Recently, I visited farmers in the Beestekraal and Dwaalboom areas, between Brits in North West and Thabazimbi in Limpopo. As I drove around, something caught my eye. Some farms looked neglected. Others had little or no fencing, while some appeared severely overgrazed compared with neighbouring farms.
By Lebogang Mashala, editor, African Farming
I know these areas well and know that many of these farms are restituted farms held by Communal Property Associations (CPAs). I also know some of the challenges first-hand because, several years ago, I wrote stories about them.
What struck me most was that, after several years, some of these problems have not only remained unresolved, but they appear to have become worse.
I have attended several meetings involving CPAs and farmers, often as an observer. At one meeting, I watched part of a claimant community meet with a farmer who had a 10-year lease to operate on the farm.
Both sides were frustrated.
A group of unemployed community members wanted to be part of the operation so they, too, could make a living from the land. They were not part of the committee responsible for issuing leases.
On the other side was a farmer with a 10-year agreement signed with what appeared to be an illegitimate committee that had subsequently disappeared.
The group occupying the farm wanted a share of the operation, while the farmer wanted certainty around the agreement under which he had invested.
Both sides wanted a solution but could not find common ground.
As I probed further, I discovered that more than 20 farms in the area, controlled by this CPA, had been leased to various farmers. Many had occupied the farms before the land claims were settled.
It left me wondering: How can land reform succeed when those responsible for managing the land cannot agree on who has the authority to make decisions?
Also read: Land reform must be measured by its productive impact
The problem is bigger than one community
That question became even more troubling after I followed the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development’s engagement with the Standing Committee on Appropriations on the 2026 Appropriation Bill.
The department painted a worrying picture of governance and administrative problems. Officials admitted that weak internal controls and poor administrative systems had contributed to inefficiencies, irregular expenditure and operational failures.
The department reported R137 million in fruitless and wasteful expenditure, much of it linked to supply-chain failures, late payments and weak financial oversight.
But the problems went beyond financial administration.
Some restitution claims dating back to before 1998 remain unresolved. The department also reported challenges in managing state-owned agricultural land, including poor revenue collection and insufficient capacity to enforce leases and monitor compliance.
Then came the issue that immediately resonated with my experiences in Beestekraal and Dwaalboom: infighting within CPAs.
Acting Director-General Clinton Heimann told the committee rival groups often dispute each other’s legitimacy and accuse one another of misusing funds. In some cases, these disputes have ended up in court.
Committee member Constance Mkhonto raised another important point: Once land is transferred, many beneficiaries are left without the operational knowledge needed to run successful commercial farms.
Also read: Elevate Her | Are we making it too hard to access agricultural funding?
Land ownership is only the beginning
We need to talk about this honestly.
Land ownership and restitution are important. But transferring land alone does not create a successful farming enterprise.
A commercial farm requires production knowledge, financial management, market access, infrastructure, compliance and long-term investment.
It also requires good governance.
I have heard many stories over the years about dysfunction within CPAs across the country. There are successful partnerships, but there are also too many stories with the same recurring themes: mismanagement, infighting, corruption, poor leadership and disputes over leases and money.
When corruption enters the picture, it threatens the livelihoods of everyone who depends on the land – beneficiaries and investors alike.
Communities need stronger leadership
One of the biggest challenges facing land reform beneficiaries, particularly in restitution, is poor compliance with basic principles of good governance.
Government needs to consider doing more to provide CPAs with governance training and ongoing support.
There also seems to be a lack of understanding around pricing, leases, contracts and managing expectations. This becomes particularly problematic when communities enter joint ventures or lease their land to commercial farmers.
I have seen this first-hand.
A community may believe owning a farm means everyone should receive substantial income from it. A farmer or investor may see the same farm as a business requiring significant capital, risk and years of investment before meaningful returns are generated.
If neither side understands the other’s position, conflict is almost inevitable.
And once committees realise there is not enough money in a farming operation to make everyone wealthy, the temptation to put personal interests ahead of those of the community can become very real.
This is where credible and ethical leadership becomes critical.
Communities must elect competent people committed to serving the community rather than themselves, irrespective of age or gender.
Good leadership must be built around accountability, transparency and sound financial management.
Also read: Restituted land, real opportunities: Young South Africans making land reform work
We need to make restitution work
This is not an argument against restitution or communal ownership. Far from it.
It is an argument for making restitution work.
There are successful examples where communities, commercial farmers and other partners have made restituted farms productive. We need to learn from these examples and replicate what works.
But we also need to be honest about what is not working.
If these challenges are not addressed, even billions of rands in government support will not necessarily produce the desired results.
Money cannot compensate for dysfunctional governance. Funding cannot replace competent leadership. And land cannot be productive if those responsible for managing it are constantly fighting over who has the authority to make decisions.
South Africa’s land reform programme is too important to fail because of poor governance.
The people who received this land deserve better. Farmers who invest in these enterprises deserve certainty. And the country deserves a land reform programme that not only corrects historical injustices but also creates productive farms, sustainable businesses, jobs and food security.
Driving through Beestekraal and Dwaalboom and seeing neglected and overgrazed farms alongside productive ones, brought this reality home to me once again. Land restitution should be the beginning of economic opportunity, not another cycle of conflict, dysfunction and lost productivity.
If we are serious about land reform, we must become equally serious about what happens after the land has been transferred.
Also read:
Farmers face a tough season, but preparation is the best defence
Beyond the ‘No Land Bank buyers’ debate
Farmers pay the price when the rule of law fails!
Every veld fire leaves a scar
