Ownership can’t be end in itself
SA’s land reform needs a pragmatic approachECONOMIC Development Minister Ebrahim Patel noted at the recent World Economic Forum on Africa that the domestic agricultural sector has underperformed relative to its peers in the Brics group of major developing countries.
This admission was made in the context of discussions over job creation and the government’s plan to focus on labour-intensive industries such as agroprocessing as part of its New Growth Path.
There is much to be said for efforts to beneficiate SA’s bountiful resources, be they of the mineral variety or the agricultural kind.
This is easier said than done, of course — the apartheid government was also constantly trying to find ways to beneficiate locally to replace dollar-denominated imports, and when it did succeed it was usually at great cost. But it is no good focusing our efforts on this level of production if the primary level is struggling to remain viable and continues to shed jobs. This too applies as much to mining as to agriculture.
To be sure, both industries have been adversely affected by global factors beyond SA’s control, but the government has also managed to shoot itself in the foot.
Its handling of the mineral rights allocation process is a case in point, as is the direction land reform has taken. The former appears to be back on track after a plunge in investor confidence forced the government to put a moratorium on granting new rights.
The latter is, regrettably, still mired in the swamp of racial politics, with African National Congress Youth League president Julius Malema’s recent call for the scrapping of the "willing buyer, willing seller" concept and for farm land to be expropriated without compensation only adding to the confusion.
The trouble is that Mr Malema is right in one sense: land reform has been a miserable failure, with only 4%-5% of agricultural land being transferred to blacks since 1994, a long way off the government’s target of achieving 30% black ownership of farms by 2014.
His solution — forcing white commercial farmers to give up 80% of their land — would undoubtedly help to achieve the target, but ignores the fact that the majority of productive farms transferred so far are no longer operating due to neglect, a lack of skills, a shortage of capital, or all three.
Simply accelerating the land transfer process using the existing land reform model, or Mr Malema’s Zimbabwe-style land grabs, would be disastrous for agricultural production which, as Mr Patel noted, has already dipped as the number of successful commercial farms declined. This would be the case regardless of whether white farmers were compensated for their land.
By adopting an accelerated business-as-usual approach, food security would be severely compromised. Agroprocessing is also destined to fail as a job-creation strategy if all those new factories have nothing to process.
The government recently revealed that it is reviewing its BEE policy for companies because the focus on black equity ownership has resulted in a relatively small number of beneficiaries being enriched while the vast majority of black workers remain impoverished.
It is time a similar pragmatic approach is adopted towards land reform. The 30% target has become an end in itself, as if all the supposed benefits of owning a farm will automatically kick in once enough of SA’s white farmers have been persuaded — or forced — to give up some of their land.
The racial profile of land ownership is in any event more complex than the ruling party would have us believe. It is common to hear politicians say that "83% of agricultural land is still in the hands of whites".
That is patently nonsense, since it classifies the national parks, land owned by the state and its agencies, vast tracts owned by the mines and other listed companies whose shareholders include significant numbers of blacks and foreigners, as white-owned.
The government owns substantial amounts of agricultural land, much of it leased to black farmers. In fact, much of the land that has been bought for land reform purposes has not been transferred to black recipients in the form of freehold title, which continues to skew ownership figures.
According to the results of research conducted by Agri Eastern Cape, agricultural land in the hands of the government and privately owned by black farmers amounts to more than 30% of the total land available, and since 80% or more of it falls in the high rainfall zone or is irrigable, its agricultural potential is far greater than is being achieved at present.
Much could be done in land reform, in other words, by using state-owned land more efficiently, providing better support for land reform beneficiaries, making use of joint ventures to keep experienced white farmers involved, and modernising farming methods in places such as the former Transkei and Ciskei, relatively high rainfall areas that could almost double SA’s agricultural output were the land used to its full potential.
None of this suggests that the status quo concerning land ownership in SA is acceptable, or that black people who want to till the soil should not be given every opportunity to do so.
However, if the aim is real empowerment, rather than merely playing a numbers game, there are better ways of bringing many more people into the agricultural economy than fixating on an arbitrary target.
Mr Malema’s Zimbabwe-style land grabs would be disastrous for agricultural production.
NEW YORK POST: Osama, the erotic despotic
JUST call him Icky bin Laden. US intelligence analysts apparently have discovered a "fairly extensive" stash of video porn among the material hauled away from his Pakistani hideout.
JUST call him Icky bin Laden. US intelligence analysts apparently have discovered a "fairly extensive" stash of video porn among the material hauled away from his Pakistani hideout.
The Saudi’s smut was found on computers or storage devices retrieved during the special-ops strike in Abbottabad — not a complete surprise, since jihadis are really into the stuff.
Remember the 9/11 hijackers, who indulged themselves boozing and buying lap dances in Las Vegas and Florida before embarking on their murderous final mission?
And the Fort Hood shooter, who spent eight-hour sessions in a strip club in Killeen, Texas, before taking 13 lives in the name of Allah?
This is the high moral character of the Islamist fanatic: he’s not only bloodthirsty, but a hypocrite too.
And it seems that Bin Laden’s multiple wives — and the promise of 72 virgins in paradise — weren’t enough to stay his … well, we won’t go there.
The Abbottabad compound had no internet access . So how did the videos even get there? Maybe it was part of the supply chain: bread, water, batteries — and instalment seven of Hot Goats of the Hindu Kush. In any case, it’s an interesting indication of al-Qaeda’s priorities.
And it’s another confirmation of the moral depravity of the king of fanatics — a barbarous old lech who hid his head when karma came calling. New York, May 13.
0 comments:
Post a Comment