Land reform share scheme mooted

[Mila]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Land-reform-share-scheme-mooted-20100510

Pretoria - The government is looking into a shares scheme for black farmers with the aim of reaching land reform targets and replacing the willing buyer/willing seller principle.

In terms of this scheme, commercial farmers will have to hand over up to about 40% of their farm's value to black shareholders.

Tina Joemat-Pettersson, minister of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, said in an interview with Beeld on Monday that this new plan may be included in a revised black empowerment charter for the agricultural sector.

This follows her announcement last month during the department's budget speech that she is dissatisfied with the slow pace of transformation, and plans to have targets for black economic empowerment (BEE) enshrined in legislation.

Deadlock

This plan was met with astonishment in agricultural circles on Monday. Agri SA said it has no knowledge of such a plan. Pieter Mulder, FF+ leader and Joemmat-Pettersson's departmental deputy, also knows nothing about this plan.

The minister said on Monday that the government's aim of transferring 30% of the country's agricultural land to black ownership by 2014 has failed due to the willing buyer/willing seller system. Only five percent has been transferred so far.

The agricultural community and the government have reached a deadlock.

"If we don't break the deadlock and solve the land issue together, we're heading for a situation which will make Zimbabwe look like a teddy bear picnic."

She said discussions with the organised agricultural sector about alternative BEE models will continue, but that accelerated land reform is unavoidable. According to her, farmers have a choice either to co-operate or dig their heels in.

"We have to wake up... we need to stop sticking our heads in the sand and decide together how it (land reform) will happen, because if we don't, we're heading for disaster," she said.

According to her, the suggestion of an agricultural shares scheme will be discussed in September at the ANC's interim national conference.

New approach to land reform

Joemat-Pettersson's comments correspond with similar statements made by Gugile Nkwinti, minister of rural development and land reform.

He has already submitted a green paper to Cabinet about the government's new approach to land reform, including alternatives to the willing buyer/willing seller principle.

An announcement in this regard is expected shortly.

Johannes Möller, president of Agri SA, said he regrets that Joemat-Pettersson is concerning herself with BEE and ownership, when she is supposed to promote agricultural issues.

According to him, the empowerment charter which was signed in March 2008 is the product of extensive negotiations involving all role players.

"Now we have to start negotiating all over again. We spent years discussing BEE with the Department of Trade and Industry... if it concerns land issues, we speak to Nkwinti's department... ministers should stick to their portfolio functions."

 

[Nod]

commercial farmers will have to hand over up to about 40% of their farm's value to black shareholders

So "shareholders" don't have to buy in any more? Thats nice ...

 

[Acid0]

So who is going to do the work on the farm?
The farmer and just hand over the profit to the shareholders at the end of the day........... Yip thats going to work (insert sarcasm here)

 

[Mila]

So who is going to do the work on the farm?
The farmer and just hand over the profit to the shareholders at the end of the day........... Yip thats going to work (insert sarcasm here)

But farmers do not work... farms run themselves (insert sarcasm here)

 

[BTTB]

Happened in the fishing Industry.

Fishing Licence holders had to give 30% of their business to BEE partners in order to qualify for Long Term Fishing Rights or they lost it making their business worthless and boats redundant. Legal expropriation.
Historically blacks never fished.

Similarly blacks never farmed commercially, but herded cattle.

 

[Mila]

Happened in the fishing Industry.

Fishing Licence holders had to give 30% of their business to BEE partners in order to qualify for Long Term Fishing Rights or they lost it making their business worthless and boats redundant. Legal expropriation.
Historically blacks never fished.

Similarly blacks never farmed commercially, but herded cattle.

 

[Cujo]

It wont happen.

 

[Hemps]

And who decides who these shareholders will be?

And what contribution will they bring to the farm on being handed 40%?

 

[BTTB]

When it comes to these articles it always makes me think of the Eastern Cape (the old Transkei) where some of the most fertile and arable land in South Africa exists owned by black people, but lays fallow.

Come to think of it the shareholding scheme might be the only one that could work in South Africa, where the historical farmer still runs the farm. Of course this farmer is not going to be happy about sharing his spoils, so I bet Government is going to dream up some scheme like as they did in the Fishing Industry where it is either give up shares in your farm or lose it through legal expropriation (lowest value) or some other method to entice the farmer.

I doubt the farmers will renege their rights to ownership of their farm, they might give off shares as a form of goodwill, but I doubt it will be as high as 40%.
This is going to be a long haul with lots of legal battles. It could be the tipping point for the farmers if they are not happy to take charge of the situation and the mind boggles at such a thought.

 

[Nod]

A good article about property rights in SA from The Daily Maverick.

In essence, he says the entire country is headed hell-wards in a handcart if the eviction laws, and judges’ interpretations of them do not change. He makes the extremely elegant point that, as it is now almost impossible to evict people who have illegally taken over a property, property is just being stolen. And in many cases, people who have means, i.e. money, are just refusing to pay rent. Willis says, logically, that if you lose control over your property, because someone refuses to leave it, then the only solution to regain control of your property, is to have them evicted. But he says, he is now left “despondent and full of despair” because this option is not open to anyone. He is particularly struck by the fact that the City of Joburg simply has no options left to regenerate the inner city.

Willis then extends his point further, to a fairly frighteningly correct conclusion. He points out that the correct way to generate more low cost rental housing is not to make it impossible to evict people. But that’s the not the frightening part. This the bit to read carefully: Willis says that if people start to lose control of their properties, “The Trust for Urban Housing Finance and others in comparable situations such as banks will have to ponder the security of a mortgage bond – hitherto considered ‘as good as gold’ provided there was a comfortable positive margin between the value of the property and the amount lent.”

In other words, he reckons that the inability of landlords to evict could force banks to stop lending in the way they do now. Think about it a bit, and you realise he’s absolutely right. As we’ve learnt so well from our friends up north, if you screw with property rights, all sorts of things start to fall apart.

So, not only will farmers have give away almost half their property to "investors", but you as a property owner have to go to court in order to get your own property back from invaders, when it should be common sense to the law who is the owner, and what rights you have. In order for a invader to become a problem, he just needs to live on your property for 24hours. After that, you need a court order to get him evicted. Just imagine going on holiday, after saving for it, to come back, find squaters on your lawn. Since they've been there for 24+ hours, you need to scrape together more money in order to take them to court, while they plunder your garden for firewood or worse.

Now isn't that a nice picture.

From the comments on the article above:

Costly because rightful ownership now has to be justified at huge expense. This is just plain rubbish. It makes a mockery of every form of ownership since Abraham's goat. The good, kindly and economically valuable people of Kromdraai in the heart of a World Heritage Site (emphasis on "World" and SA's role as steward of planetary history)now have to conjure up a mammoth R120,000+ to fight to keep "illegal and unrightful" squatters from stealing their land in the Cradle of Humankind. Despite all kinds of empty promises and "guarantees" from the ANC on the West Rand.

 

[Nod]

Come to think of it the shareholding scheme might be the only one that could work in South Africa, where the historical farmer still runs the farm. Of course this farmer is not going to be happy about sharing his spoils, so I bet Government is going to dream up some scheme like as they did in the Fishing Industry where it is either give up shares in your farm or lose it through legal expropriation (lowest value) or some other method to entice the farmer.

I doubt the farmers will renege their rights to ownership of their farm, they might give off shares as a form of goodwill, but I doubt it will be as high as 40%.
This is going to be a long haul with lots of legal battles. It could be the tipping point for the farmers if they are not happy to take charge of the situation and the mind boggles at such a thought.

Thats all nice talking about sharing, but what does the farmer do when 200 of the "investor's" family pitch up to move onto their xx% of land? After all, land ownership is wealth ...

 

[TheHiveMind]

No dice Tina. Let's do the zim thing.

 

[Flanders]

So, not only will farmers have give away almost half their property to "investors", but you as a property owner have to go to court in order to get your own property back from invaders, when it should be common sense to the law who is the owner, and what rights you have. In order for a invader to become a problem, he just needs to live on your property for 24hours. After that, you need a court order to get him evicted. Just imagine going on holiday, after saving for it, to come back, find squaters on your lawn. Since they've been there for 24+ hours, you need to scrape together more money in order to take them to court, while they plunder your garden for firewood or worse.

Now isn't that a nice picture.

Just kick it up a level, ie. bliksem the mofo or worse until he/it/them leaves/submits/croaks. That'd be my approach anyway. Of course if you're talking about a farm where 200 cuzzies rock up, that's an entirely different ball game.

 

[Nod]

Just kick it up a level, ie. bliksem the mofo or worse until he/it/them leaves/submits/croaks. That'd be my approach anyway. Of course if you're talking about a farm where 200 cuzzies rock up, that's an entirely different ball game.

The mofo will just get you into court in any case, plus he'll be staying on your lawn while you battle over the "bliksem" charges.

 

[Flanders]

The mofo will just get you into court in any case, plus he'll be staying on your lawn while you battle over the "bliksem" charges.

Well then in that case shoot, shovel and shut pie-hole. That's what it has come to, right?

 

[Gawain]

This will hopefully never go through since it will cause serious trouble, but this is just another scatterbrained suggestion to make government look clever.

Rather chop up the transkei into small holdings and pay a couple of farming experts to teach them how to farm on them it really is simple, but it is whiteman's land they want.

 

[Lightscribe]

It's not about helping Africans.

The zim example is what it is about.

How many zim citizens were given a piece of land, with government help to create a sustainable, non destructive farming practice, that is well balanced nationally, so as not to create a glut in any one product, nor a shortage in any?

I say all farmers should strike. Refuse to create food. Let the country import all it's food. The anc/sacp/cosatu will be out of power in a year, with their leaders slaughtered the way farmers are now.

Edit: Note how much investment by these anc/sacp/cosatu clowns is in food processing companies... They want to score twice...Make them lose twice.

 

[ponder]

I say all farmers should strike. Refuse to create food. Let the country import all it's food. The anc/sacp/cosatu will be out of power in a year, with their leaders slaughtered the way farmers are now.

No they won't, the people will still vote for them, just look at the rest of the continent. Famine is rife but but the old story of the chief/king deserves it still holds true.

 

[Mila]

Someone raised a very good question. Why not buy the land that is up for sale. IT is a buyers market and I'm sure some sort of barganing can be gone into.

 

[Mila]

Come to think of it. Why have they not taken all the insolvent estates from the banks. Made a deal and BEE'ed that. Imagine the bragging points if they could have made most insolvent farms profitable. Or just given it to land claims. The people receiving the land is not paying for it the guavament does? right?