Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

The 8 June version of the Integrated Programme of Land Redistribution and Agricultural Development, indicates that beneficiaries can be individuals, families, or households (p.3). Later in the same paragraph, it is indicated that "the grant and own contribution are calculated on a per household basis", which contradicts the earlier statement, but presumably this is an oversight. Assuming the intention is that individuals can qualify for the grant apart from households, this marks a significant departure from the former SLAG-based redistribution programme, which was strictly household-based. If this flexibility is the correct interpretation of the Integrated Programme document, what is the rationale, and what are the implications? For the purposes of this document, we will assume that there is no true distinction between "family" and "household" and thus will focus only on the implications of the distinction between "individuals" and "households".

The Integrated Programme (IP) document does not state the rationale for opening up applications to individuals in addition to households, but presumably one of the main aims is to promote flexibility in the manner in the which the grant is accessed and used. In addition, it is noteworthy that the household-oriented approach adopted as part of the SLAG-based programme, appears to have been borrowed from the Department of Housing's 'Housing Subsidy Scheme Manual', just as, of course, the value of the SLAG itself was chosen with reference to the housing subsidy. Given that the aims of the IP are substantially different to those of the Department of Housing, it seems natural that the one should question the virtue of sticking with a strict household-based system.

In order to predict the likely impact of opening up applications to individuals (e.g. on budget, on project outcomes, etc.), it is useful to try to imagine how prospective applicants would respond if presented with the choice between applying as households and applying as individuals. If both a household and an individual are eligible for the same grant (subject to the own contribution requirement), then prospective applicants will have a strong incentive to apply as individuals, so as to end up with more grant money per person. Take for example an 'average beneficiary household'. According to the most recent Quality of Life Report, households receiving grant assistance from the DLA between 1995 and mid-1999, had an average of 3.1 members aged 20 or more years. If three household members were to apply as a household and, say for argument's sake, each could contribute R5000 in own contribution, then the household would qualify for a grant of R29 941. If on the other hand they were to apply as individuals, and each were successful in securing a grant, each would qualify for R20 000, for a total of R60 000. It is difficult to imagine any countervailing incentives for such household members to rather apply as a household. There is also reason to believe that, among those applying for grant assistance as individuals, a large (if not overwhelming) fraction, would be from households in which other individuals were also applying. This would happen for two reasons. First, once a prospective applicant understands how the grant system works, he or she will have an incentive to compel other adult household members to also consider applying. And second, on balance, those most directly involved with delivery, i.e. design agents and agricultural officers, will find it far easier to deal with groups of individuals from the same households than with groups of individuals from altogether different households. In sum, opening up grant applications to individuals as well as to households will likely result in almost all applicants applying as individuals and almost none applying as households. It is not a great stretch to imagine that household members who do not usually reside with the rest of the household (e.g. in towns and cities), will also be inspired to lodge individual applications together with those of the other household members.

Assuming that the grant scale (R20 000 to R100 000) is quite set, and does not differentiate according to whether the applicant is an individual or a household, this will have the effect of changing the amount of grant money accessible to successful applicants. The principal point to be made in this regard is that it calls into question whether the IP is an appropriate vehicle for so-called Food Safety-Net projects. A Food Safety-Net project is by definition one which is geared to enable people to supplement their diets and/or incomes through small-scale food production. As the IP document says, A...poor families may be able to mobilise only the minimum own contribution in cash, labour and materials" (p.1). What this implies is that an effective R60 000 grant to a household comprising three adult members, will probably be excessive relative to the goals of a Food Safety-Net project, and also relative to the capacity of that household to make use of it. At the level of the household, this means that land resources acquired by virtue of state support are likely to be under-utilized. From the perspective of the overall budget and delivery potential of the IP, it means that many fewer households with modest Food Safety-Net needs are likely to receive any assistance at all. (This point is elaborated upon below.)

In 1999, 19 500 households were approved to receive the R16 000 SLAG, implying a total capital expenditure (excluding planning grants) of R312 million. Altogether, about 107 250 people (adults and children) benefitted. Imagine now that this same capital budget had been allocated to individuals rather than to households. There would still have been 19 500 grants allocated, but, assuming that the average recipient belonged to a household in which 2.1 other adults also accessed the grant, there would have been only 6 290 different households represented, and 34 600 people. This merely serves to illustrate what is obvious, namely that a given capital budget will reach fewer households and fewer people, the more generous the grant per applicant. Under the new grant scheme of the IP, the effect would be much the same.

Whether people are eligible to apply as households only, or also as individuals, may have important implications for the extent to which women benefit from land redistribution. However, the issue is not at all straightforward, and different views have been advanced by different people knowledgable about the issue. In this short space, we can only hope to raise some of the pertinent issues, not to resolve them. There are two broad questions in respect of women deriving benefit from land redistribution. First, the extent to which women get access to land. And second, the extent to which, having gotten access to land, women are able to derive benefit from it. In terms of the first question, the Quality of Life Report gives us some answers. According to the most recent Quality of Life Report, about 52% of all members of beneficiary households are female, against 48% male. Among beneficiary household members that are 20 years or older, the breakdown is virtually the same, at 53% in favour of women, against 47% for men. Where inequity is evident is in terms of the prevalence of male header over female headed beneficiary households, at 69% versus 31%. By contrast, according to the October Household Survey (OHS), 52% of all rural households are female headed. Moreover, according to the Rural Survey 1997, of those households in former homeland areas and TBVC states that have access to arable land, 52% are female-headed households; thus in terms of providing access to additional land, the redistribution programme is performing poorly relative to the status quo division of land in many rural areas. The Quality of Life Report notes that the under-representation of women-headed households in the redistribution programme tends to be province-specific: "A comparison with the OHS 1997 suggests that women headed households are being reached by the land reform programme, but that far more effort is required in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and North West, where households in which there is an absent male migrant appear not to be included [in the land reform programme]" (p.22). Except for this issue of female-headed households, it would seem that the redistribution programme is performing well in terms of reaching women. Boosting the inclusion of female-headed households will probably require a concerted effort by PDA and DLA staff and perhaps should be subject to a specific target. It is doubtful that allowing the allocation of grants to individuals in addition to households, will alone have any impact on the inclusion of female-headed households. The question about whether women benefit from land once having gotten it, is far trickier, and numerous views have been expressed. For example, in an internal memorandum from May 2000, the DLA's Gender Policy unit indicated that,

It is a well known fact once a household approach is being used male members of the family would maintain that all benefits are due to them only, sometimes despite the age of that male member of the family. It is as such beneficial to make the grant allocation in terms of adult individual qualifying members of that family. This would ensure that even the sub-ordinate members of the family would feel part of the projects, as they would have received a subsidy like any other member of the family. In other words the R20 000 grant should be divided amongst all the qualifying members of the family. Similarly, van Koppen argues that "Women small holders have been especially marginalised because planners rigidly adopted the model of the unitary household as the basis for allocation", and indicates that focussing on households has tended to mean that projects have catered to men's commercial ambitions at the expense of women's more subsistence-oriented goals. A study conducted by Surplus Peoples Project and the Centre for Rural Legal Studies in 1998, arrived at a different solution, but based on similar considerations. The study noted that notwithstanding joint title and provisions in the CPA act to protect members from discrimination, A...the research suggests that unequal social practices and perceptions about men and women's roles in society will continue to shape the benefits accruing to men and women through titling, inheritance and control over resources" (p.49). Among other things, the study recommended that NGO's work to "implement special measures to promote the transformation of unequal social relations" (p.49). In addition, AAll applications for the grant must include at least one woman within the eligible unit applying for the grant", and "The woman's name should appear first on the grant allocation" (p.1). The National Land Committee has argued that the Constitution recognizes the primacy of individual rights, and thus the grant should be allocated to individuals rather than to households. A rural sociologist form the University of Natal suggests that, while appealing in theory, allocating separate grants to women who are in a household, will have the effect of further diminishing the integrity of households, while increasing women's vulnerability to domestic violence. According to this latter perspective, redistribution policy should not attempt to take upon itself the transformation of gender relations, even where these are considered unsatisfactory. One approach to this issue is to consider, once more, what is likely to happen on the ground, if multiple adults from the same household were to apply for individual grants. One possibility is that having one's own grant will elevate a woman's status within the household, boost her bargaining power relative to that of her male counterparts, provide her more independence and security, and thus promote her well-being. Evidence from India and Kenya suggests that women who have been empowered to secure their own land resources, benefit in precisely this fashion. Although grants will generally still have to be pooled in order to enable a property to be acquired, having one's own grant allocation may enable a woman to choose project associates in a manner that is most to her advantage. A different possibility is that the women's application will in actuality be an extension of the man's application, and her land an extension of his; as with the point about joint title above, the effective outcome of the redistribution may not necessarily match the legal situation. However, this would be no worse than the status quo that obtains in redistribution projects. The gender implications of the proposal to allow applications from individuals require much further study. What these paragraphs illustrate is that, strictly in terms of these gender implications, there is no unambiguous case either for or against the proposal, but overall women would probably benefit more if they were able to apply as individuals.

Allowing applications from individuals in addition to households, will affect the redistribution programme in far-reaching ways. It is argued above that, in all likelihood, most applicants will prefer to apply as individuals, because they will have a strong monetary incentive to do so. This means in effect that the proposal is to switch from a household-based programme to an individual-based one. Moreover, there are reasons to suppose that, among those applying for grant assistance as individuals, a large fraction would be from households in which other individuals were also applying. In the absence of any countervailing adjustment in the range of grants available, the most salient consequence will be in terms of the budget. As an illustration, if all of the existing 'pipeline' projects were reconfigured in terms of the new individual-based programme, then the necessary capital budget would increase by roughly three-fold. Alternatively, among newer projects, the likely consequence is that, given a finite budget, the programme would reach one third as many households, while most likely providing more land to many households than they would be able to make use of. A possible advantage of an individual-based approach is that it would provide an opportunity for women to acquire property in their own right, even if they are married.

UPDATE AND WAY FORWARD ON THE INTEGRATED PROGRAMME FOR LAND REDISTRIBUTION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN SA

1. Update
Following the presentation of a draft document by DDG: Mbongwa to MINMEC in May, a follow up meeting was called by NDA on 12 July 2000 to discuss related implementation issues. At the meeting it was agreed that further work was required and the following task teams were established (see attached report of the meeting marked 'A'):
a) State Land policy
b) Subdivision and Zoning
c) Agricultural State land inventory
d) Grants, Financing and Legislation
e) Agricultural Support Services
f) Communication
g) Pipeline projects
The meeting required specific outputs to be achieved at a follow up meeting that was to be scheduled for 26 July 2000. At the meeting of the 26th, the teams made presentations on the work that had been done thus far and raised issues requiring discussion as well as further work. A follow up meeting has been scheduled on 10 August 2000 to specifically discuss:
a) Grant finance package and its applicability on state land
b) Agricultural Support Services
The meeting also indicated that the following dates should be noted:
10 August - follow up meeting with DLA, NDA and PDA
16 & 17 Aug - DLA Redistribution Policy Workshop
25 Aug - broader consultative session (still to be confirmed)
31 Aug - Minister formally launches IP (still to be confirmed)
2. Way Forward - PDLA Involvement and Participation
As can be seen from the very tight time frames, there is precious little time for thorough consultative processes within the Department. The month of August will be high intensity leading up to the launch of the IP. It will be necessary for all PDLAs to become fully informed about the detailed issues in relation to the IP. In preparation for the meeting with the NDA on the 10 August, it is recommended that a meeting be held in Pretoria on the 4th August to discuss the following items:
a) Own contribution
b) Individual/ Households
c) Grant Financing on Private and State land
d) Support Services
e) Flow of Funds
f) Matters identified by PDLAs in relation to the IP
g) DLA's workshop on 16 & 17 Aug
The same team of people attending this meeting (or a smaller team) attend the meeting with the NDA on 10 August as well as strategise on the objective and draft agenda for the DLA's workshop on 16 and 17 August.
Please urgently confirm your attendance at the meeting of the 4th of August by 2 August for catering purposes with Judith Mazibuko at telephone: (012) 312 9524 or fax (012) 232 4796. The venue will be South Block 1206 and the meeting will start at 9H00.