Source: Cover photo from R W Msimang (1966) Natives Land Act 1913: Specific Cases of Evictions and Hardships

Parliamentary Exhibition, June 2013: South Africa, Our Land - The 1913 Land Act: One Hundred Years On

Reversing the Legacy of the 1913 Natives Land Act: Progress of Land Reform

Ms Tembisa Pepeteka Research Unit, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 27 May 2013

1.

INTRODUCTION

This year, 2013 is the centenary of the Natives Land Act of 1913 (Act No. 27 of 1913) promulgated on 19 June 1913, which is seen as providing the cornerstone of laws that followed, for a systematic process of land dispossession by the state.1 The most important provision of the Act was restricting Africans to buying, leasing and selling land only in the scheduled areas which were referred to as reserves while Whites were prohibited from owning land in those areas.2 The scheduled areas amounted to about 21 million acres, which was only 7.3 per cent of South Africa while the area, set aside for the white minority, was ten times larger than that of the African majority.3 Land available to Africans was later increased by 5 per cent through the Native Administration Act, 127 (Act No. 38 of 1927) and the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936 (Act No. 18 of 1936), which provided for the conversion of the reserves into Bantustans or self-governing-territories. As a consequence, African people were restricted to owning land in the overcrowded Bantustans (the so-called self-governing states) or Homelands, which constituted only 13 per cent of the total area of South Africa.4 The process of dispossession culminated in Apartheid, accompanied by the forced removal of numerous Black communities (African, Coloured and Indian). As a result millions of people were uprooted from their ancestral lands, often with deliberate cruelty and without compensation.5 The Surplus People Project estimated that between 1960 and 1983, 3.5 million people were forcibly removed in South Africa6 through a number of laws such as the Group Areas Act in the 1950s and through measures designed to control the movement of Africans (viz. influx control. These figures exclude those removed through measures designed to regulate access to, control and usage of land in the former Bantustans (viz. Betterment Planning Schemes).7 The current highly skewed and racially-unequal pattern of land ownership is evidence of the territorial segregation brought about by the 1913 Native Land Act. With the abolition of apartheid in 1994, South Africa began the process of redressing past injustices through land reform and a broad-based programme of economic empowerment of the black population in the agricultural sector. The South African Government embarked on a land reform programme that rested on three pillars,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Feinberg & Horn (2009). Feinberg & Horn (2009); Letsoalo (1987). Ibid. Ibid. Trust for Community Outreach and Education (TCOE, 2004). Rugege (2004). The Betterment planning policies were implemented between the 1940s and 1980s. These

policies regulated the division of land in the former Bantustans into residential, arable and grazing sections, which influenced the creation of villages. As a result, people lost the residential, arable and grazing land which they had used for generations Surplus People Project (1983).

namely, restitution (settling claims of land lost under apartheid through either restoration or financial compensation), redistribution (transferring of white-owned agricultural land to blacks) and tenure reform (aimed at providing more secure access to land in communal areas and commercial farms). Through these programmes, the Government set itself the target of delivering 30 per cent of commercial agriculture land by 2014, which is 24.6 million hectares. This paper examines the progress made in land reform in South Africa since 1994. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR LAND REFORM 8

Redressing the land alienation and dispossession that occurred since 1913 is a constitutional imperative: Section 25(5) of the Constitution states that: The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. Section 25(6) of the Constitution states that: A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure, or comparable redress. Section 25(7) states that: A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress. These provisions embody three different aspects of enhancing access to land, namely, restitution, redistribution and tenure reform as was originally conceptualised in the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP).9 However, it should be noted that while the Constitution supports land reform, the right to own property is also protected which creates tension between the rights of existing property owners and realising the rights of those whose rights to property have been denied due to discrimination.10 This balance of rights was arrived at due to the need for a negotiated settlement which necessitated a compromise on the issue of land.

8 9

Information below is sourced from the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). Rugege (2004). Evans (2013).

10

3.

RESTITUTION

The Restitution Programme seeks to return land or compensate people who have been dispossessed of their land through discriminatory laws since 1913, and is informed by the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 (Act No. 22 of 1994). The Restitution of Land Rights Act was one of the first pieces of legislation passed immediately after the democratic dispensation came into being. The Act fulfils the requirement of section 25(7) of the Constitution as it entitles a person or community dispossessed of rights in land after 19 June 1913, as a result of racially discriminatory laws or practice, to claim restoration of those rights or equitable relief in the form of alternative land or compensation. The Act makes provision for the establishment of a Commission for the Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) and Land Claims Court to facilitate the restitution of land. The closing date for the submission of claims was set for December 1998. By the closing date, a total of 79 687 (the number increases as more research is done) claims were lodged with the CRLR. However, it should be noted that the deadline of 31 December 1998 excludes potential claimants who were not aware of their rights ahead of this deadline as is indicated by the fact that the number of claims lodged by the cut-off date were far below the number of people who were forcibly removed. At the same time the 1913 cut-off date also excludes many potential claimants who were dispossessed of land before 1913 such as the Khoisan. As a result calls for the reopening of the claims process have been made for District Six (in Cape Town in the Western Cape,), areas affected by rural Betterment Schemes in the Eastern Cape (the former Transkei and Ciskei) and urban claims in Uitenhage and Kirkwood. In response to these calls, President Zuma announced during the 2013 State of the Nation Address that Government would be reopening the lodgement of claims for those who missed the deadline of 31 December 1998 and would also be extending the June 1913 cut-off date in order to accommodate claims by the descendants of the Khoi and San, as well as claims on behalf of heritage sites and historical landmarks. As noted by the President this will require amending the Restitution of Land Rights Act.11 3.1. Progress

In 1994, the South African Government set the target of settling all restitution claims by 1999 (within 5 years). However, the Restitution Programme began at a slow pace with only 41 claims settled between 1995 and March 1999 (see Fig 1 overleaf). Although very few claims were settled, these were consistent with the challenges of the new democratic Government. The target to finalise all claims was then extended to 2005. In order to deal with some of the problems or challenges that were hampering restitution, the Restitution of Land Rights Act was amended in 1999 and 2003. The 2003 amendment empowered the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to expropriate land and rights in land for the purpose of restitution awards. As a result,
11

Zuma (2013).

there have been dramatic increases in the number of settled restitution claims as shown in Figure 1.12 The date to finalise all claims was extended again in 2005 to March 2008. By 31 March 2008, 95 per cent of claims were settled. Fig.1

Source: Compiled from CRLR Annual Reports (2004/05 2011/12) and response from DRDLR (2013).

Since there were fewer claims to settle, the budget for restitution has been cut since the 2008/09 financial year. However, this decision did not take into consideration the fact that the outstanding claims were complex, big and expensive such as claims for national assets (e.g. Kruger National Park), sugar plantations and forestry, as well as land with mining operations. As a result fewer claims were settled and with a limited budget the Commission was not able to pay for its commitments13 and therefore the budget had to be shifted from the Land Reform Programme to the Restitution Programme in order to pay for court orders. Since the claims were not finalised by 2008 the target was again extended for the third time to 2012. By the end of January 2013, 77 979 claims 14 have been settled which makes 97 per cent of the total claims, translating to 1.443 million ha and benefiting 13 968
12 13

Lahiff (2008). Those are claims that have been settled in terms of Section 42d of the Restitution Programme,

which means these have been signed off by the Minister but the land has not been restored or financial compensation has not been paid.
14

It should be noted that different figures are given by the Commission. The figure reflected on the

graph above is that by 31 Mach 2013, 77 334 claims were settled.

female-headed households and 672 persons with a disability.15 The concern is that most of the claims settled were urban claims (as reflected in Figure 2 below) and were settled with monetary compensation.16 Fig. 2

Source: Compiled from CRLR Annual Reports (2005/06 -2011/12).

It is regrettable that most claims have been settled with monetary compensation rather than with land as the rural poor are in need of land in order to pursue their livelihoods and thus alleviate poverty. The concern that there is a preference for financial compensation which undermines the need to change land ownership patterns in the country, was raised by President Zuma in the 2013 State of the Nation Address. In any case, even if all the claims (including outstanding claims) are settled the problem of the grossly inequitable of ownership of land will not be addressed by restitution as it will contribute only 2 per cent of white-owned agricultural land. 17 This can only be addressed through redistribution, which is discussed in the next section.

15 16 17

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (2013). Zuma (2013). Rugege (2004).

3.2.

Challenges 18

The challenges that faced the Land Claims Commission during the past years include: Under-staffing in the Commission for both core and corporate services, which was made worse by high staff turnover. Most positions within the Commission were offered on a contract basis until the end of 2005, which led to a rapid increase in staff turnover as this date approached. The process of conversion of staff from contract employment to permanent status has not sufficiently addressed the problem of staff turnover; Dealing with fraudulent claims where falsified identity documents are presented to draw awards in outstanding rural claims. However, new processes and control measures have been introduced within the Commission to identify fraudulent claimants; Rural claims hindered by conflict within families and among community members partly due to overlapping claims. The Commission has put in place a conflict resolution mechanism; Some landowners are protracting negotiations by challenging the validity of the claim or asking exorbitant land prices. There are also overlapping claims for some farms. In particular, the Commission has been faced with having to negotiate exceptionally high land prices in Mpumalanga (where prices ranged between R23 000 and R45 000 per hectare). The purchase of land by foreigners, particularly in the Western Cape and Mpumalanga has also contributed to increased land prices, resulting in a serious distortion of the land market.19 The Commission will consider the application of expropriation where negotiations are deliberately being deadlocked; Insufficient institutional arrangement in terms of pre and post-settlement support planning; The lack of capacity and accountability on the part of the Communal Property Associations (CPA) leadership leads to multiple problems within communities and hampers development; and Untraceable claimants: Some claimants have changed addresses and contact numbers but have failed to inform regional land claims commission offices.

Due to poor post-settlement support as well as conflict within the institutions (such as CPAs) that hold or manage land on behalf of communities, some of the communities who have received their land back have not been able to utilise it all or efficiently, 20 which means it has not brought significant improvement in the lives of beneficiaries.

18 19 20

The information below is sourced from the CLRL (2006) and Didiza (2006). Didiza (2006). Rugege (2004); Walker (2003).

4.

REDISTRIBUTION

The purpose of land redistribution is to address the legacy of racial inequality in accessing land and creating opportunities for development. It is also to provide blacks with access to land for residential and productive use in order to improve their livelihoods. This is provided for in Section 25(5) of the Constitution. Through redistribution the Government set itself the target of redistributing 30 per cent of commercial agriculture land by 2014, which is 24.6 million hectares. The implementation of the redistribution programme had been based on demand driven and market-based approach i.e. the willing buyer/willing seller principle. The influence of the World Bank and other international experts was behind the choice for the market- based land approach in South Africa.21 4.1. Progress

In 1994, the Government committed itself to redistributing 30 per cent of white-owned agriculture to the poor and landless over a period of five years.22 In line with the willing buyer-willing seller approach a grant system was designed to assist beneficiaries to purchase land from willing sellers. Through the Settlement and Land Acquisition Grant (better known as SLAG), poor families were provided with grants of R15 000, later increased to R16 000 to buy land.23 Since the size of the grant was too small compared to the high price of land, people pooled together their grants to buy land and this has been referred as the rent a crowd strategy.24 According to Cliffe this strategy was based on the assumption that there were homogenous communities who were able to acquire farms and work well together, which was not the case as the apartheid legacy had, in many instances, destroyed communities.25 The group farming approach was also influenced by the failure of Government to repeal the piece of legislation that prevented the subdivision of properties.26 This model was criticised due to complex group dynamics that emerged, overcrowding and the failure to link land acquisition with support and resources to enable beneficiaries to use land to generate livelihood.27 The pooling of grants resulted in the acquired farms being too crowded for beneficiaries to farm the land productively. This practice was then stopped in 1999. After an extensive review of the SLAG, a new programme for redistribution, the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) policy was unveiled in 2001. LRAD is also a grant system but provides higher amount compared to SLAG and targeted better off individuals.28 Through LRAD beneficiaries access funds ranging from

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cliffe (2000); Hall (2004). Hall (2004). Hall (2004). De Villiers (2003). Cliffe (2000). Hall & Cliffe (2009). DLA in Hall (2004). Hall (2004).

R20 000 to R100 000 depending on their contribution. The amount was increased in 2008/09 from R20 000 to R111 152 per individual at the lowest end and from R100 000 to R430 857 at the highest end to ensure that new entrants in the farming industry have sufficient capital to acquire agricultural land.29 For any funds applied for, applicants were required to contribute depending on their ability. The contribution may be in cash or in the form of labour or other resources. The requirement of own contribution was Governments response to production failures on redistributed farms and as it was believed that the contribution by the land beneficiary would serve as an indicator of their commitment to farming.30 The fact that beneficiaries have to contribute either cash or labour and on top of that they have to meet commercial criteria meant that it was not for the poor but for the better off.31 This implies a new policy direction of abandoning the poor (which the SLAG was meant to assist) in order to establish a class of black commercial farmers.32 The main reason for the new policy direction in favour of black commercial farmers was a shift by the Government from RDP to Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy (GEAR) in 1996. GEAR was a neoliberal macro-economic policy that placed focus on market led growth for the agricultural sector rather than redistribution to the dispossessed farmers. By 2005 frustrations about the slow pace of the land reform process were expressed strongly by civil society and landless peoples organisations. Even the government acknowledged the poor progress of land reform and called the National Land Summit in July 2005. The National Land Summit, which brought together a range of stakeholders, resolved that there was a need to review the willing buyer-willing seller policy and for proactive acquisition of land according to the needs of the people.33 Two strategic interventions to accelerate the pace of redistribution were developed during this period. The first one was the Pro-Active Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS). In contrast with the previous applications-driven approach, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) proactively identifies and purchases land (based on the land needs trends) and leases out this land in terms of these established needs.34 The second one was the Land and Agrarian Reform Programme (LARP), which was a joint programme between the then Departments of Land Affairs (DLA) and Agriculture in collaboration with then provincial Departments of Agriculture and Local Government. The aim of LARP was to deliver 5 million hectares of whiteowned agricultural land to 10 000 new black agricultural producers.35 In addition to these two strategies, the then DLA set out to review the willing buyer-willing seller approach, while the then Department of Public Works tabled the Expropriation Bill in Parliament in 2008, although it was later retracted from the National Assembly.36

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

DRDLR (2009). Hall (2013). Hall (2004). Hall (2004); Cliffe (2000). Lahiff (2008). DLA (2008). National Treasury (2008). Hall & Cliffe (2009).

These strategies have not borne any fruit as by the end of March 2009 only 5 per cent of land was transferred to Blacks.37 By 2012, 7.95 million hectares have been redistributed, which amounts to 7.5 per cent of white-owned agricultural land.38 It is clear that Government will not be able to meet the 2014 redistribution target which was acknowledged by President Zuma during the 2013 State of the Nation Address. 4.2. Challenges39

The challenges facing the Department in delivering agricultural land to Blacks include: The Market Land Reform Approach: one of the reasons for the slow pace of land reform is that it is based on the principle of willing buyerwilling seller, which means that Government relies on the discretion of the landowners whether to sell or not, what to sell and at what price. As a result, it has been suggested that landowners in South Africa sell their land to government at exorbitant prices and that the land offered for land reform purposes is of inferior quality; Large-scale acquisition of land by foreigners is diminishing the opportunities for South Africans who were previously denied access to land. It is believed that the acquisition of prime land by foreigners is causing the rise in land prices. The then Minister of Land Affairs appointed a Panel of Experts in August 2004 to investigate this issue and come up with a proposal in terms of policy. The finding from the Panel is that land ownership by foreigners varies between 1 per cent and 3 per cent depending on the land in question. The first recommendation of the Panel was for compulsory disclosure of nationality and other relevant information in Deeds Registry. The second recommendation was for a temporary moratorium to be placed on the disposal of state land to foreigners. The third one was for the country to consider medium and long-term leases of public land as a viable mechanism for future acquisition of land by foreigners.40 Present landowners are not necessarily willing to sell their land. There is a scarcity of viable agriculture land in South Africa. Poor post-settlement support for land reform beneficiaries has led to the collapse of many land reform projects. Post-settlement support

4.3

Land reform beneficiaries are faced with challenges such as poor access to services, inferior extension advice, lack of access to credit, the high cost of inputs, and access to markets and infrastructure. The Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme (CASP) was launched in 2004 to address this problem. CASP has a critical role to
37 38 39 40

Department of Land Affairs (2008). Walker and Dubb (2013). The information below is sourced from Didiza (2006). Department of Land Affairs (2007 ).

ensure the sustainability of projects by land beneficiaries and emerging farmers through providing post-settlement support. However, it has been undermined by poor spending in many provinces, particularly the poorest provinces, due to challenges encountered by them in implementing CASP.41 In 2009, the DRDLR acknowledged the enormous failure of many land reform projects and the need to develop these with better post-settlement support. As a result in 2009/10 it initiated a programme to recapitalise and redevelop land reform projects and farms that had collapsed or were on the verge of collapse, the Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RADP). Recapitalisation of these farms will help to increase productivity and employment as well as improve food security. The Department is expected to work together with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) towards the recapitalisation and development of these farms. The challenge is to ensure coordination between these two departments, which has been a challenge in the past. Since the start of the RADP, 696 farms have been recapitalised and developed, 389 of which were purchased through PLAS, and 307 under land reform grants.42 5. LAND TENURE

Land tenure reform policies are aimed at providing more secure access to land in communal areas and commercial farms. Of the three pillars of land reform, tenure reform has fared the worst. The main achievements have been the enactment of laws aimed at creating statutory rights in land for different categories of landholders. These included the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), 1997 (Act No. 62 of 1997), Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, 1996 (Act no. 3 of 1996) and the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA), 1996 (Act No.31 of 1996). 5.1 Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA)

The Act provides for security of tenure for people living on farmland belonging to others and regulates the eviction of such people. The aim of the legislation is to protect farm dwellers, referred to as occupiers in ESTA, from illegal eviction and to ensure that evictions occur in a lawful and constitutional manner. It sets out the rights and duties of landowners and farm dwellers and the procedures that must be followed in order to lawfully evict a person from the land. However, the legislation has not been successful in preventing the eviction of farm dwellers.43 A survey conducted in 2005 shows that over two million farm dwellers had been displaced between 1994 and 2004, more than had been displaced in the last decade of apartheid (1984-1994), and that the majority of evictees are women and children.44 The continuity of illegal evictions indicates a failure by the justice system to ensure that those who undermine the law are punished and that illegal evictions are not allowed. At the same time, the Acts need to be
41 42 43 44

Hall (2009). Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (2013). Wegerif, Russel & Grundling (2005). Ibid.

10

tightened to make sure there are no loopholes. It should be noted that Section 4 of ESTA empowers the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to grant subsidies to enable occupiers, former occupiers and other persons who need long term security of tenure to acquire rights in land they currently occupy or other land. However, this section does not create right to land and the DRDLR has not exploited this avenue of redistribution.45 5.2 Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act (LTA), 1996

The Land Reform Act provides security of tenure for labour tenants46 and those who occupy or use land as a result of their association with labour tenants. The Act provides labour tenants the same procedural rights as other occupiers are granted in terms of ESTA. The Act differs from ESTA in that in addition to regulating evictions, it also provides a limited opportunity for labour tenants and their associates to acquire land and they can therefore claim ownership of land that they occupy and use. As with ESTA, this legislation has also not been effective. Reviewed legislation on land tenure that will close the gaps in ESTA and the LTA has been in the pipeline since 2009. 5.3 Communal Tenure

The Communal Land Rights Act (Act No. 11 of 2004 - CLaRA) was passed in 2004. It is aimed at giving people living in communal areas the right to own the land they are occupying either as communities, individuals or households instead of merely given permission to occupy (PTOs). However, the Constitutional Court decision on 11 May 2010, declared CLaRA invalid based on procedural grounds.47 This means that people in communal areas still do not have tenure security and their rights to land are still protected by the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996 (Act No. 31 of 1996 IPILRA), which provides temporary protection for de facto occupation, pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation that would provide permanent rights.48 The Constitutional Court mandated Parliament to carry out its responsibility and urgently enact legislation that will ensure secure land tenure for people and communities in communal areas as obligated by the Constitution. The Green Paper on Land Reform which is currently being processed is expected to provide direction in the land reform process and close the gap created in land tenure. Providing land tenure for people in commercial farms has been faced with the following challenges:
45 46

Lack of legal representation for farm dwellers; Lack of knowledge of the legislation among role-players; Lack of compliance with the legislation; and

Rugege (2004). Labour tenants are defined in the LTA as persons who reside or have the right to reside on a farm, who have the right to use land on the farm for grazing or cultivation purposes, who provide labour in return for access to this land, and whose parents or grandparents were labour tenants. 47 Tongoane and Others v Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others (2010).
48

Rugege (2004).

11

Non-existence of eviction monitoring system.

In response to some of these challenges, the DRDLR developed a Land Rights Management Facility (LRMF) designed to protect tenure rights for farm dwellers in conjunction with the Department of Justice and other agencies. The facility focuses on three key areas: 6. Legal representation and advice services; Mediation services; and Eviction monitoring (Call centre: Toll free No. 0800 007 095). WAY FORWARD

The following main proposals are under consideration through the Green Paper on Land Reform process to improve the pace of land delivery: Scrapping the willing buyer, willing seller approach: In the 2013 State of the Nation Address, President Zuma promised that Government is going to use the just and equitable principle of compensation, as set out in the Constitution instead of the willing buyer, willing seller principle. There is also a proposal for granting the state the right of first refusal on all land sales. Establishing an Office of the Valuer General to provide fair and consistent values for agricultural land among other things in order to reduce malpractices in the field. Implementing a land tax, this can reduce land speculation among other things. Implementing a ceiling on land ownership in order to address the monopoly of land ownership by the rich. This should increase availability of land for land reform purposes. Adopting a policy on land ownership by foreigners. Expropriation

6.1

If the Government does away with the willing buyer, willing seller approach, the concern is that the main legislation that deals with expropriation, the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No.63 of 1975) does not cater for expropriation in the public interest. It is yet to be amended to include expropriation for public interests which in terms of the Constitution includes the nations commitment to land reform. Also in terms of the Act, compensation is mainly based on the market value, therefore in its current form the Act cannot ensure any cost effective mechanisms of land acquisition. It is important that this shortcoming should be addressed in order to bring the Act in line with the Constitution. The Constitution requires compensation that is just and equitable, taking into account various factors, namely: the current use of property, the history of the acquisition and use of property; the market value of the property; the extent of direct

12

investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and the purpose of the expropriation.49 The Expropriation Bill to replace the 1975 Act was tabled in Parliament in 2008 but was withdrawn. The Bill aimed at addressing existing challenges with regard to expropriation for land reform purposes and dealing with the aspects of compensation so that they are in line with the provisions of the Constitution. 7. CONCLUSION

Despite Governments commitment to redress the legacy of the 1913 Natives Land Act, 19 years after democracy the insecurity brought about by the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts remains in place in communal areas and for those living on commercial farms. This paper has also shown that land reform has consistently fallen behind the targets set by the state and behind popular expectations due to a number of reasons. So far only 7.5 per cent of white-owned agricultural land has been transferred to previously disadvantaged South Africans, which is much lower than the target of 30 per cent. Although the target to finalise all claims has not been met, real strides have been made with restitution, however, with more urban claims settled with cash, and land restored in fewer claims.50 This undermines the need to change land ownership patterns in the country. However, the focus of Government is no longer on achieving quantitative targets but rather on delivering productive land. This does not meet the needs of landless people and potential beneficiaries as well as farmers who are frustrated by the slow pace of land reform. According to Walker, political leadership and popular education is required to make people understand that effective land reform cannot be achieved quickly. This will involve serious engagement with potential land reform beneficiaries who are waiting impatiently for their claim to be settled, with farmers that are affected by land claims, and with organised agriculture.51 __________________________________________________________________

49 50 51

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). Hall (2013). Walker (2003).

13

REFERENCES Cliffe, L. (2000). Land Reform in South Africa. Review of African Political Economy, 27 (84):273-286. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). Pretoria: Government Printer. Department of Land Affairs (2007). Report of Recommendations by the Panel of Experts on the Development of Policy regarding Land Ownership by Foreigners in South Africa. Department of Land Affairs (2008). Strategic Plan 2008 2011. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2013). Responses by CRLR to request for statistics on restitution. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2012). Progress Report on Land Restitution Claims. Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform. 7 February. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2010). Recapitalisation and Development. Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Rural Development. 17 February. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2009). Strategic Plan 20092012.Pretoria: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. De Villiers, B. (2003). South Africa: the challenge for Real Transformation (Chapter 3). In: Land Reform: Issues and Challenges: A comparative overview of experiences in Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa and Australia. Johannesburg: Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Didiza, T. (2006). Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa: 1994-2006 . Presentation By the Minister of Agriculture and Land affairs, Republic of South Africa, Ms A T. Didiza for the International Conference on Agrarian reform and rural Development, Brazil, March 2006. Evans, M. (2013). Land, socio-economic right and transformation justice. Paper presented at the Land Divided Conference. University of Cape Town, 24-27 March. Feinberg, H.M. & Horn, A. (2009). South African Territorial Segregation: New Data on African Farm Purchases, 1913-1936. Journal of African History , 50. Hall, R. (2013). Who, what, where, how and why/ Mapping the many disagreements about land and agrarian reform. Land Divided Conference , 24-27 March.

14

Hall, R. (2009). A Fresh Start for Rural Development and Agrarian Reform? PLAAS. Policy Brief No. 29. Internet < www.plaas.org.za> [Accessed 18 January 2013]. Hall, R. (2004). A political Economy of Land Reform in South Africa. Review of African Political Economy (ROAPE). No. 100: 213-227. Hall, R. & Cliffe, L. (2009). Introduction. in Ruth Hall (ed.). Another Countryside? Policy Options for Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa. Cape Town: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape. Lahiff, E. (2008).Land Reform in South Africa: A status Report 2008. PLAAS, University of the Western Cape. (Research Report, 38). Letsoalo, E.M. (1987). Land Reform in South Africa . Johannesburg: Skotaville. Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (2013). Debate on the State of the Nation Address: Building vibrant, equitable, and sustainable rural communities. Speech by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Nkwinti, G.E. National Assembly, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. 21 February. Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform (2010) Economic Sectors and Employment Cluster Programme of Action . Media briefing. 2 March. National Treasury (2008). Estimates of National Expenditure.Vote 27: Land Affairs. Republic of South Africa. Rugege, S. (2004). Land Reform in South Africa: an Overview. Internet < http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/files/LandreforminSouthAfrica.pdf > [Accessed 18 March 2013]. Surplus People Project (1983). Forced Removals in South Africa. Cape Town. Tongoane and Others v Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others (2010). Constitutional Court of South Africa . Case CCT 100/09, 11 May. Trust for Community Outreach and Evaluation (TCOE) (2004 ). Land is Life: The History of Land Dispossession in South Africa . Cape Town: TCOE. Walker, C. & Dubb, A. (2013). The Distribution of Land in South Africa: An Overview . Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS). Land Reform (Fact Check No.1). University of the Western Cape: PLAAS, Bellville. Walker, C. (2005). The Limits of Land Reform: Rethinking the Land Question. Journal of Southern African Studies. 31(4), December: 805-824.

15

Walker, C. (2003). The limits to land reform: reviewing the land question. Paper presented at the African Studies/History Seminar. University of Natal, Durban. 19 November. Wegerif, M. Russel, B. & Grundling, I. (2005). Still searching for Security: the reality of farm dweller in South Africa. Social Surveys & Nkunzi Development Association. Zuma, J. G. (2013) State of the Nation Address: Parliament. Cape Town, 14 February. _____________________________________________________________________ _________________________ _________________________ ________________ The Research Unit, Parliament of SA

16