In October 2026, the South African government announced plans to release approximately 2.5 million hectares of state-owned agricultural land to black farmers. The land, acquired through the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), is to be transferred to beneficiaries with title deeds.
The announcement, made by President Cyril Ramaphosa, forms part of the ANC-led government’s continuing efforts to transform South Africa’s agricultural sector. However, it raises serious concerns about the continued use of racial criteria in allocating public agricultural resources, particularly given the government’s troubling history of failed land reform projects.
Existing state agricultural land-leasing arrangements illustrate the problem. Under the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development’s beneficiary selection and land allocation policies, state land lease applications have explicitly restricted eligibility to previously disadvantaged racial groups. White South Africans are consequently excluded from these opportunities, regardless of their agricultural experience or financial resources.
Although the new announcement concerns the transfer of ownership rather than ordinary leasing arrangements, the government’s continued emphasis on race raises the same fundamental concern: Why should access to publicly owned agricultural land depend on racial classification rather than the ability to farm productively?
Lessons from failed land reform projects
South Africa’s land restitution and redistribution programmes have a long and often disappointing history. In numerous instances, previously productive commercial agricultural enterprises have struggled or collapsed following their transfer to new beneficiaries.
These failures have occurred despite government attempts to provide financial assistance, equipment, training and other forms of post-settlement support. In several cases, commercial partners and experienced agricultural managers have subsequently been brought in to rescue struggling operations.
Two examples illustrate the dangers of transferring agricultural assets without adequate attention to commercial viability.
Zebediela Citrus Estate, Limpopo
Once one of the largest citrus estates in the Southern Hemisphere, Zebediela was a major exporter of oranges and an important source of regional employment.
The estate was transferred to the Bjatladi Communal Property Association in 2003 through the land restitution programme. However, internal governance disputes, financial mismanagement, insufficient commercial expertise and inadequate support contributed to its eventual collapse.
Orchards deteriorated, infrastructure was neglected, and the estate accumulated substantial debt. Repeated attempts at rehabilitation followed, including government assistance and renewed efforts to secure private investment.
By 2026, plans to revive Zebediela again depended on a strategic commercial partnership to restore production and preserve the estate’s economic potential.
Levubu Valley farms, Limpopo
The Levubu Valley provides another example of the difficulties experienced by land restitution beneficiaries.
During the mid-2000s, highly productive macadamia, banana and avocado farms were transferred to claimant communities. The government arranged strategic partnerships with commercial agricultural companies to maintain production and provide management expertise.
However, the initial partnerships encountered serious financial and operational difficulties and ultimately collapsed. Production suffered, some farms accumulated debt, and government intervention was required.
Not every project failed. Some, including the Ravele community’s farming operations, subsequently achieved better results through revised management arrangements and experienced commercial partners.
Nevertheless, research into the Levubu experience demonstrates that transferring ownership without adequate capital, management expertise and effective governance is no guarantee of agricultural success.
The wider problem of governance and productivity
These failures are not isolated incidents. The difficulties experienced by Communal Property Associations (CPAs) demonstrate a broader weakness in South Africa’s land reform framework.
CPAs have repeatedly struggled with internal conflict, leadership disputes, financial mismanagement and poor administrative compliance.
In February 2026, Parliament reported that, of approximately 1,743 registered CPAs recorded in 2024, only 207 were fully compliant, with a further 124 partially compliant.
These figures reflect serious institutional weaknesses that cannot simply be dismissed as isolated administrative problems.
Although land restitution and the allocation of state-owned agricultural land operate through different arrangements, the lessons remain relevant. Agricultural success depends on more than transferring land to beneficiaries. It requires reliable management, sufficient capital, practical experience and sustainable commercial operations.
Government programmes such as the Recapitalisation and Development Programme (RECAP) have attempted to address shortcomings through additional financial and technical support. Yet recurring difficulties demonstrate that government assistance alone cannot guarantee commercial viability.
By continuing to prioritise racial eligibility over broader merit-based competition, the state risks repeating mistakes that have already cost taxpayers substantial sums of money.
Agricultural economics cannot be ignored
Commercial agriculture is a complex business. Successful farming requires technical knowledge, financial management, access to markets, dependable supply chains and the ability to adapt to changing conditions.
These capabilities cannot simply be created overnight through government training programmes or promises of financial assistance.
This does not mean that black South Africans cannot become successful commercial farmers. Numerous examples demonstrate that they can. The issue is not the race of the farmer but whether the individual possesses, or can obtain, the resources and expertise necessary to establish a viable agricultural enterprise.
Experience and competence should matter more than racial classification.
Giving existing farmers title deeds may well improve their access to finance and encourage long-term investment. That is a potentially positive development. However, ownership alone cannot overcome poor management, inadequate capital or ineffective agricultural support.
The consequences of getting these decisions wrong extend beyond individual farms. When productive agricultural enterprises fail, workers lose employment, suppliers lose customers, and communities lose valuable economic activity.
Food security and agricultural supply chains depend on maintaining commercially viable farming operations, not simply meeting politically determined transformation targets.
South Africa cannot afford to allow valuable agricultural land to become unproductive or dependent on repeated taxpayer-funded bailouts.
A pragmatic alternative to racial allocation
The government should move away from rigid racial eligibility criteria and towards agricultural land allocation based on competence, commercial potential and sustainable partnerships.
White South Africans should not be excluded from opportunities to acquire or develop state agricultural land purely because of their race. Equally, emerging black farmers should have access to opportunities that allow them to develop the skills, capital and experience required for commercial success.
A more constructive approach would encourage non-racial land allocation, joint ventures, equity-sharing arrangements and formal mentorship programmes in which established and emerging farmers cooperate from the outset.
Such arrangements can combine existing agricultural expertise with opportunities for new farmers to enter the commercial sector.
A recent example is that of black commercial grain farmer David Lupafya, who described how neighbouring white Afrikaner farmers helped him establish and sustain his farming operation.
When Lupafya encountered financial difficulties, experienced farmers assisted him with equipment, agricultural inputs and other practical support. Their cooperation helped him overcome obstacles that conventional financing arrangements had failed to resolve.
This is precisely the kind of partnership South Africa should encourage.
Instead of treating experienced white commercial farmers as a racial category to be excluded from state programmes, the government should recognise the agricultural knowledge, expertise and resources they can contribute.
Likewise, emerging farmers should be recognised for their ambition, competence and willingness to succeed rather than merely being classified according to race.
The ANC-led government appears unwilling to abandon its commitment to racial engineering, even when the economic consequences of failed interventions are plainly visible.
South Africa should have learned from its history that racial exclusion is an unacceptable foundation for public policy. The discrimination practised under apartheid should not be replaced with new forms of discrimination in the democratic era.
Land reform must deliver prosperity
Land reform should aim to expand agricultural production, create employment, strengthen food security and build lasting wealth.
These objectives require policies that encourage investment, respect individual competence and promote cooperation between farmers, regardless of race.
If the government continues to prioritise ideological transformation over commercial sustainability, South Africa risks condemning more agricultural enterprises to financial distress, neglect and eventual collapse.
The country needs more successful farmers, not more failed government projects.
The ultimate measure of land reform should be the prosperity it creates, not the racial classification of those receiving land.
Piet du Plessis is a retiree with extensive experience in applied socio-economic development. A proud Afrikaner, he believes in the freedom to express one’s cultural identity and values without apology.
