Livelihoods after land reform in Limpopo Province: What have we learned about ‘delivery systems’?

1. Livelihoods after land reform in Limpopo Province: What have we learned about ‘delivery systems’? M. Aliber, T. Maluleke, T. Manenzhe, G. Paradza and B. Cousins Workshop on Redressing the Legacy of the Natives Land Act 7-8 June 2013, Parliament, Cape Town

2. Study overview Research questions • What are the implications of land reform for livelihoods and poverty reduction? • How can these implications be understood in relation to the different ways land reform is implemented? • What can we learn about better ways of designing and implementing land reform?

3. …Study overview Main research activities • Historical overview – esp literature and agric stats • Project census – Capricorn and Vhembe Districts • In-depth project case studies (13) • ‘Locality studies’ (2)

7. Main findings re impact of land reform on livelihoods • Projects often collapse • But many do not (about half), and some recover (interesting lessons for Recap?) • People derive diverse benefits • Residential, especially if good location • Subsistence production • Commercial production • Freedom, eg to ‘be own boss’ • However, to the extent the poor benefit, it is generally by deviating from ‘the plan’ • Why? Because of our ‘delivery systems’

8. ‘Delivery systems’ • SLAG, LRAD, PLAS, restitution – are programmes which operate according to de facto ‘delivery systems’: • Official elements = grant structure, eligibility criteria, application procedures, etc., which… • Interact with reality, often in powerful but unpredictable ways; common practice emerges • Helps explain who is involved, and whether and how they benefit

9. …‘Delivery systems’ Example 1 – SLAG • ‘SLAG’ = Settlement / Land Acquisition Grant (1995-2000) • Official elements: • Demand-led process (sort of) • R16 000 grant per HH • Only low-income HHs eligible • Original aim: assist HHs establish farming homesteads • Combined with…: • Planning bias towards large-scale commercial farming (‘LSCF’); thus no subdivision – intention to continue with previous owner’s land use & production system • Asymmetric info – esp between land owners and prospective beneficiaries

10. …‘Delivery systems’ • Outcome? • Seller-driven projects in which owners used redistribution as means of off-loading land, identifying own farmworkers as initial beneficiaries, who in turn recruited additional beneficiaries from villages • Unmanageable, over-crowded & confused; projects only survived by means of major adjustments – especially ‘member shedding’ and flexible labour practices • But note: built-in bias ‘in favour’ of farmworkers and communal area dwellers

11. …‘Delivery systems’ Example 2 – LRAD • ‘LRAD’ = Land Redistribution for AgricDev’t (2001-2008) • Official elements: • Demand-led process (genuinely) • R16 000-R100 000 grant per adult • No ‘poverty criterion’ (rather more grant for those with more own contribution); aiming for broad constituency • Combined with…: • Bias towards LSCF (even more so than w/ SLAG) • Asymmetric info – esp between poor and non-poor prospective beneficiaries

12. …‘Delivery systems’ • Outcome? • Elite capture • About half of projects survived first few years; among those that did, evidence of intensification / diversification, and needing less dramatic adjustments than with SLAG • Virtually no poverty reduction • And note: farmworkers and communal area dwellers rarely featured as beneficiaries; beneficiaries typically city-based

13. …‘Delivery systems’ PLAS? • We did not study PLAS, but it seems to have many of the features of LRAD, if not more so • 2009/10 thru 2011/12, about 830 HHs benefitted per year, at a cost of R1.7 million each

14. Underlying theme? – ‘Viability’ • Idea: if implementers adhere to principle of viability – understood esp as enough land to practice modern agriculture – projects more likely to work • By definition, benchmark for viability = LSCF sector; thus emphasis on maintaining previous owner’s production system • Overheard at DRDLR: • ‘I’m not a fan of subdivision’ • ‘[If we subdivide this farm] it won’t be economically viable’

15. …‘Viability’ • Story of replacing SLAG with LRAD, and then LRAD with PLAS, is largely about the search for viability – by trying to adopt the LSCF model more and more closely • Consequence? Despite significant expenditures, redistribution has become less and less relevant for poverty reduction • Very few redistribution beneficiaries per year • Not oriented towards poor, nor towards labour-intensive agriculture • Concept of ‘agrarian transformation’ under threat • Beneficiaries must adapt to government’s preferred land use, rather than adapting land use to the needs and abilities of beneficiaries

16. So what’s the point? • SLAG was phased out long ago; LRAD was also phased out • But wrt poverty reduction, at least SLAG was trying – large numbers of beneficiaries, and in sync with predominant land demand…. • Question to which we must return is: how do we make land reform relevant to poverty reduction? Or, how do we correct the delivery system of SLAG so that the results are better?

17. A pro-poor delivery system for redistribution? • Requires a pro-active land acquisition aspect like PLAS, but informed by understanding of local land demand/needs • Must ensure that the poor are not disadvantaged by lack of info • Must work with groups, but not assume that people can coordinate themselves • Need to challenge the ‘LSCF belief system’; rather recognise diverse needs, and different ways of benefitting from land reform

18. …A pro-poor delivery system? • Must root land reform in understanding of local area, including local black farming practices

19. Conclusion • Land reform has lost its way regarding poverty reduction, and by the same token, in respect of agrarian reform • This is most obvious regarding redistribution, which is inherently quite flexible • Fear of experimenting, related to fear of deviating from LSCF model • Need to develop new delivery systems that take poverty seriously, while avoiding pitfalls of earlier approaches.

20. Thank you