class housing, such as new development areas in the south of the city.

Many poor people have papers showing they bought the land, but that's not a title deed. It's just a document which shows they bought the land from somebody who probably did not own it, or probably did not have permission to sub-divide it. All these people are at risk because they don't have formal occupation.

Q: Why is there potential for conflict?

A: There have already been some fairly significant conflicts. In Boa-Vista (a suburb of Luanda) there was a major forced removal of people from the centre of the city. In south Luanda, in Benfica, commercial enterprises are acquiring land and there have been forced removals there as well. The government is moving them. In both cases there was a lot of resistance and people were killed, but I think these cases are the tip of the iceberg, frankly.

This could become a major point of conflict in the future here, if people's occupation rights are ignored. They've invested in their land, their houses, and if they lose right of access, they are excluded both socially and economically. Many people say they should go back to the countryside, but rural opportunities are even rarer than urban opportunities, and under the government's norms for IDP (internally displaced persons) resettlement, it's a basic right of every citizen to choose where they live. You can't forcibly remove people; you can only provide incentives for people to go back to the countryside.

Q: How will the government's draft land law, which aims to reform the complicated and controversial issue of land tenure in Angola, change the situation?

A: Under the constitution the land belongs to the state, but people have occupation surface rights. At the present time, many occupy without title, but it's not illegal. They have some protection; some recognition of occupation under the civil code. Under the first draft of the land law, residents in peri-urban areas would lose more than they would gain. It risks annulling all these informal occupations and making all of those people who occupy land informally, illegal. That's a big concern.

Q: What are your proposals for the second draft?

A: The government needs to recognise that these people have settled there in good faith - there was no intention to break the law. People have tried as best they can to acquire places to live legally, and the government has had no capacity to provide an alternative.

It's important to take the opportunity of this publishing of the new land law, which is imminent, to incorporate these principles and set up a mechanism for formalising that informal occupation, to provide some simple means for people to acquire right of occupation.

We are arguing that these rights need to be articulated and regulated, and rules need to be set up. The law needs to be based on real understanding and research. We've spent the last two years trying to understand these processes: how people acquire land when the state isn't there to deliver it, existing land ownership patterns. These methods, which the vast majority of people use, should be recognised and formalised somehow.

Q: Is that an easy thing to do?

A: While the problem is a complex one, some of the solutions are really quite simple. Huge amounts of investment will be needed, but one of the sources of investment in the sector will come from the people themselves, if their rights are recognised. One of their only ways of saving - putting aside money - is to invest in houses: people invest in turning a tin-sheet house into a concrete house and upgrading their land. The wealth of all of these poor people is tied up in their land and housing.

Top

Zambia’s President Levy Mwanawasa has announced measures aimed at turning agriculture into one of the main drivers of Zambia's economy.

The fall in copper prices, Zambia's main source of foreign currency, has made the country focus on economic diversification.

Among the measures announced by Mwanawasa include sourcing "cheap foreign currency" for long- term agricultural sector financing, zero-rating tax on imported farming equipment and keeping power tariffs low.

"My administration wants to make agriculture a priority. We are sure that with long-term financing, more Zambians shall engage in agriculture, create jobs, earn foreign exchange and improve food production," Mwanawasa said.

He was speaking during the Zambia Agriculture Investment Promotion Conference (ZAIPC), held this week in Lusaka over two days. The conference was an initiative of the Bank of Zambia and the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC).

Zambia's Central Bank governor Caleb Fundanga told IRIN the aim of the conference was "to attract and promote investment in the agriculture sector because, regrettably, very little was done [to stimulate the agri-economy] in the last decade".

"We want to see an increase in food production and food security, so that we can stop importing food," he said.

A critical food shortage after two consecutive droughts left Zambia with a shortfall of 635,000 mt of grain last year. Food prices rocketed, and 2.9 million people needed food aid.

Zambia returned to multiparty politics in 1991 under former president Frederick Chiluba, when the government liberalised the economy, including agriculture, and removed subsidies in compliance with International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank conditionalities.

Prior to Chiluba's reforms, co-operative banks had lent money to farmers at favourable rates, while national marketing boards bought their crops.

Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana says the current government intends to revive some of these facilities.

"If you have no land, you have to buy land before you can farm. Water costs [money], equipment costs [money] - all these things cost, hence the reason we are reviving the co-operative banks [to] lend specifically to the agriculture sector. We shall also have a specific fund to lend to small-scale farmers," he said.

In a bid to boost production, the government has also continued to support more than 150,000 farmers with subsidised maize seed and fertiliser. The scheme began last year and has resulted in a harvest of some 1.2 million mt of maize, double that produced at the height of the food crisis.

Despite the recent success, there remains some scepticism around the implementation and efficacy of the recently announced measures.

"The plans sound good on paper but in reality farming is still a rip-off in Zambia. Take for instance the reduced power tariffs they [government] are talking about ... you have to grow at least five hectares of maize for you to qualify, and anyone in farming will tell you that [farming] five hectares [is] three times more expensive than the [savings realised by the] reduced rates. It does not make sense at all," Vincent Malambo, a commercial farmer from Lusaka North, told IRIN.

Another farmer, former vice president Enock Kavindele, commented to IRIN: "It is easy to make policy statements that sound good, but implementing them is often a problem."

He warned that unless government fast-tracked implementation of the new policies, "we shall keep talking about this agriculture-driven economy without achieving results".

An example is the government's sluggishness in accessing a US $50 million World Bank facility, half of which is a loan and the other half a grant. The money was made available after a workshop held two years ago to find ways of diversifying from copper to agriculture.

Laurence Clarke, the former World Bank representative to Zambia, told IRIN that "up to now, Zambia has done nothing to access the money that could have helped in agriculture".

Top

The Uganda Land Commission has refused a directive from the President's Office to place a caveat on all government land. It has continued to sell off government land to private developers, arguing that it has permission from the relevant ministries to do so.

Now another plot has been carved out of the Radio Uganda land at Bugolobi and sold off.

This is happening all over Uganda. Land that was reserved by government in the national interest is being sold off by unscrupulous civil servants for personal gain. The ministry officials write to the ULC saying that the land is no longer needed and the ULC then organises land titles.

Suspiciously the ULC refuses to disclose the names of the new owners. They tell journalists that the owner's name is only available with details of the land title. But this is a Catch-22 as the land title is newly created with unknown reference numbers.

The ULC argues that government cannot place a caveat on itself. But the ULC is being deliberately obtuse. Why can't the ULC place the caveat in the name of the President's Office even if it cannot put the caveat in the name of the government?

Government land must be protected. If the ULC refuses to place caveats on government land, it should at least put in place a mechanism to double-check that it is no longer needed before it is sold.

If it continues to dispose of government land and to flaunt the legitimate concern of the President's Office, it will have become very clear that the ULC has a vested interest in the continued disposal of public land to private developers.

(Published courtesy of http://allAfrica.com)

Top

A debate on whether South African small-scale cotton farmers should opt for genetically modified (GM) seeds continues with the release of a study on the subject.

Environmental action group Biowatch argued that GM technology was not cost-effective for the small-scale farmer, weighed down by debt, and a raw deal for exporting to western markets.

However, the findings in one of the first academic studies to map the growth of GM farming in South Africa have pronounced it a success. The study, comprising two papers, was prepared by researchers in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Pretoria.

One of the papers, "The Adoption and Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology Innovation in South Africa", by Johann Kirsten and Marnus Grouse, outlines the pattern of GM farming in the country.

The other, "BT Cotton in South Africa: Adoption and the Impact on Farm Incomes amongst Small-scale and Large-scale Farmers", by Marnus Gouse, Johann Kirsten and L Jenkins, studies the effect of GM policies on the production of cotton.

South Africa is the only African country that has adopted GM crops for commercial production. Besides GM cotton, genetically altered maize, soya and oilseed rape are grown.

International bio-safety protocol requires that bio-safety legislation be in place before GM crops can be planted in any country, and only South Africa and Zimbabwe qualify in the continent.

The cotton study by the University of Pretoria researchers claims that the percentage small-scale farmers growing GM cotton rose from seven percent in 1997/1998 to around 90 percent in the 2001/2002 season.

The authors of the paper report that of the 43 large-scale farmers interviewed, 39 percent indicated that the most important benefit of GM cotton was the saving on pesticides, with the second reason identified as the "peace of mind" about bollworms, a generic name for the various kinds of moth caterpillars that destroy cotton bolls.

The findings noted: "When asked to indicate all the benefits of insect-resistant cotton, 77 percent of farmers indicated 'peace of mind', and 72 percent indicated 'better crop and risk management' as a benefit."

Koot Louw of Cotton South Africa, an association of the key players in the cotton industry, confirmed the popularity of the GM variety of the crop, with 70 percent of the country's cotton production coming from genetically altered seeds.

Biowatch's Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss pointed out that bollworms were not the only pests which attacked cotton. "Reduced pesticides expenses promised by the GM crop also proves attractive to farmers," she explained. "But little do they realise that they still have to spray pesticides to keep other pests away."

Louw said most small-scale farmers did not bother spraying pesticides at all. "Once they have planted the GM cotton crop, which is resistant to bollworms, they just let the crop be." The saving on pesticides was "quite huge."

But Biowatch said it could still cost the farmer up to R500 [US $69] per hectare to spray pesticides.

According to the research paper, "when asked about the disadvantages of GM cotton, the prominent answer was 'the cost of seed and the technology fee'", which is the cost of the patent.

Louw said the GM seed was still cost-effective for the small-scale farmer, as demonstrated by the fact that 3,000 subsistence farmers and some of the 1,000 commercial cotton farmers in South Africa opted for planting GM seeds.

Pschorn-Strauss said small-scale farmers, who were already caught in a debt cycle as a result of recent recurrent droughts, paid exorbitant amounts in technology fees for the GM seeds. Most of the small-scale farmers were not well-educated and were allegedly misled by the seed companies.

Danie Olivier, the manager of Deltapine, a GM seed supplier, said small-scale farmers on irrigated land had to pay a technology fee of R750 [US $104] on a 25 kg bag of ballgard seed (resistant to bollworm), plus R350 [US $49] for the seed. The technology fee had been reduced to R350 per 25kg for dry-land small-scale farmers.

"We are not forcing the farmers to buy GM seed - it is their choice. We sell ordinary seed too," said Olivier. Ordinary seed costs half the price of the GM variety, around R400 a 25 kg bag.

However small-scale farmers account for only 10 percent of the country's annual cotton production, which was 17,000 tonnes of cotton lint for the 2002/2003 season.

Louw conceded that cotton production for export was not commercially viable. "We cannot compete with the subsidised crop produced in the advanced countries, which is why most farmers prefer to grow maize - which is a cash crop in South Africa," he said.

South Africa, therefore, only managed to produce about 50 percent, "in a good year", of its annual requirement of 70,000 tonnes of cotton lint. The rest is imported from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

However, according to Louw, if it were not for the GM cotton seed, even fewer farmers would be growing the crop.

Top

The four Surveyor-Generals Offices of South Africa house a valuable store of up-to-date property information, covering every land parcel in our country. This information is not only kept in paper form, but also stored as digital information.

The Cape Town Surveyor-General’s Office has devised a means whereby the public using a computer, may access this information automatically and at no cost.

Since the development of this system in March 2003, a total of 13 216 requests have been dispatched, providing 48 700 free documents to property owners, land surveyors, architects, estate agents and other built environment professionals in the Western and Eastern Cape. The use of the system is growing month by month, giving a real boost to the term Batho Pele in the Public Service.

If, for instance, a land surveyor, or a community member or any member of the public, any where, wishes to obtain the details of a client’s property and adjoining properties, and requests these details using the specially developed auto-e-mailer, an e-mail response containing the documents, is automatically delivered within 10 minutes.

To access the programme send an e-mail to autoemailer@lg021.wcape.gov.za with "Latest Autoemailer" in the subject line.

Top