Land transfer is merely the initial stage in correcting historical injustices. Peter Seto explains why South Africa must provide beneficiaries with funding, infrastructure, and technical expertise to transform returned lands into thriving engines of agro-economic growth and food security.
The discussion on land reform in South Africa too often boils down to statistics, with public discourse focusing predominantly on the number of hectares transferred, the pace of redistribution, and whether the program has met its numerical targets or not.
While these statistical indicators are important, as they help the country understand the current state of land ownership and serve as a basis for measuring progress, relying solely on the number of hectares transferred as a criterion for success does not provide a complete picture. The true measure of land reform lies in whether these lands are being restored with dignity, activated productively, and used to achieve significant social and economic transformations.
The basis for the land reform program in South Africa is the necessity to rectify historical injustice related to colonial land dispossession and forced removals during the apartheid era, when indigenous communities were forcibly moved from ancestral lands that were central to their livelihoods, identity, culture, and dignity.
Thus, land reform is not only a political imperative but also a constitutional, developmental, and economic imperative. It must correct past mistakes while ensuring that returned and redistributed lands become a functional asset that improves the lives of beneficiaries and contributes to inclusive economic growth.
The success of land reform should be assessed using outcome-based metrics. These include the ability to create jobs, support viable and sustainable land use, strengthen the rural economy, increase agricultural productivity, contribute significantly to food security, and stimulate eco-tourism.
South Africa does not need to reinvent the wheel. There are important lessons that can be drawn from countries in Africa and Asia that have implemented land reform programs with varying degrees of success.
The Ujamaa villagization program in Tanzania remains one of the most striking examples of a warning regarding the risks associated with poorly designed communal land tenure models. The Tanzanian government abolished freehold land ownership and transferred ownership to the state with the aim of consolidating land, labor, and production tools.
However, this program failed to generate sufficient productive momentum because many farmers resisted giving up ancestral lands to work on communal farms. Instead of increasing productivity, the forced relocation of millions of people to densely populated centers created intense pressure on the land, strained ecological systems, weakened agricultural output, and contributed to chronic food shortages.
In contrast, there are examples where land reform has been used more productively to strengthen community rights, secure property rights, and expand economic participation. In Sierra Leone, the adoption of the Traditional Land Rights Act and the National Land Commission Act in 2022 set new standards for protecting the rights of communities and women to land.
In Ethiopia, a large-scale land titling program supported the registration of individual rights to communal lands across millions of plots. These examples show that land reform can promote social justice and economic participation when underpinned by secure rights, effective institutions, governance systems, and a focused approach to productive land use.
Nevertheless, Zimbabwe remains a cautionary tale for countries considering poorly planned and politically motivated interventions in land reform. The accelerated land reform program in this country, often mentioned in debates about expropriation without compensation, severely disrupted agricultural production and contributed to deep food security problems.
The real issue is not simply who holds the land. The real problem is whether beneficiaries receive support in the form of financing, technical competence, infrastructure, management systems, and market access necessary to turn that land into a productive economic asset.
The Molante Panel also acknowledged that political patronage, inadequate post-settlement support, weak infrastructure, and lack of technical expertise are among the constraints hindering the impact of land reform. These issues have resulted in vast tracts of returned and redistributed land remaining underutilized, undermining the program's ability to achieve its intended results and stimulate inclusive economic growth.
South Africa must move beyond narrow measures of progress. Land reform cannot be judged solely by the number of hectares transferred. The real test is whether this land is being used productively, whether it is creating jobs, whether communities are generating income from it, and whether it is contributing to food security and rural development.
Furthermore, a successful land reform program must revitalize the rural economy by diversifying agricultural production, expanding agro-processing, supporting agricultural production, improving access to technology, and developing skills needed to operate across the entire value chain in agriculture and the eco-tourism economy.
Moreover, land reform must ensure significant access to value chains, guaranteeing that its beneficiaries are linked to reliable markets, agricultural processors, retailers, and export chains.
To achieve this goal, South Africa needs to initiate a long-term, targeted transition from land transfer to land activation. Beneficiary communities should not be left alone to navigate complex commercial markets, especially if they have limited capital, weak governance structures, limited access to finance, and insufficient technical support.
With political will, institutional discipline, and closer collaboration between government, communities, private investors, and civil society, South Africa can build upon existing pockets of success, such as the progress made by the Vumelana Consultative Fund over the last 15 years, and scale them up to ensure that land reform yields stronger, tangible, and sustainable results.
The program can become a powerful catalyst for transforming lives, stimulating rural development, enterprise creation, job creation, and inclusive economic growth.