ArticlePDF Available

The impact of land restitution and land reform on livelihoods

January 2007

Authors:

University of the Western Cape

This report investigates emerging trends evident in the limited literature available on the impact of land restitution on livelihoods, and suggests ways of thinking about, and planning for, livelihoods. The report has a two-fold emphasis: its primary focus is on rural restitution claims where land has been restored, but it also addresses rural land reform more generally. Where land ownership has been transferred to land reform beneficiaries, similar patterns and challenges may arise, regardless of whether the land was acquired through the redistribution or the restitution route. Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC)

Content uploaded by Ruth Hall

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Ruth Hall

Content may be subject to copyright.

School of Government, UWC

COMMISSION

ON RESTITUTION

OF LAND RIGHTS

Department of

Land Affairs

Belgische Technische Coöperatie nv

Coopération Technique Belge sa

Research

Report

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land

Reform on Livelihoods

Ruth Hall

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

Ruth Hall

Published by the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government,

University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Cape Town, South Africa.

Tel: +27 21 959 3733. Fax: +27 21 959 3732. E-mail: plaas@uwc.ac.za

Website: www.plaas.org.za

In collaboration with Department of Land Affairs, Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

and Belgische Technische Coöperatie (BTC)

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies research report no. 32

ISBN: 978-1-86808-677-1

August 2007

or by any means, without prior permission from the publisher or the authors.

Copy editor: Roelien Theron

Cover photograph: PLAAS

Layout: Designs4development, info@d4d.co.za

Typeset in Frutiger

Printing: RNK Graphics

Cartographer: John Hall

This document forms part of a series of reports researched and written by the Sustainable

Development Consortium, led by Phuhlisani Solutions, on behalf of the Commission on Restitution

of Land Rights and Belgian Technical Cooperation.

Research

Report

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land

Reform on Livelihoods

Ruth Hall

i
The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods
Contents
Acronyms  i
1.   Introduction  1
2.   Background  2
3.   Existing literature on livelihood impacts  3
Quality of Life reports  3
Community Agency for Social Enquiry case studies  5
Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) case studies  6
District case studies  7
4.   Livelihoods impacts in rural restitution projects  9
Bjatladi  9
Klipgat  10
Dwesa-Cwebe  11
Covie  12
eMpangisweni  12
Groenfontein  13
5.   Conclusions: Emerging trends in livelihood impacts  15
6.   Recommendations  20
7.   References  21
Diagnostic studies  22

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

Acronyms

ARDC Agriculture Rural Development Corporation

ASGISA Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa

CASE Community Agency for Social Enquiry

CASP Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme

COMBUD Commercial Farming Budget Manual

CPA Communal Property Association

DLA Department of Land Affairs

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

EPWP Extended Public Works Programme

IDP Integrated Development Plan

LRAD Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NGO Non-governmental Organisation

QOL Quality of Life

RLCC Regional Land Claims Commission

SLAG Settlement/Land Acquisition Grant

UADP Umnotho Agricultural Development Project

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

1. Introduction

This thematic paper investigates emerging trends evident

in the limited literature available on the impact of land

restitution on livelihoods, and suggests ways of thinking

about, and planning for, livelihoods.

The paper has a two-fold emphasis: its primary focus is on

rural restitution claims where land has been restored, but it

also addresses rural land reform more generally. Where land

ownership has been transferred to land reform beneﬁciaries,

similar patterns and challenges may arise, regardless of

whether the land was acquired through the redistribution

or the restitution route.

The analysis is based on a synthesis of available quantitative

and qualitative sources, including a relatively small but

growing body of qualitative case studies. These include six

rural restitution claims which were studied as part of the

Sustainable Development Consortium’s Post-settlement

Support Project. These case studies are: Bjatladi (Limpopo),

Klipgat (North West), Dwesa-Cwebe (Eastern Cape), Covie

(Western Cape), eMpangisweni (KwaZulu-Natal), and

Groenfontein (Mpumalanga). It explores the kinds of land

use people are engaging in and how these affect their

livelihood opportunities. All of these projects are still at an

early stage of development, and the ultimate impacts on the

livelihoods of beneﬁciaries will take time to become clear.

The focus of this paper, therefore, is on the design and set-up

of projects, the kinds of livelihood opportunities envisaged

in business plans, how these are supported ﬁnancially

and institutionally, and the dynamics that ensue. On this

basis, the paper draws lessons about how post-settlement

support impacts on the livelihood potential of land reform

projects and recommends ways in which such support can

be optimised for maximum livelihood beneﬁts.

Photo: Marc Wegerif

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

2. Background

It is widely acknowledged that policies that facilitate

access to land can reduce poverty and income inequality.

Internationally, studies have demonstrated that the

impact of land redistribution on incomes, quality of life

and livelihoods may take some years to become apparent.

This is evident, for example, from the longitudinal panel

study conducted by Kinsey in Zimbabwe, from the early

1980s to the late 1990s (Kinsey 2000, 2005). In addition,

the international literature shows that a positive impact

on livelihoods is not guaranteed, but contingent on the

manner of implementation, both prior to and following the

transfer of land rights:

The key lesson that can be drawn from [a] range of country

studies is that, irrespective of the political or historical

milieu, the transfer of land alone is not sufﬁcient and

requires buttressing by settlement support provision from a

range of institutions and sectors. In the absence of ongoing

support and capacity building, new land owners will run

the risk of being set up to fail. For development activities on

acquired land to be sustainable and to impact positively

on the lives of beneﬁciaries, requires a comprehensive,

responsive and on-going interaction between those

requiring and determining the support they require and

those who provide such support (PLAAS 2006: 41).

In the 1990s, the World Bank famously demonstrated a

correlation between more equal distributions of land (a Gini

co-efﬁcient for land distribution) and average economic

growth over time (Binswanger et al. 1995; Deininger 2006).

This has been used as a basis on which to assert a causal

relation between land reform and economic growth.

However, while such arguments may be well received, and

while they may make sense intuitively, there is in fact very

little empirical basis on which to conclude that land reform

improves the livelihoods of those who are its ‘beneﬁciaries’.

This is particularly true of South Africa, where credible studies

of livelihood impacts have been almost non-existent.

Not only do we not know whether land reform in South

Africa is improving the livelihoods of those who have

beneﬁted directly from land transfers, we also do not know

what the impact of land redistribution has been on other

affected groups such as former farm workers who have been

displaced by land reform or incorporated within projects.

No data is available on related issues, such as whether

beneﬁciaries remit additional income to family members or

others, whether beneﬁciaries are able to accumulate assets

and savings, and whether an increase in assets and savings

in turn allows investment in non-farm enterprises, which

thus create employment for others.

The implications for livelihoods of maintaining or

changing land use are contextual. The case studies in

this report demonstrate that dramatic and sometimes

unplanned changes in production, including the collapse of

production, sometimes ensue – leading to minimal beneﬁts

for beneﬁciaries. However, maintaining existing production

systems intact does not ensure beneﬁts for participants

either, as is evident in some of the joint venture projects.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

3. Existing literature on livelihood

impacts

The central problem in assessing the impact of land reform

on livelihoods is the paucity of post-settlement evaluation

studies. Simply put, there is a lack of data. Even where there

have been studies, impact evaluation is hampered by the

absence of baseline data on the socio-economic status of

beneﬁciaries entering the programme, a lack of agreed

indicators, and the lack of longitudinal panel data.

The sustainable livelihoods literature draws attention to

the concern that livelihoods not only improve as a result of

policy interventions, but that they improve in a sustainable

manner. The concern with sustainability thus requires

that the improved outcomes endure, or improve further,

over time. The well-known ‘livelihoods pentagon’ depicts

the dimensions of livelihoods and the interdependent

relationship between ﬁve dimensions of livelihood assets,

or ‘capitals’:

• human capital (education and skills)

• social capital (relationships and networks)

• natural capital (land and water)

• ﬁnancial capital (money and loans)

• physical capital (infrastructure and assets).1

Within the South African context, there is little agreement

on core indicators of ‘success’ in land reform projects. Most

attention to date has been on the number of hectares

transferred, and the number of beneﬁciaries. Little or no

attention is paid to the livelihood beneﬁts generated, in

either qualitative or quantitative terms. So, when assessing

speciﬁc projects or conducting national surveys on the

livelihoods of land reform beneﬁciaries, what are we looking

for?

The South African literature on land reform suggests that

outcomes, or indicators, of sustainable livelihoods should

include the following:2

• More income (from marketed produce, wage

employment), increased regularity of income, and

more egalitarian distribution of income.

• Increased well-being: Improved access to clean

drinking water and to sanitation, improved housing,

ownership of household items, and access to fuel for

cooking.

• Reduced vulnerability: Improved access to social

infrastructure like schools and clinics, increased

mobility.

• Improved food security (from self-provisioning

and increased disposable cash income) resulting in

improved nutritional status.

• More sustainable use of the natural resource base.

The sustainable livelihoods framework is widely used

internationally in academia but also as a planning and

evaluation tool by governments, non-governmental

organisations (NGOs), consultants and donors. It constitutes

a relevant basis for developing indicators of livelihood

impacts – something which is now urgently needed for the

land reform programme.

Although it does not inform any ofﬁcial set of indicators,

the notion of multi-dimensional livelihoods is prominent

among analysts of land reform in South Africa, who have

drawn attention to diversiﬁed livelihood strategies. The

rest of this section reviews some of the key sources of data

on livelihood impacts in land reform in South Africa. It

highlights the dominant attention in policy paid to natural

capital, and the need to address deﬁciencies in physical,

ﬁnancial, human, social and political capital in order to

generate sustainable livelihoods.

Quality of Life reports

The Quality of Life (QOL) surveys conducted by the

Department of Land Affairs (DLA) have provided some,

limited, insights into the land uses and livelihoods of

land reform beneﬁciaries. The QOL surveys were initially

envisaged as annual surveys, later as biannual surveys, and

have in practice been published in 1998, 2000 and 2003,

with a fourth survey being in process during 2006, for which

results are expected to be available during 2007. The DLA

commissioned the QOL surveys to investigate the extent to

which the objectives of the land reform programme have

been met. The surveys claim to provide ‘an account of the

impact of land reform on the livelihoods of land reform

beneﬁciaries’ (DLA 2003:xx).

1 The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) uses a hexagon, rather than a traditional pentagon, with the addition of political capital as a sixth

dimension of livelihood assets.

2 Based on Andrew et al. 2003, DLA 2003, and May and Roberts 2000.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

• Thirty-eight percent of households were deriving

income either from the sale or own consumption of

agriculture and livestock, while 62% were not deriving

income at all, indicating that livelihood impacts may

be very unequal across households, even within

the same project. The average household income

from agricultural activities for the total sample was

R1 146 per annum (May & Roberts 2000:15).

The most common land uses were the extension of existing

livestock herds and maize production for household

consumption – two important inputs into the livelihoods

of poor and vulnerable households (May & Roberts 2000).

Even while most production on redistributed land was

considered to be for ‘subsistence’, the survey found that

among those cultivating, most are both buying inputs and

selling at least some of their produce, usually in very local

markets – as is the norm for ‘subsistence’ producers in South

Africa. The study found that land reform beneﬁciaries were

better off than the rural population on average, but failed

to demonstrate whether or not this was as a result of their

improved access to land – or whether this correlation was

due to the better off being more likely to be able to access

the programme.

The analysis … is clearly a ﬁrst step that should be

complemented by more detailed examination of the data

available, as well as continuing monitoring of progress

along the way. The current data does not permit a detailed

impact analysis of the land reform, and only tentative

conclusions can be reached at this stage (May & Roberts

2000:23).

The third QOL survey, conducted in 2002 and reported in

2003, encountered serious problems and discontinuities

with previous surveys. It differed from its predecessors in

terms of its sample, the design of the research instruments

and analysis of the data. This report was never ofﬁcially

released by DLA. Despite, or perhaps in view of, the

methodological problems encountered, it provided

important recommendations for future impact analysis, as

follows:

• The DLA needs to integrate the collection of baseline

household level information into its project cycles so

that information on the quality of life of beneﬁciaries

prior to the transfer of land is recorded. This is a basis for

monitoring and evaluation. This will require improving

the Landbase data system of M&E and capturing more

extensive beneﬁciary and project information during the

project approval stage.

• The DLA should produce QOL reports on an annual basis,

using a standard set of sur vey instruments to reﬂect

the impact of land reform over time. The reports should

The ﬁrst survey was a small study conducted internally

by the DLA’s Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate, and

published as the Annual Quality of Life Report in October

1998. This survey, conducted in 1997–98, ‘was widely

criticised for its limited scope, its questionable theoretical

assumptions and its methodology’ (Naidoo 1999, cited in

Lahiff et al. 2003:47).

An independent assessment of the repor t concluded

that the study was not sufﬁciently detailed to permit the

assessment that was required by DLA. The assessment

also questioned the sampling procedures that were used,

and the way in which these were implemented raising

the concern that the study may not be representative or

sufﬁciently rigorous for the purposes of monitoring (Lahiff

et al. 2003:47).

The second survey attempted to assess the impact of reform

on livelihoods, though this was shortly after transfer – more

than half the projects had been transferred less than a year

prior to the survey (Lahiff et al. 2003; May & Roberts 2000).

The survey found widespread underutilisation of land, both

in the sense of land not being used at all, and land that was

potentially arable being used for less intensive forms of

production: ‘much land remains under-utilised, with neither

grazing nor cultivation occurring’ and ‘the most common

form of productive use is as grazing land’ (May & Roberts

2000:8,13).

The key ﬁndings on livelihood strategies from the second

QOL survey were that ‘beneﬁciary households have

alarmingly high levels of poverty, with 78% falling below the

expenditure poverty line of R476.30 per adult equivalent

per month and 47% classed as ultra poor (less than half the

poverty expenditure line)’ (May & Roberts 2000:14). As with

the previous QOL survey, this ﬁnding would appear to refer

to the position of beneﬁciaries at the time they joined the

project, rather than as a result of land reform, given that

most projects surveyed were still at the inception stage.

Nevertheless, there was substantial variation in beneﬁciaries’

livelihood sources and strategies.

The key ﬁndings of the second QOL survey on the livelihoods

of land reform beneﬁciaries were:

• Sixty-three percent of beneﬁciary households received

some form of waged income.

• Just under 20% of beneﬁciary households received an

income from both agricultural production and self-

employment activities.

• Only 8% of households acknowledged transfer

payments, though this low ﬁgure is probably related

to the virtual absence of migrant household members

in the sample.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

be extended to assessing the resources committed to

the delivery of land reform, including staff capacity,

capital and operating budgets, and contributions from

other government departments, parastatal and local

government institutions.

• The QOL survey should be extended to include a control

group of rural households and communities that have not

beneﬁted from land reform. This will enable future reports to

compare improvements in the quality of life of land reform

participants to other rural populations. Existing macro

data sets are not appropriate for this comparison as they

are outdated. Neither is the National Census appropriate,

as it is conducted only every ﬁve years and there is too long

a delay in the release of results (DLA 2003:xxxii).

The QOL studies have shown that those who are richer are

more likely to have cattle – but are they richer because

they have cattle, or do they have cattle because they are

richer? Those in the programme are better off than the rural

population as a whole – but are they better off because

they are land reform beneﬁciaries or did they manage

to become land reform beneﬁciaries because they are

better off? Redistribution policy, unlike restitution policy, is

premised on the presumption that the presence of an own

contribution can have a positive impact, but this proposition

has not been empirically tested. As Murray observed in the

Free State, those who are best placed to participate in the

land reform programme, and predominated in an early

study of land reform, were those who were literate, had

their own disposable resources with which to pursue their

applications, had access to telecommunications, transport

and ofﬁcialdom, and had social and political networks

(Murray 1997).

In summary, there remain both technical and conceptual

challenges in determining livelihood impacts within the

context of South Africa’s land reform programme. Existing

data from the QOL studies on the livelihoods of land reform

beneﬁciaries demonstrate important correlations, but on

the whole fail to demonstrate causal relations that tell us

something about the ability of land reform to improve

people’s livelihoods and lift them out of poverty.

In the absence of baseline data – a proﬁle of people

entering the programme – subsequent surveys can only

provide a snapshot of people’s livelihoods, but cannot

explain how these have changed as a result of land reform.

In addition to the ‘before’ and ‘after’ dimension, few, if any,

studies have attempted to disentangle or even adequately

conceptualise on-project livelihoods in relation to people’s

overall livelihood strategies – how land reform is one

input into wider livelihood strategies – or to theorise the

relationship between the two. As a result, impact studies,

which would investigate changes over time and determine

whether these can be attributed to land reform, have not

been possible.

Community Agency for Social

Enquiry case studies

The most substantial source of qualitative information on

the outcomes of rural restitution claims to date is the audit

conducted by the Community Agency for Social Enquiry

(CASE) in 2005 and 2006. This brought together a series of

provincial reports on a total of 179 rural restitution claims

that contained a development component (that is, land

restoration). At the time, 161 of these constituted the total

number of settled rural claims involving land restoration.

The remaining 18 claims studied were being prepared for

settlement (CASE 2006:1).

The CASE audit found a strong correlation between the

degree of support, from state and non-governmental

institutions, and the livelihood outcomes of a project.

Thorough facilitation of decision making by the community

around land use and management was found to be

essential, as was the establishment of steering committees

or sub-structures to manage land allocation and land use. A

perennial problem, though, was the reliance of communal

property association (CPA) or Trust committees on

representatives who might be skilled but unaccountable, or

who may pursue individual rather than collective interests.

Extensive reliance on volunteerism and the demands of time

posed substantial barriers to entry into decision-making

positions. Women, in particular, are often unwilling to take

on positions of leadership or face substantial obstacles to

doing so.

This research also identiﬁed variables that inﬂuence

livelihood outcomes over which the Regional Land Claims

Commission (RLCC) and the DLA have limited control,

speciﬁcally strong and accountable leadership:

[T ]hose communities with skilled and experienced leaders

… were more likely to attain their developmental goals

and were also more likely to establish positive relationships

with external service providers and/or partners (CASE

2006:99).

Another factor cited as promoting positive livelihood

outcomes is strong participation by members of claimant

communities in decision making. The creation of relevant

sub-committees or institutional structures with speciﬁc

areas of authority and responsibility for ‘day-to-day

management’ was found to increase participation in and

beneﬁts from productive activities (CASE 2006:99). The

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

was spent on a tractor instead of a borehole), a lack of

capital and extension advice to assist in new production,

and a lack of ready access to local markets. The most

signiﬁcant barrier to accessing support – and even making

contact with ofﬁcials who might be able to provide advice

and support – was the high cost of transport to the closest

town, Elliot. After grant funding was exhausted, the only

source of income to pay for transport of people to town and

the transport of production inputs were state pensions. In

the face of unmanageable input costs and a lack of water,

most beneﬁciaries had abandoned cultivation and instead

merely extended their grazing land. Here, in the absence of

cash beneﬁts from land redistribution, the key livelihood

beneﬁt was the reduced need for labour for herding as a

result of the fencing infrastructure on the new land.

A new insight from all three projects is the extent to which

obtaining farms for grazing livestock frees up the labour

of young boys from herding duties that are much more

onerous when livestock are kept on village land. Instead

of alternating between herding and school, boys are now

able to attend school full-time (Hall 2004:48).

The second type of project bore a closer resemblance to the

ofﬁcial vision of LRAD as a means of supporting ‘emerging’

farmers – individuals (all of them men) who had leveraged

higher grants by contributing their own assets, particularly

their existing livestock, and taking out loans of up to 70%

debt-equity ratio. While hoping to move into commercial

production, they faced problems of high input costs, little if

any extension services, insecure market access and, in some

cases, crippling debt. These beneﬁciaries were hiring labour,

and diversifying their own livelihood sources by investing

in other income streams. The dominant non-farm income

sources for beneﬁciaries in this study were small informal

urban businesses, such as taxi businesses and spaza shops,

which tended to outweigh the contribution of farming to

livelihoods, at least in the initial few years (Hall 2004).

While beneﬁciaries had received a valuable land asset, the

cost of obtaining and maintaining it was so high that they

had few resources left over for production. Even without

these costs, they would still struggle to make a proﬁt for

the other reasons already stated. This survey therefore

highlighted the costs of sustaining ownership, in view

of the debt burdens incurred as a result of purchase and

start-up costs. These posed a major constraint on livelihood

improvements within the ﬁrst few years of operation.

Whether or not the debt burden would become more

manageable could not be assessed, but appeared unlikely

given the multiple obstacles to proﬁtable agricultural

production. In almost all the cases studied, small-scale

livestock owners had acquired land with the intention of

study recommended that further thought be given to how

state agencies can support community decision-making

processes, and suggests that there are few shortcuts to

community decision making. Where land reform projects

require large groups of people to form legal entities,

intensive facilitation of participatory decision making is

needed.

The CASE report expressed cautious optimism about the

potential for strategic partnerships and ‘special purpose

vehicles’ to manage commercial enterprises, where land

has been transferred to land reform beneﬁciaries who may

lack the resources and management expertise to continue

with existing operations (CASE 2006:99). However, it found

that the projects most likely to succeed were those in which

there is upfront support to beneﬁciaries in determining

whether they wish to engage in such a partnership – which

would include exploring alternatives – and monitoring

of the partnership after its establishment. Without these

conditions in place, CASE argues, strategic partnerships

hold little promise of livelihood improvement.

Land Redistribution for

Agricultural Development (LRAD)

case studies

In 2004, the DLA conducted a national ‘rapid systematic

assessment survey’ on Land Redistribution for Agricultural

Development (LRAD) projects. This study investigated land

use and livelihood impacts on LRAD projects, most of which

had been established within the previous two years. PLAAS

conducted the ﬁeldwork for this survey in nine projects in

the Eastern Cape, and produced a report which synthesised

the ﬁndings of these qualitative case studies (Hall 2004).

Two types of project were discernible within the LRAD study.

The ﬁrst consisted of group-based projects, such as Gletwyn

outside Grahamstown, which drew together groups of poor

people with few resources, who had joined together to

form groups with the express purpose of gaining sufﬁcient

grant funding to buy available properties and effect land

transfer. Similarly, the Masincedane CC, Dunmall-Larne

and Ramfontein CC projects outside Elliot consisted of

extended and neighbouring households from one village

who had come together to purchase farms adjacent to their

land within the former Transkei, in order to extend their

farming operations and to take advantage of improved

infrastructure – speciﬁcally fencing and boreholes. Among

these projects, most had failed to implement their business

plans due to a lack of infrastructure, training and capital.

Envisaged livelihood improvements from producing food

crops for local sale had not materialised due to a lack of

available water (in one instance, the balance of the grant

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

scaling up their livestock production, but had also planned

horticultural production, speciﬁcally vegetable production,

with a view to earning a cash income with which to service

loans and/or to invest in further infrastructure on their land.

Instead, ﬁnancial pressure on beneﬁciaries as a result of

acquiring the new land had altered their plans for the land,

leading them to abandon more capital-intensive production

in order to generate income with which to service debts.

District case studies

In 2005, the National Treasury commissioned a set of

studies on the impact of land reform which took as its unit

of analysis geographical areas rather than projects. District

studies were conducted in the Elliot area of Sakhisizwe

Local Municipality, which forms part of Chris Hani District

Municipality in the Eastern Cape (Aliber et al. 2006); in the

Theewaterskloof Local Municipality of the Overberg district

in the Western Cape (Kleinbooi et al. 2006); and in the former

Qwa Qwa area and adjacent commercial farming regions

in Maluti-a-Phofung district in the Free State (Greenberg

2006).

Most studies on land reform in South Africa to date have

taken the form of project case studies, household surveys

or policy reviews. The key contribution from these studies

is to shift attention away from production to the wider

distributional effects of land reform – and in so doing, to

explore the economic case for land reform. Their ﬁndings

suggest that in regions where few land reform projects have

been established, the impact has been limited. Transferring

economic resources into the hands of poorer producers has

had little if any noticeable effects on the dynamics of the

local economy. In the short term, the major impacts have

been the displacement of farm labour, as new owners tend

to rely to a greater extent on unremunerated family labour.

Elliot

Of particular importance to researchers and policy makers

concerned with land reform and its impact is the Elliot

magisterial district in the Eastern Cape, which is the only

part of the country to date where land reform is on track

to transfer the national target of 30% of farmland, through

all aspects of land reform. As of 2005, more than 15% of the

farmland in this area had been transferred from white to

black ownership through land reform. The boundaries of the

Elliot magisterial district are nearly coterminous with those

of the current Sakhisizwe Local Municipality. Sakhisizwe

includes former white commercial farming areas, but also,

in the south, a relatively small area of the Cala magisterial

district which was part of the former Transkei (Aliber et al.

2006). The residents of the former Transkei who border on the

commercial farming areas, and typically own livestock and

cultivate food for their own consumption, have expressed a

demand for access to more land to expand their operations,

and seek, by participating in the land reform programme,

to acquire secure tenure to land, to gain access to water

and fencing to reduce the labour requirements in livestock

husbandry, and to reduce animal damage to crops (Hall

2004; Ncapayi 2005). In these commercial farming areas,

the research found a drop in production alongside modest

improvements in the livelihoods of those who now own and

work the land (Aliber et al. 2006). The study recommended

that a focus on the livelihood impact of land reform in Elliot,

where land reform is relatively advanced, needs to focus not

only on those who are direct beneﬁciaries gaining access to

land and livelihood resources, but also on an interrogation

of the wider impact of land reform on local economies

– something which is not yet feasible in many other parts

of the country. This broader type of impact assessment

draws attention to the implications of land reform for

the livelihoods of those who are not direct beneﬁciaries,

including current and former employees on redistributed

and restored land, and the wider population (Aliber et al.

2006).

Theewaterskloof

Kleinbooi et al. (2006) show that in the Theewaterskloof Local

Municipality in the Overberg district, where deciduous fruit

and wine are the dominant agricultural sectors, land reform

has not led to any major changes in land use and only very

modest contributions to livelihoods. Only twelve projects

have been established in the area, and of these only two

have involved the transfer of land ownership. The rest have

been farm worker equity schemes and tenure projects for

farm workers. No land restitution has taken place. Here, the

impact on beneﬁciaries has been ‘limited, but not negligible’,

largely taking the form of improving quality of or tenure

rights to housing on farms:

Farm worker equity schemes – promoted by a small group

of private consultants – have emerged almost by default

as the principal means by which poor beneﬁciaries can

gain a stake in high value agriculture while avoiding the

politically (and ﬁnancially) thorny issue of actual land

redistribution. The evidence in this study suggests that

equity schemes can take a variety of forms, but deliver few

beneﬁts (Kleinbooi et al. 2006:63).

Dividends, the major beneﬁt anticipated in equity schemes,

have been paid out only once, and in only one scheme.

Instead, in cases where proﬁts were declared, these were

used to service loans or were reinvested into production

(Kleinbooi et al. 2006). Indirect beneﬁts consisted of

improved compliance with basic conditions of employment

and minimum wages, as stipulated in national regulations,

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

of farming support services such as marketing support and

market information, credit and production inputs by state

agencies was withdrawn as part of the broader process

of agricultural deregulation (Greenberg 2006). The major

constraint for black farmers was a ‘lack of material resources

to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience’ (Greenberg

2006:7). The study concluded that grants were ‘insufﬁcient

in and of themselves to have positive results’. Observable

problems in land use in the post-transfer phase could

be traced to a basic problem with the grants themselves.

Reliance on grants for the purchase of land and initial start-

up costs led to projects that were unworkable in that the

land was insufﬁcient or inappropriate, or that new farmers

were indebted (Greenberg 2006). These cash-strapped

landowners now rely heavily on the unpaid labour of family

members and even non-family members. Those who were

paid were predominantly casual or seasonal employees, as

in the wider farming sector, and wage levels were typically

in the region of 50% of the minimum wage rates stipulated

in the sectoral determination for agriculture (Greenberg

2006).

These three district-level studies have focused attention on

a new and relatively unexplored perspective on the impacts

of land reform, namely the impacts on the dynamics of

local economies, including both beneﬁciaries and non-

beneﬁciaries.

but also in some instances pension schemes, funeral plans

and healthcare (Kleinbooi et al. 2006). Although there was no

evidence of new jobs (that is, new livelihoods) being created

as a result of these schemes, there were indications that, in

a context of fairly widespread job shedding, some jobs had

been preserved as a result of the schemes – though many of

these were casual and seasonal jobs, providing insecure and

erratic income to poor households.

For land reform to have a more substantial impact on

livelihoods and the local economy, new ways will have to

be found of redistributing land and supporting emerging

farmers. This will, in turn, require new ways of interpreting

land reform policy, that promote land access over land

ownership, at least in the short term, self-employment over

share equity schemes and small-scale, labour intensive

production for local markets over large-scale, capital-

intensive methods for export (Kleinbooi et al. 2006:67).

Maluti-a-Phofung

In the Free State, a study of the Maluti-a-Phofung Local

Municipality found that redistribution of land acquired under

the former Qwa Qwa administration, as well as privately-

owned commercial farming units, had allowed the growth of

herds of cattle and, in this way, supported accumulation by

some black households (Greenberg 2006). Constraints faced

by new landowners included escalating production costs,

particularly the purchase of input items, while the provision

Photo: Marc Wegerif

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

4. Livelihoods impacts in rural

restitution projects

The following section provides a brief summary of

key ﬁndings from diagnostic studies of six community

restitution claims settled by means of land restoration,

conducted by the Sustainable Development Consortium

during 2006. It focuses on the structure of the projects, how

certain key choices came to be made, and what implications

these had for the livelihoods of intended beneﬁciaries. Most

of these projects are still at an early state of implementation,

and very limited data are available on beneﬁts, at either a

community or a household level. Wherever possible, the

impact on livelihoods is quantiﬁed, but in most instances

this is not possible due to data constraints.

Bjatladi

In Limpopo, a restitution claim on the Zebediela citrus

farm – widely described as the largest citrus producer in

the southern hemisphere – led to the establishment of a

strategic partnership between the Bjatladi CPA (the claimant,

and now owner of the 5,903-ha property), the Zebediela

Workers’ Trust, and a strategic partner called Henley Farm

Properties (Pty) Ltd. Together, these three entities comprise

the operating company, in which Bjatladi CPA owns 30% of

shares, while the other partners, the Workers’ Trust and the

strategic partner, own 15% and 55% respectively. Only the

strategic partner was required to buy shares; the Agriculture

Rural Development Corporation (ARDC) transferred

shares to the others. In terms of the restitution settlement

agreement, the strategic partner will transfer 1% of the total

shares to the Bjatladi CPA each year for ﬁve years, until it

owns only 50% and the CPA has 35%.

The land was transferred in title to the claimant community

but, as part of the Settlement Agreement, was subject to a

15-year lease agreement with a rental set at R1 million per

annum. When the 15-year lease expires, the strategic partner

is to transfer all its shares to the CPA. While ensuring a source

of cash income for the CPA, this agreement precludes other

potential non-ﬁnancial beneﬁts that might have been

gained through direct use of the land by members of the

claimant community.

The diagnostic study conducted by PLAAS highlighted the

limitations on the community’s use of the restored land:

Although not stated in these exact terms, the Settlement

Agreement implies that the activities entered into with

the strategic partner constitute the only permissible use

to which the land can be put, and that access to land by

members for other purposes such as cultivation, grazing

rights or residential purposes fall outside the scope of the

Settlement Agreement, and thus outside the terms of the

restitution award (Bjatladi Diagnostic Study:16).

Apart from rental income, which is set well below a likely

market rate, the principal beneﬁt to the community will be

in the form of a share of proﬁts, which implies a considerable

degree of risk. Like most commercial farms, Zebediela

‘doesn’t have a proﬁt history. At best, it has a break-even

history’ (Erasmus, quoted in Bjatladi Diagnostic Study:24).

The actual livelihood beneﬁts for members of the claimant

community at Zebediela can be summarised as follows:

• Dividends from shareholding: Apart from a special

bonus of R500 per household at the time of the

settlement, no dividend has yet been paid out by the

operating company, reﬂecting the minimal proﬁtability

of the commercial operation.

• Rental income: The R1 million per year payable by the

operating company to the CPA, which, if paid out to

423 households consisting of 1,573 individuals, would

work out to a nominal amount of R636 per individual

per year. However, to date it has not been paid out but

reinvested in the operations of the company.

• Employment for some claimants: This cannot be

considered a direct beneﬁt of restitution as such

employment predates the settlement of the claim and,

in the three years since, there has been no increase in

employment. The only exception is a small number of

positions in management that have been created for

community members.

The limited livelihood impact thus far arises from the way

in which the project was structured, with the strategic

partnership eclipsing other possible land uses.

The settlement agreement and subsequent developments

at Bjatladi have focused narrowly on the citrus estate and

the related activities, all of which fall under the effective

control of the strategic partner. As a result, little or no

attention has been paid to the wider land needs of the

community, such as land for housing and for small-scale

food production (Bjatladi Diagnostic Study:24).

Although the total value of assets transferred from the state

to the claimants – in the order of R78.9 million – the project

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

pursued from the Klipgat CPA. In return, the claimants have

been ceded a 26% share in the Etruscan company. However,

it appears that the CPA is liable to pay market price for 11%

of the shares, apparently meaning that the company only

ceded 15% of total ownership to the CPA in return (together

with a small rent) for using its land. Payment for the balance

will come out of income earned by the CPA, but members

were found to be unaware of how much this would amount

to, or how much, if any, had already been paid off.

The livelihood beneﬁts observed at Klipgat were:

• Rental income: The CPA receives a cash income of

R6,000 per month, as a ‘surface access fee’ via the

mining company, Etruscan, but which is actually paid

by its subsidiary Gothoma Diggings. There appeared

to be plans in place as to how this money would be

utilised by the CPA, including distribution of it to its

members.

• Additional payments to the CPA: An amount of

R17,000 per month is supposed to be paid to the CPA

by Etruscan in order to support community projects,

but it appears that little of this has been paid over to

date.

• Access to natural resources: The CPA members have

access to some grazing land and to clay (a by-product

of the mining activity), which they use for brick-

making.

• Employment: Five community members, of whom

one is a woman, have gained employment on the

mine, far below what was originally promised to the

community.

Etruscan promised many beneﬁts and undertook to provide

support in both cash and kind to the community. Most

of this was not quantiﬁed and has not been forthcoming.

Essentially, the agreement identiﬁed Etruscan as a source

of patronage in areas of the community’s development.

Community leaders interviewed appeared not to be aware

of most of the undertakings made by Etruscan, nor how

these could be enforced.

In terms of this agreement, substantial payments were

due to the claimants: R1,619,000 in the ﬁrst three-month

period, as dividends from the diamond mining. The CPA,

however, could not conﬁrm whether it had received any of

this and, if so, what had happened to the money. A lack of

ofﬁcial oversight of the implementation of the settlement

agreement – by the RLCC or others – has allowed the mining

company to minimise its obligations, while a lack of effective

ﬁnancial management or accountability within the CPA

has created potential for personal enrichment by those in

positions of authority. If monies due to the CPA have in fact

has produced barely any livelihood impact for beneﬁciaries,

other than those able to enter into management. Proﬁts

appear unlikely to materialise on any substantial scale, and

rental income is being reinvested in the operating company

as a step towards eventual takeover from the strategic

partner. In essence, the community has been granted

a valuable asset that is unlikely to generate signiﬁcant

beneﬁts in the short term. Beneﬁts, if they are to materialise,

are likely to do so only after the expiration of the current

15-year contract with the strategic partner. Although the

Bjatladi case has many unusual features – notably the fact

that it was owned by the state, and the strategic partner

was already involved in running the estate on a contract

basis prior to the settlement of the claim – a similar model

of strategic partnership, with no direct access to land for

community members, has been proposed for other claims

on high-value agricultural land. It is likely that many of the

limitations on livelihood beneﬁts identiﬁed at Zebediela are

to be replicated in such cases.

Klipgat

In the North West province, a community restitution claim

at Klipgat, or Bakwena ba Mare a Phogolo, was settled in

2000, and a CPA established as the legal landholding entity.

As with Zebediela, Klipgat is a highly dispersed, and starkly

differentiated, community:

The capacity and qualiﬁcations of the community

members of Klipgat are diverse, with some members

being professionals such as doctors and lawyers while

others are illiterate and work as manual labourers. Many

of the members remain unemployed (Bakwena ba Mare a

Phogolo Diagnostic Study:6).

In terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claimed land

was restored to the CPA and then leased out to a mining

company, which is extracting alluvial diamonds, while

some claimants have settled on the rest of the land. Here,

beneﬁciaries have diversiﬁed their livelihoods and are

engaged with three projects which arose out of the claim

process – a piggery, brick-making and an arts and crafts

(beading) initiative – as well as grazing their own livestock

on the new land. Thus far, it seems that the mining is the

aspect of this multi-dimensional project that has had the

least impact on beneﬁciaries (other than removing this

land from their own potential use). Although the mining

enterprise would appear to be highly lucrative, the CPA has

not received any dividends from the share in the mining

operation that it reportedly received as part of its lease

agreement. More worryingly, the community itself, including

its leadership, is not aware of the terms of the deal to which

it had agreed. Etruscan, the owner of the mineral rights,

leases the land on which the mining operations are being

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

been paid to it, it is either unaware or unwilling to declare

its receipts, and has not disbursed funds to its members, nor

reinvested income in the development projects pursued by

its members.

At Klipgat, claimants appear to have little information,

understanding and ownership of the agreements they

or their representatives have entered into. What is also

apparent is that they received inadequate independent

advice and support in negotiating and enforcing the terms

of their agreement with Etruscan.

The relationship between the mining company, which

has mineral rights on the community’s land, and the

CPA remains an unequal one. In addition, the terms and

conditions of the agreement between the two parties

are not well deﬁned or understood by the community.

The current agreement and the operations of the mining

company have the potential of leaving the community in a

very vulnerable and exploited position (Bakwena ba Mare

a Phogolo Diagnostic Study:18).

The Klipgat case indicates that, even where there exists the

potential for substantial livelihood beneﬁts, a dysfunctional

CPA committee and a lack of effective support and follow-

up from the RLCC and other branches of government can

prevent this from being realised.

Dwesa-Cwebe

On the Wild Coast in the former Transkei, a co-management

agreement was concluded in respect of protected land that

forms part of the Dwesa and Cwebe Nature and Marine

Park, an important biodiversity hotspot. This was the ﬁrst co-

management agreement in respect of a restitution claim on

a protected area in the Eastern Cape, and the second in the

country, after the Makuleke claim was settled in the Kruger

National Park. In return for waiving its claim to return to the

land, the Trust representing the claimants was compensated

with an initial upfront payment, and the Trust is entitled

to receive ongoing payments over a period of 21 years, in

lieu of its rights to the land which remains part of the park.

Eastern Cape Nature Conservation paid R2.1 million upfront

to the Trust on settlement of the claim, for the lease of the

land for 21 years. A further approximately R12 million was

earmarked by the RLCC for the claimants, in the form of

discretionary and settlement planning grants.

Although the claim was settled in 2001, ﬁve years later the

transfer of the claimed land inside and outside the reserve

has not taken place. Land outside the park that forms part

of the claim has not gone through any changes in land

use, and continues to be communal land, under livestock

production and cultivation of vegetables, mostly for own

consumption. The members of the claimant community

mostly reside nearby on communal land. A further unit of

land surveyed as part of the claim includes the Haven Hotel

and resort, which continues to be operated as a commercial

concern, for which the Trust is to receive compensation. On

the land occupied by the beneﬁciaries, though, ‘There has

also been no discernible development beyond reticulated

water and a few public works projects’ (Palmer et al. 2006:4).

This suggests that no more development has happened

as a result of restitution than in adjacent areas that are also

communal areas of the former Transkei, which have been

prioritised as part of the Extended Public Works Programme

(EPWP). There appears to be an untapped potential for

cultivation, with arable land being used for extensive

livestock grazing. Reasons for the limited use of arable ﬁelds

include crop damage by livestock due to poor fencing;

absence of men’s labour for livestock herding; absence of

children’s labour, as children are now in school; and the high

costs of ploughing and inputs (Fay & Palmer 2002:164–5,

cited in Palmer et al. 2006:14). However, in some regions,

there was an increase of cultivation, though this could not

be attributed to the claim itself as no change in land access

or ownership had been effected.

The observed changes in beneﬁciary livelihoods between

1998 and 2001, immediately prior to the claim being settled,

were:

• Increase in the percentage of residents who receive

state social grants, though this may well indicate

improved access rather than a decline in other socio-

economic indicators.

• Declining remittances from household members

earning cash incomes elsewhere. Again, this may

indicate reduced reliance on migrant work, or loss of

these sources of income for other reasons (job losses,

HIV/Aids, etc.).

• Reduced reliance on crop sales as a source of

livelihood.

• Increased reliance on craft sales as a source of

livelihood.

• Increased access to occasional work (Palmer et al.

2006:35).

The Dwesa-Cwebe case study demonstrates that land

reform is happening in a context where livelihood

strategies are changing anyway, in response to pressures of

HIV/Aids and the loss of remittance incomes. It also shows

that ownership by itself does not bring livelihood beneﬁts,

if this is so circumscribed that claimants may not use their

new land either for cultivation or grazing or to transact

in order to secure a stream of revenue. This case clearly

illustrates the need for development of a comprehensive

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

institutions, including grants from the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Tourism, ahead of the claim

being settled. This approach has delayed settlement of the

claim, but has ensured that Covie is written into the local

integrated development plan (IDP) and the municipality’s

spatial development framework.

Ensuring all the pieces of the development puzzle

are in place before transfer of land is CRUCIAL. All

stakeholders must be tied in to fulﬁl their mandates

within land redistribution and rural development. As

state departments are tied in so they are able to identify

budgets, technical expertise, land and other resources,

easing the responsibility on cash-strapped and struggling

local authorities. It is our experience that departments are

thankful for an opportunity to work in an integrated and

holistic manner (Conway & Xipu 2006:5).

The Covie land claim is backed by exceptionally strong

ﬁnancial and material support from government. All

signatories to the MOU undertake to report on an

annual basis on their progress towards achieving their

commitments. However a review mechanism will have

to be established to do ongoing monitoring of the Covie

development to make sure proposals and business plans,

come to fruition (Covie Diagnostic Study).

Although the claim is not settled and, thus far, no livelihood

beneﬁts are evident, the model adopted in the Covie claim

is intended to avert problems of institutional coordination,

funding and post-transfer support, and to yield beneﬁts that

are guaranteed by legal commitments signed by relevant

authorities.

eMpangisweni

In KwaZulu-Natal, at eMpangisweni, a land claim on several

farms by a dispossessed community under Chief Zondi, led

to the acquisition and consolidation of several farms and

portions of farms. In terms of the 2003 Settlement Agreement,

these commercial farms would continue to be operated

as commercial entities, while restored land that had been

unused and was not suited to cultivation would be used for

the establishment of three settlements. However, claimants

moved onto the land before formal settlements could be

established, in a more scattered pattern of settlement than

had been planned. This has made the formal establishment

of settlements, and provision of services, difﬁcult. In addition

to the existing, and already occupied, houses of farm workers

and labour tenants, claimants have built their own homes

rather than wait for the provision of formal settlements

which have not, as yet, materialised.

The current land use involves a mix of commercial

production, for which some claimants are employed as

strategy for livelihoods development in the context of

restitution, especially where cash is available upfront, to be

accompanied by close attention to detail at all stages of the

implementation process.

Covie

In the Southern Cape, the Covie community has laid claim

to part of the Tsitsikamma indigenous forest reserve and

coastal plains. The restoration of the community’s access to

the sea and to a ﬁshing livelihood forms part of the claim.

The Covie land had comprised a commonage – where

residents cultivated vegetable allotments – and common

grazing land. Residents had been independent small-scale

farmers, but also worked at times on neighbouring white-

owned land and on the state-owned forest land now under

the control of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

(DWAF). The development plan now envisages the transfer of

title to individual allotments to households, and the transfer

of the remainder of land, to be used in common for grazing,

to a legal entity comprised of all claimant households.

It is not possible to draw conclusions about the outcomes

of this claim since, although the claim was lodged in 1996

and investigations towards its settlement have been

ongoing since the late 1990s, as of late 2006 it was not yet

settled, and claimants have not yet returned to the land.

Nevertheless, a key innovation at Covie was the decision

by the claimants, together with the RLCC and the Southern

Cape Land Committee, to delay settlement of the claim until

development planning was complete and resources for

implementation of this plan were committed. In view of past

experiences where settled claims had poor results due to

lack of post-transfer support, the RLCC decided to prioritise

development planning, and delay settlement. Its speciﬁc

goal in ensuring that plans are in place prior to settlement

and transfer is that a range of key agencies, speciﬁcally the

district and local municipalities, have speciﬁed Covie in

their development plans and earmarked resources for this

purpose. This led to a partnership between the claimants

themselves and the variety of institutions and service

providers that will play a role in their future development,

formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Thus the Covie claimant committee resisted signing the

Section 42D opting to ensure a Development Plan with

appropriate institutional arrangements and the necessary

implementation funds and skills were in place before any

transfer of land (Conway & Xipu 2006:6).

Signatories to the MOU formed the Covie Steering

Committee to drive an integrated process of development

planning to secure funding commitments from relevant

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

wage workers, and own production by claimants who

have settled on the land. These claimants are grazing their

own livestock and cultivating food crops. Commercial

production is supported by the balance of the restitution

grant (R600,000 was available for the ﬁrst two years), as well

as some direct support from the provincial Department

of Agriculture and a loan from Ithala Bank. Here, the Trust

employs a farm manager on a contract basis. A small portion

of the land has been leased out to a company, Bio-Swiss, to

plant green beans, in return for a rental income and access

to wage employment for some. Even so, members engage in

land uses for basic livelihood purposes, in the face of limited

infrastructure and support.

Members have access to grazing land and for cultivating

their own crops. Each household has access to ‘piece lands’

for their own cultivation but these are not always near

to where people actually live. Many of these do not have

access to the available irrigation infrastructure either. The

community has access to approximately 22 ha of high

value land to use for their own purposes (eMpangisweni

Diagnostic Study:17).

Despite attempts by the RLCC to get the abaQulusi Local

Municipality to address the need of the claimants to acquire

services on-site, this support appears not to have been

forthcoming.

It was agreed that the abaQulusi Municipality would assist

with the development of the restored land and would help

the claimants in terms of applying for subsidies through

the Department of Housing. However, from all accounts, it

seems that the municipality has shown very little interest in

engaging with the project, with party political differences

being cited as the underlying reason (eMpangisweni

Diagnostic Study:19).

Land uses thus combine leasing-out land, the operation

of a commercial enterprise with a hired manager and

wage workers, and an informal pattern of settlement and

production for own use under the direction of the traditional

leader. Although claimants planned to seek training from

CEDARA Agricultural Training College, this has not yet

happened. Instead, for many, the ﬁrst priority is adult basic

education and training, speciﬁcally literacy and numeracy,

prior to agricultural training.

In the absence of ﬁnancial beneﬁts in the form of dividends

from commercial production (the commercial farm has yet

to show a proﬁt), livelihood beneﬁts are derived in large

part by individuals using land allocated to their households

for their own use. At the time of the study, there was no

functional legal entity and the Trust had not held formal

meetings. Instead, authority over land administration had de

facto reverted to the iNkosi. Allocation of substantive rights

has taken place, not through the formal operations of the

Trust, but according to customary practices, and through

the traditional authority.

In practice, members of the Zondo tribe or other residents

who are not members enjoy the same rights as the

members of the Trust and have the right to a residential

site, arable site, grazing and the use of natural resources

on the property. Rights to arable land may be reallocated

by the trustees and/or Inkosi, if they are not used. In

general, the rights are issued by the Inkosi in terms of

verbal agreements made at the iBandla (tribal council)

(eMapangiswene Diagnostic Study:12).

Because the project involves a business entity that is being

run commercially by a contracted manager and is providing

employment, the focus of pre-settlement planning and

post-settlement support has been on this aspect, rather

than on the wider livelihood needs of the claimants. These

wider needs have been pursued largely in an ad hoc and

unplanned way – sometimes overtaking slow planning

processes, as is the case with the construction of informal

housing on the land. Although the land was transferred in

early 2004, the study has found that no needs assessment

of the claimants has been conducted, in order to determine

what broader development plan will be put in place to

support the aspects of the project that fall outside the

commercial operation of a portion of the land.

Groenfontein

The Groenfontein-Ramohlakane claim in the Middelburg

district of Mpumalanga was settled in September 2003,

the beneﬁciaries being approximately 3,200 people in 400

households. Three years later, no grants had been paid out,

and it appeared that no land-use planning had happened,

nor was there external support of the unplanned agricultural

activities that community members had initiated on the

599 ha of land that had been restored to them. Despite

the presence of a borehole and a natural spring, the land

is suited only to dryland cultivation of staple crops, notably

maize and soya bean. Some beneﬁciaries were found to be

producing, but with no external support – despite rather

than because of a developmental restitution process. The

Groenfontein Diagnostic Study described the case as ‘an

example of a settled claim that still remains unplanned and

unsupported long after the land has been transferred to the

claimant community’ ( Groenfontein Diagnostic Study: iii).

Members of the claimant community were allocated

Restitution Discretionary Grants and Settlement and

Planning Grants totalling R1,776,000 – more than the total

cost of the land – which would be used ‘for resettlement,

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

joint development and running costs of the farm and shall

not be paid to the individual households’ (Groenfontein

Diagnostic Study:9). Although these ﬁgures are cited in the

Settlement Agreement signed three years ago, the grants

have not been paid out because the veriﬁcation of claimants

is still, to date, not complete.

Following the settlement of the claim, the land was leased

to the former owner, Mr Steenkamp, for a year, and this

was extended for a further 13 months, to September 2005,

at a rental of R5,000 per month. If it had been paid out to

members, this income would have amounted to just R2 for

each community member per month. The claimants accused

the former owner of asset stripping during the period of

this lease, though this could not be veriﬁed as there had

been no inventory of assets on the farm at the time that the

sale agreement was concluded. A lack of faith in the ability

of the government to provide the necessary support led the

community to take this unusual step of embarking on what

they called the ‘Risk Project’. The community reports that:

They have received very limited support and say they have

lost faith in further support being provided to them, and

are therefore attempting to rely on their own sources of

funds and expertise (Groenfontein Diagnostic Study:14).

The Groenfontein Trust called for community members

who were interested in farming to express their interest. Of

the 3,200 members, eight expressed an interest and formed

a group called the Umnotho Agricultural Development

Project (UADP), which leases the land from the Trust at the

same rental as was paid by Steenkamp. Essentially, then,

the Trust switched from leasing the entire property to the

previous owner, to leasing it to just eight of its members

(0.25% of its total).

The intention was that this group would independently

seek assistance from various ﬁnancial institutions and

private sector and non-governmental service providers so

as to ensure that the farm would be used productively and

create employment for the community. The project plan of

the UADP indicates that, ‘such a decision was taken after

realising that the conventional route of soliciting assistance

from government institutions would take time, due to

lengthy bureaucratic processes which the community has

already experienced in dealing with the Land Commission’

(Ramohlakane-Groenfontein Community Agricultural

Project proposal, cited in Groenfontein Diagnostic

Study:12).

The RLCC’s own explanation corroborates the community

view that support has been negligible. As the RLCC’s staff

responsible for this claim reported:

The claimants have basically received no post-settlement

support. No business plan has been done. We need to ﬁnish

claimant veriﬁcation so that we can do the business plan.

Photo: Marc Wegerif

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

We couldn’t use Section 42C for ﬁnancing the development

needs because that Section is kept only for developments

once the business plan has been done. No real effort from

the side of the RLCC has been made. We haven’t been

aggressive enough to assist or to get an agricultural

economist to assist. We tried to get a CASP [Comprehensive

Agricultural Support Programme] application but made

no headway because CASP is being redirected to ‘anchor

projects’ in accordance with ASGISA [Accelerated and

Shared Group Initiative for South Africa] – funds are rather

going to big projects that create employment (Interview,

May 2006, cited in Groenfontein Diagnostic Study:14).

The local agricultural ofﬁcial responsible suggested that it

would be important to do a skills audit and a needs analysis

and establish the potential strengths of the members and

group them accordingly. However, at the time of the study,

two and a half years after the claim was settled, this had not

been done.

The lack of developmental activities on the land is leading

to land degradation and loss of agricultural potential.

Besides leasing the land back to the previous owner until

mid-2005, no development activities have been undertaken

on the land by the claimant community. The land is fast

becoming neglected and overrun with weeds and alien

plants, thus making it more difﬁcult for productive activities

to be undertaken in future (Groenfontein Diagnostic

Study:18).

The Groenfontein case study demonstrates that it is not

merely an absence of post-transfer support, but also of pre-

settlement planning, which led to the failure of this project,

in the ﬁrst three years after settlement, to generate any

livelihood improvements for claimants. Instead, claimants

pursued the lowest risk option of leasing out their land, ﬁrst

to the former owner, and later to a small group of its better-

off members, bringing about a small income stream to the

Trust, but no tangible beneﬁt for claimants. The lack of a

clear post-settlement strategy on the part of the RLCC has

not only prevented the community from moving ahead with

their plans, but has been an obstacle in obtaining support

from other government agencies, such as the provincial

Department of Agriculture and the local municipality.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

5. Conclusions: Emerging trends

in livelihood impacts

The most striking ﬁnding from the case studies is that

the majority of beneﬁciaries across all the restitution

projects have received no material beneﬁt whatsoever

from restitution, whether in the form of cash income or

access to land. Many have not moved onto the land, either

because they are restricted from doing so (as in the case of

leasing out of land, or as a result of strategic partnerships),

or because post-transfer support has not been forthcoming

and land-use plans are delayed. In the case of Groenfontein,

eight members of a claimant community of 3,200 beneﬁted

by being able to access their land, but only by paying a

market-related rental. Other members of the community

are unlikely to gain direct access to the land, and are

unlikely to beneﬁt much from the rental income. Similarly,

in the case of Bjatladi, most beneﬁciaries had not beneﬁted,

despite the commercial ‘success’ of the enterprise. Again,

a rental income had not been passed on to members, nor

would it have made a great material contribution to their

livelihoods, given the size of the income in relation to the

size of the group. Instead, a small sub-group of community

members has beneﬁted through access to employment,

as part of the strategic partnership. It appeared that more

highly educated members, and men, are most likely to reap

these beneﬁts.

Even where land is being used, dysfunctional legal

entities may prevent members from realising these as

livelihood beneﬁts. In no cases where CPAs or trusts had

received income from leases had this been paid out to

members. In the case of Klipgat, the CPA was not able to

say what had happened to the money allegedly paid by a

mining venture in return for access to the land. Members

had not been able to hold these institutions to account.

No ofﬁcial agency has taken responsibility for capacitating

the CPA committee, empowering the members to hold the

committee accountable, or overseeing implementation of

the Settlement Agreement.

This study suggests that most land reform projects

can be categorised within a simple typology. This study

highlights the type of project in which most participants

do not settle on the land, but stay where they are, pending

either (a) a coherent settlement and development process

which could provide sufﬁcient infrastructure and assistance

to enable them to withdraw from existing livelihood

activities, or (b) establishment of a commercial enterprise

by other participants or through a strategic partnership,

which could generate either employment or income in

the form of dividends to members. Where participants do

settle on the land, two general patterns can be discerned. In

some projects, participants settle on the land and engage

in production largely for their own consumption needs,

producing staple crops and vegetables and maintaining or

extending their livestock. In others, participants establish

their own homes and engage in production largely for

their own consumption needs, alongside joint activities

undertaken as a group. These variations may reﬂect differing

priorities of participants or, more commonly, result from the

constraints and pressures under which they operate.

The failure of post-transfer support to materialise, even

where this is speciﬁed in project plans, presents an

overwhelming obstacle to production and marketing.

The case studies all demonstrate a lack of support

for independent production by members of claimant

communities, particularly where members aim to produce

for non-commercial purposes. This is often the outcome of a

lack of land-use planning prior to transfer, which in turn may

be due to the absence of an initial assessment of needs, skills,

assets and priorities. This ﬁnding supports the observation

by Lahiff and Cousins (2005:129) that ‘limited post-transfer

support, and the failure to integrate land reform with

a wider programme of rural development, has severely

limited [the contribution of land reform] … to livelihoods

and to the revival of the rural economy’. They propose that

land reform focus not only on deracialising land ownership,

but also on the ‘redistribution of land and other assets

from the large scale to the smallholder sector’ and the

reform of agricultural markets. With limited post-transfer

support, and where land reform offers few opportunities

to pursue multiple livelihoods, claimants have tended to

engage in a strategy of ‘straddling’. Rather than move their

entire households, there is a tendency to maintain existing

households and livelihoods, moving family members and

resources between their existing and new homes (Andrew

et al. 2003). This may improve their livelihoods, but is

essentially a strategy of desperation which drains scarce

resources, not least in transport costs.

The failure to deﬁne and enforce post-settlement

arrangements, and the roles of different institutions, has

direct consequences for livelihoods. Settling claims and

transferring projects without having clear post-settlement

plans and institutional commitments in place leads to

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

uncertainty, not only for beneﬁciaries but also on the part of

those institutions, which are not under any compulsion to

provide support. As people’s own activities diverge further

from plans, provision of planned post-transfer support

becomes less likely. The absence of a clear lead agency

inhibits intervention from other institutions. For instance,

from these case studies, it is apparent that the provincial

departments of agriculture look to the RLCC to take the

lead in intergovernmental coordination and in galvanising

its support.

Improvements in beneﬁciary livelihoods depend not

merely on the amount of support, but the degree

to which this is integrated and strongly managed by

a lead institution. A crucial role can be played by service

organisations, particularly NGOs, as in Covie, in facilitating

community discussions and decision making. In this regard,

delaying the signing of the ﬁnal settlement agreement until

ﬁrm settlement plans are in place and agreed is critical.

Direct access to land to allow beneﬁciaries to graze their

own livestock and to cultivate individual ﬁelds for their

own beneﬁt – even where this is alongside commercial

production – is the most secure source of improved

livelihoods. The case studies demonstrate the central

importance of access to land for self-provisioning. Where

people are deriving livelihood beneﬁts, this is often because

of the initiative of those who have some resources and few

alternative opportunities, and are not only willing but also

able to invest their labour in using land by themselves

to support their households – rather than waiting for

production, infrastructure, training or marketing support

from external sources. Such non-ﬁnancial returns can be of

particular importance in the early stages of resettlement,

especially for poorer households, in the form of improved

nutrition through consumption of own production, reduced

cash expenditure on food as a result of consumption of own

production, improved tenure security, housing and access

to services. These non-ﬁnancial beneﬁts are only realisable

where direct access to land is possible.

Strategic partnerships represent high risks for

claimants whose only livelihood beneﬁt is to come

from a combination of rental and dividend payments

– which often are not forthcoming. Strategic partnerships

generally privilege continuity of production over livelihood

beneﬁts for beneﬁciaries. This review demonstrates that

the degree of intervention that is needed to counteract

predictable power imbalances in negotiations between

highly unequal partners has been severely underestimated:

in the context of strategic partnerships as in the cases

of Bjatladi and Klipgat; in co-management agreements

in protected areas as in the case of Dwesa-Cwebe; and

where beneﬁciaries lease their land out as in the case of

Groenfontein. The promise of jobs often consists in merely

maintaining existing employment (not always of the same

people who are the restitution claimants), and is also often

irregular, uncertain and seasonal. It is precisely where land

is to be leased out, or subject to a strategic partnership, that

securing a basic source of land-based livelihood is most

important.

While there are some notable exceptions, projects have

tended to conﬂate the unit of ownership with the unit

of management and of use. Legal entities established as

landholding bodies, such as CPAs and Trusts, have tended

to take on tasks of managing and using land. This has

contributed to situations where members of claimant or

beneﬁciary groups are not able to start using their land,

pending permission from committees, who insist on waiting

for post-transfer support. Most restitution projects have

tended to reproduce the Settlement Land Acquisition Grant

(SLAG) model, whereby a legal landholding entity such as

a CPA or a Trust also serves to manage the land and any

enterprises on the land. Problems arise from the translation

of joint ownership into joint production. In the absence of

strong substantive rights of members, and in the absence

of external support for production, members of some

projects have engaged in informal sub-division of the land

into household plots. This sub-division may take the form of

negotiated allocation by a group or self-help by those with

the means and interests to force their claims to a plot. The

evidence suggests that, while some land reform projects

initially attempted the collective production envisaged in

business plans, this often did not get off the ground and

collapsed into household or individual production. The

challenge remains to support legal entities to manage their

holdings, to allocate rights for individual or household-

based use, and to equitably distribute the beneﬁts of

collective enterprises (including strategic partnerships)

among their members.

Non-implementation of development plans is wide-

spread and is one reason why the livelihoods of

beneﬁciaries do not improve. The study found a large fall-

off between plans and implementation, particularly with

respect to settlement development and small enterprises.

Some common reasons for non-implementation are that

these plans were overly ambitious, risky, or involved a

number of agencies without clear primary responsibility

for coordination. Livelihood dividends cannot be expected

if plans are not implemented, as seen in Dwesa-Cwebe.

However, non-implementation also leads to survivalist

strategies and self-help by beneﬁciaries who, as at

eMpanigsweni, may derive some beneﬁts from unplanned

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

settlement, cultivation and grazing activities – though they

may be limited by unclear and insecure tenure rights and

a lack of support for production or marketing, which will

constrain land-use options.

There is a powerful impetus towards joint activities in

land reform projects, and this frequently contributes

to tensions among beneﬁciaries and failure of

productive activities. This is in contrast to the pattern of

individual cultivation, as widely practised by poor people

in the communal areas. This appears to be the product of a

number of factors, including the failure in both restitution

and redistribution programmes to demarcate plots for

individual household use and to allocate these, and the

resulting need to rely on joint activities as the only way of

securing access to land. It may also, however, be the product

of the community nature of claims and, to a degree, also

the redistribution application process, which leads to an

attachment, sometimes among both claimants and ofﬁcials,

to the idea of not only collective ownership, but also to use

of land by ‘the community’. The failure to move beyond

group activities can also be attributed to the guidance the

claimant communities receive from institutions such as the

RLCCs and the provincial departments of agriculture, which

appear to be heavily biased towards (collective) ‘projects’, and

away from individual models of production. This approach

becomes particularly problematic when subgroups initiate

particular productive activities, such as a piggery project or

a poultry project, in which only some members participate,

contributing their resources and labour – and it is unclear

how produce and income from these activities are to be

shared, and whether other members may have some claim

to beneﬁts.

The trends identiﬁed in this paper suggest a lack of ﬁt

between the vision often evident in business plans of

‘farming’ and particularly ‘farming as a business’, and

the realities facing beneﬁciaries at project inception.

The starting point for planning is too often premised on

the question, What can be done on this land? Instead, a

useful starting point for planning, which would foreground

the proﬁle, needs, aspirations, resources and priorities of

beneﬁciaries would be: What livelihoods are beneﬁciaries

pursuing already and how can this land support, secure and

extend these? Commenting more broadly on land reform,

Andrew et al. (2003:17) observe that:

The use of newly acquired or restored land by resource-

poor land reform beneﬁciaries tends to follow very

conventional uses [similar to those] amongst resource-

poor people in communal areas. These land uses include

individual residential sites, communal grazing for

individually or collectively owned livestock, small-scale

low input cultivation for self provisioning (and sometimes

small amounts of income), and the use of natural resources

for basic household needs… Households do not subsist off

these land-based livelihood strategies, but use them to

supplement off-farm incomes.

The case studies indicate that restitution project

planning is driven by an emphasis on minimising

changes in the use of the land, rather than maximising

the change in the livelihoods of beneﬁciaries. This review

indicates that there have been some missed opportunities

to increase the livelihood impact of land reform by

promoting changes in land use. Rather than minimising

changes to land use, land reform presents an opportunity

to explore and actively support alternative scales, purposes

and technologies of production.

Business planning has tended to focus on agricultural

potential (what is the land good for?), and relatively

little on the production environment – the range of

accessible markets, available skills, assets and capital of

beneﬁciaries (what kinds of land uses or enterprises will

work, given this context?). The former, relying on forecasts

of potential cash ﬂow from COMBUD (commercial farming

budget manuals providing ﬁnancial information on the

potential income from particular crops) and other technical

sources of information, has obscured the latter.

The case studies corroborate previous ﬁndings that

attempts to regulate land use through business plans

have been largely unsuccessful in land reform. This study

supports the assessment that business planning has tended

to prioritise internal consistency and cash-ﬂow projections,

to satisfy ofﬁcials, rather than providing a practical basis

from which beneﬁciaries can act. As Andrew et al. (2003:19)

argue in a review of land use in land reform projects:

The plans are often nothing more than a statement

of potential commercial use of the land, based on the

activities of the previous owner, drawn up by consultants

or implementing agents rather than the communities

themselves, although there is usually some consultation

with the beneﬁciaries. … Few if any beneﬁciary groups

adhere to these plans, and many ﬁnd that in practice it is

not possible to adhere to them (Andrew et al. 2003:19).

This does not suggest that planning is unnecessary, but that

the manner in which it is done, and the priorities that drive it,

require attention. Experience to date shows that the extent

of facilitation and coordination required to make restitution

projects work has been typically underestimated. This

suggests that more priority needs to be placed on skilled

facilitation and support of community decision making,

determination of development priorities and settlement

choices, production plans, and institutional arrangements.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

Larger budgets will be needed to secure these skills, and

to ensure continuity in institutional roles over time. The

turnover of staff within key institutions, speciﬁcally the

RLCCs, has been cited as one reason why, despite budgeting

for this purpose, this support has not been forthcoming.

One option is to move many of the activities that have been

classed as ‘post-transfer’ into the pre-transfer planning stage.

These include land-use planning, subdivision, infrastructure

development, allocation of substantive land rights among

members, and settlement development. For instance, MOUs

have been secured among agencies prior to the settlement

of the claim – as in the case of Covie (Conway & Xipu 2006).

The key drawback with this approach is that it will delay the

settlement of claims.

A common feature of the case studies presented here

is that socio-economic differences within claimant

communities – in terms of ownership of livestock

and access to off-farm sources of income – have been

reinforced. As beneﬁciaries are exposed to the costs of

participating in a project – risk, start-up costs, transport and

the opportunity cost of pursuing other activities – socio-

economic differences become more apparent. The better

off among a group of beneﬁciaries may be able to move

ahead with production even in the absence of external

support, and in this way monopolise the scarce resources

available to the group. This is evident at Zebediela, where

the more educated and vocal leadership were able to get

jobs in management. Elsewhere, it appears that wealthier

cattle-owning men who had transport were able to allocate

themselves grazing camps, while others in their CPA were

too poor to get access to their land because they had no

transport. Differing priorities are evident both within, and

between, projects: some projects, and some participants, are

explicitly motivated by an interest in generating proﬁts for

reinvestment in order to generate a commercial enterprise,

while others are motivated by the need to have a secure

place to live, to build up a stock of wealth in the form of

livestock, to improve household food security, or to rebuild

community.

HIV/Aids has not been a prominent consideration

in thinking about how land reform is to improve

livelihoods. Land reform projects interact with long-

term changes in livelihoods and vulnerability, such as the

HIV/Aids pandemic. For instance, at eMpangisweni, where

women constitute 80% of the employed labour force, 80%

of all women tested in antenatal clinics were HIV-positive.

Nowhere are the implications of this for future priorities

for livelihood strategies and for land-use options taken

into consideration by project planners and implementers.

In considering the current livelihood strategies and future

options for this community, the challenge of HIV/Aids cannot

be ignored. The HIV/Aids mitigation literature suggests that

a relevant question that must be addressed in policy is:

What types of land uses should be promoted to improve

the livelihoods of beneﬁciaries in a sustainable manner, that

will strengthen their ability to withstand shocks, chronic

morbidity (illness and physical weakness) and mortality of

household members?

The importance of interrogating the impact of restitution

and land reform more generally on the livelihoods of

those intended to beneﬁt cannot be overstated. These

major programmes can achieve their goals of transferring

land, spending budgets, and noting the thousands of

‘beneﬁciaries’ but, unless all of this results in improved

livelihoods, land reform will not succeed. Restoring land

rights must lead to development, or the injustice of

dispossession will not have been undone. This will lay

the basis for making the economic argument for land

reform, and to do so by demonstrating that scaling up land

reform and changing the ways in which rural land is used

constitute an effective investment by the state, and by

South African society as a whole, in pro-poor development

and transformation.

To ensure that land reform constitutes the basis for improved

livelihoods for beneﬁciaries, and a worthy investment for

government, fresh perspectives in planning and practice will

be needed. These are itemised brieﬂy in the next section.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

6. Recommendations

• New ways of thinking about (and planning for)

livelihoods are now needed: Key to these is the need

to ﬁnd ‘ﬁt’ between project design and the proﬁles

of participants. For the poor, this means making risk

mitigation a central element in all projects. Livelihood

strategies for a population with a high incidence of

HIV/AIDS require low-labour intensity production

close to the homestead, crops that are resilient, low in

input and high in nutritional value, and small livestock

to supplement nutrition and provide a ready source

of cash income, alongside long-term investments in

larger livestock herds. There is also a need to structure

short-term as well as long-term beneﬁts. Over what

time horizon are livelihood impacts expected? How

does this inform decisions in the pre-settlement phase

and planning for post-settlement support?

• Planning must consider not only the agricultural

potential but also the production environment: As

well as considering what the land is good for, attention

must be paid to the existing livelihood structures and

strategies of future beneﬁciaries, and the range of

accessible markets, available skills, assets and capital

that will be available to them. Then consideration must

be given to what kinds of land use or enterprise will

work, given this context.

• Proﬁle participants’ socio-economic status and

resource base: This is a missing step in the project

cycle which must be done at the project inception

stage, to feed into project planning. This would also

serve the purpose of establishing a baseline for impact

assessment.

• Prioritise land use and settlement planning in the

pre-settlement phase: Planning for how land will be

used, on what terms, and by whom, and the necessary

agreements to provide support for settlement

(housing, services and infrastructure) need to be in

place prior to concluding a settlement agreement (in

the case of restitution).

• Identify a lead agency to implement each

settlement agreement: This is the only way to ensure

that institutional support does not fall between ‘stools’,

between, for example, the RLCC, the DLA, provincial

departments of agriculture and district and local

municipalities. Invest in institutional capacity within

these lead agencies and attach resources to their role

in supporting implementation of restitution and other

land reform projects.

• Differentiate between ownership, management

and use: There is a need to differentiate between

different units of ownership and management,

according to the intended use. In particular, land-use

planning should consider the subdivision of restored

land into smaller units for different, dedicated and

agreed-upon purposes.

• Be strategic about strategic partnerships: Build in

tangible and immediate beneﬁts for claimants and

buy in independent legal, economic and agricultural

expertise to advise them on available options and

their implications. Promote own use for claimants or

new owners, alongside strategic partnerships, in order

to enable them to pursue diversiﬁed livelihoods, and

to reduce their reliance on dividends or employment

which may take time to materialise.

• Prioritise options for direct access to land for

livelihood purposes: This is almost always less risky

for poor households than relying on indirect (and

uncertain) beneﬁts from leasing out their land, from

joint ventures or from large group activities.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

7. References

Aliber, M., Masika, P. and Quan, J. 2006. Land reform at scale: A

case study of land redistribution in the Elliot district, Eastern

Cape. Unpublished report to the National Treasury.

Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. June.

Andrew, M., Ainslie, A. and Shackleton, C. 2003. Land use

and livelihoods. Cape Town: Programme for Land and

Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape.

(Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa

occasional paper series; no. 8.)

Binswanger, H.P., Deininger, K. and Feder, G. 1995. Power,

distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land

relation, in Handbook of development economics (Vol.

3) edited by J. Berhman and T. Srinivasan. Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

CASE (Community Agency for Social Enquiry). 2006.

Assessment of the status quo of settled land restitution

claims with a developmental component nationally.

Research conducted for the Monitoring and Evaluation

Directorate, Department of Land Affairs. 14 February.

Conway, A. and Xipu, T. 2006. Securing post settlement

support towards sustainable restitution – Lessons from

Covie. Paper presented at the ‘Land, memory, justice and

reconciliation: Perspectives on land restitution in South

Africa’ Conference held at Houw Hoek Inn, Cape Town,

13–15 September.

Deininger, K. 2006. Land policy reforms, in Analyzing

the distributional impact of reforms ( Vol. I) edited by

A. Coudouel and S. Paternostro. Washington, D.C.: IBRD/

The World Bank.

DLA (Department of Land Affairs). 2003. Monitoring and

evaluating the quality of life of land reform beneﬁciaries

2000/2001. Technical report prepared by Citizen

Surveys, Cape Town, for the Department of Land Affairs,

Directorate Monitoring and Evaluation. January.

Greenberg, S. 2006. Land reform and local economic

development in Maluti-a-Phofung. PowerPoint

presentation to National Treasury. 10 July.

Hall, R. 2004. LRAD Rapid Systematic Assessment Survey: Nine

case studies in the Eastern Cape. Narrative report to the

Department of Land Affairs prepared by the Programme

for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western

Cape, Cape Town. 28 June.

Kleinbooi, K., Lahiff, E. and Boyce, T. 2006. Land reform,

farm employment and livelihoods. Western Cape case

study: Theewaterskloof Local Municipality. Cape Town:

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University

of the Western Cape and Pretoria: Human Sciences

Research Council. June.

Kinsey, B. 2000. The implications of land reform for rural

welfare, in Land reform in Zimbabwe: Constraints

and prospects, edited by T.A.S. Bowyer-Bower and

C. Stoneman. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishers:103–118.

Kinsey, B. 2005. A generation of land reform in Zimbabwe:

Evidence for an impact on livelihoods and rural welfare.

Seminar presented at the Programme for Land and

Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape

Town. 17 June.

Lahiff, E. and Cousins, B. 2005. Smallholder agriculture and

land reform in South Africa. IDS Bulletin, 36(2).

Lahiff, E., Hall, R. and Jacobs, P. 2003. Redistributive land

reform in South Africa. A scoping study for the project

Methods and Impacts of Land Access and Agrarian

Reform (MILAGRE). Unpublished paper, Programme for

Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western

Cape. Cape Town.

May, J. and Roberts, B. 2000. Monitoring and evaluating the

quality of life of land reform beneﬁciaries 1998/1999.

Summary report prepared for the Department of Land

Affairs. Final report. 19 June.

Murray, C. 1997. South African land reform: Case-studies

in ‘demand’ and ‘participation’ in the Free State. African

Affairs, 96:187–214.

Ncapayi, F. 2005. Land need in South Africa: Who wants land,

for what? Unpublished Masters thesis. Programme for

Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western

Cape.

Palmer, R., Kingwill, R., Hamer, N. and Coleman, M. 2006. The

Dwesa-Cwebe restitution claim: A case study as preparation

for a ﬁeld-based learning programme. Unpublished paper.

Cape Town: Phuhlisani Solutions.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

PLAAS (Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies).

2006. International comparative study of strategies for

settlement support provision to land reform beneﬁciaries.

Unpublished paper. Cape Town: Programme for Land

and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape,

and Sustainable Development Consortium.

Diagnostic studies

Bakwena ba Mare a Phogole (Klipgat) Community Restitution

Claim. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian

Studies, University of the Western Cape, and Sustainable

Development Consortium. August 2006.

Bjatladi Community Restitution Claim. Cape Town:

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the

Western Cape, and Sustainable Development Consortium.

August 2006.

Covie Community Land Claim. Cape Town: Programme for

Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape,

and Sustainable Development Consortium. August 2006.

eMpangisweni Community Trust Claim. Cape Town:

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the

Western Cape, and Sustainable Development Consortium.

August 2006.

Groenfontein-Ramohlakane Community Restitution Claim.

Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies,

University of the Western Cape, and Sustainable

Development Consortium. July 2006.

The Impact of Land Restitution and Land Reform on Livelihoods

Production Performance among The Restitution Farm Beneficiaries in Waterberg District, South Africa

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022

Farmland was regarded as the most important asset used to enhance agricultural productivity in developing countries to improve the livelihoods of restitution farm beneficiaries. Most, unfortunately, recent reports show decreased agricultural productivity in most developing countries. In South Africa, the Land restitution program was introduced to restore land to people dispossessed by apartheid government after 1913. However, production in the restitution farms has declined. This study aimed to address the non-performance of the restitution farms in Waterberg District and evaluate their production performance. A questionnaire was administered to gather quantitative data on the farms’ production and the benefits accrued from the farms. Data was captured using Geographic Information System (GIS), and then a remote sensing analysis method was used to map restitution farms to illustrate farms performance. Statistical Package for the Social Scientists (SPSS) version 25 was used to compute statistics on-farm production. About 83% of beneficiaries have not benefitted from the 32 farms, while 61.6% did not have markets, and 64% reported a lack of farms income. Generally, lack of farm production impeded beneficiaries from receiving benefits and employment. The study recommended that private organizations and sector departments work together to assist beneficiaries with capacity building, marketing of farm produce, and funds to improve production.

Examining the meanings of ‘restitution’ for beneficiaries of the Macleantown and Salem restitution cases in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2022

Mzingaye Brilliant Xaba

Through land restitution, a component of land reform, the state seeks to restore the dignity of black communities who lost their land during colonial and apartheid times. Land restitution seeks to return the land that was unfairly grabbed from black people or to offer alternative land or cash compensation. Much public discourse and research on South African land reform has been on the failure of land reform projects and on land acquisition debates. Little research has been published foregrounding the voices of beneficiaries. By capturing their lived experiences after land transfer, this paper examines whether these beneficiaries have been “restituted.” My study in the Macleantown and Salem restitution cases shows that access to land has restored the dignity of beneficiaries and produced nostalgia because of the return of ancestors’ land, although the livelihoods of beneficiaries have not improved and these projects have failed to function. I argue that these land compensated beneficiaries have not been properly ‘restituted,’ because the programme has failed to improve their livelihoods or to produce modern solutions for the restitution programme. Land restitution in these areas has largely not led to land justice because beneficiaries are living in poverty.

South African land restitution and development: the capabilities approach to an understanding of the Macleantown and Salem restitution projects in the Eastern Cape

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2020
Transformation

Mzingaye Brilliant Xaba

Smallholder Farmer Support Analysis Part 2: Theory of Change -Business model design for smallholder farmer support

Research

Full-text available

Nov 2019

Wytske Chamberlain

Commissioned by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency, this report presents a practically oriented Theory of Change to develop business models for successful and sustainable smallholder integration into commercial value chains.

Factors influencing savings among land reform beneficiaries in South Africa

Article

Oct 2018
Int J Soc Econ

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine the effects of socio-economic factors of land redistribution for agricultural development project beneficiaries on savings in the North West Province, South Africa. Design/methodology/approach A binary logistic regression model was employed to determine the effects of socio-economic factors of project beneficiaries on their savings. Findings The results show that the average number of trainings attended by the beneficiaries, the proportion of youth per project and the average net farm income of the project positively and significantly influence the level of savings by the beneficiaries. About 62 percent of the beneficiaries did not have savings; thus, only 38 percent of beneficiaries had savings. Of the 38 percent who had savings, the majority (77 percent) had an annual net farm income of less than R1,000. Only 2 percent of the projects had an annual net farm income of more than R10,000. Research limitations/implications The findings of this study are valuable to policymakers dealing with the issue of land reform and could shed some light on how land redistribution can achieve its intended purposes. These findings should be granted serious consideration when formulating policies aimed at improving savings within collective groups. Practical implications The findings of this study have revealed the importance of training and participation of youth in influencing savings. As well, the findings imply that an organization or household with a health income have a higher propensity of saving. Social implications The research findings point out to the importance of saving. With savings, a household is in a better position to deal with situations that arises in case of emergency. Originality/value This paper is among the few studies to analyze the determinants of savings at a group or project level. Most studies are done at household or individual level.

Agrarian reform and South Africa's agro-food system

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2015

Stephen Greenberg

The dominant corporate structure of South Africa’s agro-food system has led many to suggest there is limited value in redistributing land as a scarce economic resource, or in providing support to black small-scale farmers when large agribusinesses are capable of meeting food needs. Agrarian reform (land reform plus black small-scale farmer support) is not a necessary component of the existing economic system in South Africa. Yet it has tremendous political importance, especially in the context of a stagnant or declining job market. After considering the development of the corporate agro-food system in South Africa, and its impact on agrarian reform, this paper concludes that agrarian reform as a political project and a vision retains the potential to contribute not only to a more just society, but also to progressive economic transformation.

Implications of land restitution as a Transformative Social Policy for Water-Energy-Food (WEF) insecurity in Magareng Local Municipality, South Africa

Article

Oct 2023
LAND USE POLICY

Saul Ngarava

Indigenous knowledge systems and gender relations interface and its implications for food security: The case of Khambashe rural households in the Amathole District, South Africa

Thesis

Full-text available

Feb 2022

Tendayi Garutsa

Konflikt o ziemię w RPA. Jego uwarunkowania historyczne, ekonomiczno-społeczne, prawne i polityczne

Article

Jan 2021

Andrzej Gąsowski

Land and Justice in South Africa: Exploring the Ambiguous Role of the State in the Land Claims Process

Article

Jan 2012

Thembela Kepe

In addition to challenges facing South Africa’s overall post-apartheid land reform, group rural land claims have particularly proven difficult to resolve. This paper explores the role that the state plays in shaping the outcomes of rural group land claims. It analyzes policy statements, including from policy documents, guidelines and speeches made by politicians during ceremonies to hand over land rights to rural claimants; seeking to understand the possible motives, factual correctness, as well as impact, of these statements on the trajectory of the settled land claims. The paper concludes that land reform as practiced in South Africa is functionally and discursively disembedded from socio-political histories of dispossession, because land has come to be treated more as a commodity, rather than as something that represents multiple meanings for different segments of society. Like many processes leading up to a resolution of a rural claim, subsequent statements by government concerning particular ‘successful’ land claims convey an assumption that local claimants have received just redress; that there was local consensus on what form of land claim redress people wanted, and that the state’s lead role in suggesting commercial farming or tourism as land use options for the new land rights holders is welcome. The paper shows that previous in-depth research on rural land claims proves that the state’s role in the success or failure of rural land claims is controversial at best.

Land policy reforms

Article

Full-text available

Klaus Deininger

1 This note is meant to be a quick source on key land policy issues for practitioners and policymakers. 1 It also aims to provide information on the way poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA) can be used to explore hypotheses so as to address these issues properly. To be effective, PSIAs must explicitly take into account the needs and priorities of stakeholders in an ongoing policy dialogue. The note therefore identifies the requirements so that PSIAs can fit into an ongoing policy dialogue or, if there is no such dialogue, generate one on a topic of particular land policy relevance. The discussion of substantive and methodological subjects related to PSIAs is brief as these are examined in more detail elsewhere (Deininger 2003; Bourguignon and Pereira da Silva 2003). The note focuses on two key land policy interventions: securing land tenure and improving access to land. The section on securing land tenure highlights ways to enhance tenure security and the impact of greater tenure security on investment, conflicts over land, and land market participation. The section on access to land covers the important principles and policies. PSIAs depend on quantitative information that is often not available through standard household surveys. For this reason, the note also considers practical questions about sampling and about questionnaire design so that household and community surveys can make a meaningful and quantifiable contribution to the land policy dialogue.

The Implications of Land Reform for Rural Welfare

Chapter

May 2018

B. H. Kinsey

South African land reform: Case-studies in 'demand' and 'participation' in the free state

Article

Apr 1997

Colin Murray

This article offers an ethnographic cross-section in one province of South Africa's new land reform programme. ‘Demand’ and ‘participation’ are the rhetorical keywords of the programme. Demand for land redistribution, however, cannot be understood in abstraction from the political and economic conditions of its supply. Similarly, ‘participation’ is a managed process involving many institutional intermediaries. A series of illustrative case-studies is presented, relating to the allocation of state-owned land; state-facilitated ‘market’ access to privately-owned land; the reconstruction and partial privatization of a para-statal development agency, which have brought into question the viability of a ‘community conservation’ project and also exposed the agency to political cross-fire; and, finally, some intricacies of the possibility of land restitution to people dispossessed under apartheid, which raises the question of whether the concept of indirect racial discrimination may be applied in the South African context. Several contradictions of the process of land redistribution are analysed: for example, the massive financial costs, direct and indirect, of bringing projects to fruition in the short term, without resolution of the need for long-term support; the divergence between nominal and actual beneficiaries; political and institutional conflicts, both inside and outside the state; and routine incompatibility between the diverse aspirations of beneficiaries and the ‘business plans’ required by bureaucrats and suppliers of credit.

Revolt and Reform in Agricultural Land Relations

Article

Dec 1995
Handbook Dev Econ

This chapter inquires into the efficiency and equity consequences of rental and sales markets for agricultural land in the developing world. Most of the work on the relationship between farm size and productivity strongly suggests that farms that rely mostly on family labor have higher productivity levels than large farms operated primarily with hired labor. An examination of the historical evolution of land rights shows the reason for the deviations: rights over land and the concentration of ownership observed in most developing countries at the end of World War II are outgrowths of power relationships. The chapter describes the variety of land relations and their consequences for the efficiency of agricultural production. The chapter also we examines how these power relations emerged and what legal means enabled relatively few landowners to accumulate and hold on to large landholdings. The methodological epilogue examines how various strands of economic theory have contributed, or failed to contribute, to the explanation of variations in policies, distortions and land relations over space and time.

Monitoring and evaluating the quality of life of land reform beneficiaries 1998/1999. Summary report prepared for the Department of Land Affairs. Final report

Jun 2000

J May
B Roberts

May, J. and Roberts, B. 2000. Monitoring and evaluating the quality of life of land reform beneficiaries 1998/1999. Summary report prepared for the Department of Land Affairs. Final report. 19 June.

Redistributive land reform in South Africa. A scoping study for the project Methods and Impacts of Land Access and Agrarian Reform (MILAGRE)

Jan 2003

E Lahiff
R Hall
P Jacobs

Lahiff, E., Hall, R. and Jacobs, P. 2003. Redistributive land reform in South Africa. A scoping study for the project Methods and Impacts of Land Access and Agrarian Reform (MILAGRE). Unpublished paper, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape. Cape Town.

Land reform, farm employment and livelihoods. Western Cape case study: Theewaterskloof Local Municipality. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies

Jun 2006

K Kleinbooi
E Lahiff
T Boyce

Kleinbooi, K., Lahiff, E. and Boyce, T. 2006. Land reform, farm employment and livelihoods. Western Cape case study: Theewaterskloof Local Municipality. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape and Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. June.

Land need in South Africa: Who wants land, for what? Unpublished Masters thesis. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies

Jan 2005

F Ncapayi

Ncapayi, F. 2005. Land need in South Africa: Who wants land, for what? Unpublished Masters thesis. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape.

Land use and livelihoods. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape. (Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa occasional paper series

Jan 2003

M Andrew
A Ainslie
C Shackleton

Andrew, M., Ainslie, A. and Shackleton, C. 2003. Land use and livelihoods. Cape Town: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape. (Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa occasional paper series; no. 8.)

Land reform at scale: A case study of land redistribution in the Elliot district, Eastern Cape

Jul 2006

M Aliber
P Masika
J Quan

Aliber, M., Masika, P. and Quan, J. 2006. Land reform at scale: A case study of land redistribution in the Elliot district, Eastern Cape. Unpublished report to the National Treasury. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. June.

The impact of land restitution and land reform on livelihoods

Abstract

Recommended publications

Land Reform in South Africa: The Conversation That Never Took Place

Bjatladi community restitution claim

How rural land reform policy translates into benefits

The Right to Land Restitution as Inspiration for Mobilization