A radical land redistribution programme does not pose a threat to food security. The basis of the food security argument is that beneficiaries of land redistribution do not have skills for commercial farming. If it is true that the beneficiaries of land redistribution dont have commercial farming skills, then they can still rent out the land to current commercial farmers. When we fight for land, we are not fighting for the commercial farming business, we are fighting for the economic benefit that comes with ownership of property. In the case of land, it is rent. It is up to the new land owner to continue with farming (if they have the skills) or employ the economic benefit (rent) in other income generating activities. Blacks are quite capable of doing that, especially if they can take their children to universities with money from selling tomatoes in the street. If current farmers decide to boycott the commercial farming business to threaten food security in order to avoid paying rent, then theres plenty commercial farming experts outside of South Africa (that we know of) who are willing to take over, as long as the lease terms are attractive. So the boycott by domestic commercial farmers can actually strengthen food security by attracting foreign investment. Heres a valid question: Does this mean current commercial farmers are going to lose their property just like that? Yes. The purchase of land is a long term investment decision. A business man must always consider the political climate in which they operate. So next time you are offered a stolen property by government, dont buy, rent.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:07:46 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015