Land Redistribution: Moving beyond rhetoric
> Lashiola Kutya
By 1994, 87 percent of all land in South Africa was owned by whites. Only 13 percent was reserved for black majority. To address this, the new democratic government introduced the land reform programme. Under this programme, redistributing white farmland into black ownership would address not only the historical injustices but also the contemporary scourge of rural poverty and underdevelopment. To date, a mere 7 percent of this land has been redistributed, and there is widespread recognition that the land reform programme is not working as originally hoped. In urban areas, despite making housing opportunities available for urban poor, more than 2.1 million households still need adequate housing. Surprisingly, there are also no clear strategies to make sure that future settlement patterns, especially in high density areas, are linked to public transport networks. In the light of this, development practitioners are demanding a radical overhaul of the land reform programme to speak to current social and economic realities in South Africa. There is also growing support for the expropriation of land among some sections of society; while on the other hand, critics of expropriation believe that the state already owns large pieces of land that need to be redistributed.
To achieve its land redistribution objectives, government has mainly focused on three approaches; (for urban and rural land):
Development of state land for farming and settlement purposes;
Purchase identified private land following the willing seller/ willing buyer approach; and
Expropriation of private land as a last resort.
In light of this background, Afesis-corplan, through its public awareness programme, organised a seminar to explore issues related to land redistribution in South Africa. The seminar was held in East London on 16th September 2011 and provided an insight to the key issues in the redistribution Programme In his opening remarks, Ronald Eglin argued that the issue is not only a matter of redistributing land, but that any land redistribution programme should also provide beneficiaries with the necessary support to use this land. This support should entail efforts that promote food security and sustainable settlements while at the same time maintaining livelihoods. Within the incremental arrangement, Land can be acquired in many various ways, including for example: • In-situ upgrade: Use land that people already occupy i.e. informal settlements can be formalised and upgraded. • Greenfield: Acquire new land on which settlement can happen. Land can be acquired from state land or private land through the willing buyer/ willing seller process. However these methods need to be revised as they have their own flaws, for instance most landowners are not willing to sell their land and state land is never easy to get as anticipated.
He suggested ways in which land can be made available to people:
The question now is how to get appropriate land to redistribute for the purposes of farming and settlement. In this context ‘appropriate' means the land must be affordable and in a good location with access to basic services or good soil for agricultural purposes.
Land reform: past, present and future
Agricultural experts have proposed over the years different approaches to land redistribution in South Africa. Dr. Michael Aliber, an Agricultural economist, for example, uses the concept of "small is beautiful" to explain his approach to land reform. The "small is beautiful" concept supports small scale farming. He believes that a larger and vibrant small scale farming sector has the potential to mitigate the problems of rural poverty, unemployment and food insecurity.
Motivating factors behind the ‘Small is beautiful' notion includes:
The inverse farm-size productivity ratio which emphasises that small scale farms are efficient and labour absorbing, creating employment. Preference of small scale farming on agro ecological grounds: quoting the Climate Smart Agriculture conference, the improved local multiplier argument states that redirecting incomes from well-off white commercial farmers to the poor will improve and stimulate local economies.
Did the colonialist and apartheid state ‘create' a successful whit e commercial farming class?
There is a perception that through massive subsidies, such as the increase in agricultural infrastructure, a successful large-scale white commercial farmer was created. There is an element of truth in this as infrastructure does play a role, though the overall result is a distortion. The nature of subsidies offered to white farmers, was not to build their capacity, but was rather to keep them solvent and these subsidies ultimately failed. The quote below testifies that it was not all rosy and successful for the white commercial famers either: "They have fallen behind in the march of civilisation, and are, generally speaking, without any real knowledge of farming or of any skilled trade. They have formed no habits of industry, live a hand-to-mouth existence..... Drift into the towns and become poor whites...." (Transvaal Indigence Commission 1908) ‘The most important State measure to support white farmers as a group was to appropriate the land for their exclusive use!' Commercial farming was successful because they had the land available. It was a process of attrition that created the commercial farming sector. Dr. Aliber cites that at present ‘little can be done to ‘create' black farmers; but to create opportunities'; and the key is to avail land. While describing the past efforts for land redistribution, he analysed the three phases namely SLAG, LRAD and PLAS. He stressed that at the end of each phase, response to perceived failure leads to policy developments that take us further from the ‘small is beautiful' model.
Phase 1: SLAG (Settlement / Land Acquisition Grant)
The initial design of the Land Redistribution programme, was centred on the SLAG grant which was initially R15 000 per household although later increased to R60 000. This was thought to be appropriate for someone to buy land for small scale agriculture and possibly build a house. Despite having designed the framework which was suitable for the ‘small is beautiful', it was never implemented although theoretically it sounds good. There was a paradigm shift from farm worker to agricultural entrepreneur. When beneficiaries acquired land they assumed they would carry on with the same agricultural enterprise of the previous farmer; ‘Plan as before and continue with the same'. This never materialised due to a lack of genuine enthusiasm within government. SLAG indirectly forced people to amalgamate land parcels to produce on a larger scale, prescribing farming practices and specific inputs, leaving farmers into debt.
Phase 2: Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development grants (LRAD)
LRAD came as a response to the failure of SLAG and was concerned with getting beneficiaries to ‘fit the land rather than the land to fit the beneficiaries'. It reflected an interpretation of what went wrong in SLAG. It was reckoned that the grant was too small and thus people had to come together in big groups which resulted to infighting. Government raised the grant money from R20 000 to R100 000 per adult to acquire land; and then again to R400 000 in 2008. Dr. Aliber argues that LRAD worked fairly well but it had very extreme elite capture. Only the educated, often urban dwellers, knew about the opportunity hence few benefited. Irrespective of a billion rand yearly expenditure, less than 3 000 households benefited in these financial years: 2006/07 -2008/09.
Phase 3: Pro-active Land Strategy (PLAS)
PLAS was introduced in 2006 to accelerate land acquisition and offer a flexible option in how land was acquired and used. The State identifies and buys land, provides beneficiaries with leases with an option to purchase. PLAS facilitated matching the beneficiaries to land as its predecessor LRAD, and did not consider matching the land to the beneficiary. The land remained under state ownership augmenting government's control over the land use and the user. The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mr Gugile Nkwinti stated that 90% of government's land reform projects have failed. However, Dr. Aliber argues that this figure was used to justify the fact that the state is reluctant to provide people with title deeds. In 2008, the grant was increased from R111 000 to R400 000 now it had 3 or 4 adults in a household applying. In both cases there was a lot of ‘non-delivery' because in most instances people had no interest in farming; the interest was in receiving the grant. Dr. Aliber criticised the recently released Green Paper on Land Reform saying it does not express clear direction of what it aims to achieve. He further argues that there is a need to revisit the delivery approach and clarify targets, as well as to experiment with subdivision of land and learn how to do it cheaply. He emphasized the need to review the conditions of PLAS that disallow private ownership.
Lastly, there is need to consider redistribution as part of a spatially-sensitive rural development policy. The significant ‘asset' available for developing small-scale farmers is small scale farmers themselves. There is a need to acknowledge the importance of local knowledge and avail land so that people can be located in suitable places and have a chance of creating sustainable livelihoods.
Land Expropriation: Experiences, Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations
Mr. Saul du Toit's presentation on land expropriation focused on the legislation, constitutional considerations, and the value of a professional valuer on the land transformation process. He stressed that land issues tend to be sensitive, given the fact that land is a primary source of income and subsistence. Without land, a person is dependent on others for economic survival. Land lies at the heart of social, economic and political life. He explained expropriation as involuntary acquisition of property or a right in property. He pointed out that the Expropriation Act, No. 63 of 1975 is a necessary vehicle for acquiring land and real rights in land for government infrastructure. The Expropriation Bill, B16-2008 was under consideration to include constitutional and Promotion of Administratiave Justice Action Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA Act No. 3 of 2000) provisions and may again be tabled. Section 25 of 1996 in the constitution states that property may only be expropriated in terms of law of general application for public interest which includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and equitable access to all natural resources. The state takes reasonable measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. In addition, compensation must be agreed on or approved by the court and must reflect an equitable balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected having regard to all relevant circumstances including;
He stated that the professional valuer has a crucial role to play in land transformation, but the tempo of land reform has been greatly handicapped by a lack of skilled valuers. Consequently the process is flawed as the valuers in most cases cannot determine a fair and just compensation. On the other side the willing buyer and seller stance of government is not the real deal as it has turned into a ‘willing buyer from an unwilling seller'. He further argues that expropriation will result in fair and equitable treatment, if property valuers act informed, professional and without bias. Therefore the appointment of valuers is an important hurdle. In his discussion he mentioned PAJA was introduced as a consequence of S33 of Constitution which states that "everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair". Therefore expropriation has to be preceded by PAJA procedure to give effect. The Act provides for compensation to holders of certain unregistered rights and excludes some unregistered rights, especially to occupiers. He argues that where provisions of the Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the provisions of the Act must yield hence the market value remains pivotal.
Du Toit questions if the introduction of new expropriation legislation is necessary, considering that owners/holders are currently adequately protected by the Constitution and PAJA.. He further questions whether the new bill will be able to address the following concerns:
Some of the challenges identified include: the identification of properties to be expropriated, the lack of a clear Land Transformation Road Map, the lack of government skills levels (i.e. for proper planning and expropriation), the lack of succession in Government Departments, appointment of suitable valuers for compensation determination, and the shallow Green Paper on Land Reform, 2011. Therefore when looking for opportunities in terms of buying a farm, the offer should be based on a professional valuation; considering any counter claim at once and revising the offer if necessary. If the further offer is not accepted, serve the expropriation notice. He stressed that expropriation still allows for a parallel negotiation route regarding compensation, but the court must be the final recourse. He concluded by stating that the government should buy farms which are for sale on the market at realistic prices and there needs to be a clear understanding of the willing buyer/seller concept in price determination. He suggested the use of experts from various government agencies such as Eskom, Sasol, etc. to undertake acquisition negotiations through the South African Right of Way Association (SARWA).
Prospects of using land value capture tools for land redistribution
Mr. Moegsien Hendricks from the Development Action Group (DAG) explained DAG's programme on Land Value Capture, exploring innovative fiscal and regulatory mechanisms and instruments to enable access to well located land and increase municipal finance for development. Mr. Hendricks started his presentation with a quote from S'bu Zikode which read as follows: "Land has not been fairly redistributed. The economy continues to exclude and to exploit. Millions are without work and millions are working but still poor and without security...Politics has become a new economic path and a career for the young members of the ruling party. Politics means access to tenders, access to wealth and control. Politics is not about serving the people" (S'bu Zikode's talk at the 30th anniversary of the 1981: protests against the Springbok tour of New Zealand - New Zealand, September 2011). He emphasised that land had to be re-distributed to ensure social justice. The land scarcity left by the apartheid regime robbed black people of their rights to acquire land and as a result it manifested into poverty, inequality and high marginalisation. Land redistribution is meant to create a sustainable environment for future generations, and contribute positively to economic development in a way that creates wealth and is globally competitive.
Why land value capture?
Land Value Capture refers to the capturing of all or part of the increments in land value that result from community or public investment in infrastructure, services, population growth and land use changes, rather than from private investments. The increment in land value is recouped or captured, in full or in part by converting it into a public revenue or benefit through the use of fiscal and regulatory tools. In his presentation, Hendricks argued that land value capture should not just be about changing land ownership patterns but it must allow people land use rights. The UN-HABITAT states that, "land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market." Furthermore, recommendations made by United Nations Habitat conference for National Action on Human Settlements, Vancouver Canada (1976), states that the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.Mr. Hendricks questions the rating system (Municipal Property Rates Act (MPRA)) that taxes both land and improvements as to whether the rating system matches the needs of majority. The Special Rating Area provision in the MPRA: Is this a mechanism which could be used to promote pro-poor urban upgrading? He stated that the Value Capture and Land Management Instruments used in South Africa are not being used effectively. Land Value Capture is not intrinsically pro-poor or redistributive in any way; it's how you use it that can make it pro-poor.
Summary
Despite the extensive implementation of land value capture internationally to facilitate access to land and land management, it remains an unfamiliar concept in South Africa. Mr Hendricks stressed that public participation and effective civil society mobilization are necessary to put Land Value Capture on the policy agenda, to balance opposition from vested interests and to ensure that value capture instruments are applied in a way which benefits the whole community. Moreover, the state must develop the ability to effectively use existing and devise new innovative instruments for effective spatial restructuring, social equity and better functioning of land and property markets. Acknowledging unsuccessful policies gives ample room to explore new grounds. Based on information from all the presenters, it can be deduced that they all echo one message that land must be redistributed to address past inequalities, and that whatever processes or procedures are used to acquire land, like expropriation or Land Value Capture, they should be fair and just and serve the interest of the public. (For more information refer to the presentations uploaded on Afesis-corplan website: www.afesis.org.za)
References: Derived from the presentations by the following speakers during the Land Redistribution seminar: Dr. Michael Alber, Mr Saul du Toit; and Mr Hendricks Moegsien (www.afesis.org.za)
By 1994, 87 percent of all land in South Africa was owned by whites. Only 13 percent was reserved for black majority. To address this, the new democratic government introduced the land reform programme. Under this programme, redistributing white farmland into black ownership would address not only the historical injustices but also the contemporary scourge of rural poverty and underdevelopment. To date, a mere 7 percent of this land has been redistributed, and there is widespread recognition that the land reform programme is not working as originally hoped. In urban areas, despite making housing opportunities available for urban poor, more than 2.1 million households still need adequate housing. Surprisingly, there are also no clear strategies to make sure that future settlement patterns, especially in high density areas, are linked to public transport networks. In the light of this, development practitioners are demanding a radical overhaul of the land reform programme to speak to current social and economic realities in South Africa. There is also growing support for the expropriation of land among some sections of society; while on the other hand, critics of expropriation believe that the state already owns large pieces of land that need to be redistributed.
To achieve its land redistribution objectives, government has mainly focused on three approaches; (for urban and rural land):
Development of state land for farming and settlement purposes;
Purchase identified private land following the willing seller/ willing buyer approach; and
Expropriation of private land as a last resort.
In light of this background, Afesis-corplan, through its public awareness programme, organised a seminar to explore issues related to land redistribution in South Africa. The seminar was held in East London on 16th September 2011 and provided an insight to the key issues in the redistribution Programme In his opening remarks, Ronald Eglin argued that the issue is not only a matter of redistributing land, but that any land redistribution programme should also provide beneficiaries with the necessary support to use this land. This support should entail efforts that promote food security and sustainable settlements while at the same time maintaining livelihoods. Within the incremental arrangement, Land can be acquired in many various ways, including for example: • In-situ upgrade: Use land that people already occupy i.e. informal settlements can be formalised and upgraded. • Greenfield: Acquire new land on which settlement can happen. Land can be acquired from state land or private land through the willing buyer/ willing seller process. However these methods need to be revised as they have their own flaws, for instance most landowners are not willing to sell their land and state land is never easy to get as anticipated.
He suggested ways in which land can be made available to people:
- Incentivising existing owners to sell land: Through, for example, increasing taxes on vacant land.
- "Forcing" existing land owners to sell land: Through nationalisation and expropriation.
- Making it easier to buy the land: Reduce land transfer bureaucracy which is cumbersome.
- Making it cheaper to develop land: Though increasing density (more people on a small piece of land to reduce infrastructure cost).
- Stopping foreigners from buying land.
The question now is how to get appropriate land to redistribute for the purposes of farming and settlement. In this context ‘appropriate' means the land must be affordable and in a good location with access to basic services or good soil for agricultural purposes.
Land reform: past, present and future
Agricultural experts have proposed over the years different approaches to land redistribution in South Africa. Dr. Michael Aliber, an Agricultural economist, for example, uses the concept of "small is beautiful" to explain his approach to land reform. The "small is beautiful" concept supports small scale farming. He believes that a larger and vibrant small scale farming sector has the potential to mitigate the problems of rural poverty, unemployment and food insecurity.
Motivating factors behind the ‘Small is beautiful' notion includes:
The inverse farm-size productivity ratio which emphasises that small scale farms are efficient and labour absorbing, creating employment. Preference of small scale farming on agro ecological grounds: quoting the Climate Smart Agriculture conference, the improved local multiplier argument states that redirecting incomes from well-off white commercial farmers to the poor will improve and stimulate local economies.
Did the colonialist and apartheid state ‘create' a successful whit e commercial farming class?
There is a perception that through massive subsidies, such as the increase in agricultural infrastructure, a successful large-scale white commercial farmer was created. There is an element of truth in this as infrastructure does play a role, though the overall result is a distortion. The nature of subsidies offered to white farmers, was not to build their capacity, but was rather to keep them solvent and these subsidies ultimately failed. The quote below testifies that it was not all rosy and successful for the white commercial famers either: "They have fallen behind in the march of civilisation, and are, generally speaking, without any real knowledge of farming or of any skilled trade. They have formed no habits of industry, live a hand-to-mouth existence..... Drift into the towns and become poor whites...." (Transvaal Indigence Commission 1908) ‘The most important State measure to support white farmers as a group was to appropriate the land for their exclusive use!' Commercial farming was successful because they had the land available. It was a process of attrition that created the commercial farming sector. Dr. Aliber cites that at present ‘little can be done to ‘create' black farmers; but to create opportunities'; and the key is to avail land. While describing the past efforts for land redistribution, he analysed the three phases namely SLAG, LRAD and PLAS. He stressed that at the end of each phase, response to perceived failure leads to policy developments that take us further from the ‘small is beautiful' model.
Phase 1: SLAG (Settlement / Land Acquisition Grant)
The initial design of the Land Redistribution programme, was centred on the SLAG grant which was initially R15 000 per household although later increased to R60 000. This was thought to be appropriate for someone to buy land for small scale agriculture and possibly build a house. Despite having designed the framework which was suitable for the ‘small is beautiful', it was never implemented although theoretically it sounds good. There was a paradigm shift from farm worker to agricultural entrepreneur. When beneficiaries acquired land they assumed they would carry on with the same agricultural enterprise of the previous farmer; ‘Plan as before and continue with the same'. This never materialised due to a lack of genuine enthusiasm within government. SLAG indirectly forced people to amalgamate land parcels to produce on a larger scale, prescribing farming practices and specific inputs, leaving farmers into debt.
Phase 2: Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development grants (LRAD)
LRAD came as a response to the failure of SLAG and was concerned with getting beneficiaries to ‘fit the land rather than the land to fit the beneficiaries'. It reflected an interpretation of what went wrong in SLAG. It was reckoned that the grant was too small and thus people had to come together in big groups which resulted to infighting. Government raised the grant money from R20 000 to R100 000 per adult to acquire land; and then again to R400 000 in 2008. Dr. Aliber argues that LRAD worked fairly well but it had very extreme elite capture. Only the educated, often urban dwellers, knew about the opportunity hence few benefited. Irrespective of a billion rand yearly expenditure, less than 3 000 households benefited in these financial years: 2006/07 -2008/09.
Phase 3: Pro-active Land Strategy (PLAS)
PLAS was introduced in 2006 to accelerate land acquisition and offer a flexible option in how land was acquired and used. The State identifies and buys land, provides beneficiaries with leases with an option to purchase. PLAS facilitated matching the beneficiaries to land as its predecessor LRAD, and did not consider matching the land to the beneficiary. The land remained under state ownership augmenting government's control over the land use and the user. The Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, Mr Gugile Nkwinti stated that 90% of government's land reform projects have failed. However, Dr. Aliber argues that this figure was used to justify the fact that the state is reluctant to provide people with title deeds. In 2008, the grant was increased from R111 000 to R400 000 now it had 3 or 4 adults in a household applying. In both cases there was a lot of ‘non-delivery' because in most instances people had no interest in farming; the interest was in receiving the grant. Dr. Aliber criticised the recently released Green Paper on Land Reform saying it does not express clear direction of what it aims to achieve. He further argues that there is a need to revisit the delivery approach and clarify targets, as well as to experiment with subdivision of land and learn how to do it cheaply. He emphasized the need to review the conditions of PLAS that disallow private ownership.
Lastly, there is need to consider redistribution as part of a spatially-sensitive rural development policy. The significant ‘asset' available for developing small-scale farmers is small scale farmers themselves. There is a need to acknowledge the importance of local knowledge and avail land so that people can be located in suitable places and have a chance of creating sustainable livelihoods.
Land Expropriation: Experiences, Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations
Mr. Saul du Toit's presentation on land expropriation focused on the legislation, constitutional considerations, and the value of a professional valuer on the land transformation process. He stressed that land issues tend to be sensitive, given the fact that land is a primary source of income and subsistence. Without land, a person is dependent on others for economic survival. Land lies at the heart of social, economic and political life. He explained expropriation as involuntary acquisition of property or a right in property. He pointed out that the Expropriation Act, No. 63 of 1975 is a necessary vehicle for acquiring land and real rights in land for government infrastructure. The Expropriation Bill, B16-2008 was under consideration to include constitutional and Promotion of Administratiave Justice Action Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA Act No. 3 of 2000) provisions and may again be tabled. Section 25 of 1996 in the constitution states that property may only be expropriated in terms of law of general application for public interest which includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and equitable access to all natural resources. The state takes reasonable measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. In addition, compensation must be agreed on or approved by the court and must reflect an equitable balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected having regard to all relevant circumstances including;
- the current use of the property;
- history of the acquisition and use of the property;
- market value of the property;
- extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and the beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
- purpose of the expropriation
He stated that the professional valuer has a crucial role to play in land transformation, but the tempo of land reform has been greatly handicapped by a lack of skilled valuers. Consequently the process is flawed as the valuers in most cases cannot determine a fair and just compensation. On the other side the willing buyer and seller stance of government is not the real deal as it has turned into a ‘willing buyer from an unwilling seller'. He further argues that expropriation will result in fair and equitable treatment, if property valuers act informed, professional and without bias. Therefore the appointment of valuers is an important hurdle. In his discussion he mentioned PAJA was introduced as a consequence of S33 of Constitution which states that "everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair". Therefore expropriation has to be preceded by PAJA procedure to give effect. The Act provides for compensation to holders of certain unregistered rights and excludes some unregistered rights, especially to occupiers. He argues that where provisions of the Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the provisions of the Act must yield hence the market value remains pivotal.
Du Toit questions if the introduction of new expropriation legislation is necessary, considering that owners/holders are currently adequately protected by the Constitution and PAJA.. He further questions whether the new bill will be able to address the following concerns:
- Will it impact on values, as may already be the case as a result of land transformation acquisitions?
- Will it allow for arbitrary deprivation of land?
- Will it clarify the definition of market value?
- Will it reduce the costs associated with challenging expropriation processes?
Some of the challenges identified include: the identification of properties to be expropriated, the lack of a clear Land Transformation Road Map, the lack of government skills levels (i.e. for proper planning and expropriation), the lack of succession in Government Departments, appointment of suitable valuers for compensation determination, and the shallow Green Paper on Land Reform, 2011. Therefore when looking for opportunities in terms of buying a farm, the offer should be based on a professional valuation; considering any counter claim at once and revising the offer if necessary. If the further offer is not accepted, serve the expropriation notice. He stressed that expropriation still allows for a parallel negotiation route regarding compensation, but the court must be the final recourse. He concluded by stating that the government should buy farms which are for sale on the market at realistic prices and there needs to be a clear understanding of the willing buyer/seller concept in price determination. He suggested the use of experts from various government agencies such as Eskom, Sasol, etc. to undertake acquisition negotiations through the South African Right of Way Association (SARWA).
Prospects of using land value capture tools for land redistribution
Mr. Moegsien Hendricks from the Development Action Group (DAG) explained DAG's programme on Land Value Capture, exploring innovative fiscal and regulatory mechanisms and instruments to enable access to well located land and increase municipal finance for development. Mr. Hendricks started his presentation with a quote from S'bu Zikode which read as follows: "Land has not been fairly redistributed. The economy continues to exclude and to exploit. Millions are without work and millions are working but still poor and without security...Politics has become a new economic path and a career for the young members of the ruling party. Politics means access to tenders, access to wealth and control. Politics is not about serving the people" (S'bu Zikode's talk at the 30th anniversary of the 1981: protests against the Springbok tour of New Zealand - New Zealand, September 2011). He emphasised that land had to be re-distributed to ensure social justice. The land scarcity left by the apartheid regime robbed black people of their rights to acquire land and as a result it manifested into poverty, inequality and high marginalisation. Land redistribution is meant to create a sustainable environment for future generations, and contribute positively to economic development in a way that creates wealth and is globally competitive.
Why land value capture?
Land Value Capture refers to the capturing of all or part of the increments in land value that result from community or public investment in infrastructure, services, population growth and land use changes, rather than from private investments. The increment in land value is recouped or captured, in full or in part by converting it into a public revenue or benefit through the use of fiscal and regulatory tools. In his presentation, Hendricks argued that land value capture should not just be about changing land ownership patterns but it must allow people land use rights. The UN-HABITAT states that, "land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market." Furthermore, recommendations made by United Nations Habitat conference for National Action on Human Settlements, Vancouver Canada (1976), states that the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.Mr. Hendricks questions the rating system (Municipal Property Rates Act (MPRA)) that taxes both land and improvements as to whether the rating system matches the needs of majority. The Special Rating Area provision in the MPRA: Is this a mechanism which could be used to promote pro-poor urban upgrading? He stated that the Value Capture and Land Management Instruments used in South Africa are not being used effectively. Land Value Capture is not intrinsically pro-poor or redistributive in any way; it's how you use it that can make it pro-poor.
Summary
Despite the extensive implementation of land value capture internationally to facilitate access to land and land management, it remains an unfamiliar concept in South Africa. Mr Hendricks stressed that public participation and effective civil society mobilization are necessary to put Land Value Capture on the policy agenda, to balance opposition from vested interests and to ensure that value capture instruments are applied in a way which benefits the whole community. Moreover, the state must develop the ability to effectively use existing and devise new innovative instruments for effective spatial restructuring, social equity and better functioning of land and property markets. Acknowledging unsuccessful policies gives ample room to explore new grounds. Based on information from all the presenters, it can be deduced that they all echo one message that land must be redistributed to address past inequalities, and that whatever processes or procedures are used to acquire land, like expropriation or Land Value Capture, they should be fair and just and serve the interest of the public. (For more information refer to the presentations uploaded on Afesis-corplan website: www.afesis.org.za)
References: Derived from the presentations by the following speakers during the Land Redistribution seminar: Dr. Michael Alber, Mr Saul du Toit; and Mr Hendricks Moegsien (www.afesis.org.za)