The scope of land reform in most countries includes some mix of access to land and formalisation of land rights and entitlements, as well as improving post-reform production structures and livelihoods (Ghimire, 2001: 7-10). Ghimire argues that the scope of land reform varies from country to country, or even from locality to locality. In most Latin American countries, Southern Africa and a few Asian countries such as Philippines, large landholding persist and fertile land is concentrated in the hands of a few. It therefore prevents prospects for acquisition of land by the poorer peasants and rural workers. Ghimire (2001) argues that when such people are provided with land and support, they could be assisted to move out of poverty through land use initiatives that increase household income and food security.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON LAND REFORM
Land reform is generally understood as the redistribution of rights in land for the benefit of the landless, tenants and farm labourers (Adams 1995: 1). Ghimire (2001: 3) takes the definition further by stating that it involves a significant change in the agrarian structure resulting in increased access to land by the rural poor and security of land rights and titles. He further includes improvement in production structures e.g. access to agricultural inputs, markets and services such as extension, training for small farmers, rural workers and other beneficiaries during the post-land reform period as forming a critical part of land reform. Among reasons for advocating land reform and tenure security is that access to land by the rural population should be seen as being an essential human right and showing respect for human dignity, it also provides the rural poor with the possibility of access to shelter, food, employment and improved livelihood (Ghimire ,2001: 3).
Manenzhe(2007) pointed out that In the international arena, land reform was propelled on to the development agenda in order to destroy the undemocratic concentrations of power which was based on skewed patterns of land ownership. After the Second World War, land reform in the international setting, particularly Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, was executed in the model of land-to-the-tiller (Bruce: 1993). In this model, tenants became owners of the land that they had previously farmed as tenants. Griffin et al (2002) argue that these countries had common characteristic of scarcity of land, high incidence of tenancy and unequal distribution of land, therefore land scarcity became the basis for land distribution rather than shunning away from land redistribution. Land reform was based on buying land from those who owned more land than the law entitled one to own (Manenzhe , 2007)
Manenzhe (2007) defined the examples of China and Vietnam as more radical because the transition from collective to private models of cultivation was been associated with large increases in productivity, as in the cases of China (McMillan et al., 1989; Lin, 1992) and Vietnam (Que, 1998; Ravallion & van deWalle, 2002). In the period between the 1960s and the 1970s there was a strong move to undo the concentration of land ownership through land reform in the Latin America with the aim to move people off the latifundi (large landed estates) (Griffin et al., 2002). Bernstein (2002) argues that the starting point for land reform is rooted in the exploitation of the peasants or landless workers by the owners of landed property. Manenzhe (2007) explained that in most cases land reforms were brought about by the actions of social movements and labour organisations leading to upheavals, rebellions and other forms of protest. Examples of struggles that led to fundamental changes in the agrarian property regimes are Russia and Mexico in the early twentieth century; Eastern and South-eastern Europe and China in the interwar period, Bolivia in the 1950s, Vietnam and Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s, Cuba and Peru in the 1960s and Nicaragua in the 1970s and 1980s(Manenzhe, 2007).
LAND REFORM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
According to Republic of Namibia (1991) approximately 52% of arable land was held under freehold title under whites, while 48% remained in the communal lands. Namibian land reform sought to bring about equitable land distribution, promote sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty and lower income inequality. Currently two main redistribution programmes are being implemented, i.e. Farm Unit Resettlement Scheme (FURS) accommodating small-scale farmers and the Affirmative Action Loan Scheme (AALS) targeting large-scale farmers who were previously disadvantaged. However, it is difficult to measure progress in land redistribution (FURS) and no realistic and uniform official targets exist. In terms of AALS, no specific targets has been placed, As opposed to FURS, AALS is demand driven and is limited by funding made available by Government to Agribank.
According to Toulmin and Quan (2000: 285) land ownership was central to the battle for independence in Mozambique. At independence in 1975, nearly all colonial settlers left the country and all land was nationalised. The 1979 and 1986 Land Laws permitted individuals to title their land and established titles issued by Government as being the only mechanism for foreign access to land. Toulmin etal. 2000 continued to explain that Mozambique was able to deal with the issues of land ownership when they passed the July 1972 law that allowed the state to lease land to individuals, companies or communities for up to 100 years. Manenzhe (2007) further explained that in 2007 the land laws were revised seven years ago in a fusion of formal and customary law that recognises written contracts as well as traditional tenure systems. Buildings can be privately owned but all land is owned by the state. Permission can be secured for 50-year renewable leases. He continued to reveal that previously when buildings were sold, owners had to go through a lengthy reapplication to acquire permission to lease the land. Under the new law, land leases automatically transfer with building sales. However, Manenzhe appreciates the new law because it protects the rights of farmers who inherit land without formal land leases, makes it easier for commercial users to obtain legally binding land leases, and guarantees the rights of women to inherit and own property on their own.
According to Lahif (2007) in Zimbabwe, the land question was high on the political agenda in the 1980s, dormant for much of the 1990s, but bounced back into the limelight in 1999. Palmer (1990: 163) argues that land prominently featured in the elections which Robert Mugabe called on the eve of the 10th Anniversary of Independence. According to Moyo (1995) the re-emergence of land reform on the development agenda in the mid 1990s and the re-launching of the resettlement programme in Zimbabwe mark the latest phase of a dialectic relationship between peasants, Government and global institutions. Post 2000, land reform in Zimbabwe has been characterised by what was called ‘land invasions’ which is a generic term used to denote a negative view of politically organised trespassing of farms led by war veterans. The amendment of the constitution and the land acquisition act reflected a major formal effort to challenge the imposed rules on colonial land property rights. Kinsey’s (1999: 173- 177) account of Zimbabwe’s land reform is that it involves approaches that emphasise uniform family based holdings (Model A), collective co-operatives (Model B), and links between satellite producers and centralised commercial crop and livestock production and processing (Model C). It also includes efforts to devise an approach to resettlement to suit the needs of populations in the semi-arid parts of the country (Model D).
LAND REFORM IN SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa is characterised by enormous inequalities as a result of the policies of apartheid implemented by the previous regime. According to Levin and Weiner (1991: 92) there were approximately 82 million hectares of agricultural land in the country, divided into 60 000 commercial farm units in white ownership, while over 13 million people, the majority of them poverty-stricken, lived in the 13% of the national territory that constituted the former ‘homelands’. This was the kind of skewed pattern of land ownership that the democratic Government of South Africa inherited (Lahiff, 2007). The people of South Africa expected fundamental transformation of property rights after 1994.
Bernstein (1996) cited in Manenzhe(2007) suggests that the agrarian question of South Africa is both ‘extreme and exceptional’. His example of these in the South African situation is based on the fact that in the world there is an extreme distribution of income and poverty associated with it. Furthermore, South Africa has the most extreme distribution of land: 60 000 white farms occupy 86% of the total land area (85, 8 m ha) of which 10 6 million hectares is under arable cultivation (Bernstein, 1996). He further argued that on the other hand 14 million people in the Bantustans occupied land equivalent to one-sixth of that fenced by white farms. The extreme conditions of life in the former Bantustans and severely constrained availability of, and access to, the means of farming underlie much of the consideration of South Africa’s exceptional agrarian question and what makes it exceptional. He argues that the policies of the segregation and apartheid eras excluded blacks from the main economy by reducing them, legally, to be sources of cheap labour. The social and political order of the day promoted and safeguarded the interests of white commercial farmers. The majority of the oppressed were trapped and lived in poverty within the ‘homelands’.
However, Baldwin (1975) sees the application of the apartheid policy in 1948 and other legislation in the 1960s e.g. the Group Areas Acts of 1950 and 1957, the Native Resettlement Act of 1954, the Native Trust and Land Amendment Act of 1954, as the acts that led to mass removals of many people from what was called the white South Africa (Baldwin, 1975). Due to land dispossessions black people were led into different kind of poverty, unable to farm for themselves since they were reduced to being a source of labour without any ownership of land. Platzky and Walker ( 1985) explained that in the homelands/Bantustans people lived in the marginal lands with lack of access to the market opportunities, credit facilities, infrastructure and other services to which their white counterparts had access. Land became one of the major issues for people involved in the struggle against white domination (Platzky and Walker: 1985).
The LRAD programme
In 2001 the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development programme, a sub-programme of the redistribution programme, was introduced to provide land mainly for full-time emergent black farmers. LRAD represents a shift away for providing land for the poor to providing land for agriculture for those with the means to farm. It also indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the authorities in the ability of the rural poor to engage in agricultural production for self-provisioning or for the market. Under LRAD there has been an increase in the size of the land grants available, depending on the contribution made by the farmer. As a result of these changes, there have recently been a growing number of better-resourced small family groups or individual households accessing land through the land reform programme (Bezuidenhout, pers. comm.). However, these households usually have access to some form of off-farm income and have pooled their resources to acquire the land. Some are also supplementing their grants with their own contributions and with loans to purchase the land. Among such households there appears to be a clear intention to farm, some on a commercial basis, but the land will also be used for self-provisioning. However, it seems clear that most of these households will continue to rely on off-farm sources of income. Given the importance of diverse and multiple livelihood strategies in reducing vulnerability and ensuring survival, any policy that runs counter to this trend risks being ignored or, at worst, risks increasing the vulnerability of rural households and threatening the sustainability of these land reform initiatives.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS FOR LAND REFORM PROGRAMME IN SOUTH AFRICA
A number of legislative instrument are relevant in this study, these includes:
‘ Native Land Act (Act 27 Of 1913)
‘ The Restitution Of Land Rights (Act 22 Of 1994)
‘ The Constitution Of The Republic Of South Africa Act (108 Of 1996) (Section 25-26)
‘ Land Reform (Labour Tenants) (Act 3 Of 1996 )
‘ 1997 White Paper On South African Land Policy
NATIVE LAND ACT (ACT 27 OF 1913)
According to the Native Land Act (Act 27 of 1913):
A native (black) shall not enter into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire, or other acquisition from a person other than a native, of any such land or of any right thereto, interest there in, or servitude there over;
A person other than a native shall not enter into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire, or other acquisition from a native of any such land or of any right thereto, interest therein, or servitude there over.
No person other than a native shall purchase, hire or in any other manner whatever acquire any land in a scheduled native area into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire or other acquisition, direct or indirect, of any such land or of any right thereto or interest therein or servitude there over, except with the approval of the Governor General.
A significant feature of this Act was that of the unequal distribution of land between blacks and whites. The area for the white minority population was ten times larger than that of the black majority population. Two key issues determined the amount of land to be reserved for each group race. The “superior” needs of the whites as opposed to the “primitive” needs of the blacks and the need for black labour to work on the mines in white areas, industries and farms due to the lack of white labourers in the white economy.
The Native land Act 27 of 1913 also stipulate that there must be: Separate residential areas, trade unions and, if practical, separate places of work. The reservation of employment in certain directions for white labour only and in accordance with a determined, just and equitable quota for whites and non-whites.
The Native Land Act of 1913 was designed as an interim measure to maintain the status quo regarding land ownership. It can also been seen by many as being an attempt to reduce competition in white areas by peasant producers. The loss of land by blacks, through this Act, was a severe blow for black peasantry and the black economy. The tribal economy and traditional mode of production could not survive without more land and access to white resources (Tatz: l961:27). For most of this century (indeed since the Native Land Act of 1913) right to own, rent or even share land in South Africa depended upon a person’s racial classification. The so-called reserves were the only place where Africans could lawfully acquire land, and after the law was promulgated no African was allowed to buy land outside the proclaimed boundaries of the reserves nor were they allowed to rent such land in the future. Those Africans who already entered white owned land were to be phased out over time as of 1913. The areas identified for African occupation in the Native Land Act of 1913 were basically those areas that had already been reserved as black land in each of the provinces (Platzky and Walker, 1985: 183). Africans were only allowed to live outside the boundaries of the reserves when they lived on white owned land as labour tenants, or fully waged workers. This Act satisfied both the mining industry and the farmers. By restraining black people from living outside the border of the reserves, they were forced to either become permanent farm workers or migrating mine labourers. In addition, the Native Land Act 27 of 1913 boosted the system of migrant labour, which had great sociological effects on the households living in the reserves. This migrant system was the main reason why the reserve areas never developed since black workers, mostly men, migrated to the white areas to earn an income while the people in the Reserve maintained a subsistence economy (Platzky and Walker; 1985: 184). The land identified for black occupation was too small for the number of people that were living there. This led to the deterioration of land under the pressure of overgrazing and intensive farming .
THE RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS ACT 22 OF 1994
The Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 (Act 22 of 1994) provides for the restitution of rights in land in respect of which persons or communities were dispossessed under, or for the purpose of furthering the object of racially based discriminatory legislation. Forced removals in support of racial segregation have caused suffering and hardship. Considering the fact that more than 3.5 million people and their descendants have been victims of racially based dispossession and forced removals, it is clear that a huge responsibility rests on the state to give effect to restitution of land rights. The goal of the government’s restitution policy is to restore land and to provide for other restitutionary remedies to people dispossessed by racially discriminatory legislation. Restitution is an integral part of the broader land reform program and is closely linked to the redistribution of land and land tenure reform programme to address the need for redistribution of land and land tenure reform (White Paper on land reform).
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ACT (108 OF 1996) (SECTION 25-26)
The Constitution is the highest law in the country and everyone will be bound by the Constitution therefore any law that go against the Constitution would be changed or set aside. However, Section 25 deals with land reform. It stipulates that the government must make laws and take steps to help people or communities to get land to live on, and to claim back land, which they had lost after 1913 because of apartheid’s law. The section on human rights in the Constitution may be considered as the point of departure of the discussion on land and restitution. This issue of human rights and constitutional obligations will be discussed below.
A definition of human rights
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of 1996 is the outcome of constitutional negotiations. It contains, inter alia, the human rights that will form the basis of the protection of the individual land rights of the people of South Africa. The Bill of Rights is manifested in the lack of access to productive land, homelessness and high levels of insecure tenure. The post-Apartheid government developed a land reform programme, which focused on three important areas:
‘ land redistribution to address the lack of access to land for productive and residential purposes;
‘ land restitution to restore land to those who lost land due to previous discriminatory laws and
‘ secure tenure to those whose tenure is insecure.
Section 25(5) deals with equitable access to land, section 25(6) addresses restitution; 25(7) concerns security of tenure; and 25(8) identifies land, water and related reforms, as purposes that should not be impeded by 25 (1). So in a lighter note, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa sets out the legal basis for land reform, particularly in the Bill of Rights. Section 25 of the constitution places a clear responsibility on the state to carry out land and related reforms, and grants specific rights to victims of past discrimination. It allows for expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to just and equitable compensation, and states explicitly that ‘the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources’.
LAND REFORM (LABOUR TENANTS) (ACT 3 OF 1996)
Because of the Labour Tenant Act (Act 3 of 1996), a special programme was lodged to assist the process of the claiming of land and specific procedures were implemented to make it possible to enforce the Act. The aim of the land redistribution programme is to assist the poor, labour tenants, farm workers, women, and well as emerging farmers. The role of the state is to assist in the purchasing of land, but generally not as buyer or owner. It makes land acquisition grants available and supports and finance the required planning process.
1997 WHITE PAPER ON SOUTH AFRICAN LAND POLICY
The policy framework for land reform was set out in the 1997 White Paper on South African Land Policy and identifies three broad categories of reform:
‘ land restitution, which provides relief for victims of forced dispossession;
‘ land redistribution, a discretionary programme to redress the racial imbalance in landholding;
‘ tenure reform, intended to secure and extend the tenure rights of the victims of past discriminatory practices.
Progress in the three pillars of our land reform approach has been limited.the progress is discussed below:
Some progress has been made with regard to the restitution of land dispossessed under apartheid with 77 149 of the 79 696 initial restitution claims received having been processed. Between 1995 and 2013, the state has acquired 4001 parcels of land with a total size of 1.44m ha for restitution purposes at a total cost of R10 billion (Nkwiti, 2013 ). The total cost of the restitution programme to date has been R16 billion, of which R10 billion was used for land acquisition and R6 billion has been paid out as financial compensation to claimants (Nkwiti, 2013). In the 77 148 claims that have been settled, more that 92% of claimants (71 292) preferred financial compensation over land restoration (Nkwiti, 2013).
Nkwiti(2013) also stated that between 1994 and January 2013, 4 813 farms (with a total size of 4.12 million ha) were transferred to black South Africans through various redistribution programmes. The state spent R12.9 billion in acquiring this land, (Nkwiti, 2013).
In terms of tenure reform, the government’s focus has been primarily on securing the tenure rights of farm workers and labour tenants. The land rights of citizens living in communal land areas remain fundamentally unsecure
APPROACHES TO LAND REFORM
Land reform is a very complicated process that takes place at different scales, with different actors, and that interacts with other processes in society.
It would therefore be a huge task to capture land reform in its totality. For these reason scholars, academics, policy makers and other people had utterly taken a particular perspective with which they observe, discuss and evaluate land reform.
The focus of the actor oriented approach is directed at people and everyday practices that form a crucial, but often overlooked, dimension of land reform studies. So, from an actor oriented approach land reform is an outcome of negotiations and interactions between different actors, not only between groups but also within groups. These include policy makers, lobbyists, agribusinesses companies, NGO’s, the World Bank and social movements (Koster, 2009). A useful way to analyze the implementation of land reform is by conceptualizing it as a script (Hebinck, 2008). Reading land reform policy as a script means that to understand the script you must be aware of the historical and current conditions that shaped it and the perspective that is being used to promote it. Studying the different actors and their interactions allows us to find out how they affect the script. So although the main goal of land reform was to address the injustice caused by apartheid, the script now includes the modernization of agriculture as an aim. Actors cannot always be reduced to a homogeneous group.
In terms of negotiations between actors, land reform does not only involve beneficiaries and policy makers. Other actors may (directly or indirectly) affect the land reform process. Land owners and consultants often play important parts in this. These negotiations are not always constraining but may equally lead to arrangements that are more suitable than that envisaged by the consultants (Koster, 2009). Negotiation also takes place within the group of farmers. Land is usually granted to groups for instance in this study, the land was granted to Mavungeni people. Although these groups may have a common ancestry in the land they should not be seen as a homogeneous group. There are differences in gender, age, and most have lived in very different places after eviction. These differences have led to conflicts and make cooperation between the actors difficult.
The Neoclassical Theory
The neoclassical theory of land reform looks at land reform as an integral part of the strategy and policy of economic development, (Doner 1975). Neoclassical economic theory examines the issue of land reform from a methodological individualist point of view. Furthermore, it argues that the marginal return to each and every economic agent will asymptotically approach the marginal return to the society as a whole, (Roelano, 2007). It states that the entrepreneur combines land, labor, capital and material input to produce output (Dadzie, 2007). The services of the factors of production must be purchased from other individuals who possess property rights over the factors (unless the entrepreneur is the owner).
Unfortunately, when viewing the South African land reform from the neoclassical perspective, it shows that the government administered redistribution of land from landowners to emerging farmers would likely to reduce the agricultural output, thus threatening the national food security. This will be due to the lack of the provision of capital and material input that is emphasized by the neoclassical theory. However, Lahiff (2009: 48) emphasised that if land reform is to meet its wider objectives, new ways will have to be found to transfer land on a substantial scale and to provide necessary support services to a much wider class of land owners.
In the QwaQwa area in the eastern Free State of South Africa is another case study that demonstrates the challenges that emerging farmers are experiencing in grain production. The farmers were allocated land during the apartheid era in a prime grain producing region. Farms were allocated on the basis of previous experience in agriculture. The overarching objectives of the QwaQwa emerging farmers project were the development of a viable agricultural sector with a well-established farming community, the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities, food security, creation of job opportunities in agriculture and supporting industries, and an increase in the general standard of living of the people of QwaQwa. Farm planning and the provision of infrastructure were done by Agriqwa. Technical and extension officers employed by Agriqwa provided emerging farmers with technical, financial, administrative, marketing and managerial services. The following criteria served as guidelines with the planning of farm units:
‘ Viable units were identified on the basis of agricultural potential and farming operations most suitable for a specific area
‘ Against this background units were planned with the aim to realise optimal returns
‘ Prospective farmers were screened according to set selection criteria and farms were assigned according to the farming preferences of the individual farmers
The challenges facing emerging farmers in the QwaQwa area are stifling opportunities for achieving the goal of using land reform as a tool for economic growth and food security. This area demonstrates that most farmers who were allocated land over two decades ago are still ’emerging’ regardless of the huge financial investment that government has made through the Land Bank. Despite this huge investment the department of agriculture is still understaffed and unable to provide effective extension services to the farmers while former experimental farms are almost derelict. Despite the viability problems that emerging farmers are facing, many of the farmers are reluctant to sell their farms, demonstrating the hopes they hold about land ownership and the role that access to agricultural land plays as the only source of livelihood amongst emerging farmers. This means land is likely to be ‘locked away’ from the land market and potentially more productive farmers by some underperforming farmers. This is against the background that the establishment of emerging farmers has been constrained by available land resources (Land Bank 2011a).
The Mmamathola community land claim is one of the settled came out as a disappointment and an embarrassment to agricultural to Buanews (2006), the restoration of 3566 hectare productive land was handled to the Letsoalo community as part of restitution programme in early (2001), after they were forcefully dispossessed 44 years ago. When the community moved back, they found the land rich with orchards. The community appointed a committee to manage the farm on its behalf but inexpensive counted against them. The Mmamathola claim collapsed and the financial management was thrown into a chaotic state because of management skills. The debacle led to the national department of land affairs (which is now Rural Development and Land Reform) applying for court interdict to take over the management of the farm.
According to Moabelo (2007), the transfer of the farm to Makotopong community took place in 2002.The hand over of the management to the management committee quickly led to a standstill of farming operations and a rapid decline in the general condition of the project. The complexity and integrated nature of the farming operations and the lack of necessary skills and inexperience of the Makotopong CPA management community proved to be the reason behind the decline. High expectations of the CPA members and beneficiaries led to unwise decisions being taken, which in some fortunate cases led to further to vandalism, mismanagement and even fraud. Since the transfer of ownership, little activity has been possible under present circumstances. Conditions on the farms deteriorated and certain enterprises even suffered irreversible damage. Minor repairs and maintenance were not undertaken and infrastructure such as the residences, buildings and fixed improvements deteriorated, (Moebelo, 2007).
CHALLENGES OF EMERGING FARMERS AS LAND REFORM BENEFICIERIES
A survey by Department of Land Affairs (1998) known as Quality of Life, has found out that, critical support services such as production loans, agricultural extension, infrastructure, and project management training were identified as being important for the sustainability of land reform projects. In related study, Jacob (2003) identified key functional areas of support for land reform beneficiaries; namely, extension services (farming advice), skills development and capacity building; including training and mentoring programmes, financial assistance in the form of grants and credit to assist with farming operations, infrastructure support such as irrigation and fencing, and access to markets ranging from local sales which are mainly informal to marketing arrangements with commodity organisations.
The major policy problem for emerging farmers is found in the group approach to development. Most farmers experiencing failure are operating in groups. According to the participants, group dynamics can be a challenge (land bank research report, 2011). It is sometimes difficult for farmers in a group to have the same vision, objectives or ethics in production activities. The size of the group may also affect the possible returns that individual members receive, which puts additional pressure on the project. Groups of farmers often experience more difficulties with the production process. This is evident when considering the one Bank-funded dairy project in Queenstown, Eastern Cape. On this farm, very few members of the group were actively contributing to running the farm (land bank research report, 2011).
According to the land bank research report (2011) there is a need to provide policy guidelines as to which farmers should qualify for state assistance. Currently, in terms of the White Paper for Agriculture (1995), everyone is viewed as a potential farmer even if they lack the attributes required for success. According to participants, this practice leads to blind selection. It further states that the screening and evaluation of a farmer is often inadequate so it must be stressed that the poor selection process is one of the main causes for the failure of emerging farmers. The land bank research report (2011) mentioned that due to poor screening process, deserving farmers may not receive proper support, and society suffers as a result. Therefore, policies should provide guidance for the selection of emerging farmers qualifying for state assistance.
Another constraint that has been mentioned pertaining emerging farmers is access to markets and information. This issue relates to aftercare support.
When emerging farmers are established in agriculture, there are no support services readily available and farmers are left to fend for themselves, which leads to failures.
Department of Land Affairs. 1997. White Paper on South African Land Policy, Pretoria
Department of Land Affairs. 1998. Annual Quality of Life Report. Pretoria: Directorate: Monitoring and Evaluation
Doner, P. (1977), Land Reform in Latin America-Issues and Cases. Land Tenure Centre
Ghimire, KB. 2001. Land Reform and Peasant Livelihoods: The social Dynamics of rural poverty and agrarian reforms in developing countries. ITDG Publishing. London
Lahiff, E. 2007. A review of land reform and poverty in South Africa. Unpublished workshop paper. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape. 12 April 2007.
Manenzhe,J. T.2007. Post Settlement Challenges For Land Reform Beneficiaries. Mphil Mini-Thesis.University of Western Cape.
Moyo, S. 1995. The Land Question in Zimbabwe. Harare: SAPES Books
Nkwinti, G. 2013a. Speech by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Gugile Nkwinti (MP) at the debate on the State of the Nation Address – ‘Building vibrant, equitable, and sustainable rural communities’ – National Assembly, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.Available.[Online]: http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=34328&tid=98998 (March 2013).
Palmer, R. 1990. Land Reform in Zimbabwe, 1980 ‘ 1990. African Affairs 89.
Platsky, L & Walker, C .1985. The Surplus People: Forced removal in South Africa. Johannesburg, Ravan Press
Roehlano, B., 2007: Impacts Of Land Reform: Neoclassical Perspective. Available at:
Republic of Namibia (RoN) 1991. National Conference on Land Reform and the Land Question. Windhoek : Office of the Minister.
Republic of South Africa, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996), Pretoria: Government Printer, 1996.
Tatz, C.M. 1961. Shadow and substance in South Africa. Pietermarizburg: University of Natal Press. 13p
Toulmin, C. & Quan, J. 2000. Evolving land rights, tenure and policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: Department for International Development (DIFD)
Van Rooyen, J., & Njobe-Mbuli B. 1996. ‘Access to Land: Selecting the beneficiaries’. In . In Agricultural Land Reform in South Africa: Policies, markets and mechanisms. Van Zyl, Kirsten & Binswanger (ed).