Bill way off intended target

The Land Tenure Security Bill (LTSB) presently before parliament could, if it becomes law, not only seriously disrupt farming activities in the country and threaten agricultural job opportunities, but also impact  negatively on the interests of the very farm workers whose interests it purports to promote.

In another article we report that John Kane-Berman, chief executive of the South African Institute of Race Relations, has warned that South Africa risks embarking on another form of social and racial engineering heedless of the key lesson from the past: how difficult  it is to reverse the results of such projects.

The Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies’ (Plaas) senior researcher Ruth Hall warns that the LTSB appears to deal largely not with how to secure people’s land tenure, but rather how to manage their resettlement off farms.

"It is to replace two post-apartheid laws: the Extension of the Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) and the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 (LTA). These two laws set out to secure the rights of farm dwellers (all people who live on farms, not only those employed) to the houses, land, water, firewood and other goods and services that they already access  on farms, and to prevent arbitrary evictions.

"They failed. The only national survey on evictions (conducted by Nkuzi Development Association and Social Surveys) showed that more people were evicted from farms in the first 10 years of democracy (1994-2003) than in the preceding 10 years, and only one percent of these evictions involved legal proceedings and a court order – as required in the Constitution.  Only one farm owner was prosecuted for illegal eviction. In short, the state has simply shown very little inclination to implement or enforce these existing laws.

"In its commentary on the LTSB, Agri-SA says although the bill has praiseworthy objectives, the measures proposed  will have the opposite effect and will be extremely disruptive for commercial agricultural production. It also places unacceptable pressure on land owners who are expected to use their own resources to provide services that are normally functions of the government.," she writes

The organisation also warns that the bill appears to be unconstitutional.

What does the new bill say?

Like the existing laws, it protects the rights of people living on farms to continue to do so, except where the owner applies for a court order for their eviction. It gives special rights to people over the age of 60 to remain on farms for the rest of their lives, but these rights cannot be inherited, and so their families can be evicted following the death of a family elder.

The entire chapter of ESTA that dealt with how farm dwellers could secure and upgrade their rights on farms has been removed, together with the provisions for government to assist people to do so. Instead, those facing eviction will have one choice: move into an ‘agri-village’.

There, they will acquire ‘temporary permits’ to occupy land and housing, but could later be removed to make way for others who can show greater ability to use the land – in other words, their tenure will not necessarily be more secure in these agri-villages than it was on farms.

As tenants of the state, they will be subject to the rules of a new Land Rights Management Board, a national body consisting of nine people who will decide who gets to stay in these villages, will issue temporary permits, and will resolve disputes.

What role municipalities are expected to play, whether they are in agreement w/ith this new expanded responsibility, or able to fund and provide required infrastructure and services, is unclear; they are not mentioned in the bill.

Addressing farmers’ concerns

This focus on agri-villages is in line with Agri-SA’s vision of settlement in the rural areas, as contained in its land reform policy. Under the new plan, dense new settlements of ex-farm workers  will be accommodated on land acquired and serviced by government, and yet remain available for seasonal and informal work on farms when required.

In reality, most objections by farmers are not to new legal provisions, but (a) to the existing laws that are now to be joined in this new bill, and (b) the political rhetoric from government that has accompanied the bill, including in a policy statement attached to it.

Agri-villages not the answer

Hall says farm worker unions and land rights organisations are also protesting against the bill – with some warning that, if it is promulgated, they will challenge it in court. They claim the bill does nothing to secure people’s tenure on farms, or to remedy the failings of the existing laws.

“I agree: the answer is not to embark on massive resettlement schemes that will move the rural poor – including those evicted from farms – into new settlements, without the means of building their own economic activities. At best, they would have the benefit of state services and be able to continue to work on surrounding farms. At worst, though, these could well become the new dumping grounds, devoid of economic opportunities, with poor public services and without any independent rights to land, water and other resources.

“The great irony, then, is that the Land Tenure Security Bill shifts the focus away from securing people’s rights, to facilitating their eviction and resettlement.

“It is unclear what problems it is meant to solve, or whose interests it is meant to address.

“The bill is highly unlikely to be passed in its current form, and so its publication should stimulate debate not merely on its flawed provisions, but on an alternative paradigm that can guide the future of rural settlement and secure the rights of farm dwellers,” she wrote in an article first published in  Grocott’s Mail, Grahamstown

Agri-SA’s view

Agri-SA said in a statement that the organisation supports the broad objectives of production discipline, greater access to land for the previously disadvantaged and the promotion of harmonious relations on farms. However, it is of the opinion that the bill will not achieve these objectives but could instead give rise to increased conflict on farms, with many negative implications for food production and exports.

The organisation has serious objections to the proposed eviction procedure and indicated, by way of a hypothetical case, that an (legal) eviction would take at least 30 months to be finalised. During that time the land owner must continue to provide housing and services to the relevant farm dweller, while he/she may continue to exercise all kinds of rights on the farm, including the right to operate his/her own farming operation.

Agri-SA concluded that it would have been better to simply effect a few changes to the existing legislation (Extension of Security of Tenure Act and the Labour Tenants Act) and that there was no real justification for the drastic changes to existing rights of land owners -- changes which in any case appear to be unconstitutional.