1. Provincial comparison of delivery of land reform and agricultural support services
Briefing prepared for the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the Presidency
Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)
University of the Western Cape
3 March 2017

2. Approach to provincial comparison
When comparing delivery and performance (ie. outcomes) of land reform projects, one needs to consider various factors – some of which are within provincial government control and others not.
Factors shaping land reform and black farmer support in the Western Cape include:
There is no former homeland – WC accounts for only about 1% of black farming households, and available funds can go further (but note: some small Act 9 areasare in the WC)
Land prices are high, much of agriculture is capital-intensive and redistribution has been slow compared to some other provinces
Equity schemes skew the numbers - while the number of ‘hectares redistributed’ is comparable to other provinces, there is a higher number of farm worker equity share schemes in the WC than elsewhere, in which the farms remain under majority white ownership. So any evaluation is not evaluating ‘black farmers’ in such cases.

3. The scale of land redistribution
The total area of land redistributed in the Western Cape is 552,662ha – just above the provincial average of 522,393ha.
The number of farms redistributed in the Western Cape is 321 – significantly below the provincial average of 587.
This means that, on aggregate, fewer bigger farms have been redistributed in the Western Cape than in the country as a whole.
All redistribution has been implemented by national government, via the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

4. The scale of land redistribution: by province (1994-2016)
Source: DRDLR 2016: 4

5. Spatial spread
With the exception of peaks in 1998 and 2007, in general the Western Cape has seen modest to average levels of land redistribution in each year.

6. Redistribution in hectares by province, 1994-2016
Spatial spread
Redistribution in hectares by province,
Source: DRDLR 2016: 4

7. Provincial budgets
While land reform is a ‘national competency’ implemented by DRDLR, agriculture is a concurrent competency, with the provincial departments responsible for implementing farmer support.
Comparing the budgets that the provinces set aside for ‘Farmer Support and Development’, the Western Cape is the 3rd lowest in the country, after Gauteng and the Northern Cape.

8. Provincial budgets: farmer development and support (in million Rand)
Source: National Treasury 2016: Estimates of Provincial Expenditure

9. Black farming households’ access to agricultural extension and/or training
One of the strongest predictors of success among farmers is access to agricultural extension and/or training services.
Drawing on the General Household Surveys of , we find that in the Western Cape just 3.9% of black farming households have had access to agricultural extension and/or training in an average year.
This makes it the 4th best province in terms of the reach of agricultural extension services and training – after the Eastern Cape, KZN and Northern Cape.

10. Black farming households with access to agricultural extension and/or training
Source: Statistics South Africa: General Household Survey, data amalgamated from
(with thanks to Michael Aliber, University of Fort Hare, for the calculations)

11. Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme: Findings of the DPME review
The University of Pretoria conducted a national review of CASP for the DPME in 2014.
The review involved some comparison of how CASP was being implemented in different provinces.

12. The Western Cape does not stand out compared to other provinces when it comes to farmers getting information
Generally, farmers were more likely to receive agricultural information after CASP. This was the case across the board (except Limpopo and North West).

14. Farmers in the Western Cape were most likely to request and receive input support and consider it sufficient

15. Input assistance
But all these surveys are of people already included in the CASP programme.
It does not tell us about the black farmers who are excluded from CASP.

16. Comments on the Western Cape report
The W. Cape government’s 2014 report on Agricultural Land Reform Project Performance Evaluation examines the outcomes of land reform projects according to 39 criteria.
It is unclear how these criteria were developed or what relationship they have to national or provincial policy.
There are no similar studies nationally with which to compare the findings.
This suggests a need for agreement on indicators of success (‘outcome indicators’) for land reform projects and for these to inform monitoring and evaluation

17. Comments on the Western Cape report
The W. Cape government’s 2014 report on Agricultural Land Reform Project Performance Evaluation examines the outcomes of land reform projects according to 39 indicators.
It is unclear how these indicators were developed or what relationship they have to national or provincial policy.
Projects scoring above 52% were classified as ‘successful’.
Again, what constitutes success is not derived from any national standard or policy.
There are no similar studies nationally with which to compare the findings.
This suggests a need for agreement on indicators of success (‘outcome indicators’) for land reform projects and for these to inform monitoring and evaluation

18. Assessment of the Western Cape report
60% of beneficiaries are not actively involved in the projects – this is a startling finding. The rest of the findings are skewed by the fact that they only address the situation of the remaining 40%.
The study does not clearly address commonages, food security projects and subsistence farms; these are excluded from the overall analysis so it is not clear how these projects – typically for the poor – are faring.
It is difficult to assess the findings and recommendations – these rely heavily on the qualitative interviews with beneficiaries, which are not summarised in the report.
In general, we find the methods and findings difficult to assess; many of the findings are based on qualitative interviews and we are not convinced by the selection and application of the 39 indicators.
The recommendations seem reasonable and converge with widespread calls for rigorous beneficiary selection, realistic business planning, diversified livelihoods, and improved and better coordinated support.

19. Anti-poor actions by DA municipalities: civil society perspectives
Occupiers of state land are denied access to municipal services (eg Wilderness Heights in George)
Former forest workers on donated land, or in forestry settlements (e.g. Geelhoutboom), are denied access to municipal services and are under pressure to move into town
Beneficiaries of Bakenskraal Equity Share scheme are denied access to municipal services
Small-scale farmers are often denied access to commonage land, and in many cases water rights on commonages are allocated to commercial farmers (e.g Hessequa)
Municipal byelaws on impoundment of livestock are not implemented by municipalities, and commercial farmers often impound livestock belonging to small-scale farmers

20. Concluding thoughts On the basis of the following data and studies:
CASP review for DPME (2014)
Western Cape government evaluation (2014)
General Household Survey ( )
We conclude that CASP is reasonably effectively implemented in the Western Cape – especially the provision of input support – but, other than this, it is not distinctly better than elsewhere (see CASP review).
The provision of extension and/or training support only reaches a very small proportion of black farming households in the province (GHS ).