Ramaphosa’s 2.5 Million-Hectare Land Plan Under Scrutiny

The government says expanding black commercial farming is essential to agricultural growth, but the proposal also raises questions about beneficiary selection, productivity, funding and whether food security should be pursued through race-based eligibility.

DURBAN, South Africa — President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced plans to make 2.5 million hectares of state-owned land available to black farmers, arguing that expanding participation in commercial agriculture is necessary to address historical inequalities and strengthen South Africa’s food production capacity.

The proposal, outlined in the president’s weekly letter to the nation and reported by BusinessTech on October 12, places agricultural transformation at the centre of the government’s strategy to expand the sector, develop new commercial farmers and create employment.

However, the policy also raises questions about how the beneficiaries will be selected, whether the land will be transferred with secure title, and how the government intends to ensure that the initiative delivers measurable gains in agricultural output.

Land redistribution and the food security argument

Ramaphosa has argued that South Africa’s agricultural sector remains divided, with predominantly white-owned commercial farms accounting for most commercial production while black farmers contribute approximately 10%.

The president maintains that relying on a relatively small segment of the population to meet the country’s food requirements presents a long-term risk, particularly as population growth increases demand for food.

His stated objective is to expand the pool of skilled, productive commercial farmers while addressing inequalities in access to agricultural land and resources.

Yet the relationship between racial representation and food security warrants closer examination. Increasing the number of black commercial farmers does not, by itself, guarantee higher production, lower food prices or greater resilience against drought, disease and other agricultural risks.

The effectiveness of the initiative will ultimately depend on whether beneficiaries can operate viable farms, gain access to markets and produce food competitively.

Should access to state land be determined by race?

The proposal also raises questions about the criteria used to allocate a public resource.

The government’s stated objective is to address historical exclusion and broaden participation in commercial agriculture. Critics argue, however, that a programme restricted to a particular racial group raises questions about equal treatment and whether eligibility criteria are sufficiently aligned with the economic objective of increasing food production.

These questions are not necessarily resolved by accepting or rejecting land redistribution as a policy goal.

South Africa’s history of racially discriminatory land ownership is an important part of the debate. Equally, a programme involving millions of hectares of public land requires transparent selection criteria, clear performance expectations and evidence that the chosen beneficiaries can put the land to productive use.

A key question is whether the government can demonstrate that its allocation framework will maximise agricultural output while meeting its stated transformation objectives.

Land is only the beginning

Ramaphosa has acknowledged that providing access to land and formal title is only the first step in developing successful commercial farmers.

The president has called for aspiring farmers to receive training, mentorship, technical knowledge, appropriate technology and other resources required to operate commercially.

He has also pointed to existing initiatives involving industry organisations, including the Citrus Growers’ Association, Grain South Africa, the National Wool Growers’ Association, Potatoes South Africa, Red Meat Industry Services, the Milk Producers’ Organisation and Fruit South Africa.

These organisations can potentially help new entrants acquire practical knowledge of crop production, animal health, weather patterns and the operational demands of commercial farming.

Access to finance is another critical consideration.

According to BusinessTech, the Land Bank and the Department of Agriculture have established a blended finance instrument, with commercial banks also participating. Ramaphosa has encouraged further participation by agribusinesses and financial institutions to improve funding options for agricultural development.

The availability of affordable capital, working funds, equipment, water, infrastructure and reliable routes to market will influence whether the land becomes a productive asset or an underutilised government holding.

The unanswered question of implementation

South Africa’s agricultural sector has considerable economic significance. BusinessTech reported that the industry employs approximately 944,000 people, with another 200,000 working across the broader value chain. Agricultural exports reached R270 billion in 2025, according to the report.

These figures underline the economic stakes involved in any policy intended to expand commercial production.

The government must therefore explain how the 2.5 million hectares will be allocated, how much land is immediately available for cultivation, what conditions will accompany transfers and how beneficiaries will be supported after receiving access to land.

It must also establish how success will be measured. The number of hectares allocated is an administrative output; increased production, commercially viable farms, employment and improved food availability are economic outcomes.

Transparent reporting on these measures would allow the public to assess whether the initiative is delivering on its promises.

Transformation must deliver results

The government’s proposal brings together two objectives: correcting historical inequalities in agriculture and expanding South Africa’s productive capacity.

Those objectives may be pursued together, but their success cannot be assumed simply because land has been allocated. The programme will require sound beneficiary selection, secure tenure, financing, technical support and accountability for the use of public assets.

The central test is whether the policy creates productive farms that strengthen food security and contribute to economic growth.

Will the government publish enough information for the public to assess the allocation process and its results? How will it ensure that beneficiaries receive the resources required to farm successfully? And what safeguards will prevent the programme from becoming a land-distribution exercise measured by hectares transferred rather than food produced and jobs created?