Land & Local Government: Problem or Potential? (Part 1)

AFRA News No. 59 Jan 2006

Land Reform: a Critical Component for successful Municipal Development - Lisa Del Grande

Land is arguably the single most critical resource to harness in any plan for development within an area. It can provide an important livelihood for the poor and vulnerable in struggling economies, and it can also be used as an asset for the wealthy to leverage further capital resources.

Despite this understanding of the land, somehow municipalities still struggle to develop a vision and strategy to control and develop the land, as part of their IDPs. Instead, land-related issues are featured only as a 'list' of projects that originate with and are run by the DLA, with an implementation which is generally separate from where the real municipal development occurs.

We believe that contrary to this, a key to taking local development forward, is understanding that the one area of work is an absolutely critical component for the success of the other. Municipality driven development and land reform cannot be implemented separately.

Land Reform Programme

The most pertinent of the DLA's 'list' of projects is the Land Reform Programme which was put in place by the South African government to ensure that there is acceptable redress for passed injustices under apartheid. This programme ensures that equitable access to land and equitable land ownership patterns are achieved, and secures the land tenure rights of all citizens. This is essential so as to put in place and ensure a stable basis for ongoing local development.

However, it is often overlooked that for many people dispossession resulted in far more than a loss of a title deed alone. Many millions lost access to and control of land for building homes and communities, as well as their source of livelihood and income through agricultural practices and the use of natural resources.

It is therefore expected by many of those who were dispossessed in the past, that the government's programmes will not only hand back title deeds. It is also expected that they will attempt to address past injustices: restore their dignity by recognising their rights as citizens, on and to land; help to break their dependence on white land owners; and give them a solid basis to build a life that supports and enhances their livelihoods sufficiently to break the vicious cycle of poverty in which they live. In other words, it is expected that the government will bring about this transformation (change) through its various programmes, one of which is the DLA's Land Reform Programme.

This expectation is not altogether unfounded, as land reform is not simply a bunch of claims and projects. It has at its very core a transformation agenda and development vision that must be pursued by all levels of government for it to live out its intention. In particularly it should be pursued by that sphere of government responsible for guiding local transformation i.e. integrated development planning and implementation within local municipalities. There needs to be a coming together of the two focus areas – land reform and local development – as the one is dependent on the other. For example: Current land ownership patterns must be challenged and changed for equitable access to land for homes and agriculture to be created. Secure forms of land tenure must be established to ensure all citizens benefit from being in one recognised and supported tenure system. This also means that certain areas, such as those with traditional settlements, do require development visions and plans which are related to and not separate from broader land issues.

Some choices regarding the integration of local development with the critical component of land reform are discussed toward the end of the article. The current separation between land reform and municipal development initiatives, is probably underpinned by three commonly held misconceptions of understanding and/or practise:

• Firstly, that restitution claims are rights-based and therefore cannot be influenced by government stakeholders involved in development in the affected area. Municipalities are often only introduced to the claim once settlement agreements have been reached, making it virtually impossible to undertake proper development planning or to develop a SDF. An example of this is clearly illustrated in the area of Gongolo. This rigidly stepped approach can and should be challenged, as all claim processes allow for stakeholder involvement in developing settlement options.

• A second misconception, is that it is not really up to municipalities to play the role of primary 'drivers' when it comes to development in areas affected by land reform. In actual fact, the municipality has as much responsibility as the DLA to ensure land reform takes place and that the necessary and identified changes (transformation) occur in access, control and ownership of the land resources in their area.

• Thirdly, the local IDPs and the DLA's national Land Reform Programme each have their own separate guidelines and policies about how they should be implemented. Often these implementation processes do not correlate. Either land reform is seen as projects which are made to fit into the IDP process by adding them in as projects at the end, or the municipality is consulted somewhere in the roll out of land reform projects, when it is noted by the DLA that the municipality will be needed to deliver some form of service.

Integrated Development Planning

The South African government introduced the idea of IDP at the municipal level as the way to bring about transformation, economic development and sustainable service delivery within localised areas. An IDP has a vision and strategy which are rolled out into concrete projects which are reviewed and developed continually as funds allow. This includes redress of past injustices for affected people within each municipal area. In other words, IDPs cannot be plans based on statistics and facts about the area, which are not analysed in their historical context nor with a future transformation plan in mind.

Part of rolling out an IDP is identifying the resources at the municipality's disposal and within their control to ensure that the plan succeeds. One such critical resource is land and how it will get used to develop the area. It is worth examining the spatial use of local land in the light of what has gone before.

Currently this land is being used by people in ways that were determined, quite viciously, by the apartheid and colonial governments. Spatially, we see dense and overcrowded traditional settlements, and dense and underdeveloped townships in poorly located places such as the outer boundaries of towns and cities, and also in remote areas. We see poor road networks for these areas, with many being inaccessible. In addition, most of the fertile agricultural land is in the hands of white land owners.

Given this situation, an IDP's vision and strategies should also outline:

• how these current land uses came about;

• why they continue to exist; and

• how they should be addressed to ensure a development vision is achieved and change takes place.

Current IDPs tend to focus on explaining the Land Reform Programme and listing its current claims and projects pertinent to the area being covered by the IDP. It is recommended that more analysis be given to the spatial land ownership and use patterns, and how this has and is affecting the economic development of the area.

A case in point is the area of Gongolo (covered in greater detail in a separate article), where municipalities have no plan for the areas affected by the proposed game reserve other than the possible reserve. In the face of resistance to the proposed reserve by the affected farm dwellers, the municipalities have not explored any other options with the people. Unfortunately, neither did they participate in the land reform processes until requested to do so by the farm dwellers.

Land Use Management System

An IDP also reflects current land use patterns and then its vision with regard to land use in a SDF, which are really maps (pictures) showing this. To achieve this vision of land use, municipalities are encouraged to develop a LUMS. This should reflect in more detail how development will and can take place in the different areas, and what the processes are that need to be followed for anyone to use land in any way in any of the areas. The point here is that, if a municipality has not included land issues into its IDP vision and strategies, then land will feature poorly in its SDF (maps of future scenarios of land uses), and its LUMS will probably also then be inadequate or even completely inappropriate. This is because identifying a land use for an area, and not considering carefully who is currently using land there, what rights they have on this land, and how they make use of the land (past, present and future) will make any LUMS inoperable.

In considering land uses and who has rights, it is important to look carefully at who people believe had rights and use in the past, who currently has rights and use, and who expects to have rights and use in the future. So, this suggests a further way of improving IDPs: they should be taking into account the 'far-reaching' nature of the land and its use. Doing this supports the integration of local development with land reform, as examples from experience show that:

• Defining farming areas as purely agriculture use, without recognising that the many thousands of people who have homes on farms need services, and that they need to make use of the land for other purposes, can make the LUMS useless as a tool for planning and controlling development.

• Disregarding potential claims and land reform expectations for an area when defining a particular land use, will have the same effect as if the claim was addressed without regard to the planned use which the municipality had defined for its own development planning purposes.

In Gongolo many government departments, including the municipalities, are seduced by the current land owners' idea that a wildlife reserve will bring economic development through job creation, and that in this way the farm dwellers will be better off. From the municipalities' side, little to no attempt has been made to understand the farm dwellers' historical attachment to this land, their current use and dependence on it, and their expectations of future use and access to it. If the municipalities proceed with supporting a change in land use from agriculture to game reserve without any real regard for the farm dwellers' needs, the farm dwellers could find themselves worse off, with government departments developing inappropriate development and service plans for them.

Whilst it has been said before, it is worth emphasising that public participation is crucial when it comes to developing an IDP, and its allied visions, strategies, SDFs and in defining the land uses. It is critical for ensuring that citizens' needs are met, departments' objectives are integrated, and that there is support and buy-in from all for the plan.

Driving integration and development

So if the IDPs are about development and bringing about the necessary transformation, and if land reform is a crucial aspect of this development and transformation, then why do the two processes continually fail to integrate when projects are rolled out? We still get land reform projects and programmes rolling out separately from IDPs, separate from the SDF and separate from any LUMS.

How can development be planned and implemented in an integrated way? We believe that each municipality has some choices regarding which path it follows:

• It could be driven by the imperatives and programmes of national government departments, and face the danger of having a list of different sectors' projects listed in one plan but with no real integration.

• Alternatively it could develop its own framework for how it believes development can occur within its area, and face the risk of having parallel and sometimes conflicting strategies with other departments operating in the same area.

• Or it could try to balance the two. This approach would place the national imperatives within the context of the specific problems of the municipality. What this therefore implies, is that a key role for local government (municipality), is that of the developmental local government driver. We believe that co-operation and integration must be driven by local government, who hold responsibility for integrated planning and development on a local level.

This is illustrated by the following diagram, which shows the various levels of programmes within the broader geographical and functional sphere of a municipality-driven IDP.

In closing

Municipal level officials need to be the drivers of local development, including the integration of the agenda's of various government departments. They are responsible for development within their area, including how the Land Reform Programme is integrated within this development.

In developing and using an IDP and its associated SDF and LUMS, local land as a critical resource should be one of the top priorities. Its historic, current and future uses have to be addressed, and people with expectations and claims need to be included in all these processes.