Farmers forced to sell their properties for land reform should record in writing they had not given up their land willingly and reserved the right to reclaim it in the event of a change of government. This is among the more drastic recommendations in a discussion document recently released by TAU SA, which wants agricultural policy in SA to rest on three main pillars: the principle of private property, the market economy and the right to safety and security.
The union will use the document to guide its policy decisions and for negotiations with government. It will also serve as an updatable policy declaration of commercial farmers in to be communicated to foreign governments that is “honest and transparent” and unfettered by attempts to be “politically correct”. his is a veiled reference to an agreement reached between rival white farmers’ union Agri SA, its black counterpart National African Farmers’ Union (Nafu) and government that outlines a strategic framework for deracialising agriculture in SA.
TAU said it declined to endorse the agreement because implementing its proposals did not make sound economic sense. “The gears of the market economy continue to grind relentlessly, and will swiftly destroy this country if the game is not played fair and square,” the document declares. “Many examples can be cited in Africa, of which the best is surely our northern neighbour, Zimbabwe.” Government’s handling of “sensitive issues” such as expropriation, land tax and the minimum wage create the impression an ideologically driven political agenda – not sound economic principles – is the driving force behind decision-making in the sector. he right to own private property, fixed and movable, is “inalienable and sacrosanct”, the document declares. “Private property rights must be respected by the state and guaranteed according to international custom.”
Furthermore, all citizens have a constitutional right to conduct economic activities that will sustain them. These can only be profitable in a free market system with minimal state interference, including in the land market, where the willing buyer, willing seller principle is non-negotiable. he union believes the government is using legislative means to dispossess lawful owners of their property rights, including the Extension of Security of Tenure Act of 1997, which grants permanent residence rights to workers who’ve lived on farms for over a decade; restitution law, which allows forced removals victims under apartheid to reclaim ancestral land; and black empowerment regulations. he union believes these laws constitute the single greatest threat farmers face in protecting their property rights and making an economic contribution through sustainable land use.
The union wants land claims to be investigated by credible independent parties to establish validity, which rests on two legal pillars: that claimants were forced to move because of racist laws or practices, and that they were not fairly compensated, in land or cash. “If, after such an investigation, there is indeed a valid claim, the current owner must be offered a market-related price for his land,” the document insists. The price cannot be determined by the government, because this puts it in the position of prosecutor, judge and claimant. A recent agreement reached between organised agriculture and government on sharing information on claims before farms are listed, to ensure bogus claims are thrown out, could result in greater fairness being built into the process, the union said.
The union wants all land, except that which the state requires for specific purposes, to be privately owned so that an individual or company takes responsibility for proper land use and management. Foreigners should be allowed to buy and own land in SA, subject to certain conditions. E xisting water rights must be respected. “Farmers have paid more for land to acquire these rights. Any erosion of these rights is equivalent to expropriation/nationalisation.”
The union believes mining legislation that has abolished private ownership of mineral rights constitutes illegitimate expropriation and must be revised. This view is shared by many of SA’s mining giants but never voiced openly for fear of offending government, on whose approval of prospecting and mining applications their survival depends. “value of land was linked to the total value of everything available on that land – including water and mineral rights,” the document says. The state has therefore expropriated an asset without compensation, which is an attack on private property rights.
This raises questions in the minds of potential investors. he union similarly sees AgriBEE as an attempt to dispossess white farmers of property rights without adequate compensation. “The purpose of AgriBEE is to force the transfer of land and expertise from the farmer to the black owner or shareholder and eventually replace the white farmer in the agricultural sector with subsistence and emerging farmers.” – Stephan Hofstätter
