A few weeks ago, I came across a post from a farm agent advertising a property for sale. Two things immediately caught my attention: “No Land Bank buyers” and “dreamers”. I took a screenshot and posted it on my personal Facebook page with the question, “As a black farmer, what do you think of this?”
By Lebogang Mashala, editor of African Farming
My Facebook post opened a can of worms.
Looking back, I probably should have given more thought to how I phrased the question. The reactions showed just how easily we can be triggered by words. For some white commentators, the reference to “black farmers” was enough to accuse me of race-baiting. For others, the agent’s reference to “No Land Bank buyers or dreamers” was interpreted as racist.
Honestly, I did not see anything inherently racist in the advertisement. I saw a seller who had probably become frustrated with the Land Bank process and was making it clear that they did not want buyers dependent on Land Bank finance.
But as a black farmer, the advert made me uncomfortable for a different reason.
The bigger problem behind the advert
“No Land Bank buyers” is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
If an institution established to facilitate agricultural development and transformation has become so unreliable in the eyes of some sellers that they would rather exclude buyers who depend on its finance, then we have a serious agricultural-finance problem.
That is the conversation I wanted to have.
I have spoken to various parties involved in this debate long before that Facebook post. I have spoken to farmers who have been frustrated and let down by Land Bank processes. I have spoken to sellers who have also been frustrated by delays. And I have spoken to Land Bank representatives on several occasions about these concerns.
To its credit, the bank has acknowledged that turnaround times have been an issue and says it is working to improve them.
Also read: New partnership targets finance and market access for emerging farmers
When everyone can be right
In its most recent response to me, Land Bank said it was achieving an overall average turnaround time of 59 working days from initial application assessment to credit decision, including due diligence.
It also explained that the process can take longer where applications are incomplete, transactions are complex, or emerging farmers require additional support to strengthen business plans and address gaps identified during due diligence.
That context is important.
It also reinforces a point that was largely lost in the Facebook debate: The farmer, the seller and Land Bank can all be right, depending on the circumstances.
A farmer can genuinely experience unacceptable delays. A seller can legitimately become frustrated when a transaction takes months to conclude. And Land Bank can genuinely be dealing with complex applications that require significant developmental support.
The problem is what happens when these realities collide in the land market.
Also read: High cost of Boer goat exports to SA puts pressure on Namibian farmers
When transformation finance loses trust
A farmer may qualify for a government-supported financing programme but still lose an opportunity to acquire land because the seller does not trust the financing process.
This is particularly concerning when a significant proportion of aspiring black commercial farmers depend on institutions such as Land Bank to access capital.
If the market starts saying “No Land Bank buyers”, we need to ask what that says about the effectiveness and credibility of agricultural transformation finance.
This is why I believe the Land Bank has another important job besides processing applications: It needs to communicate better.
Communication will not solve every delay, but it can go a long way towards managing expectations and changing perceptions. Applicants need to know what is missing, where their applications are in the process and what is required from them. Sellers also need confidence that transactions involving Land Bank finance will be handled professionally and within reasonable, predictable timeframes.
Also read: Kasi Sauce: How a bartender built an agro-processing business from his village home
Beyond the race debate
The Facebook debate left me with another uncomfortable thought: We have a lot of work to do to heal race relations in this country.
A simple reference to a “black farmer” triggered some people. A reference to “No Land Bank buyers or dreamers” triggered others. Before we could discuss the substance of the issue, the conversation had become another black-versus-white argument.
That is unfortunate.
We cannot build a transformed agricultural sector if every difficult conversation immediately becomes a racial confrontation. Nor can we ignore race when discussing agricultural transformation, because our history continues to shape who owns land, who has access to finance and who participates meaningfully in agricultural value chains.
The challenge is to hold both truths at the same time.
The question we should be asking
Perhaps I could have asked my original Facebook question differently. But I still believe the question itself was legitimate.
If Land Bank is an important vehicle for agricultural transformation, what happens to aspiring black farmers when the market itself starts saying, “No Land Bank buyers”?
That, to me, is the real issue.
Ke mathata fela, indeed. But the solution will not come from blaming farmers, sellers, Land Bank, black people or white people.
The solution will come from building a financing system that farmers can trust, sellers can rely on and the agricultural transformation agenda can depend on. And perhaps, along the way, learning to listen to each other before we react to the words.
Also read:
Farmers pay the price when the rule of law fails!
From our editor: Winter’s silent war on South African farmers
From our editor: Turning youth potential into agricultural success
