Three decades of reform.. Has the map of land ownership changed in South Africa?

More than three decades after the end of apartheid in South Africa, the file land ownership continues to reveal one of the country’s deepest forms of inequality. During the racist era, blacks made up about 80% of the population, but laws did not allow them to own land except within about 13% of the country’s area, a legacy that successive governments tried to dismantle after the democratic transition.

In 1995, the government set an initial goal of redistributing 30% of white-owned land to black farmers through a market-based program. But what has been redistributed so far is only between 12% and 20%, which raises a broader question: Have land ownership changes succeeded in reducing the gap? Economic between black and white farmers?

An unfinished legacy

South Africa has for years relied on a voluntary buy-and-sell model, in which a white farmer chooses whether to sell his land, often at or above market price, with the state intervening to support the buying and redistribution process.

Although this model allowed tracts of land to be transferred to black farmers, a recent study by researcher Alex Deisenhaus, from the University of St Andrews, suggests that land ownership has not always changed in a way that narrows old gaps. The researcher relied on in-depth interviews with white commercial farmers and black beneficiaries of land reform programs to understand the conditions under which property transfers took place and their outcomes.

Over the course of seven years of studying the reform program, the researcher focused on the factors that drive it White farmers are forced to sell their land, and in return, the challenges that black farmers face after obtaining it and their ability to transform it into productive agricultural activity.

The basic result was clear: in some areas, redistribution brought old patterns into new forms rather than breaking them.

Ownership changes and risks are transferred

In the Free State Province, the researcher focused on areas that continued to bear traces of apartheid’s spatial segregation between black communities and white-owned farms. Through interviews with 10 white farmers, he found that fear of livestock theft was one of the factors that influenced some of them’s decisions about land.

For them, the land reform program made it possible to sell parts of their property to the state at reasonable prices, and then move their commercial farms away from the areas Neighboring black communities. Thus, the lands that were transferred to black farmers became areas of separation between the two parties.

But redrawing the borders did not address the problem itself; The new black farmers became more vulnerable to rural crime and livestock theft. The study thus reveals that changing land ownership may redistribute land without necessarily redistributing economic risks and opportunities more equitably.

Small farms, big frontiers

In KwaZulu-Natal, the picture was different but led to a similar result. Historically, many blacks worked on farms owned by whites within a system that allowed the worker to benefit from a small plot of land in exchange for his work on the farm. This resulted in black residents having small herds of livestock within areas dominated by large commercial ranches.

According to the study, some white farmers sold parts of their lands through the reform program with the aim of separating the herds of these workers from the commercial herds, after they were mixing with each other and causing problems related to grazing, fencing, and disease control.

But the result was that some black beneficiaries were given small plots that did not give them a real opportunity to expand into a profitable commercial agricultural activity.

This situation intersects with the tenth goal of the Sustainable Development Goals, concerned with reducing inequalities, because changing land ownership does not achieve an equal impact if some farmers continue to have limited areas and a weaker ability to invest and expand compared to the larger commercial sector.

The market did not solve the problem

The study believes that the heavy reliance on market forces was one of the reasons for the limited results of the reform. A system based on voluntary sales may help keep farms productive and give current owners incentives to sell, but it does not automatically address the imbalances built up over centuries of colonialism and apartheid.

Therefore, the researcher believes that the state needs a more active role in determining how land ownership is transferred, creating broader incentives for sale, and most importantly, supporting new farmers after they obtain the land.

This point is particularly important because transfer of ownership alone does not guarantee success. The new farmer needs financing, access to markets, infrastructure, and space that allows him to expand, otherwise the transfer of land remains closer to a legal change with limited economic impact.

Land alone is not enough

The KwaZulu-Natal experience shows that the government has succeeded in redistributing relatively larger areas, but many small farmers have not received sufficient support to turn this land into a sustainable source of income.

Here the file also relates to the second goal of the Sustainable Development Goals, which is concerned with eliminating hunger and promoting sustainable agriculture, especially with regard to enabling small food producers to have equitable access to land, resources and markets. The success of new land ownership is not measured only by the number of acres transferred, but rather by the ability of their owners to produce and achieve a decent income.

These findings come at a time of escalating international political debate over land policies in South Africa. But the study suggests that the picture is more complex than presenting reform as a direct struggle between black and white farmers; Some farmers benefited Whites themselves used redistribution mechanisms to solve economic or employment problems they faced.

In conclusion, after more than 30 years of reform, it seems that the question is no longer just: who owns the land? Rather: Who has the ability to turn it into a real economic opportunity?

The Earth Guards Foundation points out that addressing inequality in land ownership requires going beyond legal transfer of ownership to enabling new farmers to access financing, services, markets, and sufficient space for growth, ensuring that land turns into a productive resource and not into a property of limited value.

The redistribution of land may change the names registered in the contracts, but changing the balance of economic power requires more than that: productive land, continuous support, and an equal opportunity to build a future. Agriculturally sustainable.