In our last edition, perhaps, by surprise to many a reader, you noticed a new column entitled as above. In this instance I must confess that the reader was just thrown into the deep end. The column is going to be with us for some time. Its contents, you may have observed are no different from the usual contained in editorials. With time that is going to change.

Before embarking on the changes that are definitely coming I may as well add the old adage "Its never too late to mend". In that mending and introducing you to "Uyawuz’moya?", this is a question that in isiZulu literally translated, asks if you can hear the wind. In his prime, the late Simon "Mahlathini" Nkabinde, a mbaqanga pioneer, used to ask this question after belting a tune or two from the bandstand. The real meaning of his question was whether you were feeling the mood or the spirit brought about by his music.

The meaning and use of the question is not confined to music only. It could be referring to something else. As an example, one could be referring to the grapevine. It could also be trouble. There is an endless list. Naturally, a storm can be associated with trouble. But the cool sea breezes with a sensual experience.

We may as well recall that in the past the wind was used as a carrier of messages. The wind would carry smoke to other areas. The smoke contained a specific message. The message would on occasions depend on the thickness of smoke. Rapidity or the intensity of the smoke meant something. Some say this was only confined to the Red Indians. I have my suspicions that this is not true.

Those who have used dogs when hunting may tell anyone that to know where the wild animals are, dogs pick up animal scent from the wind. I have seen the jackals and other predators doing exactly that. The wind is something that can be trusted. But is unpredictable, too.

Currently, there is talk in the Department about " the tide that has turned". Can there be any tide without the wind? This is a rhetorical question, but rest assured that I have an answer which is "no". The "turned tide" as it is, refers to giving access to land to the formerly disadvantaged people of South Africa. But there is an emphasis on how this is happening. Its pace and speed can only be compared to that of a Supersonic jet. But, our detractors do not see it that way. I am sure we will agree that this is another debate deserving special attention. Rest assured that before long it will be featured in this column.

As the reader may have detected by now, the wind does not always bear the news that one enjoys. It may be like that sometimes. Sometimes it is the unexpected or the so called irrelevant or controversial. That is exactly what has to be expected from "Uyawuz’umoya?".

I may as well start by saying when exactly everyone in the Public Service is focussed on the "Imbizo" activities; I am coincidentally listening to "Mbizo" from "Home At Last" by Bheki Mseleku. The song takes me to other levels. It brings back good memories of Barkly East in my tender years. I have not had the chance to read the liner notes of the album, but I am sure this is a dedication to Johnny "Mbizo" Dyani, the late East Londoner who died in Sweden during the eighties. He was a bassist par excellence. Bheki was also in Sweden at a certain stage. I am sure he must have rubbed shoulders with "Mbizo" or his music had a great impact on him. May I ask if "Uyawuz’umoya?".

Top

Against the backdrop of the rejection of the Communal Land Rights Bill (CLRB) in Ulundi earlier in the month, some 3 500 residents of Groutville north of Durban celebrated receiving title deeds replacing their Permission to Occupy certificates for their allotments at the end of August. DLA Minister Thoko Didiza handed over the title deeds.

Among others the CLRB seeks to do away with Permissions to Occupy (PTOs). It opts for awarding title deeds in rural communities.

Minister Didiza commended the people of Groutville for agreeing that people who had come to seek settlement, in their area be granted title deeds too. This means that the people concerned enjoy full land ownership rights in the area.

She said there were many problems that were encountered while working on the project. She said some of the beneficiaries had passed away and the department had to trace the next of kin.

"Patience pays in the end and I am sure you are a good example of that. You submitted your applications as far back as 1998 and the delays never deterred your determination to acquire title deeds for your allotments", she said.

Minister Didiza told the beneficiaries to "take good care of your title deeds. They are like your lives and the future of your children".

She also gave credit to the municipality for its efforts to support the people of Groutville in seeking the fulfilment of the desire to possess title deeds to their land. She added that what was happening in Groutville was the government’s re-instatement of people’s land rights.

Inkosi Zibuseni Mlaba of KwaXimba who is also a Member of the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Legislature said there are people who think that amakhosi are against remodelling PTOs into title deeds for properties in rural communities. In direct contrast to what was said in Ulundi, he said if there are people who think that they will lose their power when title deeds are issued in rural communities, that means a lot of education still has to be done.

"Issuing title deeds is granting land rights to people. We are glad that the current government is granting land rights to its people", he said.

Commenting on the CLRB, he said he supports it. "The Communal Land Rights Bill does not take any rights or powers from anyone", he added.

He encouraged those acquiring land rights to use their land productively. He alluded to the fact that such use of land will drive away poverty.

The Deputy-Mayor of KwaDukuza, Councillor S Gumede said the late Chief Albert Luthuli fought for the restoration of land rights to its rightful owners in Groutville and South Africa as a whole. In his lifetime Chief Luthuli, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was the President of the African National Congress (ANC) and lived in Groutville, and there were many Luthulis at the occasion. Geographically, Groutville falls under KwaDukuza.

The festivities of the day included the following genres of African music:

• Isicathamiya
• Maskandi
• Choral

Many of the songs of that day contained a message that was related to land. The song "Emasangweni aKwaDukuza" (at the gates of Dukuza) received a warm and a spontaneous applause from the crowd. Some of the music was accompanied by traditional dancing.

There was also a play that depicted the history of land ownership in Groutville and in South Africa as a whole. The pain and suffering of those dispossessed of their land and the disputes that arose as a result of land were part of the play.

Groutville at one time was the administrative and military capital of the Zulu kingdom during the reign of Shaka. After the assassination of Shaka, the centre of the Zulu kingdom shifted northwards and the area became part of the Colony of Natal.

During the 1840s, the Reverend Aldin Grout of the American Board Mission and several converts settled in Groutville. The land was then granted by Deed of Grant by the colonial government, hence the establishment of the Umvoti Mission Reserve, which received 500 acres of land, also known as the Glebe.

Initially, the Church sold land to its converts for settlement and cultivation. The Umvoti Mission Reserve then became known as the Farm Charlottedale 6014, from which freehold sub-divisions were drawn off for Black landowners. The issue of freehold title was unusual and sets the Umvoti Mission Reserve apart from the other Mission Reserves. The Rev Grout administered the Mission Reserve with the assistance from converts from two leading families, namely the Dube’s and Luthuli’s who became chiefs of the Amakholwa tribe.

The Black freehold owners were encouraged to grow sugarcane, and in 1861, the colonial government financed a sugar mill on the Mission Reserve. Many observers noted that the Amakholwa of the Mvoti Mission Reserve were the most socially and economically progressive Africans in the colony of Natal. For this reason, Groutville attracted the hostility of white settlers and the colonial government which, following the segregationist principles of native administration instituted in Natal, demanded that all Africans should live under a traditional chief subject to Zulu law and custom.

In 1895, the law was changed to stop the issue of freehold title, and in 1903, the land that was not already held under freehold title, was vested in the Natal Native Trust. All the Reserves set aside in Natal for the use and occupation of Black people were owned by the Natal Native Trust, which was administered by the Natal Native Affairs Department. However, the freehold land stayed registered in the name of the owners of that land.

In 1913, the Native Land Act 27 of 1913, declared the Umvoti Mission Reserve a scheduled area, and applied the Act to the Reserve. This meant that no persons other than Black persons could reside in the area. When the Development Trust and Land Act 18 of 1936 was passed, the Natal Native Trust was absorbed into the South African Development Trust, established by that Act. That is why such land is now called Trust land. In this way, the three kinds of land that apply in Groutville came about, namely, church land, freehold land and trust land. This project deals with Trust land.

In spite of being designated a black spot under the consolidation proposals of the 1970s, and also being recommended for incorporation into KwaZulu in the 1980s, those portions of the Mission Reserve were vested, in what had now become the SA Development Trust. They were transferred in 1992 to the Department of Regional and Land Affairs of the old government, and are now registered in the name of the Minister of Land Affairs.

In the spirit of land reform, the community of Groutville mandated Councillors of the KwaDukuza TLC to engage the Department of Land Affairs to upgrade the tenure rights on the remnant of Charlottedale 6014. During 1997 the Minister of Land Affairs granted a general power of attorney to the Department of Local Government and Housing in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal to administer the land on behalf of the Department of Land Affairs.

Top

We give you praise and we offer you thanksgiving for the blessing that is today.

We thank you, oh God, for the land that we cherish and celebrate today.

We understand oh God, how the land is so central to our faith.

We know, out of the depths of the deep waters, out of chaos in fact, you created the firmament, the continents, and the land, upon which we now stand.

From the dust, from the land, you moulded the first human being and breathed life-giving breath, your spirit, into him. As we are created in the image of God, so it must be that the land from which we primordially derive is also made in your image.

From the ground oh Lord, we know life springs forth. From the rock Moses struck, water came forth. From the deep well, the samaritan women drew water. We know, oh, God, that the land holds riches from, which we derive the wealth to support ourselves and our families.

We thank you Lord, for our land is the place where the foundations of our homes are laid and where we place our loved ones we plead to rest in peace. The land is where we play soccer and enjoy all forms of recreation.

We thank you, oh God; that the land you created has sustained us throughout the millennia. For thousands of generations our ancestors have filled the land, planted, and harvested life-giving food. We thank you, oh God, for the miracles that the land constantly produces.

However Lord, though we come to you today in an attitude of celebration and appreciation, we must, oh Lord, acknowledge our sins that we have committed against the gift of Land that you provide us.

We repent, oh Lord, for our selfishness we repent oh Lord of our hoarding of land for ourselves at the expense of others. We repent, oh God, for leaving the minority of your blessings to the majority. We repent, oh God, for taking the most beautiful property and giving it to a few, leaving so many less fortunate with barren land that cannot produce enough.

We repent, oh God, for wasting the blessings of the earth for the benefit of the wealthy, while paying a price to those who scavenge the earth for the precious stones.

We repent, oh God, for wasting our water, almost taking it for granted. We know oh Lord that our capture of rain deprives the earth of its sustenance, so that we may at an instant tap a seemingly limitless supply of water.

We repent, oh God, for tossing out of our vehicles and homes, our garbage and waste. We repent oh God, for treating our land as a giant rubbish bin, fit only for harbouring our ugliness and waste.

Gracious God, in our spirit of celebration and repentance, we turn away from our former ways, we redress our failures, and we steer a new course that is in accordance with your Divine Will.

May this event that we attend today be a true demonstration of our appreciation for the land and a true repentance for our misuse of it in the past.

May all that attend and participate, may all those who lead and follow, may all those who live here or live elsewhere, be blessed and nurtured by today’s proceedings.

This we pray in the name of God,

Amen.

Top

In an interview during the 5^th World Parks Congress in September at the International Convention Centre in Durban, Livingstone Maluleke told Land News that possession of a tittle deed for their land is behind their success with the Makuluke Project. The project which is in the Kruger National Park, started when people were given back their land rights through the restitution process.

Livingstone pointed out that the status of their secure title deed has given them considerable power to participate on a relatively equal basis with South African National Parks and their private partners in the activities of the Kruger National Park. The beneficiaries of the Makuleke Project were participants of the 5^th World Parks Congress.

Livingstone added that some of the pillars of success in their project were:

• partnership with the private sector,
• transparent competitive bids,
• technical support,
• skills development,
• conflict mediation and resolution, and
• adaptability

He advised other land reform beneficiaries who are involved with profit generating settlements to adopt the foregoing for success. He said this would dispel the myth that land given to Blacks would not be used optimally.

He said the Makuleke Project is an example that when communities work together for a common goal, success is possible. Because of the existence of the Makuleke Project, job opportunities have been created.

"This has made people self-sufficient in a sustainable way. The return of their land has restored their long lost dignity, and this is making them confident again", he said.

Because the Makuleke Project is a Department of Land Affairs one, it was one of the projects that the DLA exhibited at the Congress. It can be described as one of the projects that attracted visitors to the DLA stall.

Added to that is the fact that the Kruger National Park now has been merged with conservation in Mozambique and Zimbabwe to form the Transfrontier Park.

All those who visited the DLA stall were impressed by the success of Makuleke.

Livingstone also revealed that they have now entered into another contract with one of South Africa’s top Nature Tourism Development companies, Wildlife Safaris. It is a renewable fifteen-year contract and in terms of this contract, Wildlife Safaris will invest R45-million in order to develop at least four top-of-the-range safari lodges in the Makuleke region, thus, converting it into one of South Africa’s major eco-tourism destinations.

From the deal, the Makuleke community will get 10% of the turnover generated. Livingstone said the community has great faith in the deal as it has the same elements with the one they have with Outpost, which has a 36-bed lodge in the area.

Livingstone told Land News that the Makuleke community has been generating R2-million a year for the past three years from safari hunting. He said the practice has received significant criticism from animal rights groups, and argues that the practice has been a necessary measure for conservation by controlling certain species from exceeding certain numbers.

"With the deal we have signed with Wildlife, we have agreed to restrict hunting on communal land for a limited period before phasing it out completely", he said.

Presently the community has a guesthouse and a culture centre in their village and these attract tourists. Another attraction to their village is an old hut wherein their chief once lived before they were forcefully removed from the area.

Top

In May, President Chavez Frias had handed over title deeds to more than 4,000 families in the Caracas (Libertador) municipality, bringing formality to decades of unregistered small-time properties which has been derogatorily designated "squatters" by previous governments.

Under the specific terms of Venezuela’s new Lands Act, a special Urban Land Rights Committee has worked for months to complete real estate legalization procedures in parts of the 23 de Enero, La Pastora, San Pedro and Altagracia parishes establishing the new title deed holders as the true owners of the properties on previously unregistered land.

Registrars have had to wade through an ocean of diffuse documentation, sometimes dating back to colonial Spanish times, to decide municipality borders and for the first time in Venezuela’s legal history to set up a permanent real estate register with legally-binding effect … "it’s like writing maps of the country from the beginning of history."

"We have sometimes had to resort to the courts to settle disputes, but they have been few and far between … it has been a tremendous paperwork job simply to establish what should have been done a hundred or more years ago.

"… the government has covered legal costs in every situation but there have still been fraudsters who have attempted to take advantage of their fellow citizens … we are stamping out corruption at every level as soon as we catch wind of it but corruption has been such a part of the old Venezuela that it is difficult to get people to understand that we will no longer tolerate it."

Published courtesy of:

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2003w19/msg00073.htm.

Top

Despite agrarian reform efforts beginning in 1960, Venezuela’s land tenure patterns in 1990 still portrayed the typical Latin American dichotomy between latifundios and minifundios (small holdings). For example, data on land tenancy from agricultural censuses from 1937 through 1971 pointed to a pattern of land concentration. More recent estimates mirrored data from these earlier censuses. One estimate in the late 1980s, for example, held that the smallest 42.9 percent of all farms covered only 1 percent of the arable land, while the largest 3 percent accounted for as much as 77 percent of arable land.

The country’s major land reform programme began with an initial decree in 1958 after the fall of the dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. The Agrarian Reform Law of 1960 created the National Agrarian Institute (Instituto Nacional Agrario--INA), which sought to provide land to those who worked it, initially by transferring public lands and later by expropriating private holdings of arable land not under cultivation. Although the government invested substantial resources in an effort to integrate its rural development strategy through the provision of roads, markets, schools, and clinics, new agricultural colonies rarely had the conveniences of earlier farming towns. Accordingly, the land reform experienced a dropout rate as high as one-third. Moreover, few of the peasants who stayed in the settlements actually obtained legal title to their land, which remained in the hands of the state.

Land reform had made only modest adjustments in Venezuelan land tenure through 1990. By the 1980s, over 200,000 families had benefited from the state’s distribution of nearly 10 percent of the country’s total land area. The average size of the country’s 400,000 farming units stood at eighty hectares in 1989, considerably higher than earlier decades. Improved access to land helped expand the country’s total land under cultivation and accelerated the country’s attainment of self-sufficiency in certain crops and livestock.

On the negative side, however, the benefits of land reform were seriously tainted by the programmes’ high failure rate and the fact that as many as 90 percent of participants never gained title to their land. Without land titles, farmers lacked collateral to obtain financing for needed agricultural inputs. These factors, combined with the fact that immense private tracts of land remained intact, demonstrated the relatively minor impact of land reform.

Data as of December 1990 published courtesy of:

http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/venezuela/venezuela43.html

Top

In its efforts to provide for farm workers, the Department of Land Affairs in the Northern Cape, late last year provided 192 hectares of land to farm workers in Groblershoop. This was done through the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) and the Share Equity Scheme programmes. In terms of the arrangements of the Share Equity Scheme the farm workers possess 75 % while the remaining 25 % share belongs to their employer, Johannes Fourie.

The 58 farm workers and Mr Fourie trade under the name of Sanddraai Arbeidsgenot. There are 51 households with 14 female-headed households, 37 male-headed households and with 33 youths.

LandNews visited the farm, Ebenhaeser on the rich banks of the Orange River in September and spoke to two of the beneficiaries, Piet Louw a manager, Willem Block and Mr Fourie. Mr Louw told LandNews that their project is about a year old and believes that the project has provided him with more skills since he is a manager of the farm. He admitted that the training he has received thus far, is not enough for the task he is entrusted with.

He said in the past he was just a worker on the farm and as a manager he faces more responsibilities. He said at this stage they have not yet employed anyone but doing the work themselves. They hope that as they grow bigger they will be able to offer employment opportunities to the unemployed.

Mr Block said now that he owns a part of the land that they are working on it puts him in an advantageous position than someone who is just a worker on the farm. He explained that this means that his job is secure, and conceded that he now understands the success or failure of the project is at his mercy.

He said the changes on the farm have been drastic and it has taken time and some introspection to adjust. He made an example about the improvement of his salary and added that before long he is sure he will be buying his family a house.

"All of us know that for the success of the project, we have to contribute something. At the same time we have to be united and not be swayed to the detriment of our project", he said.

He said the government has opened a door for them and believes that such an opportunity has to be protected by all means. He said his hope is for them to grow bigger and acquire other projects.

When asked about challenges facing them, he said since the project is still in its infancy, he believes that they have to put it on a solid foundation. He said they still have to build themselves proper houses.

"We also feel that our skills still need to be improved and enhanced. We think that on a long term basis our training must be around farming and not something that will at the end not benefit our project", he concluded.

Mr Fourie said their major products on the farm are wheat, maize and lucerne and they depend on irrigation and not rain. He said last year their harvest was 305 tons of wheat, 305 tons of maize and earned R 48, 000-00 for selling fodder.

He said men work throughout the year on the farm while women work more or less seven months per annum. He also mentioned that at that time dividends and bonuses had not been paid out to share holders and that would be done as soon as they had finalised balancing their books.

When asked to comment on the transformation that the land ownership may have brought to his co-shareholders, Mr Fourie said in the past there were only four men who did not abuse alcohol on the farm. He said now that has changed and the rate of alcohol abuse drastically dropped because all of them are aware of their responsibilities as share holders of the venture.

Mr Fourie told LandNews that as part of the former farm workers’ training, they attended an educational conference last year in Upington organised by the Karsten Boerdery. He said later in the year, twelve of his colleagues will be receiving training on tractor maintenance under the auspices of the Skills-for-Africa organisation based in Pretoria.

He said as a progressive step their project has bought its own tractor and some farming implements from its profits. He mentioned that this year they have planted four hectares of pecan nuts and two hectares of water melons which they sell locally.

Mr Fourie, when mapping out their future plans on the project, said they want to add to their responsibilities an adjoining 30 hectare farm which is good for vineyard and raisins. He revealed that as a project they are already leasing it.

Top

Talking about the turned tide regarding the land reform programme in the Free State, MEC for Agriculture, Mann Olriech says land redistribution and agricultural development (LRAD) in the province is the best example of a positive and successful programme aimed at grounding new farmers, from the emerging sector, as commercial farmers.

Since the inception of LRAD in August 2001, the Department has approved 312 projects in collaboration with the Free State Provincial Land Office.

Olriech says LRAD has benefited 2 047 people with grants of over R76 million and transferring 58 047 hectares of land to previously disadvantaged individuals. The Land Bank contributed R13 million worth of loans. The new farmers were trained at a cost of R538 537 to improve their business and technical skills.

They will also be supported through the community projects fund support programme (CPFSP), to help them with the establishment of specific agricultural enterprises. Towards the end of last year a rider to the financial agreement with the European Union for the CPFSP was signed and approved by the relevant parties.

This resulted in the increase of the grant from R10 000 to R25 000 per individual over 18 years. According to Olriech, since the inception of CPFSP in 1998, more than R24 million has been committed to agriculture-related projects.

In the same period R17 million has been disbursed, aiding 2 647 primary beneficiaries, of which approximately 65 percent were women.

The Department plans to commit a further R25 million to agriculture-related projects while a further R20 million will be physically disbursed in this financial year.

Olriech said the commitment of funds to agricultural projects will create jobs for 7 976 previously disadvantaged individuals (PDIs), of which 5 184 will be women.

"Successful models exist, where projects with the necessary technical support, training and aftercare have managed to create new jobs as well as sustainable livelihoods for farm families.

"Shortcomings in the mobilisation of financial resources to meet expectations of a better life for all should not slow down the process of redistributing 30 percent of land to PDIs by 2015," says Olriech.

He attributes the success of LRAD in the province to expediting the decision-making process, concentrating on individual families, rather than a group of people, who are recipients of farming land and white farms.

"I like the idea of a family business because it is very difficult for a group of people to run a farm," he says.

In conjunction with LRAD, the Department also initiated the "Know your farmer" programme, whereby PDI farmers were linked with successful farmers.

Olriech said it was the role of the Department’s extension officers to introduce PDI farmers to white farmers.

"Sustainable settlement of previously disadvantaged individuals on agricultural land is probably the best investment that existing commercial farmers can make.

"This would not only address the skewed ownership of land on racial terms, but would undoubtedly normalise social patterns in building a united South African nation.

"The level of trust between ethnic groups would improve and the quest for financial survival in the rural areas would bond people of various cultures," he said.

Top

By providing land to Margaret Matshiliso Noge, a 43 year old chicken farmer at Ritchie in the Northern Cape, the Department of Land Affairs has taken her out of her congested backyard to a more conducive environment. The 2002 Farmer of the Year Finalist has been conducting her farming business from her backyard since 1999.

When interviewed by LandNews, Ms Noge said during the Female Farmer of the Year Gala Dinner last year, the DLA Minister, Thoko Didiza had been emphatic that women must own land. At that time she had identified land that she had interest in and thereafter approached the DLA for assistance and got a positive response.

For the land, Ms Noge and four others known as the Noge Poultry Small Farmer’s Trust received 5 hectares for the poultry venture. Ms Noge is the chairperson of the poultry venture.

According to the DLA Project Officer under which Ms Noge’s project falls, Ms Icy Makhubedu, the property is in the process of being registered in the venture’s name. Thereafter, the project will be able to move to the property.

Ms Makhubedu told LandNews that the beneficiaries’ application was approved under the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development programme. She said the willingness to sell by the land’s previous owner facilitated the government’s initiative to redistribute land to previously disadvantaged communities in South Africa.

Ms Noge is a married mother of four children and her husband is a policeman. Her oldest son is studying at the University of Cape Town.

"When I began the poultry project I was all by myself but it became bigger by the day and I could not cope. This compelled me to involve others. I began it with 50 chicks", she said.

She said they order her chicks from Johannesburg and Bloemfontein. She says they prefer to order one day old chicks and breed them and presently they order 700 chicks at a time every six weeks. At the time LandNews visited her there ware one, two and three week old chicks.

"We sell the chicks locally and Correctional Services at Douglas are giving me a lot of support. They do not order less than 100 at a time", she said.

Ms Noge won the 2002 Top Producer for National Markets Award Competition sponsored by the Northern Cape Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, Environment and Conservation. She was also a finalist in the Female Farmer of the Year Competition run by the National Department of Agriculture in recognition of her contribution to economic growth and development through agriculture.

"After my awards last year, business started to boom and I was able to effectively support my family financially. I enjoy being self-reliant and I am proud that my family now no longer relies only on my husband", she said with a smile.

Ms Noge told LandNews that she invested her prize money for her awards in her business and indicated that the move has borne fruit because she has been able to buy a car and a bakkie which are used for the business. She said the quality of life has significantly improved and the fact that she is able to financially assist her son at the University of Cape Town is an indicator to that.

When asked to predict her future, Ms Noge said there are people who have been supporting her in her venture and she hopes to reciprocate that by ploughing back something into her community. Because unemployment is rife in her area, she said this can only be done when she is able to provide employment opportunities for her people.

She stated that she hopes to encourage others to start their own businesses in poultry or other ventures. Because of her empathy with her community, Ms Noge hands out offall to the poor, but she wants this to change so that people do not rely on handouts.

When asked about challenges facing them in their business enterprise, Ms Noge said the worst one was space in her backyard. She said even though she is patient, she thinks that the earlier they move to the farm the better because, a major problem will be solved for them.

She expressed her gratitude to her neighbours who have never complained about her breeding chicks in a residential area. She agreed that if it was not for her neighbours’ co-operation, she would not have succeeded.

"Funds are very limited but I have preferred not to sit down and wait for the unknown. We have approached Eskom and the Department of Agriculture for more funding. They asked for our business plan and I am now waiting for their response", she added.

"Officials of the Department of Health have visited my premises and they encouraged us to seek a bigger space to conduct our business. The land that we have acquired will also be complimentary to their suggestions", she continued.

Ms Noge is always trying to improve her skills. As an example in August 2003 she received a certificate on Farm Management from the Centre for Agricultural Management of the University of the Free State. When she was interviewed by LandNews, she was preparing to attend another course on Poultry Management in Randburg.

Top

Driving into Platfontein at Kimberley in the Northern Cape, was a curious experience, not because of the spring vegetation blooming everywhere, but because of the hive of activity resulting from the building of houses. At the time of my arrival a few houses had been completed, but the foundations being laid indicated that a vast residential area will be in existence before long.

As I spoke with some of the workers there it became apparent that they were excited for having found employment. Unfortunately no one was prepared to reveal the details of their earnings or the terms and conditions of their employment.

I arrived on a Friday, which coincidentally was pay-day and attracted many hawkers to the building site. Many of the faces there had more than one glitter in the eyes.

I was accompanied by the Provincial Land Reform Office Director, Obed Mvula. Before our arrival there he had told me that people who are to be settled at Platfontein are those who had been living at nearby Schmidtsdrift. He said Schmidtsdrift was used as a training camp by the then South Africa Defence Force (SADF) after the Batlaping Tribe had been forcefully moved out in terms of the legislation of the past.

In tracing their origin he said they are the !Xû and the Khwe with roots in Namibia who were fighting side by side with the SADF against the liberation movements in Namibia during the struggle era. When Namibia got its independence, they preferred to seek resettlement in South Africa and that is how they landed in Schmidtsdrift.

The conditions of living in Schimidsdrift were never easy and they were living in tents since 1990. They were haunted by the fact that through the restitution process the Batlaping were claiming their land back.

In 1995 Cabinet tasked the Department of Land Affairs to seek alternative land for the !Xû and the Khwe in Schmidtsdrift. Ultimately land at Platfontein was identified and an agreement to resettle the !Kû and the Khwe was reached.

According to information received from the Project Manager of Platfontein based in the Northern Cape PLRO, Cindy Nkoane, the area is 12 000 hectares in extent. She said the land is good for livestock and game farming.

Ms Nkoane said diamonds and feldspar are found in the area. She indicated that the Wildebeestskuil Rock Art Centre, arts and craft the !Xû and Khwe are involved in are an attraction to tourists.

In explaining the destitution of the people at Schmidtsdrift she said 85% of the people depend on social grants. She said the "middle income earners" of the community are employed by the defence force.

She further added that the DLA is gradually phasing out its activities in the project. The main role players will now be both provincial and local governments.

The foregoing information was confirmed by Tomson Nore who is a beneficiary and an Operations Manager of the project. He described his community as no different from any other community that had been hit hard by apartheid.

In updating me about what is happening at Platfontein he told me that the area was surveyed and properly planned. He said before the building phase at their place infrastructure such as electricity and water for the approximately 406 erwen was provided.

When travelling through the area we came across what could be described as a modern school on the verge of completion. Mr Nore said the majority of the people working for the construction company are those coming from their area.

"There is a number of people owning some livestock here and stock-farming cannot be ignored in this project because the environment here is good for cattle and sheep farming. There are also some game animals we found here when we arrived and we are still keeping them with the hope that in future we will fully exploit game-farming", Mr Nore said.

"The Department of Nature Conservation has assisted us with fencing for about seven kilometres of the farm to enable us to start a commercial game farm. They have also committed themselves to donate some game to us", he added.

Answering a question on mining in their area, Mr Nore said they are waiting for a prospecting permit from the Department of Minerals and Energy which they have applied for as a Closed Corporation of the Communal Property Association (CPA). He said they have had talks with some of the big mining houses and things are positive that good agreements will be reached.

He also said they have textile, ceramic, art and craft centres even though they are presently at a very small scale. He said the projects are steadily growing even though there are some setbacks, which are primarily caused by budgetary constraints.

Mr Nore said for the wares of these projects they have no specific markets but are dependent on tourists. He said the tourist market is not a reliable one but can make one smile when tourists decide to buy in bulk.

"I will say the quality of life of those who are presently working in the projects has improved, if we were to compare it with those who are absolutely doing nothing. The Executive Committee of the project is composed of beneficiaries only and their positions have enhanced their skills because they have never occupied such positions in the past. This is also true of the employees of the project", he reasoned.

"Moving from a tent that is cold in winter and hot in summer to a house is a giant step. This means that the living conditions for our people will drastically improve, especially if you take into account that infrastructure is almost non-existent at Schmidtsdrift", he argued.

"On the negative side of things, I can merely mention that people have waited for a very long time before the realisation of their dreams. This resulted in them losing faith in their leadership sometimes and this really tested their credibility with the people they lead", he concluded.

Top

Piecemeal reforms and calls for action: land reform in South Africa

The second volume in the new series focuses on the relationship between development and land in post-apartheid South Africa.

In the keynote article "Redistribution and access in a market-driven economy", Stephen Greenberg outlines how land dispossession and control over land access were at the centre of apartheid as a system of economic and social control. He shows further that in response to the legacies of this model, post-apartheid government adopted a market-centred approach to both development and its land reform programme. To date this has resulted in failure, more specifically in terms of equitable rural land distribution, mainly because the market is biased towards resources of this nature.

In urban areas, for example, a top-down and technocratic model of urban land planning and settlement is shaped by the desire to attract large-scale capitalist investment. This has inflamed conflict between planners and resource-poor communities who find themselves in the path of a development agenda that has no place for them.

In "Trapped farm labour: obstacles to rights and freedom", Abdoesalaam Isaacs opens with an outline of the colonial and apartheid roots of trapped farm labour. He then shows how post-apartheid legislation on labour relations and land reform - and farmers' responses - have failed to facilitate fundamental changes to the system which keeps farm workers trapped in poor living and working conditions today. Drawing on his experience as a fieldworker, he reviews the challenges facing a land rights social movement that includes farm workers, and concludes with a warning about the possibility of land grabs.

"Communal land tenure: livelihoods, rights and institutions" examines the tenure reform programme, particularly in light of the Communal Land Reform Bill (CLRB). Ben Cousins and Aninka Claasens trace the different paradigms that have informed previous drafts, reviewing the current debates around the Bill itself as well as the present situation regarding communal land.

They conclude that tenure reform and policy have been largely ineffective because policy makers and legislators fail to understand the realities of communal land systems. They call for increased and organised pressure from grassroots level.

Following the end of apartheid the restitution programme has not met expectations as few claims have been settled and not much land restored. In "The land restitution programme: advancing real reform or delaying it?" Samantha Hargreaves and Ann Eveleth propose that political compromises and the lack of political resolve during the transition period are largely to blame. They argue that the quality of land settlement and restorative justice have been sacrificed in the interest of neo-liberal, macro-economic objectives.

Household food insecurity began in the apartheid era and continues unalleviated today. In his article "Political stabilisation and market extension: restructuring of agriculture and its impact on food security", Stephen Greenberg reveals the impact of post-apartheid agricultural restructuring on black farmers' access to land, on farm workers, and finally, in some detail, on household food security. He argues that current policies are designed to benefit white commercial farmers. Greenberg concludes that the current liberalising of agriculture will not contribute to food security in the long term, and that the vast majority of the rural population will not benefit from these changes.

In "Communal property institutions: adrift in the sea of land reform", Tessa Cousins and Donna Hornby of the Legal Entity Assessment Project (LEAP) look at some of the lessons learnt from the implementation of Communal Property Institutions (CPIs) since the 1996 Communal Property Association Act created a framework for collective ownership of land after the demise of apartheid.

Critics of CPIs usually apportion much blame to these institutions around the failure of land redistribution projects. The authors argue that, notwithstanding difficulties, CPIs bridge the gap between Western individual ownership and traditional forms of tenure.

"The struggles of South Africa's landless" highlights the active role that the people on the ground have played in resisting land dispossession in South Africa. Ann Eveleth and Andile Mngxitama trace the development of landless people's struggles since the mid 1600s. Tracking the struggle through the 1930s, 40s, 70s and 80s, they assert that the Landless People's Movement (LPM) is the most significant development in the land sector for 80 years and that this signifies hope for the future. A forthcoming edition of the Development Update will take a more detailed and critical look at the rise of such social movements.

"We are women, we are land" reviews the post-apartheid government's land reform efforts with particular reference to the impact these have had on rural women. Michelle Festus considers the principles and policies underlying land reform, as well as legislation governing redistribution and tenure to show how rural women are marginalised through the lack of analysis of and response to their particular socio-economic realities. Festus concludes that the best way for rural women to challenge their marginalised position is to build strong organisations of their own.

(This volume is available on the INTERFUND website http://www.interfund.org.za/pub.html ).

(Published courtesy of Interfund)

Top

In one of its many innovations the Commission for Restitution of Land Rights at Zebediela in Limpopo struck an agreement for the Zebediela Citrus Estate that gives shareholding rights to farm workers in the Estate. The shares of the company are to be held as follows:

• 50 % to the Henley Farm Properties (Strategic Partner)
• 35 % to the Bjadi Communal Property Association, and
• 15 % to the Worker’s Trust

In terms of the settlement agreement the land is to be transferred to the community in title through their Communal Property Association. The community will thereupon enter into a 15-year lease agreement with the Henley Farm Properties within the ambit of the operating company, which is Zebediela (PTY) LTD. In that company there will be an agreement among the CPA, the Strategic Partner and the Worker’s Trust.

There is hope that this lease will allow Henley Farm Properties sufficient time to bring the Zebediela Citrus Estate to its potential while at the same time transferring skills to the community.

At the celebration of the settlement Minister Thoko Didiza commended the estate workers for taking the opportunity to be part of the settlement. She described their situation as Black Economic Empowerment.

On the opportunity availed to the workers of the estate, Minister Didiza reminded everybody there that the Freedom Charter states categorically that land will belong to those who toil it. She said people never expected to own land again in that area after the forceful removal.

She said there were many challenges that were met in settling the claim and in that process the workers became impatient. She said the people of Zebediela, the workers of Zebediela and the Limpopo provincial government made sure that all those who wanted the Department of Land Affairs to fail are disappointed.

"We gave land to people who perfectly know how to work with oranges here even though they do not have the educational expertise on the matter. This means that they have the skills. On the other hand Henley Farm Properties have the money. This means we need each other for the success of this venture", she said.

Minister Didiza told the audience that the oranges of Zebediela are exported to Russia, Japan and South America. She said while earlier Zebediela was a story of gloom it changed for the better.

The MEC for Agriculture in Limpopo Dr Aaron Motsoaledi expressed his joy that the land is returned to its rightful owners. He agreed with Minister Didiza that many negotiations had taken place before the final agreement was reached.

He said Mr J Boyes of Henley Farm Properties joined in the venture in 2001. He encouraged everybody involved in the project to help each other to achieve success.

"The claimants have a title deed over this land. That confirms their ownership of the land", he said.

The Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozie Gwanya acknowledged Minister Didiza’s wisdom about her insistence on the establishment of a Regional Land Claims Commissioner’s Office in Limpopo. He said this has culminated in many a claim being settled.

Mr Gwanya commended the farmers that have co-operated with the process of restitution. He said some landowners who were against restitution preferred to challenge legitimate claims to the Land Claims Court.

He was optimistic that the President’s directive that restitution be completed by the end of 2005 would be complied with. He said there were many landowners who have now come forward for the settlement of claims.

Representing the CPA, its Chairperson J Tlolane gave a background on their claim saying initially there were four claims for the same land. But as negotiations proceeded they were merged and accepted as a single claim.

For the Worker’s Trust, N J Aphane gave his respects to Dr Motsoaledi for organising workshops that were beneficial to the workers. He agreed that if they sit down round the table and discuss issues with their partners, Henley Farm Properties, production would surely rise in the estate.

"We do not want talks about disciplinary action or arbitration here. We have to share the experiences we have and solve our problems ourselves without any outside intervention", he said.

Mr Boyes said when they started in December 2001 at Zebediela, the estate was on the verge of collapse. He said with the help of Dr Motsoaledi, the workers and the community, Zebediela has been saved and is on its way to being a successful and a sustainable job provider.

"During this period the estate has started exporting fruit again and this year will produce close to 800 000 export cartons and more than 600 000 bags for the local market. All the traditional Northern Hemisphere markets have received Zebediela fruit this year", he said.

He added that the permanent staff members are assured of their jobs and 800 temporary workers were hired for nine months in 2003. He said the estate has also been restored to its rightful owners and a model for sustainable business has been put in place.

"The shared utilisation of resources and knowledge is key to reconciliation and redressing the imbalances of the past. The empowerment of communities is a certain outcome were this model to be rolled out to other projects and other provinces", he advised.

The community originated from the Mountain Kingdom of Lesotho. They were known as Batlokwa Ba Manthatise. Manthatise was their queen when they left Lesotho around 1700 for the Republic of South Africa to the area which later became the Transvaal.

At about 1814 they found unoccupied land in the lower surface of the Mmabulepu Mountain and settled there. They describe the features of their land through prominent mountains and rivers that can be seen in the vicinity of the land, which include Mmabulepu Mountains and the Mogoto and Gompies Rivers.

They lived peacefully until somewhere around 1914 when John Schlesinger arrived. They were then turned into labour tenants and this led to some of them vacating their homes while others remained. Those who left sought accommodation at nearby villages like Makweng, Moletlane Rakgoatha and others went to GaMphahlele.

Top

Former residents of the Eastern Native Township (ENT) who were forcefully removed from the place under apartheid laws were awarded R50 000 each as compensation by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights in September. This took place in a ceremony at Molapo Technical College in Soweto.

The ENT claim was lodged in 1995 with Marks Mokgothu as the chairperson leading the way. The whole settlement amounted to R24 400 000. There were 502 claims lodged for the ENT community but ten of them belonged to the Western Native Township. At the celebration former ENT residents sang praises to the Commission for settling their claims.

The Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya described his joy as overwhelming in witnessing the dream of the elderly coming true. He stated that the commission is working closely with a number of urban municipalities on how certain communities can be upgraded.

In her speech, Ms Adelaide Thambo who was also a claimant asked the people of ENT not to forget where they come from as a community. She said while they have lived to see this day come, there is nothing that will erase the pains they endured in the past when they were fighting for equality.

Ms Connie Nkosi, speaking on behalf of the chairperson of ENT claimants, Marks Mokgothu, said she remembers ENT as a place that had ubuntu. She said everyone knew each other there.

"Human life was respected at ENT and crime was not as prevalent as it is today. All community members were always willing to assist each other", she said.

The celebration was a dignified event and had entertainment galore. Cultural groups including Umkonta, Amawundlu, Vukalova and Amasiko were a marvel to watch as they went through their traditional dance paces.

In that entertainment, Mr T Nobela recited a poem honouring those coming from ENT. The elderly could not hold back their tears as they heard him talking about the good old days at ENT.

The event was emotional in that many people had not seen each other for more than 30 years. In their conversations there were talks about their school days, church gatherings, sport and newspapers like Golden City Post, Drum and Zonk magazines. The Manhattan Brothers, the African Ink Spots, Mirriam Makeba and Dolly Rathebe are the names that were mentioned again and again in musical topics.

The residents of ENT were given rights of tenancy after its establishment in 1925 by the Minister of Native Affairs under the approval of Native Urban Areas Act 21 of 1923. These removals were done by Non-European Affairs under the Johannesburg City Council on 19 October 1973.

The then government promised the ENT community that the houses would officially be theirs after residing there for thirty years. The community was divided into three groups, which were relocated, to Dube, Molapo and Pimville in Soweto.

ENT is now known as George Goch. Those forced removals were due to the fact that ENT residents did not reside there under the permission of the West Rand Bantu Administration (WRAB).

Top

Nine founders of Ramohlakala were hailed as heroes during the celebration of the restitution settlement at Groenfontein, Middelburg in Mpumalanga towards the end of September. The claimants were forcefully removed from the area in 1959 in terms of the infamous Native Trust and Land Act of 1936.

On 07 November 1925, Mr Jeremiah Makuse and eight others bought the land for £1 575- 00 from the Berlin Mission. In 1961 their land was registered in the state’s name without their knowledge.

The claimants comprise of 400 households that are direct descendants of the original buyers of the land.

While addressing the community at the celebration, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Tozi Gwanya commended the decision taken by the nine founders to acquire the land. He said the land is now going to benefit current and future generations.

Mr Gwanya said up to the 1960s, Africans were self sufficient because of the manner they used their lands. He pointed out that research showed that the nine families used to produce a lot of maize from their fields and farmed livestock before they were dispossessed of their land.

Mr Gwanya called upon the people to discard the belief that wearing a tie symbolises success. He explained that by wearing a tie on that day, he was demonstrating it as a sign of oppression that ties up those who wear ties.

He motivated people to be self-employed and create jobs for others. He cautioned against being employees for this has a tendency of making people servants for the rest of their lives.

He urged the youth to stick with rural communities and pursuit a better life there rather than opting for the cities. He encouraged them to toil the soil, telling them that the white farmers who stayed in rural communities were no fools.

Mr Gwanya also challenged the beneficiaries to come up with action plans that will outline their goals for their land. "It is for this reason that we have an agreement with the National development Agency and Land Bank," he pointed out.

To the community, he said now that they have acquired the farm, they should create employment for people amongst the 400 households. He asked them to co-operate with other communities and neighbouring farmers to champion their cause.

To those who criticise the pace of the restitution process, Mr Gwanya said they say so because they do not understand the process. He said the critical challenge at stake now is proving the perception wrong that black people are useless.

The role played by the German missionaries in helping the nine families to buy land in the area even though at that time the law was against them, was highly praised at the celebration. Mr Gwanya referred to it as revolutionary.

He also pointed out that before 1994 many churches sided with Apartheid and this means they have to conduct an introspection about their stand these days. He said many churches acquired vast tracts of land through the dispossession of black people and suggested that they assist poverty-stricken communities by giving them land for agricultural purposes.

The restored land is 599 hectares in extent with residential, grazing and cropping rights.

The DLA purchased the land with the amount of R 1 750 000 from the Steenkamp Broers cc. The arrangement made is that the current owner will be a strategic partner paying rent of R60 000 to the beneficiaries for a year and every year the community decides to renew the arrangement.

Top

Chairperson: Mr N H Masithela (ANC)

Summary
The Committee was briefed by the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights on the purpose and importance of the proposed Bill. The Committee heard joint submissions from Transvaal Agriculture Union of SA Delegation and Agricultural Employers Organisation who totally opposed the Bill. The Nkuzi Development Association supported the Bill saying that the landowners should not be allowed to dictate the pace of the process.

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights submission
Mr T Gwanya, Chief Land Claims Commissioner, noted that the main purpose of the Bill is to empower the Minister so that she would be able to purchase, acquire or expropriate lands for the restitution process and any other land reform purposes. The proposed amendment addresses the inadequacies experienced in the current legislation, especially those of Section 35(5A) and Section 42D(1)(d) of the Restitution Act. Section 5(5A) requires that there should be agreement between all parties concerned when expropriation is to be effected and they feel that this is not a standard practice for expropriation. On the other hand Section 42D(1)(d) requires that there should be a court order and the Commission feels that this a long route, which normally derails the expropriation process enshrined in the Constitution. He said  there were public hearings called with regard to this proposed amendment and the Bill was referred to the State Law Advisors who endorsed it. Cabinet also endorsed the Bill.

AGRI South Africa submission
Mr Bosman, Agri South Africa introduced his legal support team, Ms Fazel and Mr Van Rensburg from Hofmeyr, Herbstein and Ginwala.

Mr Van Rensburg said that the function of the judiciary could not be ousted. He and Ms Fazel pointed out cautionary notes regarding amendment, particularly grammatical structure where "and for any other land reform purpose" could be misconstrued. The phrase was described to be in conflict with the origin, scope and purpose of the Act. Practical difficulties with the Act were also pointed out. The exclusion of the Administrative Justice Act would lead to protracted proceedings should landowners take the decision to expropriate land on review.

National African Farmers Union (NAFU) briefing
Mr Matlala, Deputy President of NAFU, said expropriation should not used to circumvent the laws of the country, but to optimise land restitution. It was difficult to become a successful commercial farmer if the market was hostile. Black farmers could make worthy contributions to agricultural growth if the right environment was created. Other organisations that claim the Minister would have too much power presented no solutions to the problems. A number of farmers were in full support of land restitution. Sustainable solutions should emerge from this process.

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies UWC (Plaas)
Dr E Lahiff (Plaas) said the state needed to find negotiated solutions to land restitution delays, however the state should also not fail to take decisive action when necessary. The state needs to be allowed to expropriate land when necessary.


26 August 2003

All presenters supported the Land Rights Amendment Bill and the provision of land expropriation other than for the purpose of restitution. They were however concerned that there were limited resources for the process of land restitution. Members asked how the presenters foresaw the process unfolding and how their organisations would take part in the process.

Legal Resources Centre submission
Mr Pienaar, Director of the Legal Resources Centre, centred his presentation on the fact that Section 25 of the Constitution obliged Parliament to deal with land rights and land distribution. He argued that the Restitution Act should be amended in a way that will satisfy the provisions of the Constitution. The Act should give the Minister additional expropriation powers to expedite the process of land restitution.

Agric SA submission
Mr Makhalala presented on behalf of Agric SA. His organisation supported the Bill on the basis of eradicating poverty. Poor people should have access to land and that the legacy of dispossession called for a speedy expropriation of land. White farmers and municipalities were not willing to help poor people to access land. It was ridiculous for government to base land rights on title deeds because "who gave title deeds to settlers and colonialists?"

Boarder Rural Committee Presentation
Mr Westway, the Director of Boarder Rural Committee said that his organisation supported the Bill. The process should quantify the number of affected communities. Moreover he added that the Bill should also consider those who were not making claims and that was why his organisation was working with villages on how to take the process forward. He also listed some of the work that his organisation was doing in assisting rural people to benefit from the land and the process of redistributing it.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group-http://www.pmg.org.za/ ).

Top

The COSATU submission and comment in Parliament on the Restitution Amendment Bill

The Legal Co-ordinator, Ms Govender, made the submission for COSATU and supported the amendment to expedite the process of land restitution in the light of the slow pace and obstacles. COSATU supported the expropriation of land for purposes other than restitution. However, COSATU was weary about implementation and asking the Department to clarify the implementation processes. COSATU was also not happy about the limited budget for the process and also about inequalities in budget allocations for different land reform programmes.

Introduction

The Restitution of Land Rights Act was passed in 1994 to address the restitution of those rights in land that were dispossessed after 19 June 1913 as a result of apartheid laws. Since then various amendments have been made to the principal Act to address the obstacles to the restitution process. The amendments made in 1999 were seen as key in that they enabled the Department to employ an administrative route to settle restitution claims rather than being forced to go through a judicial route, thereby speeding up the process.

Despite this the land restitution process has not taken place at an optimal pace, raising serious questions about whether all claims will be settled in time to meet the 2005 deadline set down by the President. Further concerns have been levelled at the overwhelming urban bias in the number of claims settled as well as the failure to address the principle of sustainable settlements that would enable beneficiaries to use the land productively in the long term.

Underlying these problems is the adoption by the Department of the "willing buyer-willing seller" approach to restitution, which has enabled many current landowners to hold up the process either because they are generally opposed to the restitution process or demand unreasonably high prices. This combined with similar problems experienced in other land reform areas such as tenure reform and land redistribution only serve to confirm earlier fears that the inclusion of the property clause in the final Constitution would obstruct land restitution and reform processes, thereby entrenching existing patterns of unequal property relations.

The Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill (hereafter the Bill) proposes to remove the requirement for the Minister to first reach an agreement with interested parties or obtain a court order before expropriating or acquiring property. The aim of the proposed amendments is to address obstacles that delay the restitution process.

COSATU strongly believes that there is a need for a meaningful intervention to speed up not only land restitution but the other two legs of the land reform process, namely, tenure reform and redistribution. This would necessarily entail increased utilisation of powers of expropriation especially where blockages arise. It is with this objective in mind that we support the introduction of the Bill.

Notwithstanding our support for the Bill, we believe that there are a number of additional policy concerns that must be addressed. These include:

• Inadequate prioritisation of implementation of other programmes of land reform, namely, tenure reform and land redistribution;
• Insufficient budget provision for the overall land reform process and more specifically for tenure reform and redistribution;
• Little or no provision for support mechanisms (including support by personnel, provision of appropriate infrastructure and access to credit etc), which would enable the sustainable and productive use of land by beneficiaries.

These additional concerns may appear on the surface to fall outside this process. However, it is important that these are addressed in order to maintain the integrity of the entire land reform process in the long term. While not detracting from the importance of the land restitution process, its limited potential for reversing racially skewed property relations must be borne in mind. Restitution is limited to only those whose rights were dispossessed after 1913 and who are unable to lodge their claims by the deadline of 1998. Many others who would otherwise have qualified for restitution are now dependent on tenure reform and redistribution programme for appropriate redress.

The Bill sparked off widespread controversy particularly amongst opposition parties who argued that it was an "assault on the rule of law and property rights" as well as raising constitutional concerns.

Clause 4, which is the key provision in the Bill, proposes to insert a new section 42E into the principal Act. The proposed subsection 42E(1) provides the Minister with the power to acquire or expropriate land or rights therein for the purposes of restitution or "any other land reform purpose". Provision is made for the application of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 to land restitution, with references to the Minister of Public Works to be construed as the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs. Expropriation is made subject to the payment of compensation that is to be determined either by agreement or by the Court in accordance with section 25(3) of the Constitution. Other clauses in the Bill remove references in the Act, which make it necessary to reach agreement or obtain a court order before expropriating land. This means in the future the Minister will not need to reach an agreement with the relevant landowner or obtain a court order in order to expropriate property.

Our analysis of the provisions in the Bill indicates that criticisms of the Bill on constitutional or legal grounds are unfounded. In the first instance section 25(2) of the Constitution allows for property to be expropriated in terms of law of general application for a public purpose or in the public interest, which includes land reform measures. This is made subject to the payment of compensation that complies with a number of factors listed under section 25(3). As the Bill complies with all of these requirements, there are no grounds to justify concerns about constitutionality.

Secondly the Department already has similar powers of expropriation in terms of the Expropriation Act and land reform legislation such as the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997(ESTA). The criticisms levelled at the Bill are merely reflective of Conservative mindsets resistant to the process of transformation of unequal distribution of property in South Africa, and should therefore not be allowed to undermine the delivery of land reform objectives.

As noted above the Bill provides for expropriation for "other" land reform purposes, which would include tenure reform and redistribution.

As with restitution, acquisition of land for the purposes of securing tenure or redistribution has been held up by resistant landowners. Accordingly we believe that the inclusion of this provision in the Bill should be supported if this will have the effect of speeding land reform more generally. Taking into account our concerns noted about the poor emphasis placed on tenure security and redistribution, we are calling on the Department to prioritise its implementation of this provision.

Notwithstanding our support for the Bill, we are concerned about the possibility that the Bill may be underutilised once passed. In this respect criticisms have been levelled at the Department's past reluctance to use its existing powers of expropriation.

Accordingly, we are calling on the Department to clarify its proposed strategy for implementing the Bill and specifically how delays are to be addressed through the amendments.

Currently the Department is required to obtain a court order BEFORE expropriating in the case that a landowner refuses to sell. With the introduction of the proposed amendments landowners will have the opportunity to challenge the process or compensation offered after the expropriation has taken place. The net effect of the amendments is that the court process will be relocated to a later phase of the process and will now be triggered by the landowner and not the Department, as is currently the case. In view of this it is unclear how this will materially address the delays currently experienced, especially since any court process will have to be finalised before the land/property can be transferred to the claimant.

Further, taking into account that there are the existing provisions authorising expropriation in other legislation noted above, there is a need to clarify firstly the net effect of the proposed amendments and how this improves the current situation. Secondly there is need to clarify how potential contradictions are to be resolved between the different pieces of legislation.

It is a commonly accepted view that the budget provision for the overall land reform process has been far too little to sustain relevant programmes undertaken by the Department. This despite more recent marked increases allocated for Land Affairs for the years 2002/03 and 2003/04. Key concerns here relate to the inadequate provision for support mechanisms that ensure the sustainability and quality of restitution settlements and the failure to prioritise - tenure reform and redistribution programmes.

We believe that the considerable increases in the allocations for restitution is to be welcomed. However, the Commission has indicated that these increases are likely to be inadequate. Further, we are concerned that these increases are primarily limited to the settlement of restitution claims in order to meet the 2005 presidential deadline, while not addressing the sustainability of settlements. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) has admitted in this respect that in order to meet this deadline the principle of sustainability and quality of settlements has received less priority. In the long term this is likely to compromise the ability of beneficiaries to derive the full benefit from restitution.

Accordingly there is dire need for the provision of adequate funding in order to address such concerns as staffing shortfalls both at national and provincial levels, infrastructure development and access to credit for beneficiaries.

Further, the overall figures mask the considerable disparities between different allocations for the various land reform programmes. As we have already indicated tenure reform and redistribution programmes are vital to addressing racially-skewed patterns of property ownership. However, the failure to make appropriate allocations in respect of the budget brings into question the priority that this enjoys within the context of land reform.

For instance the estimate for expenditure on land restitution for 2003/04 is R854.9 million, which represents an approximate 118% increase from the R391 .3 million for 2002/03. In contrast the 2003/04 allocation for land reform (Comprising both tenure reform and redistribution programmes) which is R430.4 million, represents a mere 7% increase on R402.2 million for 2002/03. It is of concern that these amounts reflect considerable disparities both in respect of the actual allocations and the annual increases.

Current Departmental targets commit the redistribution of 30% of agricultural land over 15 years. This would require the government to transfer 1.67 million hectares (mha) per annum. However, the Department's performance in this respect reflected a transfer of an average of only 150 000 hectares per annum for the period ending October 2001. According to our estimates an allocation of at least R1 .6 billion a year would be required to meet the 15-year target of redistributing 30% of agricultural land available. However, the estimates for the medium term do not come close to approaching this figure, with the 2005/06 estimate for land reform being R523.1 million.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group- http://www.pmg.org.za/ ).

Top

Mr M Wegerif (Executive Director) noted that Nkuzi had worked closely with communities on land claims processes since 1997 and as such had played a pivotal role in a number of the land claim settlements. Hereunder are remarks made by Nkuzi Development Association:

• We welcome the opportunity to comment on these important proposed amendments to the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994. We are an NGO which has played a direct role in the settlement of a number of claims, have done validation work on nearly two thousand claims and deal on a daily basis with numerous communities still waiting for their land claims to be settled.
• The intention of strengthening the hand of the Minister to settle claims with return of land even where there is no agreement is welcomed.
• We urge the Portfolio Committee to keep in mind those who have already lost land rights and suffer today because of this. In such debates, where current landowners are vocal in arguing for the securing of their land rights and claim that their rights are under threat, the plight of hundreds of thousands of South Africans who have already lost their land is sometimes not given adequate attention. The hundreds of thousands who were removed from their land under apartheid with no compensation, many of whom live in poverty today because of this dispossession are not faced with a possible weakening of their rights, their rights have long been trodden on and the government has a duty to remedy this situation.
• We believe that if properly structured these amendments remain within the framework of the constitution. We further believe that if these amendments are fully used they can contribute to a speedy resolution of land claims and a further redistribution of land, which in the long run will be in the interests of the whole country.
• It has become clear that if we are to settle land claims in South Africa the government cannot be tied to having to wait for agreements to be reached with current owners. While there have been successes in settling claims administratively over the past years, this has only been where the owner has been a willing seller. As such claims are settled we will increasingly be left with those claims where the current owner is intransigent and unwilling to co-operate. Even where owners are willing to sell, they are only willing to sell at certain prices and often on certain conditions. The time involved in negotiating such settlements is also long. Without the ability to efficiently by-pass such negotiations if sellers are unreasonable the government is forced to pay excessive prices or agree to conditions that they may not otherwise deem in the best interests of the claimant.
• Difficulties, delays and high costs of restoring land to claimants can also lead to easier options such as cash settlements being resorted to. This is unfortunate, as it does not address the legacy of apartheid land dispossession and the inequitable land holding that we are left with today in South Africa.
• Court processes in terms of the Restitution Act have proven to be lengthy and expensive. The court is therefore not a viable option for settling claims at the scale required by public demand and the targets announced by the State President.
• It is also unfortunate that in terms of the current legislation a person, simply because they currently own a certain piece of land, can go to court and argue at length about the historical validity of a certain claim. We believe that if the Commission for the Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) has investigated and found the claim to be valid the claim should be settled and the current owner should only be entitled to go to court to argue as to whether the compensation they received was fair.
• As well as supporting the proposed amendments we would encourage that the powers of expropriation conferred by these amendments be used. While we would still advocate, as I am sure the government does, for attempting to reach negotiated settlements, there must be decisive action if such negotiations are going to unduly delay the settlement of valid claims.
• We would further encourage that the constitutional provisions for compensation be tested to the limit to reduce the very high cost to the state of land purchase. Of the five factors to be considered in determining just and equitable compensation, according to section 25(3) of the constitution, only one is market value, yet land is currently bought at market value (The valuations done are also questionable and appear to be very high in some cases). We believe that taking into account the other four factors compensation of considerably less than market value could be paid, while still complying with the constitution. A clear formula for this needs to be worked out and if necessary tested with the Constitutional Court.
• We would further urge that options such as government bonds be investigated as a method of payment for land acquired for land reform purposes. The payment of cash immediately, often quite long before the claimants even get on the land and benefit, is a burden that risks making land restoration unviable. In most major land reforms implemented around the world and considered to be successful (for example: Japan, Taiwan and China) compensation was not paid in full immediately. It has been common practice to pay a percentage immediately and the balance in some form, such as bonds, redeemable over time.
• We recommend amendment to add to the proposed 42E to make clear that the expropriation action by the Minister would be considered where a Regional Land Claims Commissioner has investigated the claim in conformity with the Act and after applying her mind and considering all submissions has found it to be valid. One could also add a clause such as the current 14 (1)(b) where the Commissioner certifies that she does not believe it will be settled through negotiations. We believe these amendments would help to clarify the process and assure people that there will be a due process.
• We are concerned with the proposed amendment 42E(3) referring to section 3 of Administrative Justice Act. This may add unnecessary constraints on the process and we would understand the provisions of the Administrative Justice Act to be applicable anyway should someone want to challenge the process. The current wording of the proposed section 42E(3) links the agreement or determination of the price to be paid for the land with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and says these provisions shall "apply before such land, portion of land or right in land is expropriated". This appears to imply that the price would have to be agreed or determined before land could be expropriated which seems to defeat the intention of ensuring the land claims can be settled even if the issue of valuation is still being negotiated or taken to court.
• Proposed section 42E(5) makes the former owner no longer "a party interested in the claim". This appears to remove their right to take decisions or actions of the Commission on review to the Court as per section 36(1). We believe that such right of review should remain. Removing it will create an inconsistency in the Act and may be unconstitutional. The important thing is that the Minister should be able to act and if a person has a dispute they can take it on review, but it has to be on their initiative and expense.
• In summary we support the intentions of the proposed amendments. We believe these and other changes need to be made to speed up implementation of the restoration of land among them using the power to expropriate, provision of adequate resources to the CRLR and a reduction in the amount paid for land. The Minister should have the power to expropriate after a proper investigation and gazetting of the claim and should not have to wait for a court order before acting. All parties must have a right to take decisions on review, but these and any disputes about the value of compensation must not delay expropriation and restoration of land.

Current landowners can no longer be allowed to dictate the pace and nature of land restitution. The pace, at which land claims are being settled, especially where the return of land is required, is currently extremely slow. It falls far short of the expectations of claimants and the pace needed to meet the target set by the State President for the resolution of all claims. Unresolved land claims continue to hamper other development initiatives and create uncertainty for landowners. It is therefore the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs to find ways that this important programme can be speeded up. Attempting to reach agreement with current landowners is fine and I am sure the Commission for the Restitution of Land Rights will continue to do so. However when landowners make unreasonable demands, delay the process or completely block restoration of land to the rightful owners the government must act and expropriate.

The Minister is not proposing to act "without any recourse to the law", or launching any "assault on the rule of law", as alleged in the article '"Minister irresponsible about land" (Sowetan 2 June 2003). She is going through the correct process to make amendments to legislation that will allow more efficient expropriation within the framework of the law and the constitution. Expropriation is not unconstitutional, provided that it is done as part of a law of general application and that "just and equitable compensation" (not necessarily market value) is paid. The draft Restitution Amendment Bill proposes to do both of these.

The DA and NNP are irresponsible in their efforts to block transformation and their continued support of a privileged minority of the white minority who still own 80% of agricultural land in South Africa. Restoration and a fundamental redistribution of land are constitutionally mandated and essential for justice and development in the country. All steps to speed this up should be welcomed.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group- http://www.pmg.org.za/).

Top

The National Land Committee (NLC) - a national network of 10 land rights civil society organisations assisting poor and landless people struggling to access land reform across the country - strongly supports the amendments as contained in the initial draft of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendments Bill dated 22 July 2003. We believe it will be an effective and an efficient mechanism to deal with the current problems that the restitution process faces.

The NLC is totally shocked and disappointed with the reversal of the provisions of the amendments as contained in the proposed amendments dated 22 July 2003 which gave the Minster powers to expropriate with or without a court order. We believe that this reversal does not take us away from where we were before.

Amongst others, our reasons for supporting the initial draft included the following:

The proposed amendment. as contained in the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill of 2003, marks the first tangible statutory realisation of the state's fundamental constitutional right - contained in the property rights clause - to expropriate land for the purposes of transforming South Africa's racially-skewed patterns of land ownership. We believe that if properly structured these amendments remain within the guidelines of the constitution and further believe that if these amendments are fully used they can contribute to a speedy resolution of land claims and a further redistribution of land, which in the long run will be in the interests of the whole country.

The need for the amendment became clear in 2001, when the state was forced to back down on its first attempt to expropriate land for land reform, when farmer Willem Pretorius tried to milk the Department of Land Affairs for an outrageous sum for his Lydenberg, Mpumalanga farm, which was then under claim by the victims of apartheid-era forced removals.

It has also become clear that if we are to settle land claims in South Africa the government cannot be tied to having to wait for agreements to be reached with current owners. While there have been successes in settling claims administratively over the last years, this has only been where the owner was a willing seller. As such claims are settled we will increasingly be left with those claims where the current owner is intransigent and unwilling to co-operate. Even where owners are willing to sell, they are only willing to sell at certain prices and often on certain conditions. The time involved in negotiating such settlements is also long. Without the ability to efficiently bypass such negotiations if sellers are unreasonable the government is forced to pay excessive prices or agree to conditions that they may not otherwise deem in the best interests of the claimant.

Court processes in terms of the Restitution Act have proven to be lengthy and expensive. The court is therefore not a viable option for settling claims at the scale required by public demand and the targets announced by the State President.

It is also unfortunate that in terms of the current legislation a person, simply because they currently own a certain piece of land, can go to court and argue at length about the historical validity of a certain claim. We believe that if the Commission for the Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) has investigated and found the claim to be valid the claim should be settled and the current owner should only be entitled to go to court to argue as to whether the compensation they received was fair.

For this amendment to facilitate speed and quality of delivery the beneficiaries should be well informed about it and for this reason a publicity campaign must be undertaken soon after the enactment of the bill.

The NLC needs clarity as to how these amendments are going to speedup the restitution process and also an explanation of the reversal of the initial amendments. The NLC further welcomes the attempt by the Agriculture and Land Affairs Minister Thoko Didiza for her efforts to table this critical amendment, but very disappointed with the latest developments.

Finally the NLC believes that the policy instrument of Expropriation must be extended to the whole land reform process and not restitution alone.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group- http://www.pmg.org.za/ ).

Top

The Surplus People Project has been involved with land issues since its inception in 1984. In the first nine years of its life it fought dispossession actions by the apartheid regime, mostly in the Western Cape but also in the Namaqualand area of the Northern Cape. Since negotiations for a new South Africa began, the organisation has been participating in the development of policy for land reform, has facilitated the resolution of a number of land claims, has been facilitating access to land and land related resources (more than 300 000 hectares in total), while at the same time, continuing the fight against dispossession - of farm dwellers off the farms still owned by white commercial farmers (more than 120 eviction cases per year). It is with this experience that we make this contribution.

The Surplus People Project fully supports the Minister having powers to expropriate land for Restitution purposes and in a way that speeds up the restitution process and does not retard it. We understand that the Minister has the powers to expropriate land for land reform purposes in terms of the Constitution, the Provision of Land and Assistance Act No 126 of 1993 and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act No 62 of 1997. If the Commission and the Minister have found that these powers are insufficient to implement restitution, and that the powers need to be specifically identified in the Restitution Act, then we fully support it. It needs to be questioned, however, whether it is appropriate to include such powers in many different Acts or whether it is the principle Expropriation Act which should be amended to cover all the land reform situations.

SPP is concerned that the process of expropriation might not expedite the settlement of restitution claims but may slow the process down as a result of court challenges by current landowners. The state's power to expropriate property is constrained by the Constitution (this is important as we do not want a return to the apartheid style dispossessions). At the same time, we do not want the restitution processes to be held up by unco-operative landowners. In this regard, it is proposed that mechanisms are sought to limit the time allowed for representations and the court’s procedures regarding the act of expropriation. Issues such as the resolution of the compensation and other settlement agreements with the previous landowner can proceed without the constraints of time but in the meantime the expropriation itself must not be delayed or obstructed. In this way the restitution process will not be held up by long and drawn-out court battles.

SPP is in favour of the Minister obtaining powers to expropriate land for 'any other land reform purpose"(Section 42 E (1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill ). In this regard, it is important to clarify why expropriation is an important power for the Minister to be assured of. Expropriation is most often understood as a procedure that should be used by the state as a mechanism of last resort where there is reluctance by the landowner to sell or to come to an agreement on the price. SPP proposes that expropriation should be used more broadly and creatively to ensure successful and sustainable land reform projects. If, in the case of land that is to be restored to a community, for example, the planning by that community identifies that additional land adjacent to the restored land will be needed to make their land reform project (restoration) sustainable then the current land owners would be informed immediately that their land has been identified for expropriation, rather than approaching them to assess whether they are "willing sellers". In this way, expropriation comes to be used as one of a variety of mechanisms to acquire land, to ensure the success of land reform projects. This power to expropriate land "for any other land reform purpose therefore emphasises that the aim of expropriation is to develop viable and sustainable land reform projects and not just to provide restitution to those dispossessed in the past. With the passing of the amended Act, it will then be up to the creativity of the Land Claims Commission to ensure the development of sustainable land reform projects based on restitution claims.

There is limited budget for land reform generally. This directly indicates the low priority that land reform is given by government. Given the allocation, however, the limited land reform undertaken in South Africa to date, is also impacted on by the cost of land and this has to do with the approach of willing/buyer and seller and paying market prices for land. In negotiating a price with a willing seller, it is assumed that the prevailing market price is the lowest price that the seller would be willing to accept. In these negotiations the Constitution's compensation clause (Section. 25,c) is not used in determining the price. It is expected that invoking the compensation clause of the Constitution, or such clauses within other legislation, that the price of land will be reduced because aspects such as the subsidies that landowners previously received from the state, for example, will be discounted from the price. Expropriation, therefore, is one mechanism that may reduce the cost of land reform.

An important additional factor in delaying restitution in South Africa is the lack of capacity to implement the programme. While increased budget has been allocated to the Programme in this financial year, it is clear from the Department of Land Affairs, the Land Claims Commission and civil society analyses that this remains insufficient to implement the Programme within the time constraints determined by the President. At the same time, it is clear from experience on the ground that there are limited skills and capacity within the Commission to implement creative land claims processes (and related agrarian reform developments). With the clarification of the Minister's power to expropriate land for restitution purposes, it will be important to ensure that appropriate capacity is drawn into the Commission to make an impact on the development of sustainable solutions to the land claims.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group - http://www.pmg.org.za/ ).

Top

Submission and comments of the Transvaal Agriculture Union of SA (TAUSA) on the Restitution Amendment Bill in Parliament

Transvaal Agriculture Union of SA Delegation consisted of Mr P Grobbelaar, Director: Philip Du Toit Incorporated and Mr J Lageenburg, Manager: Labour and Property Rights TAUSA.

Mr Grobbelaar noted that he acted on behalf of TAUSA and Agricultural Employers Organisation, which both had a collective membership of no less than 12 000 commercial farmers. He said that his clients had an international acceptable minority right to oppose any process or action in a court of law where the fundamental rights to their properties were threatened and this right had also been enshrined in Section 34 of the Constitution. It was important that any restitution or land reform be economically driven in a sustainable manner and not just based on emotional or political decisions. He therefore challenged the proposed amendments and said that they were not justifiable in an open and democratic society. He then proposed, amongst other things, that the market force be allowed to dictate the process of restitution. Further that the principle of willing buyer and seller be applied so that the government is able get the co-operation and support of the commercial farmers. It was important that government should maintain and support its commercial agriculture since this would be in the best interest of the economy of the country and its people. Therefore all the suitable candidates, who choose to farm in a commercial sector, should be supported and trained irrespective of their race or creed or colour.

Mr Grobbelaar commented as follows:

We act on behalf of TAUSA, formerly known as the Transvaal Agricultural Union, as well as the Agricultural Employers Organisation. We have been instructed to comment on the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill which has been published in the Government Gazette on 25 July 2003.

We confirm that we also commented on the previous Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill ("the Bill) which was published on 9 May 2003. We have studied the Amendment Bill together with the memorandum on the objects thereof and have been instructed to comment as follows:

• In the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, it is stated that the present procedure whereby land claims could be resolved by way of settlement agreements outside of court, in terms of section 42D of the Act, is insufficient and causes unnecessary delay in the finalisation of the restitution process. Our clients are of the opinion that any delay, which is being caused, is due to the fact that a large number of outstanding land claims in terms of the Restitution Act is invalid and of no substance whatsoever. Our clients have been criticised in the media for being persons who "unnecessary" take matters to court which "they know are valid". This is devoid of all truth. Our clients have the right to test any Act, which causes a threat to their property rights in a court of law.
• The current provisions in the Restitution Act, and more particularly sections 35(5) and 35(5A) read together with the provisions of section 42D, provide the minister with the powers to expropriate under the circumstances as contained in those provisions. Up to date the minister has not once exercised her powers of expropriation. The current provisions also protect the property owner's right to object to the validity of a land claim in a court of law and make provision for, where an agreement in terms of section 42D has been reached, the land owner to be involved in that process. Our clients are highly concerned about the proposal that sections 35(5), 35(5A) and section 42D(1)(d) be deleted from the Restitution Act. We perceive the proposed deletion as to take away the landowner's right to test the validity of a land claim in a court of law.
• Our clients are further highly concerned about the draconian powers that the minister would have in terms of the Bill with regards to expropriaton  of land for purposes of restitution as well as for any other land reform purpose. The Restitution Act is the legal framework whereby any person who avers that he has been dispossessed of rights in land, under the circumstances as envisaged in sections 1 and 2 of that Act, can take part in the process to claim the restitution of such land rights. The Act provides for certain cut-off dates which means that the restitution process in terms of that Act needs to come to an end at some stage. Once all land claims lodged in terms of this Act have been finalised, the Act would not have any further effect and would in all probabilities be scrapped. The proposed section 42E(1) of the Amendment Bill provides for the powers of the minister to expropriate land for any other land reform purpose. This provision makes a mockery of the Restitution Act and for that matter for all the other acts concerning land reform in general such as the Extension of Security of Tenure Act as well as the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act. Should these powers be conferred on the minister as envisaged in section 42D(1), it would mean that she would have the power to expropriate land as an open-ended process. This could never have been the intention of the legislature with regard to the Restitution Act.
• The other main area of concern to our clients is that the Amendment Bill proposes that the minister will have the sole discretion to decide which land will be expropriated, for restitution purposes or for any other land reform purpose. Our clients feel that these proposed powers are draconian in nature and cannot be sustained. It poses a serious threat to our clients' property rights and to all other property owners throughout the Republic for that matter. If the proposed amendments be interpreted as that the minister would have the power to decide on the merits of a land claim, this would be a serious violation of our clients' rights in terms of section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, in terms whereof they would have a constitutional right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court. In this regard we are of the contention that the provisions of section 42E(1) will be found unconstitutional if tested in the appropriate court.
• With regard to the proposed section 42E(3), our clients are concerned about the application of section 24(3) of the Constitution. One interpretation is, in respect of the application of section 25(3) of the Constitution, with regards an expropriation in terms of the Restitution Act, when a balance needs to be found between the public interest and the interests of affected land owners, it could mean that a person being expropriated would receive no compensation at all. If this is what is intended by the proposed section 42E(3), it would be a serious violation of our clients' property rights.
• As we understand the reference to the term "for other land reform purposes" means that any person who did not lodge a land claim or any person who lodged a land claim but did not qualify for restitution under the Restitution Act, or any other person who have a need for land, can be a beneficiary of an expropriation by the minister. This could never have been the intention of the legislature at the drafting of the Restitution Act. The intention of the Restitution Act is to provide for the restitution of rights in land to persons or communities dispossessed of such rights after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practises and to establish a Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights and a Land Claims Court and to provide for matters connected thereto. The Restitution Act has its origin in the Constitution. It can never be an open-ended process.
• We are further of the opinion that any expropriation, as proposed in the Amendment Bill, cannot be in the public interest and will not pass the test of constitutionality.
• Finally our clients are greatly concerned about the effect that the implementation of the proposed amendments can have on the economy, the generation of employment, the production of food, the internal stability of the country as a whole as well as constitutionally entrenched right to ownership of property.

Our clients have instructed us to place on record that should the proposed Amendment Bill be promulgated, it will be challenged in the highest courts with all means at their disposal.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group - http://www.pmg.org.za/ ).

Top

The Rietpoort Independent Development Trust submission and comments regarding the Restitution Amendment Bill

I would like to shortly utter my opinion and disgust regarding the above mentioned issue. A restitution claim was submitted for Rietpoort and Stofkraal. The transformation process as indicated in the Act of 1998 is under way. The actual entities in the concerned places have never been consulted. I have the original title deeds of the places Rietpoort and Stofkraal in my possession.

For your information, I am a direct descendant of the original owners, Rietpoort on the paternal side and Stofkraal on the maternal side. The farms are adjoining.

The problems troubling us are the following:

The agriculturists – small farmers – cannot come to their potential because there is not enough land for wheat and stock farming. The district municipality –West Coast – is limiting stock farmers to a certain number per small farmer. Agricultural land for the growing of plants for animal and human use is also not available. My view is that if the places concerned are restored to their original beacons there will be enough land.

Concerning further development, I am looking at, amongst others, the procurement of mineral rights. There are possibly minerals in the areas. Three years ago I personally applied for the right to exploit the minerals. Everything is aimed at limiting the number of jobless in the area. The Minister of Land Affairs signed a submission to her in this regard and advised as such to the Minister of Minerals and Energy. This effort is also being blocked, but on the other hand government encourages the creation of job opportunities and entrepreneurship.

I am appealing to the Department of Minerals and Energy, our community expects action steps in the right direction. We cannot be left behind any longer.

In terms of 6 (1) of Act 57 of 1988 we created a trust for the communities, Rietpoort/Stofkraal (reference no IT 1805/2003). It will be known as the Community Development Trust that will look after projects in said areas in future.

(Published courtesy of Parliamentary Monitoring Group - http://www.pmg.org.za/ ).

Top

David Grey is head of global water resources at the World Bank. Speaking after a key meeting in Addis Ababa at which African ministers dicussed the equitable utilisation of their shared rivers to avoid future conflict, he tells IRIN of the crucial need for Africa to tap its enormous water potential, overcome funding shortfalls and surmount other obstacles such as the inevitable suspicion that exists in jointly harnessing the rivers.

Question: How much will water utilization contribute to Africa?

Answer: When we think about benefits we look at four different types – the first is the benefits to the river, making it a critical environmental asset, the biodiversity. The second are the direct economic benefits through co-operation – optimizing power production, food production, and industrial production. The third is reducing the political costs if you like – reducing the tensions between states. A policy of food self-sufficiency means you don't trade in food – you want to grow it all. A policy of food security means you are prepared to trade. And the same with power. Self-sufficiency is often massively sub-optimal, massively inefficient. The fourth is the benefits that can be derived from beyond the river: greater trade, greater opportunity and making friends – co-operating. This is the dream.

Q. Why are African countries finding it so hard to cooperate on water utilization?

A. I think we are seeing extraordinary things in Africa. Let's remember this is a continent that is divided by lines drawn on maps in London, Paris and Berlin etc. Given there was no account taken of ethnic and other divides like hydrologic, geographic divides, Africa is making remarkable strides in dealing with the fact there are sixty international river basins in Africa, more basins per country, more countries per basin than any other continent. This is not a problem particular to Africa – this is a global issue.

Q. Nevertheless there is still suspicion between the countries isn't there?

A. I would argue that in the 260 river basins across the planet that are shared by more than one state there are tensions in every single one of them, without exception, to a greater or lesser extent. In some cases it is so small you wouldn't see it and some cases very large indeed. So there is suspicion between all states that share river basins without exception, including in Africa.

Q. Is there a point where you can't satisfy the demands of both or three of four countries?

A. There might be but, at the same time, if that is the case there stands to be a loss where everybody loses, and those countries, as the demands grow on a river, recognizing the need for optimization across the river basin and finding ways to share the benefits of optimal production is the way forward. This was the basic principal of the European Union at the end of the Second World War.

Q. Are there any clear examples on the Zambezi, the Senegal or the Nile where co-operation has worked?

A. Co-operation right now in the Senegal, the Mantanali dam in Mali, which is 300 kilometers inside Mali and co-owned by Mali, Mauritania and Senegal. They have agreements over releases, flood recession and agriculture and environmental assets. This is an exception case of an institution of three governments that has extraordinary principles – principles of indivisibility and perpetuity, solidarity and the management of the river and many instruments built into the agreement that promote that.

Q. Is the World Bank prepared to fund schemes in Africa?

A. There is no question that the World Bank is prepared to fund sensible development between states and within states in Africa, no question whatsoever. But clearly this has to fit within the priorities of the governments and those priorities that are stated in their poverty-reduction strategies. The World Bank would actively promote co-operation on rivers because we believe that this will result in the least cost development of many commodities like agriculture products, joint protection of environmental assets, cross-border parks and power generation and trade.

It is much more sensible to meet demands for food and power through security rather than self-sufficiency, and security means interconnections between states – open borders and mobility of commodities. In some of the river basins it's fair to say that nothing much flows between the countries except the river; no labour, no telecommunications, no industrial products.

Q. Why do ministers say that funding is the main obstacle?

A. Funding is hard to access. Funding from the World Bank will respond to priorities stated by governments. I was recently in a meeting with water ministers and all were saying funding is very hard to access, but it transpired during the discussions of the 40 ministers in the room, only nine of them had water as a priority in their poverty-reduction strategies.

Now unless these water ministers can persuade the finance ministers that water is a priority then they are not going to get any funding. This is a competition. I often wish in the World Bank that I had a bigger budget but I compete with my colleagues from health and education and name a government that doesn't have financial constraints for public sector investment and name a minister and a government anywhere in the world that doesn't complain he is not getting enough.

Q. And what is the money on the table from the World Bank for these countries?

A. The money at this stage is for project preparation, projects under preparation and at the relatively early stages. There is a whole set of intensive activities underway now to identify joint development opportunities. Money will not be on the table until the projects have been defined in detail, but the scale of these projects is likely to be in the order of perhaps US$3 billion and that sort of financing will be put together by a range of different financiers, including the World Bank.

Q. If financing for these projects is not forthcoming then the projects fail?

A. It is absolutely critically important that the finances are identified to support the joint developments that the countries in the basins of Africa identify because to develop the institutions and the legal frameworks and the hopes and aspirations and for there not to be the investment to support the realization of those dreams would be disastrous.

Q. Would you say it's been most difficult to get the countries of the eastern Nile to co-operate?

A. I would say that the countries of the eastern Nile have had the most to resolve in terms of past differences but the most to gain from the resolution of those differences. So I would say that whilst the difficulties have been great the incentives to resolve the difficulties are greater.

Q. Is there a fear that there could be conflict as countries seek to harness water resources?

A. I would argue that there are very few cases of conflicts between states where you could identify any particular cause of the conflict. I would argue that where countries share rivers that the transboundary river can be one part, either very small or a very significant part, of a dispute between states. I don't believe and it is very rare in history to see a cause of a conflict has been just about water, but I do believe that water has been a significant part of many disputes. There are on-going disputes in the Nile basin and there may be again in the future and water at the community level is the cause of local-level disputes and even deaths. In the Nile I think there is too much at stake and too much to gain from co-operation and too much to lose from disputes.

Q. So while you might get governments to agree it is more of a challenge to get people on the ground to support this?

A. I think there is a point that a very wide range of stakeholders need over time to understand the potentials, the opportunities and the hopes. It is hard to understand when you are a farmer in Rwand