**5.4 Problems with the water reform process**

In terms of water reform, gaps in access to water appear even wider than gaps in access to land. 95% of water for irrigation is primarily used by large-scale commercial farmers, while smallholders have access to the remaining 5%. New users therefore have to compete for the available water with well-entrenched users. Irrigated agriculture is the main user, taking up 72% of the available water resources. Water re-allocation is therefore one component of a wider mandate to address the inequalities of the past (Anderson et al., 2008).

training extension officers to training farmers directly. The Agricultural Sector Education and Training Authority (AgriSETA) was established to provide work-based, functional training in agriculture. This institution is flooded with requests for training assistance from both farm workers and land reform beneficiaries. However, it only approves very few of these applications. For instance, in 2006/07 AgriSETA received 16245 applications for learnerships (only 400 were approved) and 59000 applications for skills programmes (only

In addition, the public agricultural extension office has declined over the past 15-20 years. In 2008, 2152 agricultural extension officers, who assist farmers and land reform beneficiaries, were active in South Africa. Of these 60% were working in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. There is currently a ratio of one officer to 878 farmers (which is comparable to India, Zambia and Zimbabwe who face similar agricultural issues). The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) has an Extension Recovery Plan in place which is aimed at reviving public extension services by increasing numbers and reskilling public extension officers. This initiative is however not planned or budgeted for in all provincial departments. The potential role of community-based extension workers as auxilliaries can

In terms of power asymmetries in the agricultural sector, an alliance of conservative landowners, agricultural economists, officials and analysts has been promoting the need for sustainable commercial viability among emerging farmers (Doyer, 2004). This orientation does not sufficiently capture and address the historical inequities of land and water ownership and rural poverty (Vink and Van Rooyen, 2009; Walker, 2005). The 2005 National Land Summit tried to address this problem by calling for land redistribution to be embedded within a wider agrarian reform process that focuses on poverty reduction and creating opportunities for smallholder farmers. This idea has however not been developed in more detail and it is not clear what this may mean for beneficiary selection, programme design, post-transfer support and agricultural policy in general (Lahiff, 2008). The weaknesses mentioned above reflect deep-seated structural and implementation

Another challenge is the role of traditional leaders, which has not been clearly defined. Traditional leaders continue to perform unregulated land administration functions outside of any legal framework. These functions would otherwise exceed the capacity of local government. As a result, functions of traditional leaders are not matched or aligned to the planning and development functions of elected local government, which in some cases is resulting in a stand-off between these two institutions. It is therefore important to find a

In terms of water reform, gaps in access to water appear even wider than gaps in access to land. 95% of water for irrigation is primarily used by large-scale commercial farmers, while smallholders have access to the remaining 5%. New users therefore have to compete for the available water with well-entrenched users. Irrigated agriculture is the main user, taking up 72% of the available water resources. Water re-allocation is therefore one component of a

shortcomings as well as inappropriateness of current redistribution models.

wider mandate to address the inequalities of the past (Anderson et al., 2008).

475 were approved) (Greenberg, 2010).

also be considered (Greenberg, 2010).

solution to this issue (Manona, 2009).

**5.4 Problems with the water reform process** 

In addition, very few water-use licenses have actually been awarded and taken up by emerging black commercial farmers. This means that farmers often have to put production on hold until a license is granted even though other infrastructure may be in place (Surplus People Project, 2007). Evidence is also increasing that many water and land reform projects are not leading to meaningful and efficient productivity on most of the "new" black-owned irrigated farms. The challenge is, amongst others, to synchronise reform programmes in irrigation areas and ensure that beneficiaries hold secure land and water use entitlements.

According to Van Koppen et al. (2009), in implementing land restitution and redistribution as part of the land reform programme, there was at first little collaboration between the former Department of Land Affairs (DLA) (now Department of Rural Development and Land Reform) and the former Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (now Department of Water Affairs). Riparian water rights were not always completely registered as part of the land entitlement. Also, in a few cases, water rights tied to land under claim were sold, leaving an asset of lesser value. Without readily available registers of land under claim, the DWAF could not easily track this problem. In the late 1990s, however, it introduced a policy that the trading of water rights of land under claim should not be approved. Further coordination has since been established between the DWAF, the provincial Departments of Agriculture and the provincial governments with the signing of a memorandum of understanding on collaboration on land and water reform in 2008.

There have also been arguments that question the wisdom of transferring land and water to beneficiaries who may not be able to use it productively. According to such narratives, attempts to address equity needs must be balanced with the consideration that many existing lawful water users are making productive, efficient and beneficial use and are contributing to socio-economic stability and growth (Adger et al., 2001; Forsyth, 2003). There is also an argument that if reallocations take place too quickly, the result is likely to be economic and environmental damage as emerging users struggle to establish productive uses of the reallocated water (Forsyth, 2003). These narratives have influenced government thinking and contributed to the maintenance of the status quo instead of rapid allocation of water use entitlements to the "new" farmers.

Another factor affecting the uptake of water use entitlements is that many emerging farmers are not sufficiently capacitated to understand their water needs, the scales and rates of payment for water rights, use and management of water or their roles and responsibilities on Water User Associations. On the other hand, large scale commercial farmers who have historically used water for productive purposes are more knowledgeable about administrative processes and can easily apply and obtain water licenses. It is therefore important that the capacity constraints experienced by emerging farmers be recognised and addressed if they are to begin to make a more meaningful contribution (Surplus People Project, 2007).

In cases where new farmers start irrigating their lands, they often do not properly determine the optimum irrigation potential of their farms. This means that chances for underutilisation are high (Backeberg, 2005). In addition, Joubert and Kruger (2005) attribute the high failure rates of the new farmers to inadequate appraisal of farm potential (e.g. marginal farms that have been offered for sale), and unrealistic business plans designed by consultants who are only interested in maximising their commission paid by government, and which do not provide sufficient guidance to new farmers.

Integration Challenges of Water and Land Reform – A Critical Review of South Africa 95

livelihoods levels and how this can impact on the quest for equity (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). Services that need to be provided include extension, training, credit/finance, marketing, inputs, infrastructure, management labour, capital equipment and provision of facilitation and strategic services that are appropriate to emerging farmers (Walker, 2005). Additional support structures that are needed are secure land title deeds, secure water/rights licenses, physical infrastructure such as water supply systems and roads, soft loans, markets, fertilizer, irrigation machinery, seeds, energy, information and research (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). There is also a need for the development of a coherent vision of equitable redistribution of water and sustainable economic transformation. This necessitates developing effective institutional mechanisms (that would need to differ from failed integration attempts in the past) that link water management to agriculture, land, finance

Government departments and agencies have to create an enabling and supportive environment for new farmers in terms of infrastructure and institutional development. The greatest challenge in the reform processes is how to implement them and to ensure that the stated objectives and targets are met in a sustainable manner (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). It is also important to consider not merely reproducing and expanding on the current commercial agricultural model in South Africa, but to take into account lessons from the past to build a more equitable agricultural model in South Africa which will not lead to a repeat of the mistakes of dispossession or environmental degradation (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). Transformation of the agrarian sector from its current extractive commercial form to a

What form could an alternative agricultural model in South Africa take and importantly how could this realistically be implemented? While deracialisation of the agricultural industry is necessary, it is not sufficient. Ideas around the multifunctionalism of agriculture and food security suggest that food production is perhaps only one of the functions of agriculture. Other elements that are equally important and that complement the notion of needs-based smallholder agriculture are sustainable livelihoods, living landscapes and environmental integrity, which are all integral to rural sustainability (Greenberg, 2010).

South African government departments have attempted to increase the implementation of water allocation and land reform by coming up with a number of programmes. Here follows a critical review of each of these efforts followed by a summary describing to what extent

The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) (2003) is the biggest subprogramme at the provincial level in all provinces except Gauteng and the North West Province (Greenberg, 2010).The CASP is designed to help black famers to participate in a market that is dominated by white agri-business, but without altering the logic of the market or production system. The money that is awarded as part of the CASP is used mainly for infrastructural development i.e. warehouses, access roads, irrigation systems.

**5.6 Critical review of government policies to address the challenges to water** 

**5.6.1 Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP)** 

more equitable and sustainable form is key (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010).

and other support systems (Van Koppen et al*.*, 2009).

**allocation and land reform** 

they have been successful.

The apartheid government invested heavily in infrastructure (including dams, irrigation schemes, private pumps and farm dams) for white farmers as well as black smallholder irrigation. However, after 1994 state support to white irrigators declined, although at a much smaller scale than for smallholder irrigators, who suddenly lost almost all government support. Many smallholder schemes collapsed and the recent revitalisation efforts have not yet produced any results. The DWA and former DoA (now Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) have undertaken some commendable efforts to promote water harvesting at homesteads for food security, but these efforts are still too marginal in numbers and volumes to really redress the problems that smallholder irrigators are facing. Without government champions to boost infrastructure development for small-scale water users, the prospects of achieving the WAR targets remain gloomy (Van Koppen, 2009).

Important competitors for water for smallholder irrigation are water for urban, energy and industry purposes, as well as water for the environment (the Ecological Reserve is provided for in the National Water Act). As a result, many urban-biased water resource managers tend to perceive the use of water for small-scale farming as an "unproductive" use (Van Koppen, 2009).

### **5.5 The importance of integrating water allocation and land reform for South Africa**

Given the problems characterising the land and water reform processes, as discussed above, the integration of these processes has been supported by a number of authors.

Greenberg (2010) states that there is a realisation at the highest levels of government that the link between land reform, agricultural support and water resource provision is weak. There is thus a need to invest in irrigation, both for commercial and for resource-poor farmers, and also to link water provision to the land transfer process. It is essential to ensure that water is available to land reform farms and this must be built into the planning stages at the outset of the transfer process. Many land reform farms have failed as a result of water not being available for production. It is important to improve the synchronisation between water and land reform programmes in irrigation areas to ensure that beneficiaries hold secure land and water use rights, once they have been allocated the land (Groenewald, 2004). Derman (2005) argues that the distinction made between land and water in the reform programmes does not fit with local conceptions of livelihoods, or the increasing evidence of the importance of the land-water interface, including natural wetlands and irrigation systems.

The lack of linkages between water allocation and land reform policies has resulted in "dry", unsustainable land reform projects. There is therefore a need to align land and water reform programmes at both the policy and programme level, as both programmes are the cornerstones of the South African rural development strategy. Addressing this integration requires leaders in the land and water sectors to establish joint think-tanks aimed at finding workable solutions that enhance both programmes in pursuit of a sustainable rural development path (Greenberg, 2010).

Here it can be argued that while the integration of the land and water allocation reform processes is imperative, it may not be sufficient to ensure the successful functioning of the two processes. A number of other challenges have to be addressed, once the beneficiaries' basic needs and challenges have been identified. There may also be a need to develop a wider understanding and appreciation of water for productive uses at sustainable

The apartheid government invested heavily in infrastructure (including dams, irrigation schemes, private pumps and farm dams) for white farmers as well as black smallholder irrigation. However, after 1994 state support to white irrigators declined, although at a much smaller scale than for smallholder irrigators, who suddenly lost almost all government support. Many smallholder schemes collapsed and the recent revitalisation efforts have not yet produced any results. The DWA and former DoA (now Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) have undertaken some commendable efforts to promote water harvesting at homesteads for food security, but these efforts are still too marginal in numbers and volumes to really redress the problems that smallholder irrigators are facing. Without government champions to boost infrastructure development for small-scale water users, the prospects of achieving the WAR targets remain gloomy (Van Koppen, 2009).

Important competitors for water for smallholder irrigation are water for urban, energy and industry purposes, as well as water for the environment (the Ecological Reserve is provided for in the National Water Act). As a result, many urban-biased water resource managers tend to perceive the use of water for small-scale farming as an "unproductive" use (Van

**5.5 The importance of integrating water allocation and land reform for South Africa**  Given the problems characterising the land and water reform processes, as discussed above,

Greenberg (2010) states that there is a realisation at the highest levels of government that the link between land reform, agricultural support and water resource provision is weak. There is thus a need to invest in irrigation, both for commercial and for resource-poor farmers, and also to link water provision to the land transfer process. It is essential to ensure that water is available to land reform farms and this must be built into the planning stages at the outset of the transfer process. Many land reform farms have failed as a result of water not being available for production. It is important to improve the synchronisation between water and land reform programmes in irrigation areas to ensure that beneficiaries hold secure land and water use rights, once they have been allocated the land (Groenewald, 2004). Derman (2005) argues that the distinction made between land and water in the reform programmes does not fit with local conceptions of livelihoods, or the increasing evidence of the importance of

The lack of linkages between water allocation and land reform policies has resulted in "dry", unsustainable land reform projects. There is therefore a need to align land and water reform programmes at both the policy and programme level, as both programmes are the cornerstones of the South African rural development strategy. Addressing this integration requires leaders in the land and water sectors to establish joint think-tanks aimed at finding workable solutions that enhance both programmes in pursuit of a sustainable rural

Here it can be argued that while the integration of the land and water allocation reform processes is imperative, it may not be sufficient to ensure the successful functioning of the two processes. A number of other challenges have to be addressed, once the beneficiaries' basic needs and challenges have been identified. There may also be a need to develop a wider understanding and appreciation of water for productive uses at sustainable

the integration of these processes has been supported by a number of authors.

the land-water interface, including natural wetlands and irrigation systems.

development path (Greenberg, 2010).

Koppen, 2009).

livelihoods levels and how this can impact on the quest for equity (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). Services that need to be provided include extension, training, credit/finance, marketing, inputs, infrastructure, management labour, capital equipment and provision of facilitation and strategic services that are appropriate to emerging farmers (Walker, 2005). Additional support structures that are needed are secure land title deeds, secure water/rights licenses, physical infrastructure such as water supply systems and roads, soft loans, markets, fertilizer, irrigation machinery, seeds, energy, information and research (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). There is also a need for the development of a coherent vision of equitable redistribution of water and sustainable economic transformation. This necessitates developing effective institutional mechanisms (that would need to differ from failed integration attempts in the past) that link water management to agriculture, land, finance and other support systems (Van Koppen et al*.*, 2009).

Government departments and agencies have to create an enabling and supportive environment for new farmers in terms of infrastructure and institutional development. The greatest challenge in the reform processes is how to implement them and to ensure that the stated objectives and targets are met in a sustainable manner (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010).

It is also important to consider not merely reproducing and expanding on the current commercial agricultural model in South Africa, but to take into account lessons from the past to build a more equitable agricultural model in South Africa which will not lead to a repeat of the mistakes of dispossession or environmental degradation (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010). Transformation of the agrarian sector from its current extractive commercial form to a more equitable and sustainable form is key (Chikozho and Jacobs, 2010).

What form could an alternative agricultural model in South Africa take and importantly how could this realistically be implemented? While deracialisation of the agricultural industry is necessary, it is not sufficient. Ideas around the multifunctionalism of agriculture and food security suggest that food production is perhaps only one of the functions of agriculture. Other elements that are equally important and that complement the notion of needs-based smallholder agriculture are sustainable livelihoods, living landscapes and environmental integrity, which are all integral to rural sustainability (Greenberg, 2010).

### **5.6 Critical review of government policies to address the challenges to water allocation and land reform**

South African government departments have attempted to increase the implementation of water allocation and land reform by coming up with a number of programmes. Here follows a critical review of each of these efforts followed by a summary describing to what extent they have been successful.

### **5.6.1 Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP)**

The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) (2003) is the biggest subprogramme at the provincial level in all provinces except Gauteng and the North West Province (Greenberg, 2010).The CASP is designed to help black famers to participate in a market that is dominated by white agri-business, but without altering the logic of the market or production system. The money that is awarded as part of the CASP is used mainly for infrastructural development i.e. warehouses, access roads, irrigation systems.

Integration Challenges of Water and Land Reform – A Critical Review of South Africa 97

appears that currently the CASP needs between three and four times its current budget in order to function effectively. Other difficulties include farmers not being aware of the different funding options they qualify for, the complicated nature of the government procurement process and the non-alignment of funding between different government departments (DRDLR, 2011a). In addition, it can take a number of years for a CASP application to be successful. This is problematic for new beneficiaries who want to start farming immediately and cannot wait years for financial support to set up infrastructure or

The government has attempted to integrate the CASP (the agricultural support programme) with the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) programme (which focuses primarily on land reform) in the form of the Land and Agrarian Reform Programme (LARP), which was established in 2008 (Greenberg, 2010). The LARP is meant to offer collaboration on delivery and collaboration on land reform and agricultural support "to accelerate the rate and sustainability of transformation through aligned and joint action of all involved stakeholders". The idea is to have "one stop shop" service centres in close proximity to farms and beneficiaries (LARP, 2008). Implementation of the LARP has been slow and to date there is little evidence of any significant change in practice (Greenberg, 2010). This programme again demonstrates an attempt at coordinating different sectors – agriculture and land – and services from these sectors to serve beneficiaries of land reform

A subsequent attempt by the South African government to integrate agricultural support, land reform and broader rural development without putting more money into rural areas has been the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRPD) (CRDP, 2011). Again, this is an attempt at transsectoral coordination between agriculture and land, this time with an additional focus on broader rural development. The programme aims to achieve "coordinated and integrated broad-based agrarian transformation, an improved land reform programme and strategic investments in economic and social infrastructure in rural areas" (CRDP, 2011). It is likely that this programme will run into difficulties as it relies on the weak institutions of the former Department of Land Affairs (which now is the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform with a bigger mandate but not a bigger budget). It also appears that the approach to planning and implementation is rushed with a focus on immediate delivery at all costs. The consequences of this approach are poor quality and lack of sustainability. Policy-making continues to be dominated by agri-business, which exerts a

An important component of revising the land reform programme has been the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS). This programme currently involves approximately 1000 farmers. As part of the programme, land is leased out to beneficiaries for a trial period of three to five years during which they have to prove that they can productively use the land for agricultural purposes. This programme has been in place since April 2010 (DRDLR,

use the money for other purposes (Raholane and Baloyi, 2011).

**5.6.2 Land and Agrarian Reform Programme (LARP)** 

with a large focus on stakeholder involvement.

**5.6.3 Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP)** 

strong influence on the agricultural sector (Greenberg, 2010).

**5.6.4 Pro-active Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS)** 

Money is also spent on training and capacity building and marketing. Farmers apply on a yearly basis and grants are awarded for a five year period (DAFF, 2011a). The CASP is therefore a potentially very valuable support programme as it is meant to supply emerging farmers with much needed infrastructure.

Fig. 5. Conceptualisation of transsectorality of reform programmes and support programmes

The South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) monitors the success of the impact of the CASP by checking whether the infrastructure that has been promised has been completed, and whether farmers are using it for the right purpose. While it is important to monitor whether infrastructure is being provided, no impact assessment studies have been conducted to establish the success of the CASP (DAFF, 2011a). When the former Department of Agriculture and the former Department of Land Affairs (now the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform) fell under one minister, it was easier to ensure that the land reform financial support programmes of both departments were coordinated. This has become more difficult now that the two competencies are no longer governed by the same minister (DRDLR, 2011a). Therefore, there used to be a greater level of transsectorality between the agriculture support specific and land reform specific programmes, which has now been compromised.

To date, the success of implementation of the CASP programme has been uneven, although most provincial farmer support programmes have been expanded (Greenberg, 2010). It appears that currently the CASP needs between three and four times its current budget in order to function effectively. Other difficulties include farmers not being aware of the different funding options they qualify for, the complicated nature of the government procurement process and the non-alignment of funding between different government departments (DRDLR, 2011a). In addition, it can take a number of years for a CASP application to be successful. This is problematic for new beneficiaries who want to start farming immediately and cannot wait years for financial support to set up infrastructure or use the money for other purposes (Raholane and Baloyi, 2011).
