Last week, while attending the annual general meeting of the National Livestock Farmers Association of South Africa (NaLFA-SA) in Pretoria, two announcements from the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development (DLRRD) stood out.
By Lebogang Mashala, editor at African Farming
The first was the department’s decision to suspend the issuing of letters of demand and eviction proceedings against farmers who have fallen behind on rental payments for state-owned farms. The second was the planned re-establishment of District Land Reform Committees (DLRCs), structures that played a significant role during the tenure of former Minister Gugile Nkwinti.
According to acting Director-General Clinton Heimann, both developments form part of Minister Mzwanele Nyhontso’s response to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s call to accelerate the transfer of land reform farms from leasehold arrangements to full ownership through title deeds.
Also read: DLRRD suspends evictions as title deed roll-out gets under way
Relief and renewed hope for land reform beneficiaries
For many land reform beneficiaries, the suspension of evictions offers much-needed relief after years of extraordinary pressure. Foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, devastating floods and the lingering effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have placed severe strain on farming enterprises, making it difficult for many to meet their lease obligations.
The department’s commitment to begin issuing title deeds within the next six months, and its consideration of paid-up letters for compliant tenants in the interim, could provide the certainty farmers have long sought.
Why district land reform committees matter
The revival of the DLRCs is equally significant.
These committees were originally designed to decentralise land redistribution by bringing together organised agriculture, financial institutions, civil society organisations, labour representatives and government stakeholders at district level. Their mandate was to identify land suitable for acquisition, recommend beneficiaries and help resolve land-related disputes.
The rationale remains compelling today. Local communities are often best placed to identify suitable beneficiaries and understand the realities on the ground. District-level decision-making can improve accountability and reduce instances where farms are allocated to individuals with little connection to the local area.
Also read: From Maile’s desk: June 16 – time for youth to sharpen their farming spear
The bigger question: Why do good policies disappear?
Yet what struck me most was not the return of these policies, but the fact that they disappeared in the first place.
Why do effective policies and programmes so often fade away when ministers change?
South Africa’s agricultural sector has experienced repeated shifts in direction as new political leaders arrive with new priorities. In many cases, initiatives introduced by one minister are abandoned by the next without clear explanations or thorough assessments of their effectiveness.
This stop-start approach creates uncertainty for farmers, investors and rural communities. It disrupts implementation, erodes institutional memory and wastes valuable resources.
Land reform, perhaps more than any other policy area, has suffered from this lack of continuity. Over the years, we have seen repeated shifts in approach, from grants to proactive land acquisition strategies, from leasehold arrangements to title deed models, and now back to district-based allocation mechanisms.
The result is often confusion for beneficiaries and hesitation from investors.
Also read: Elevate Her | The courage to ask
Strong institutions, not strong personalities
One of the most concerning aspects of our governance system is that there are limited safeguards to ensure continuity when leadership changes. While ministers have every right to refine or improve policies, successful programmes should not depend solely on the preferences of individuals.
Strong institutions, not strong personalities, should drive long-term development.
This issue becomes even more relevant amid the announcement of a reshuffle of the DA’s representatives in the Government of National Unity. Willie Aucamp will replace John Steenhuisen as Minister of Agriculture. Steenhuisen John Steenhuisen will replace Alexandra Abrahams as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition.
Regardless of one’s view of Steenhuisen’ performance, the question remains: What happens to the progress made under his leadership when he leaves office? Will Aucamp build on existing initiatives, or will the sector once again be expected to adapt to an entirely new vision?
The same question applies across government.
Policy evolution is necessary. Starting over is not.
Incoming ministers should be expected to evaluate existing programmes based on evidence, retain what works, improve what needs adjustment and discontinue only what has demonstrably failed.
Also read: Steenhuisen out: DA reshuffles agriculture minister position as FMD crisis continues
Building systems that outlast political cycles
For agriculture, where investments often span decades rather than political terms, consistency matters.
Farmers need certainty to invest. Rural communities need stability to grow. And South Africa needs institutions capable of delivering long-term outcomes regardless of who occupies a ministerial office.
Cabinet reshuffles should represent a handover of responsibility; not a reset button.
If we are serious about transforming agriculture and achieving meaningful land reform, we must build systems that outlast political personalities.
Also read
From our editor | Rethinking farmer support: Why communal areas need a different approach
From our editor: FMD campaign reveals the livestock story we’ve been getting wrong for decades
From our editor: Weekend farming is not failure; it is often the beginning
