28Second, the reasons to which under-use of land and non-operational projects areattributed are focused on failures of the project members themselves (conflict, lack ofskills, poor management, etc) and the absence or inadequate support from governmentinstitutions, most notably the Department of Agriculture (lack of aftercare, training,extension advice, etc). However, the studies do not question the business plansthemselves, but take as given that adherence to business plans is the optimal outcomeeven though, as shown in the North West study, there may in fact be a negativecorrelation between the two.A further issue that merits attention is the wider economic context in which productiontake place (or not). The issue of under-utilisation of redistributed land has been framed –in the public imagination and in the few review reports that have been written –predominantly as a problem of production. This has fuelled (sometimes racially)caricatured notions of the limitations of poor black people as custodians of the land (duToit 2004). However, concerns about under-use of redistributed land are widely sharedacross the political spectrum. Among official reviews, the dominant reason put forwardfor the failure to produce is the lack of skills, for both cultivation and for management,thus laying the blame squarely on beneficiaries themselves, rather than on two otherpossible causes: the inappropriateness of planned land uses, and a hostile policy andeconomic environment (Andrew et al 2003).Policy Options for Land and Agrarian ReformProgramme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape
295. DYNAMICS IN THE COMMERCIAL FARMING SECTORWhen considering land use options in land reform, and whether and where commercialmodels should be followed, a critical investigation is need of the policy and economicenvironment in which farming is taking place. While the dynamics of farming, mostly byresource-poor farmers in the communal areas has been analysed elsewhere (Aliber et al2007, Andrew et al 2003), for redistributive land reform one must consider whatopportunities exist (or do not) in the commercial sector. This section considers what ishappening in the commercial sector, what opportunities does this offer for peopleentering into (or expanding in) agricultural through land reform, and what systems existto support new and disadvantaged farmers.Rapid deregulationAfter the dramatic rise in state support for white farmers since the 1930s and 1940s, thecommercial farming sector that was built through extensive state interventions in land,credit, input, and output markets went into decline in the 1970s, along with other sectorsof the economy. By the late 1980s, agriculture was in serious trouble, with net incomeand exports in decline, while farming debt had quadrupled in less than a decade. Thiswas not merely an expected “sectoral decline” relative to the rest of the economy, butalso a response to the removal of state support during the 1980s, which contributed tothe declining contribution of agriculture, to 4.6% of GDP in 1990. Excluded from nationalagricultural statistics were the estimated 1.3 to 3.5 million small-scale farmers in theformer ‘homelands’ (DOA 2006). The White Paper on Agriculture noted that:The present structure of agriculture and rural communities ischaracterised…by a very uneven income distribution. This problem can beaddressed by broadening access to agriculture via land reform and bringingsmall-scale farmers into the mainstream of the Government's technical andfinancial assistance to agriculture (RSA 1995).However, with the advent of democracy, and the need to end state transfers to thealready highly privileged white farming sector, the 1990s saw the elaborate architectureof support that was built up over decades being rapidly dismantled. This involved theremoval of subsidies, subsidised credit and bail-out programmes, state marketingboards, trade protection, and other related reforms including water reforms and labourregulation. Direct and indirect subsidies were reduced or, in most cases, abolishedaltogether. Maize subsidies were abolished by 1993, and by 1997 interest rate subsidiesand export subsidies were also ended. Price support now only remains in the sugarindustry. By 1998, agriculture’s Producer Support Estimate (PSE) was 4%, the lowest inthe world after New Zealand and, by 2001, the total state spending on agriculture stoodat R2.5 billion – just 45% of 1998 levels (Vink and Kirsten 2003:18).Marketing of agricultural products, regulated through 22 marketing control boards in a“single channel”, fixed price monopsony system, was also brought to an end. Whileelsewhere in the world, marketing boards have been used to keep producer prices downin order to ensure cheap supply of food and downstream agricultural products – andPolicy Options for Land and Agrarian ReformProgramme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape