The agricultural sector now enjoys universal recognition and its status as a growth propeller is embraced in a way that transcends sectoral interests. Specifically, the country’s political leadership deeply appreciates the importance of agriculture in driving the rural economy, addressing poverty and creating job opportunities.
Much has also been written about the sector’s untapped opportunities for unlocking growth and addressing racial inequities in its ownership. Our attempt in this book is to move the conversation even further and provide a more concrete view of how to unlock the agricultural potential in SA fully. We specifically attempt to highlight some uncomfortable truths about SA’s agriculture by focusing on some key principles, and highlighting policies and economic realities. This is done in the hope that everyone will now have the same level of understanding of the specific needs and interventions in the sector.
With the formation of the seventh democratic administration and the government of national unity following the 2024 general elections, there is an overriding urgency to address the main challenges of SA society: unemployment, poverty and the low-growth trap. The agricultural sector remains in a good position to contribute to resolving these challenges. However, our thinking and approach must move beyond the government’s Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan to more concrete interventions. In this need for greater urgency, some have asked the question after the 2024 elections: “Where is the way?” (Iphi’ndlela?) The starting point must be land reform and rural development.
The Freedom Charter and the constitution recognise the importance of land restitution and land redistribution to ensure that the “land injustice” of the past is restored and that land should be returned to black South Africans. This must occur in an orderly manner, respecting property rights and ensuring the growth of an inclusive, representative commercial agricultural sector that will guarantee food security, job security and economic development.
The SA government has had variable success with its land reform programme, but quite often only partial truth is provided in terms of the real progress. Yes, it has not been successful on all fronts, but we recently estimated that through the various land reform programmes (redistribution, restitution, government land acquisition, as well as private transactions), 25% of privately owned farmland that was owned by white farmers in 1994 has now moved away from white ownership to black ownership, or to the state, or has been restored through the land restitution process. This is very close to the 30% target for 2030.
However, black South Africans often do not feel the benefit of this progress. Part of the dissatisfaction is that the government has not transferred the land it acquired through the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) to black farmers. The title deeds of the more than 2.5-million hectares amassed by the SA government over the last 18 years now sit with the state and its Government Land Holding Account. These government-owned farms are rented out to farmers, but due to the nature of the leases and the limited access to production finance and the inappropriate selection of the lessees, most of these PLAS farms are now underutilised and in some cases vandalised.
We have heard countless stories of pain and frustration in our interactions with some of the beneficiary black farmers. Their stories centre on the fact that commercialisation is proving to be difficult. The key to attracting investment and unlocking productivity is security of tenure. The short-term leases the government provides them are unhelpful in unlocking capital and enabling operations.
Getting this right could help promote commercial success and yield sustainable jobs for communities. In a few cases where farmers have succeeded despite the insecure lease arrangements, they have faced bureaucratic hurdles and, at times, cavalier attitudes among government officials. These farmers have shared stories of how they have been unceremoniously and illegally removed from their farms by corrupt officials in the land reform department. Clearing the pathway to success entails addressing the security of tenure and stopping corrupt activities.
Consider the story of Enoch, an Eastern Cape native who farms with Merino sheep in the Great Karoo. He rents the farm from the government. The government acquired the farm through the PLAS programme. Enoch was one of the lucky few who managed to be the only beneficiary for the specific lease transaction and was not forced into a group by government officials.
Why do we consider Enoch as “lucky”? Some important context and background are needed. The land reform process in SA operates on three legs: land redistribution, land restitution, land tenure. Under the land redistribution leg, the most recent practice (in terms of the PLAS programme) followed by the government is to buy white-owned farms at market value and then lease them out to groups of beneficiaries. These farms were all originally operated by one family and now transferred to more than one family under a lease arrangement. This typically causes strife and inefficiencies on the farms, leading to failure. There are, of course, other causes of farm failure, including the lack of secure tenure, limited access to finance and markets, among other things.
Enoch’s fortune in having the right to operate a farm individually has contributed to the success of his farming business. The farm is a commercially viable enterprise that manages to cover its annual cost and even pays the government’s annual (rather steep) lease. After all, while the farm is provided for land reform purposes, he still rents it from the government and has no full ownership. He operates under a 30-year lease.
The challenges of investment and the lack of access to finance faced by many farmers who lease farms from the state are the same challenges that Enoch encounters. But, because of the relatively better support from the Western Cape government and neighbouring and supportive commercial farmers, Enoch has managed to operate the farm sustainably. Still, the state’s reluctance to transfer the land fully to Enoch has caused incredible frustration; everything he wants to do on the farm needs approval from an official — even the painting of the farmhouse and putting up solar energy.
In essence, Enoch highlighted the plight of many of these beneficiaries and argued strongly that the government should not be in the business of farming and should ideally just ensure a conducive environment for businesses to thrive. The land should be in the hands and control of the entrepreneurs. He also indicated that there are many ways the government can improve this rather awkward situation of state control over the future of black farmers.
As we listened to more stories of frustrated black farmers who are not as lucky as Enoch, we decided to write The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa’s Agriculture in a candid, direct and unfiltered tone. This is an attempt to awaken the SA agricultural stakeholders from inertia that has taken hold over time.
Everyone involved in agriculture has to focus on the core issues of development, progress and competitiveness. As demonstrated in this book, South Africans have for a long time been engaged in farmer development and commercialisation plans, yet there has been limited success.
Furthermore, when the government proposes policy positions — either good or bad — more time is spent discussing these policies with nothing substantive being done. The divisions among SA farmer organisations is the core issue behind the interminable conversations with one meeting after another. This results in a “performance of productivity” among participants in these meetings, creating an impression of progress simply because discussions are taking place. This issue extends beyond the department of agriculture, encompassing government and its broader social partners.
Unfortunately, a lot of posturing and debate around agricultural policies is still shaped by our history of dispossession and segregation, which is understandable, but we need to move on and acknowledge that all farmer interests are the same. At present, every effort is driven by sectional interests under the guise of racism and tribalism. Not to mention the use of inappropriate terminology to imply something else.
We also argue that a lot more work is required to strengthen the department of agriculture and streamline its institutions. The duplication of budgets, effort and mandates between various institutions of government must be looked at, and the budgets should be better utilised for the actual work of empowering the entire farming sector.
This revision and streamlining of the various entities associated with the department of agriculture should also involve capacity building in some directorates, along with the professionalisation of staff. But the story is different in the provinces; farmers are unhappy about the arrogance of local government staff and the lack of engagement with crucial farming issues.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.