Afasa warns land reform failures are setting black farmers up to fail
· Citizen
The African Farmers’ Association of South Africa (Afasa) believes the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development is setting back the whole process of land restitution by not providing sufficient support to black farmers.
Visit grenadier.co.za for more information.
Many who have been given farms as part of restitution programmes have not been given the title deeds they were promised, meaning they cannot use the land as surety for bank loans – and therefore are being set up for failure, says Afasa.
It claims a number of black farmers have already been evicted from farms they were given – a process carried out without their knowledge or consent – and that the land has, in some cases, being leased to others.
One of the farms that was recently targeted by the department was Zandfontein Farm situated in Moqhaka local municipality in the Free State, but the lease advert was withdrawn after Afasa released a statement stating it intended to approach the court to stop the leasing out of the farms without following proper process.
Afasa threatens legal action
Afasa’s land reform committee head Piet Mothepu has welcomed the move and said the association was ready to work with the government and all stakeholders to find a solution to the problem.
Mothepu said the government’s tendency of abusing farm owners by advertising their farms to attract investors and later evicting them has been happening for a long time.
“We are talking about the owners who claimed their land and are using it to create jobs and make a living,” he said.
Affected provinces included the Free State and Eastern Cape.
The association said its Free State and Eastern Cape land reform committees “intend approaching the courts on an urgent basis to seek an interdict preventing the department from advertising, reallocating or otherwise disposing of farms allocated to, occupied by or legitimately claimed by Afasa members without proper steps.
“Farmers can no longer be expected to operate in fear while their cases remain unresolved and the farms on which their livelihoods depend are allegedly targeted, advertised or reallocated without adequate consultation,” said Mothepu.
Afasa said the majority of affected farmers are on 30- year leases. In some cases, once the lease expired, the land holders were offered the option to purchase the land.
Lack of government support
The biggest problem with the land restitution programme is the lack of support from the government, claims Afasa.
“How do we give rural vulnerable farmers land without any support?” said Mothepu.
In one case, the government had appointed a “mentor” who was running a farm but who later took everything and left the land occupiers with nothing, but still owing R8 million to creditors.
“What is said is that now people don’t have anything to work the land,” he said.
The department claimed that some beneficiaries had effectively breached the tenancy agreements by sub-letting farms – a claim denied by Afasa.
In one case, the land holders went into a bona fide joint venture with a partner recommended to them by an official from the department.
“The beneficiaries are surprised this arrangement is now being characterised as unauthorised subletting, despite the department’s involvement and knowledge,” said Mothepu.
Disputes over farm repossessions
A farm targeted for repossession was, the department alleged, “abandoned” after the “abscondment” of the land recipients.
However, said Afasa, “the farm remains operational, and more than 400 hectares are under production through the joint-venture partner. Harvesting activities are also taking place at the farm.”
On that same farm, there are no residential houses and, although the recipient were previously promised RDP houses, these have not been provided.
“Their inability to reside permanently on the farm cannot reasonably be interpreted as abandonment when agricultural production is continuing,” added Afasa.
The department also alleged that, in the case of a farm targeted for repossession, the beneficiaries had failed to account for the funding from the Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RADP).
According to Afasa, however, the RADP funding did not form part of the beneficiaries’ lease agreement.
Also, the mentors appointed by the department exercised full control over the funding, including control of banks accounts, procurement of production inputs and management of expenditure.