Land reform: a comparison of Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy and Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development: the case of Emalahleni Local Municipality
Loading...
Date
2021
Authors
Masemola, Mailetse
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of the Free State
Abstract
The study comprises a comparison of the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) and Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) projects in Emalahleni Local Municipality in the Nkangala district, Mpumalanga province of RSA. The study is a qualitative study of a comparative nature where two sub-programmes are compared to find out which one of them best suits the mandate of the redistribution programme. Land reform in South Africa is categorised into three main programmes, namely land restitution, land tenure reform and land redistribution; however, for the purpose of this study the main focus is on land redistribution, particularly on the PLAS and LRAD sub-programmes. Numerous studies have been conducted on land reform, particularly land redistribution and its apparent failure to reach the target of transferring 30% of agricultural land to the black majority. However, not much has been done on the new sub-programme of PLAS. There is a need to evaluate this sub-programme of PLAS in comparison with its predecessor in the local context to find out which of the sub-programmes of redistribution performs best in terms of achieving the mandate of the redistribution programme. Purposeful sampling was conducted on a population of 175 beneficiaries belonging to 42 farms. Eight beneficiaries from LRAD and eight beneficiaries from PLAS were sampled purposefully from four virtually successful farms of PLAS and four virtually unsuccessful farms. On the side of LRAD, four beneficiaries from virtually successful farms and four from virtually unsuccessful farms were similarly sampled. In terms of the analysis, the study found that in respect of access to land, the beneficiaries had to make some form of application to the authorities to access the land, which is in line with the principles of the redistribution programme as participation is voluntary. The waiting period between sending in an application and the actual occupation of the land ranged between one to five years among the beneficiaries. There are farms where individuals or individual families occupy the land and others where groups ranging between six and 20 members occupy the land in both PLAS and land LRAD farms. The group dynamics are almost the same in these groups, whereas power relations and internal conflicts are sporadic within the groups. Agricultural production is prevalent in some of the farms, but it happens to be more robust in some of the individual PLAS farms and less to almost non-existent in the group LRAD farms. Post-settlement support is prevalent in both the LRAD and PLAS farms, but it appears to be misdirected in the individual PLAS farms. Although production is prevalent in both LRAD and PLAS farms, sustainable livelihoods are only achievable in the individual PLAS farms, although their tenure is not as secured as the LRAD farms due to the lack of title deeds. The study concluded that neither PLAS nor LRAD can fully address the mandate of the redistribution programme, but elements within each sub-programme may achieve tremendous results if they were to be consolidated into one offering.
Description
Dissertation (MDS (Development Studies))--University of the Free State, 2021
Keywords
Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD), Land redistribution programme