Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/sage/land-water-and-gender-questions-in-south-africa-a-transformative-JgwdVHAsAf
- Publisher
- SAGE
- Copyright
- © 2023 Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South (CARES)
- ISSN
- 2277-9760
- eISSN
- 2321-0281
- DOI
- 10.1177/22779760231151517
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
The heated debate around Section 25 of the South African Constitution and the principle of “expropriation of land without compensation” is conspicuously missing the inextricable link between land, water, and gender questions. Within former settler colonies, the “land question” is a “water question” and, by extension, also a “gender question.” The racially inequitable land distribution, codified in the Native Land Act of 1913, mirrored the unequal distribution of rights and access to water as codified in the Water Act of 1956. This was compounded by the gender question, in which lack of access to land for women mutated into lack of access to other productive resources. While secondary data analysis reveals that blacks control only 5.8% of agricultural water uses, Black women control less than 1%. Such intersectionality of race, class, and gender ought to remain a relentless focus of transformative social policy in South Africa. Keywords Land reform, water reform, gender, transformative social policy, South Africa College of Graduate Studies, University of South Africa, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa Corresponding author: Newman Tekwa, DSI/NRF SARChI Chair in Social Policy, College of Graduate Studies, University of South Africa, 263 Nana Sitha Street, Pretoria, Gauteng 0002, South Africa. E-mail: tekwanewman@gmail.com 2 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy Introduction The land–water nexus in rural South Africa is seldom discussed in political narratives of land reform and is conspicuously missing from the recent heated public debates sparked by the principle of “expropriation of land without compensation” (Marcatelli, 2018, p. 394). Disparities in access to (agricultural) water use are argued to be more pronounced than discrimination in access to land (Liebrand et al., 2012, p. 773; Movik, 2012, p. 17; Ncube, 2018, p. 1; Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 182; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848). While the national Gini Coefficient stands at 0.68 (Statistics South Africa, 2017), disparities in direct agricultural water access and use stand at 0.95 (Liebrand et al., 2012, p. 774; Cullis & van Koppen, 2007 cited in Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848). According to the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform and Agriculture, only 5% out of the 61% of water used in agriculture is used by Black farmers (Republic of South Africa [RSA], 2019, p. 52). Such a phenomenon is not only peculiar to South Africa but also the entire Southern Africa region (Matondi, 2012; Woodhouse, 1995). It has been established elsewhere that “where land distribution is skewed against the poor (including women) water is also likely to be unevenly distributed,” exemplifying riparian rights to water (Bene et al., 2007, p. 175; see also Ncube, 2018, p. 1). With reference to South Africa, Ntsebeza (2007) argues that the “property question” pertains only to land (reform) and seldom to water (Ntsebeza, 2007, p. 108). While Section 25 of the South African Constitution recognizes and protects property relations that were legitimate prior to the democratic transition, which it argues, are not limited to land, the extension of these property relations to agricultural water rights is seldom made (Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 194). This overlap in property regimes, particularly that relating to the water question (agricultural water access and use,) has been a blind spot for popular political debates on land reform in South Africa (Marcatelli, 2018, p. 395; RSA, 2019, p. 12; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848). The primary concern of the article is to highlight the land and water questions in South Africa’s land reform and their gender mediation. While the structure of inequality emanating from the land–water nexus is increasingly being highlighted in the literature, it is the extension of this structure of inequality to that of gender that this article sought to highlight. A Transformative Social Policy (TSP) approach will be utilized to analyze the land–water–gender nexus in South Africa’s land reform program. In what follows, we will first bring into focus the Tekwa and Adesina 3 post-apartheid reforms in the water sector and the necessity of a TSP approach to the problems raised. This will be followed by a statistical analysis of the land restitution and redistribution program from 1994 to March 2016, which will then be combined with an analysis of the problems of water access within the land–water–gender nexus. A Tale of Twin Reforms: South Africa’s Water Services and the National Water Acts Post-apartheid South Africa has had two landmark reforms in the water sector, like the Water Services Act Number 107 of 1997 and the National Water Act Number 36 of 1998 (Movik, 2012, p. 33; Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 182). While both the Acts relate to the water sector, they distinguish one from each other by the type of water use to which each pertains (Movik, 2012, p. 33). The Water Services Act pertains to consumptive (domestic) water uses, which is an area of critical concern due to apartheid discriminatory policies in access to water and sanitation (Movik, 2012, p. 33; Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 182; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848). With half of the country’s population residing in towns and cities, this emphasis was justifiable (Altman et al., 2009, p. 345; RSA, 2019, p. 17). While urban water use accounts for only 20% of total water use, from a gender perspective, this narrow focus on potable water resonates with the MDG/SDGs emphasis that reinforces existing gender norms (Grant et al., 2017; Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 12). The National Water Act Number 36 of 1998, which is the basis for water policy reform with regard to agriculture, has been described as a reform without change (Greenberg, 2010, p. 9; Liebrand et al., 2012, p. 773). Despite the National Water Act of 1998 having repealed the 1956 Water Act and promulgating the “public trust” concept (Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 183), the land and water ownership pattern remained consistent with the allocation predating the National Water Act (Greenberg, 2010, p. 10; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848). Just as the currently debated Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 recognized and protected property relations in land that were “legitimate” before the transition to democracy, the “sunset clauses” in the National Water Act of 1998, by promulgating the notion of “existing lawful uses” (ELUs), protected pre-existing rights to water mainly for white large-scale commercial farmers (Movik, 2012, p. 41; Ncube, 2018, p. 1; Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 2). According to the Act, ELUs are defined 4 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy as water uses that “lawfully took place in the period 2 years before the commencement of the National Water Act Number 36 of 1998”. Marcatelli (2018) argued that ELUs should “be read as a translation of the Constitutional safeguard of private property rights within the context of water,” as most water uses by white commercial farmers, even as late as 2006, fell under the definition of ELUs (Marcatelli, 2018, p. 396; see also Movik, 2012, p. 41). Within the National Water Act, “sunset clauses” pertain to Sections 32–35 in the new Water Policy (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 1). Section 32 defines and recognizes particular historical water uses as existing lawful uses (ELUs). While Section 33 makes a declaration on these ELUs, Section 34 allows these historical water users to continue using water as a form of historical entitlement until they are replaced by a water license. The last one, Section 35, provides for the verification of ELUs, a confirmation as to whether they comply with the definition provided in Section 32. Additionally, Section 25(2) of the Act makes provision for the holders of unwanted water uses to keep them in the event that the authorization to surrender it is not approved (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, pp. 1–2). These “sunset clauses” are the culprits entrenching the nexus between land ownership and access to water, perpetuating pre-existing apartheid and colonial racial inequities in access to land and water resources in South Africa (Greenberg, 2010, p. 9; Liebrand et al., 2012, p. 778). According to Marcatelli (2018), while water was declared a common property for all citizens, through the “public trust doctrine,” it remained private property for some (Marcatelli, 2018, p. 397). With the majority black population having no private title to land due to the Native Land Act of 1913, and with water property access and use embedded in land property rights, access to agricultural water too became an instrument for racial segregation (Marcatelli, 2018, p. 396; Ncube, 2018, p. 2) and gender discrimination during the colonial and apartheid periods in South Africa (Kepe & Hall, 2016, p. 61; Weidman, 2006, p. 388). The above discussion needs to be understood within the context in which the two Water Acts were promulgated. The two Acts, particularly the Water Services Act, were promulgated when the country was transitioning from apartheid, and the imperative to provide water and sanitation services to historically disadvantaged black South Africans living in the townships was justified. This was in addition to the neoliberal thinking that informed most economic policies in South Africa, resulting in the National Water Act regarding water as an economic rather than a social Tekwa and Adesina 5 good. Such a policy stance favored the pursuit of economic growth rather than redressing historical imbalances in access to productive resources. The Transformative Social Policy Framework and the Role of the State Transformative Social Policy (TSP) is a term “coined by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in its flagship research program, ‘Social Policy in Development Context’ 2000–2006” (UNRISD, 2010, p. 24). The attractiveness of the TSP framework (Figure 1), particularly in the context of this study, lies not only in its multiplicity of social policy instruments but also in its potential to transform unequal social relations and institutions, including gender (Adesina, 2009, p. 38, 2011, p. 466; Mkandawire, 2007; UNRISD, 2006). Within the TSP framework, land and water sector reforms can be tasked with redistributive, productive, social protection, social cohesion, and nation-building objectives of social policy (Adesina, 2011, p. 465; Mkandawire, 2007; UNRISD, 2006). As envisaged in the TSP approach, the connection between agricultural water security and human welfare has been established in the literature (Bene et al., 2007, p. 151; Molden et al., 2007, p. 281). Figure 1. Transformative Social Policy: Norms, Functions, Instruments, and Outcomes. Source: Adesina (2011, p. 463). 6 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy The state, though itself in need of reform, remains the key driver of reforms to ensure greater equity in access to water resources for public welfare and gender equity (Merrey et al., 2007, p. 195). This is particularly so as the market-based integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach has invariably ignored gender (Bene et al., 2007, p. 170; Merrey et al., 2007, p. 212). It has been noted that the introduction of market systems in the South African agricultural water sector has not benefited HDIs (Merrey et al., 2007, p. 205; Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 2). However, the institution of the State is not monolithic, as reforms are inherently political and characterized by vested interests and contestations from different interest groups and actors (Greenberg, 2010, p. 9; Liebrand et al., 2012, p. 774; Merrey et al., 2007, p. 195). Institutional reforms, including those relating to land and water, do not happen on blank slates but are embedded in a socio-technical context with history, culture, vested interests, and discourses that tend to shape the scope of reform (Movik, 2012, pp. 7, 24). TSP relates well to the role of the state in transforming social relations and institutions, including those relating to race and gender, as reforms in the water sector have not benefited women (Bene et al., 2007, pp. 150, 169). Tasking reforms in the water sector with a productive function transform gender norms associating women with “portable” consump- tive but seldom with productive (agricultural) uses of water (Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848; see also Movik, 2012, p. 71). This is where the utility of the TSP approach becomes critical to transform gender divisions of work associating women with the household (private/social reproductive) and seldom with the economic (public/productive) sphere (Grant et al., 2017; Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 12). While the nexus between land and agricul- tural water is increasingly being recognized (Marcatelli, 2018, p. 395; Ncube, 2018, pp. 1, 21; Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 3), its extension to issues of gender has not been adequately emphasized in the literature. While Marcatelli (2018) identified the persistent reproduction of structural inequalities in South Africa—one particular structure of inequality being the land–water nexus (2018, p. 398)—the author failed to envisage the intersection of this structure of inequality with that of gender. A holistic discussion of the embeddedness of water property and use rights and land property rights with issues of gender is missing in political discussions on the Property Clause in South Africa. As the prop- erty question is not only limited to land but also extends to agricultural water (Ntsebeza, 2007), gender becomes a profound question as neither of the property questions pertains to women (Movik, 2012, p. 104; Tekwa & Adesina, 2018, p. 46). Tekwa and Adesina 7 Methods and Materials The two main data sets used in this study are the Land Reform Program Statistical Performance Assessment and statistics from the Verification of Water Use to Eliminate Historical Water Use Entitlements. The first set of data is public information gathered by the South African Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development, the custodian of the land reform program. The data set covers the performance of the land reform program from 1994 to March 2016, with a specific focus on the two pillars of the South African land reform program like restitution and redistribution. The type of data for the restitution program includes the total number of settled and outstanding claims disaggregated by province, the cumulative hectares of land acquired, and the total budget cost to the government. While this information is useful, it falls short on the gender variable as it does not specify the target beneficiaries. Statistical performance of the redistribution program shows a consist- ent fit with the research questions explored in this article. This data set is classified into three categories, such as farms, land, and target groups disaggregated by province. The first section covers the number of farms acquired for redistribution for the period 1994 to March 2016, while the second section shows the total amount of hectares acquired for redistri- bution. Included is the amount of acquired land allocated to smallholder farmers from 1994 to March 2016. The third section of the data set is more germane to this study as it disaggregates the target groups specifi- cally covering the following categories women, households, youths, farms dwellers, labor tenants, military veterans, agricultural graduates, and people living with disability. The second set of data is gathered by the Department of Water and Sanitation and includes statistics on the Verification of Water Use as an Instrument to Eliminate Historical Water Use Entitlements. These statis- tics are based on the Agricultural Water Validation and Verification Plan of Action, 2016/19 to 2017/18. This is in addition to statistics on the distribution of agricultural water uses by gender and race across South Africa’s nine Water Management Agencies (WMAs). The type of data collected, disaggregated by catchment area, includes distribution of agri- cultural water uses and the total volume of water recovered in cubic meters (m ) from under-registered and unlawful water uses by current holders of water use rights. In short, this represents the amount of agri- cultural water that can be made available for redistribution to histori- cally disadvantaged groups, including women. Two other Parliamentary Portfolio Committees, namely the Portfolio Committee on Water and 8 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy Sanitation and the Portfolio Committee on the Riparian and Related Historical Use of Water and Its Implications on the Current Allocations, have also used the data sets used here. The analysis of these data sets brings out the relationships, patterns, trends, and distribution associated with our research purpose involving assessment of the performance of the land reform program in South Africa. As presented, the analyzes were performed in line with the vari- ables under investigation in the article. The first level analyzes the percent contribution by provinces to the total land acquired for redistri- bution to assess the rate of agrarian transformation by province since the dawn of democracy. The second level analyzes the amount of land (ha) allocated to smallholders in South Africa’s land reform program from 1994 to March 2016 as a percentage of the total land acquired, specifi- cally under the redistribution component. The third level analyzes gender transformation in South Africa’s land reform, focusing on the number of women beneficiaries as a percentage of the total number of land reform beneficiaries from 1994 to March 2016. This land reform analysis is jux- taposed to the gender redistribution targets of the Water Allocation Reform Strategy of 2008, in view of the Verification of Water Use to Eliminate Historical Water Use Entitlements, 2016–2018. The next section provides a discussion flowing from the analyzes outlined here. The Limits of Restitution and Redistribution in South Africa’s Land Reform Program Land reform in South Africa comprises three pillars, such as land redis- tribution, restitution, and land tenure reform (RSA, 2019, p. 41). Table 1 below provides summarized provincial statistics regarding the perfor- mance of the two main land delivery pillars in South Africa, restitution and land redistribution, from 1994 to March 2016. While the land restitution program delivered a total of 3,327,984 hectares of land, with KwaZulu Natal province accounting for the largest size of land acquired under this program, followed by Limpopo, the lack of disaggregation by gender compromises the utility of these statistics for gender analysis. The extent to which women have benefited relative to men within this pillar of the South African land reform program cannot be ascertained. Available evidence suggests that women have not benefited equally under the land restitution program due to the perva- sive patriarchal relations characterizing the program (Weidman, 2006, Table 1. Land Reform Program Statistics Performance, 1994–March 2016. Restitution Redistribution % of Ha Allocated to % of Acquired Total No. of No. Women % of Total Province Ha* Ha Total Smallholders Land (Ha) Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Eastern Cape (142,515) 536,289 12.0 15,618 2.9 26,731 3,851 14.4 Free State (55,207) 406,663 9.0 14,729 3.6 8,156 2,293 26.8 Gauteng (13,393) 59,277 1.0 1,114 1.8 7,476 1,032 13.8 KwaZulu Natal (821,297) 568,700 12.0 18,285 3.2 77,299 21,760 28.2 Limpopo (684,148) 160,599 3.0 12,176 7.5 9,880 1 204 21.9 Mpumalanga (505,228) 470,445 10.0 7,634 1.6 17,763 3,890 21.9 Northern Cape (651,033) 1,467,316 31.0 148,962 10.2 2,085 1,178 56.5 North–West (444,186) 472,968 10.0 15,994 3.4 58,067 22,791 39.2 Western Cape (10,977) 554,431 12.0 12,872 2.3 28,593 10,383 36.3 Total (3,327,984) 4,696,669 100.0 247,384 5.3 236,050 68,382 28.9 Source: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (2016). Note: *disaggregation presented in the table pertains to the land redistribution program and excludes that of the land restitution program. 10 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy p. 370). It is only with the Land Redistribution Program that the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development (DALRRD) has provided some gender-disaggregated statistics critical for gender analysis. As such, the ensuing discussion focuses on the land redistribution program, the main prospective land delivery pillar expected to deliver at least 30% of commercial agricultural land to Black farmers by 2025 (RSA, 2019, pp. 50, 85). The Northern Cape accounts for close to a third of the total land acquired under the land redistribution program, with a total of 1,467,316 ha. Considering the climatic and geological conditions of the region, this represents a failure of the willing-buyer–willing-seller model (Aliber & Mokoena, cited in Lahiff, 2007, p. 10). Much of the land brought onto the market for the purposes of redistribution to Black farmers is of poor quality and unsuitable for crop cultivation, though it can be used for ranching and other non-agricultural land uses like game farming (Aliber & Mokoena, cited in Lahiff, 2007, p. 10). In the Gauteng province, a region endowed with the best agricultural land and proximity to markets, less than 1% of agricultural land has been acquired for redistribution. This suggests that little agrarian transformation and very limited agricultural land have exchanged hands between the two racial groups comprising large-scale white commercial farmers and majority Black South Africans. Within South Africa’s land redistribution program, it is critically important to analyze the ratio of acquired land relative to that allocated to smallholder farmers. As shown in Table 1, with the exception of two provinces like Limpopo (7.5%) and Northern Cape (10.2%), the percent- age of acquired land redistributed to smallholder farmers has been far below 5%. With only 5.3% of total acquired land having been redistrib- uted to smallholder farmers, it has been long argued that a smallholder strategy has not been part of South Africa’s land reform program to date (Altman et al., 2009, p. 348; Greenberg, 2010, p. 43; RSA, 2019, p. 18). Concerns that land reform in South Africa had largely bypassed millions of smallholder farmers in the former homelands in favor of large-scale farming are not unfounded (Altman et al., 2009, p. 348; Greenberg, 2010, p. 43; PLAAS, 2020; RSA, 2019, p. 16). Where redistribution occurred, this was characterized by transfer of larger units of land to black entrepreneurial farmers in an attempt to deracialize commercial agriculture because of the “perceived failure” of “community” beneficiaries of the resti- tution program (Greenberg, 2010, p. 43; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 851; Pingle, 2013, cited in Makombe, 2018, p. 1404; RSA, 2019, p. 16). Tekwa and Adesina 11 The poor performance of the South African land redistribution program in transferring agricultural land partly explains the persistent inequalities in access to agricultural water due to the nexus between land and agricultural water access. The lack of communication between land reform and reforms in the water sector led to most farms sold to the government for resettlement purposes to be sold without water, as water rights were allocated to the individual farmer and not the farm. As a result, the farmer would then privately sell his/her water rights or divert sources of water to privately owned farms, depriving resettled farmers access to agricultural water (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 3). Thus, more people benefited from land reform relative to water reform, as an unintended consequence of these policy inconsistencies. The next section extends this discussion to issues of gender and access to agricultural land in South Africa. The Land–Water–Gender Nexus A gender analysis of Table 1 above reveals that women have not benefited equally in South Africa’s land reform program (Kepe & Hall, 2016, p. 61; Weidman, 2006, p. 370). Despite provincial variations, at national level, official statistics indicate that only 28.9% of beneficiaries within the land redistribution pillar are women (Altman et al., 2009, p. 357; Greenberg, 2010, p. 40). Kepe and Hall (2016, p. 37) place the percentage even lower at 23% (see also RSA, 2019, p. 33). The land– water–gender nexus is brought into focus in Table 2, which shows the distribution of agricultural water uses by gender and race across the nine Water Management Agencies in South Africa. As shown in Table 2, Asians, blacks, and coloreds combined, control a mere 5.8% of existing individual lawful uses of agricultural water. With whites controlling 94.2% of lawful uses of agricultural water, this suggests that racial inequalities are more acute in agricultural water than agricultural land (Liebrand et al., 2012, p. 773; Movik, 2012, p. 17; Ncube, 2018, p. 1; Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 182; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 848). We argue that the “Land Question” and the “Water Question” are inseparable but have seldom been discussed in tandem in the literature on land reform in South Africa (see also Marcatelli, 2018, p. 394; Movik, 2012, p. 17; Ncube, 2018, p. 1; RSA, 2019, pp. 12, 52). Extending the structures of inequalities to the land–water–gender nexus complicates the issues further (Matondi, 2012; Roy & Crow, Table 2. Distribution of Agricultural Water Uses by Gender and Race Across the Nine Water Management Agencies. Asians Black Coloreds Whites Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total Berg-Olifants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Breede-Gouritz 0 0 0 0 17 0 120 1,046 1,183 Inkomati-Usuthu 0 3 0 0 0 10 81 319 413 Limpopo 0 16 1 12 0 0 229 2,185 2,443 Mzimvubu-Tsitsikama 0 0 16 4 0 0 141 2,370 2,531 Olifants 0 0 2 12 0 0 24 102 140 Orange 0 2 3 19 47 97 940 8,032 9,140 Pongola-Umzimukulu 0 14 9 7 0 1 138 799 968 Vaal 0 1 5 40 2 7 512 4,301 4,868 Totals 0 36 36 94 66 115 2,185 19,161 21,693 Gendered Analysis A. Asian, Black and Colored Combined % in Group B. White % in Group (A+B) Total % Female 102 4.5 2,185 95.5 2,287 100 Male 245 1.3 19,161 98.7 19,406 100 Totals 347 5.8 21,346 94.2 21,693 100 Source: Department of Water and Sanitation (2018b, apud. Dube, 2020, p. 266). Tekwa and Adesina 13 2004, p. 11; see also Chinyemba et al., 2006, p. 635). While women in total (Asian, Black, colored, and white) control 10.5% of individual existing lawful uses of agricultural water, the intersectionality of gender and race highlights important insights for South African policy- makers. Minority white women controls 95.5% of the 2,287 individual existing lawful uses of agricultural water controlled by women in South Africa. This leaves only 4.5% to be shared among the majority Black African women, Coloreds, and Asians. Such intersectional racial inequalities are more acute among the male gender, where white men control 98.7%, leaving 1.3% for the remaining majority Black, colored, and Asian men. As such, it can be argued that in South Africa, as in other former settler colonies in Southern Africa, the “Land Question” is a “Water Question” and, by extension, also a “Gender Question,” none of which can be addressed in isolation. In as much as agricultural water has not been available to smallholder beneficiaries of South Africa’s land reform (RSA, 2019, p. 52), for women the situation is more acute as few own a piece of land in their name with which to claim any rights to agriculture water (Kepe & Hall, 2016, p. 37; Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 11; Weidman, 2006, p. 368). Intra-household gender relations are likely to complicate the situation of women even further (Matondi, 2012; Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 10). Evidence from research on land reform in Zimbabwe indicates that where couples were allocated land and water permits with everything registered in the husband’s name, in the event of water rationing it is women’s crops that suffer as priority for agricultural water is given to men’s relatively to women’s crops (Tekwa, 2020, p.164). Separate Outcomes: Gender, Land, and Water Sector Reforms Juxtaposing the gender outcomes of South Africa’s land reform program with the Water Allocation Reform Strategy (WARS) of 2008 brings into sharp relief the incongruence and lack of communication between reforms in the land and water sectors (Movik, 2012, p. 60; RSA, 2019, p. 12). Table 3 below summarizes the WARS targets from 2014 until 2024, including allocations specified for women. The failure to transfer 30% of commercial agricultural land to Black farmers by 2014, now postponed to 2025, mirrors itself in the water sector due to the highlighted 14 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy Table 3. Gender Targets of Water Allocation Reform Strategy (WARS) in South Africa. Targets % Water Allocated to % of Transferred Water Controlled Base Year Blacks (%) by Women (%) 2014 30 30 2019 45 40 2024 60 60 Source: Msibi and Dlamini (2011). land–water nexus. With the 2019 targets not met, a similar fate awaits the ambitious 2024 targets. While Table 1 indicates that 28.9% of land beneficiaries of land reform in South Africa are women, much of this transferred land is dry land with no access to agricultural water (Movik, 2012, p. 48; Ncube, 2018, p. 57; Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 1; RSA, 2019, p. 33). The “sunset clauses” perpetuating riparian rights to water pose as the main obstacle, resulting in “government buying dry land with smallholder land beneficiaries residing on farms without water,” thus undermining the performance of the land reform program in South Africa (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 1; RSA, 2019, p. 33). As a result, none of the WARS targets, including those specified for women, have been achieved. Much of the 5% of agricultural water controlled by Black South African farmers is male-controlled (Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 12; RSA, 2019, p. 52, 38). While the failure of many land reform projects in South Africa is highlighted in the literature (Kepe & Hall, 2016, p. 7; Makombe, 2018; Pingle, 2013 cited in Makombe, 2018, p. 1404), few authors have linked this failure to lack of access to agriculture water—a key productive resource, critical for a water scarce-country like South Africa (Pienaar & Van der Schyff, 2007, p. 182). Transfer of land without making agricul- tural water use available to land reform beneficiaries constitutes one important factor undermining South Africa’s land reform, as properties without water have no agricultural value, particularly in South Africa (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 3; RSA, 2019, p. 33; see also Movik, 2012, p. 48; Greenberg, 2010, p. 11; Marcatelli, 2018, p. 403; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 849). A report assessing the participation of “emerging” land reform beneficiaries in water resources management in the Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency had reached similar conclusions (Ncube, 2018). The report argues that access to farming land without guaranteed access to agricultural water constitutes the biggest Tekwa and Adesina 15 challenge facing “emerging farmers” in the Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (Ncube, 2018, 47). While this remains a serious challenge for land reform in general, for women it reaches prohibitive levels due to the intersection of land, water, and gender questions (Bene et al., 2007, p. 170; Merrey et al., 2007, p. 212; RSA, 2019, p. 37). With only 28.9% of redistributed land allocated to women beneficiaries, this lack of transfer of land to women translates into their lack of access to agricultural water, as statistics indicate that women control a meagre 10% of individual existing lawful agricultural water uses. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2 above, the intersectionality of race and gender places poor Black South African women at an acute disadvantage. The alarming differential access to land and water in South Africa has not been without reactions from below and above. At Water Users Association (WUA) level, representatives of black South Africans are reported to be voting with their feet, as many have stopped attending WUA meetings as they do not have land and water rights and do not contribute towards decision-making (Ncube, 2018, p. 56). Additionally, there have been some reactions from Black farmers associations, par- ticularly the African Farmers Association of South Africa (AFASA), that had lobbied the government to address the unequal access to agri- cultural water between emerging Black small-scale farmers and estab- lished white large-scale commercial farmers. As a result, in 2013, the South African Cabinet approved 12 policy positions to close the gaps and deal with the unintended consequences of the current water policy. Two policy issues, discussed below, included the compulsory licensing of agricultural water uses and the verification and validation of commer - cial agricultural water uses in South Africa. In 2016, two parliamentary portfolio committees were set up to attend the policy issues approved by Cabinet, like the portfolio committee on water and sanitation and the portfolio committee on the riparian rights and related historical use of water and its implications on the current allocations. The work from these two portfolio committees are expected to address the persistent racial and gender water and land allocation differentials in South Africa. Gender and Compulsory Licensing of Agricultural Water Uses Compulsory licensing of agricultural water uses, the mechanism through which redistribution is supposed to occur in the current South African Water Act to address past racial and gender discrimination, has 16 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy not worked in favor of women, particularly poor Black South African women (Movik, 2012, p. 7). Table 4 below shows the gender and racial distribution of the few water licenses that have been issued to date. While the statistics suggest a tilt in favor of the HDIs with 53.8% of the water licenses relative to 46.6 issued to whites, the registration ELUs ensure that much of the agricultural water remains in the hands of the latter. A gender analysis among the HDIs already points to gender bias in the allocation of water licenses in South Africa. Available statistics indicate that only 16.5% of water licenses were issued to women, with the remaining 83.5% issued to men (Department of Water and Sanitation (2018b), cited in Dube, 2020, p. 266). Multiple obstacles in the current Water Act hinder poor Black South African women from benefiting equally from on-going reforms in the country’s water sector. Chief among them includes the volumetric pricing of agricultural water, the prohibitive Water Users Association (WUAs) joining fees, and the selling of water licenses (Bene et al., 2007, p. 176; Marcatelli, 2018, p. 394; Merrey et al., 2007, p. 205; Ncube, 2018, p. 23; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 847). For instance, the cost to an emerging farmer for joining any WUAs in South Africa is pegged at R250,000. This represents a form of economic exclusion, particu- larly for poor rural women farmers in the former “homelands” (Ncube, 2018, p. 46). Consequently, more women are expected to be owners of drier lands relative to men, exacerbating gender differentials in access to agricultural water. Nonetheless, for many smallholders farmers membership to a WUA has not guaranteed access to agricultural water for millions of emerging small-scale Black farmers in South Africa (Ncube, 2018, p. 47). The locking in of land and water into existing patterns of commer- cial agriculture makes the “re-allocation of water to small-scale poten- tial agricultural users remains an unresolved” tension in South Africa (Woodhouse, 2012, p. 849). The extent to which the on-going verifica- tion and validation of commercial agriculture water uses would address these attendant challenges remains an important question to answer. Verification and Validation of Commercial Agricultural Water Use(s) The potential existence of large amounts of unproductively used agricul- tural water by white commercial farmers yet protected under ELUs has long been hinted (Movik, 2012, p. 48). The introduction of compulsory Table 4. Distribution of Water Licenses by Gender and Race Across the Nine Water Management Agencies in South Africa. Asians Black Coloreds Whites Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total Berg-Olifants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Breede-Gouritz 0 0 0 0 17 0 120 1,046 1,183 Inkomati-Usuthu 0 3 0 0 0 10 81 319 413 Limpopo 0 16 1 12 0 0 229 2,185 2,443 Mzimvubu-Tsitsikama 0 0 16 4 0 0 141 2,370 2,531 Olifants 0 0 2 12 0 0 24 102 140 Orange 0 2 3 19 47 97 940 8,032 9,140 Pongola-Umzimukulu 0 14 9 7 0 1 138 799 968 Vaal 0 1 5 40 2 7 512 4,301 4,868 Totals 0 36 36 94 66 115 2,185 19,161 21,693 Gendered Analysis A. Asian, Black and Colored Combined % in Group B. White % in Group (A+B) Total % Female 102 4.5 2,185 95.5 2,287 100 Male 245 1.3 19,161 98.7 19,406 100 Totals 347 5.8 21,346 94.2 21,693 100 Source: Department of Water and Sanitation (2018b, apud. Dube, 2020, p. 266). 18 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy licensing in 2000 required all existing (commercial and agricultural) water users to register their water uses as the basis for the issuance of water licenses (Movik, 2012, p. 48). In a way of “grabbing” available agricultural water, some white commercial farmers over-registered their agricultural water uses, resulting in some catchments registering high volumes compared to their estimated annual water uses, the Inkomati Catchment being one case in point (Movik, 2012, p. 48). As a result, in the Inkomati Catchment, little or no agricultural water was available for reallocation to land reform beneficiaries, resulting in them sitting on land with no water (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2016, p. 3; see also Greenberg, 2010, p. 11; Marcatelli, 2018, p. 403; Movik, 2012, p. 48; RSA, 2019, p. 33; Woodhouse, 2012, p. 849). Although the process of generating the required information to accurately identify the differ- ence between “existing lawful use” and “current use” critical for any re-allocation to occur, took long (Movik, 2012, p. 52), and it revealed underlying barriers for progressive redistribution of agricultural water in South Africa (Keet, 2016). Under-registration of Agricultural Water Uses by Current Users The on-going verification and validation of agricultural water uses, shown in Table 5, unearthed gross under-registration of agricultural water use(s) by current commercial users of agricultural water through under-declaring volumes of agricultural water uses (Keet, 2016, p. 15). Table 6 shows the amount of recovered water through the verification and validation process by the Catchment Management Agency (CMA) ema- nating from the under-registration of agricultural water uses by large-scale commercial farmers. While the verification and validation processes were ongoing in two CMAs like the Berg-Olifants and Olifants, a total of 102,895,159.6 m of water had been recovered as of September 28, 2016, the largest amounts being recovered in the Orange CMA and Limpopo 3 3 CMA, with 51,013,354.5 m and 23,691,178 m , respectively. Unlawful Agricultural Water Uses by Large-scale Commercial Farmers Under-registration was not the only malpractice by commercial agricul- tural farmers revealed by the verification and validation process, but also Table 5. Identified Unlawful Uses Through the Verification and Validation Process (as of 28 September 2016). Water Management Registered Volumes in Water Management Registered Volumes in Closed 3 3 Agency Closed Registers (m ) Agency Registers (m ) Berg-Olifants – Olifants 1,648,073 Breede-Gouritz 80 Orange 4,808,244 Inkomati-Usuthu – Vaal 25,179,488.24 Limpopo 9,643,568 Pongola-Umzimkulu 120,000 Mzimvubu-Tsitsikama 3,143,490 Grand Total 89,085,886.48 Source: Department of Water and Sanitation (2016). Table 6. Volume of Water Recovered Through the Verification and Validation Process (as of 28 September 2016). Water Management Total Volume Recovered Water Management Total Volume Recovered 3 3 Agency Water (m ) Agency Water (m ) Berg-Olifants Verification and Validation in progress Olifants Verification and Validation in progress Breede-Gouritz 13,975,448 Orange 51,013,354.5 Inkomati-Usuthu 1,040,804 Vaal 6,630,072.67 Limpopo 23,691,178 Pongola-Umzimkulu 2,228,451 Mzimvubu-Tsitsikama 4,315,852 Grand Total 102,895,159.6 Source: Department of Water and Sanitation (2016). 20 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy unlawful uses of agricultural water (Keet, 2016, p. 19). Unlawful agri- cultural uses represent water uses from closed registers not qualifying as existing lawful water uses (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, 2016, p. 12). As presented in Table 5, while no figures are shown for two CMAs like Berg-Olifants and Inkomati-Usuthu, the total volume of recovered water from closed registers amounted to 89,085,886.48 m as of September 29, 2016. The Vaal recorded the highest volumes of unlawful agricultural water use by commercial agri- cultural farmers, amounting to 25,179,488.24 m of water, followed by Limpopo at 3,143,490 m . As shown in Table 5, unlawful agricultural water uses were prevalent in all CMAs except the Breede-Gouritz CMA, where only 80 m of water were identified as unlawful agricultural water uses. Adding the amount of agricultural water recovered from under- registration of current agricultural water use and the amount recovered from unlawful agricultural water uses from closed registers, a total of 191,981,046.08 m is available for re-allocation to HDIs before any expropriation from current lawful uses can be done (RSA, 2019, p. 52). With gender mediating social relations of access to agricultural water as in land, the potential of women benefiting from the re-allocation of agriculture water remains slim except gender transformative policies are implemented. Towards a Gender-Transformative Approach in Water Sector Reforms Progressively allocating 30%, 45%, and 60% of agricultural water recovered from current white commercial farmers in 2014, 2019, and 2024, respectively, as envisaged by the WARS of 2006, is unachievable without simultaneously attending to the inextricable nexus of land– water–gender, as none can be addressed in isolation. Statistics from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development (DALRRD) presented in Table 1 indicate that only 28.9% of land reform beneficiaries, since the transition to democracy, are women. Women’s access to agricultural water is concomitant with their access to and ownership of land, the latter being mediated by social relations and institutions, including gender (Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 10). It is precisely in transforming gender and social norms (Adesina, 2009, p. 38, 2011, p. 466; Mkandawire, 2007), including access to agricul- tural water and land, that the utility of the TSP approach becomes criti- cal, with gender being conceptualized as the primary way of signifying Tekwa and Adesina 21 relationships of power and control over resources in which women and men are positioned in relations of hierarchy (Roy & Crow, 2004, p. 2; Scott, 1986, p. 1066). It is only through changing the organization of these social relationships that correspond to changes in the configura- tion and representations of power and access to productive resources between women and men (Scott, 1986, p. 1067). As shown in the current allocation of water licenses in South Africa, simply intro- ducing gender-specific targets in land and water reforms without re- configuring the unequal social relationships between women and men has yielded little gender transformation (Weidman, 2006, p. 379; see also RSA, 2019, p. 17). In contrast, social norms—that is, the category of collective beliefs referring to a social environment, specifically the expectations one has about a peer or reference group or an agreed-upon expectation and rules by which a given group guides the behavior of its members in a particular situation (Hillenbrand & Miruka, 2019, p. 12)—ought to be targets of gender transformative social policies. By shifting the unit of analysis from an individual to the broader “social way of doing things,” that is, the relational social processes (Connell, 2009; Lorber, 1999), the TSP approach becomes critical in transforming property relations in water and land to the benefit of women (Weidman, 2006, p. 379). Informal social relations and institutions have been found to pose some of the major systemic challenges to gender transformation, particularly in areas where gender equity is at odds with strong social norms (Hillenbrand & Miruka, 2019, p. 13; Weidman, 2006, p. 365). With the nexus between water and land so intricate, social norms designing men as “heads of households” have resulted in the parceling of land to men, privileging their control over productive resources relative to women (Smith et al., 2010, cited in Hillenbrand & Miruka, 2019, p. 17). We argue that reducing gender imbalances in access to agriculture water requires the need to deconstruct, reconstruct, re-conceptualize, and transform social relations and institutions governing access to land and water in South Africa from household, family, community to the national level. Conclusion The primary concern of the article was to highlight the land and water questions in South Africa’s land reform and their gender mediation. While the structure of inequality emanating from the land–water nexus 22 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy is increasingly being highlighted in the literature, it is the extension of this structure of inequality to that of gender that this article sought to highlight. In former settler colonies, South Africa included, giving prom- inence to issues of land, as observed in the current debates on Section 25 of the Constitution and the principle of expropriation without com- pensation, is inadequate, as property rights relating to agricultural water use have been a blind spot not only in political rhetoric but also in the literature. The “Land Question” cannot be addressed in isolation from the “Water Question.” Taking cognizance that social relations and insti- tutions always mediate access to these resources, particularly gender, extending questions of land and water to that of gender holds greater potential for sustainable socio-economic transformation. Key data utilized to explore the above issues include the statistical performance of the land reform program in South Africa from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, covering the period March 1994–2016. This set of data disaggregates target benefi- ciaries of the land redistribution by various categories, including the amount of land allocated to women. Another key set of data was statis- tics showing the distribution of agricultural water uses by gender and race across the nine Water Management Agencies in South Africa. In the analysis, this set of data from the Department of Water and Sanitation was superimposed on one from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to highlight the land–water–gender nexus in South Africa’s land reform. Irrespective of a mere 5.3% of total acquired agricultural land being redistributed to smallholder farmers, women have not benefited equally in South Africa’s land reform program, as only 28.9% of South Africa’s land reform beneficiaries are women. The lack of transfer of agri- cultural land to women, the basis upon which to claim any right to water, translates to their lack of access to agricultural water as they control only 10.5% of individual existing lawful agricultural water uses. These disparities become more glaring when compared to the targets set in the Water Allocation Reform Strategy of transferring 30% and 40% of agricultural water uses to women by 2014 and 2019, respectively. The land–water–gender nexus provides a lens to understand how the failure to transfer 30% of commercial agricultural land to Black farmers by 2014 mirrors the gendered and racial distribution of agricultural water uses in South Africa. Historically disadvantaged groups control a mere 5.8% of existing individual lawful agricultural water uses. We have argued that the failure of the land reform program in South Africa has nothing to do with the capacity of land beneficiaries, as pur - ported in the literature. The South African government has been buying Tekwa and Adesina 23 dry land, resulting in beneficiaries of land reform residing on farms without water, consequently undermining the objectives of the land reform program. An intersectionality analysis of gender, race, and class reveals that it is the poor Black African women who are at an acute disadvantage. The latter controls less than 1% of existing individual lawful agricultural water uses in South Africa. Apart from lacking access to agricultural land, the volumetric pricing of agricultural water, the prohibitive joining fees for water user associations and the selling of water licenses had all worked against poor Black South African women and men. It can be safely concluded that government policies in the land and water sectors in South Africa have not favored poor Black African women residing in the countryside. The article has both theoretical and policy implications for South Africa. Theoretically, we sought to extend the analysis of land reform and resettlement in South Africa beyond the land–water nexus to include a third dimension of gender, as the latter always mediates access to productive resources. While women have lost out in terms of access to land, this has to be understood within the inex- tricable land–water–gender nexus, none of which can be addressed in isolation. Policy wise, we sought to highlight the extent to which state policies impact race and gender relations and also access to productive resources. We call for a shift from mere setting of gender targets without concomitant re-configuration of unequal social relationships between women and men. The transformative social policy approach shifts the unit of analysis from an individual to the broader “social way of doing things,” including the allocation of productive resources such as land and agricultural water. It is only through the implementation of gender- transformative social policies that sustainable socio-economic develop- ment can be achieved in South Africa. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iDs Newman Tekwa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0248-7073 Jimi O. Adesina https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6991-9934 24 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy References Adesina, J. (2009). Social policy in sub-Saharan Africa: A glance in the rear- view mirror. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(1), 37–51. Adesina, J. (2011). Beyond the social protection paradigm: Social policy in Africa’s development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 32(4), 454–470. Altman, M., Hart, T., & Jacobs, P. (2009). Household food security status in South Africa. Agrekon, 48(4), 345–361. Bene, C., Cook, S., Hirsch, D., Polak, P., Vallée, D., & van Koppen, B. (2007). Reversing the flow: Agricultural water management pathways for poverty reduction. Water for farming to fight poverty. IWMI Part 3. http://citeseerx. ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.5973&rep=rep1&type=pdf Chinyemba, M. J., Muchema, O. N., & Hakutangwi, M. B. K. (2006). Women and agriculture. In M. Rukuni, P. Taonezvi, C. Eicher, M. Munyuki- Hungwe, & P. Matondi (Eds.), Zimbabwe’s agricultural revolution revis- ited (pp. 631–649). University of Zimbabwe Publications. Connell, R. W. (2009). Gender in world perspective. Polity Press. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. (2016, November 20). Riparian rights of farmers. presentation to the Portfolio committee on water and sanitation. Parliament of South Africa. https://pmg.org.za/committee- meeting/23583/ Department of Water and Sanitation. (2016, November 02). Briefing to the portfolio committee on the riparian and related historical uses of water and its implications on the current allocation. Parliament of South Africa. https:// slideplayer.com/slide/12400941/ Dube, B. (2020). Contrasting views on women and individual water rights: A case study in South Africa. African Journal of Gender, Society and Development, 9(3), 251–276. Grant, M., Huggett, C., Willetts, J., & Wilbur, J. (2017). Gender equality and goal 6: The critical connection. Australian Water Partnership. Greenberg, S. (2010). Status report on land and agricultural policy in South Africa. Research Report, PLAAS 2010. https://repository.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/ handle/10566/657 Hillenbrand, E., & Miruka, M. (2019). Gender and social norms in agricul- ture. In A. Quisumbing., R. Meinzen-Dick, & J. Njuki (Eds.), Annual trends and outlook report: Gender equality in rural Africa: From com- mitments to outcomes (pp. 11–31). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Keet, M. (2016). Briefing to the portfolio committee on riparian and related historical use of water and its implications on the current allocation. Parliament of South Africa. November 02, 2016. https://pmg.org.za/ committee-meeting/23583/ Kepe, T., & Hall, R. (2016). Land redistribution in South Africa. Commissioned report for high level panel on the assessment of key legislation and the Tekwa and Adesina 25 acceleration of fundamental change. Parliament of South Africa. September 28, 2016. https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/Pages/2017/october/ High_Level_Panel/Commissioned_Report_land/Commissioned_Report_on_ Land_Redistribution_Kepe_and_Hall.pdf Lahiff, E. (2007). State, market or the worst of both? Experimenting with market- based land reform in South Africa (Occasional Paper Number 30). Cape Town. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies. University of Western Cape. https://www.africaportal.org/documents/9206/OP_30.pdf Liebrand, J., Zwarteveen, M. Z., Wester, P., & van Koppen, B. (2012). The deep waters of land reform: Land, water and conservation area claims in Limpopo Province, Olifants Basin, South Africa. Water International, 37(7), 773–787. Lorber, J. (1999). Crossing borders and erasing boundaries: Paradoxes of identity politics. Sociological Focus, 32, 355–370. Marcatelli, M. (2018). The land–water nexus: A critical perspective from South Africa. Review of African Political Economy, 45(157), 393–407. Makombe, G. (2018). Land reform in South Africa: The conversation that never took place. The Qualitative Report, 23(6), 1401–1421. Matondi, B. (2012). Zimbabwe fast track land reform. Zed Books Merrey, D. J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Mollinga, P., & Karar, E. (2007). Policy and institutional reform: The art of the possible. Water for farming to fight poverty, IWMI Part 3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40099164_ Policy_and_institutional_reform_the_art_of_the_possible Mkandawire, T. (2007). Transformative social policy and innovation in developing countries. The European Journal of Development Research, 19(1), 13–29. Molden, D., Oweis, T. Y., Steduto, P., & Kijne, J. W. (2007). Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity. Water for farming to fight poverty, IWMI Part 3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266382480_Path- ways_for_Increasing_Agricultural_Water_Productivity Movik, S. (2012). Allocation discourses: South African water rights reform. Water Policy, 13(2), 161–177. Msibi, M. I., & Dlamini, P. Z. (2011). Water allocation reform in South Africa: History, processes and prospects for future implementation (Water Research Commission report No. 1855/1/111). http://www.wrc.org.za/mdocs-posts/ 1855-1-12/ Ncube, B. (2018). Approaches for emerging farmers’ participation in water resource management: The case of Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (BGCMA), Western Cape (Water Research Commission Report No 2310/1/17). January 2018. http://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/ mdocs/2310-1-171.pdf Ntsebeza, L. (2007). Land redistribution in South Africa: The property clause revisited. In L. Ntsebeza & R. Hall (Eds.), The land question in South Africa: The challenge of transformation and redistribution (pp. 107–131). HSRC Press. 26 Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy Parliamentary Monitoring Group. (2016). Water use allocation impact on farmers: Departments of water, rural development and land reform; Agricul- ture water and sanitation, parliament of South Africa, 02 November 2016. https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/23583/ Pienaar, G. J., & Van der Schyff, E. (2007). The reform of water rights in South Africa. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 3(2), 181–194. PLAAS. (2020). Democratising South Africa’s food system in and beyond the crisis. Blog (2020, February 20). https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2020- posts/2020/2/20/land-expropriation-without-compensation-in-south-africa Republic of South Africa (RSA). (2019). Final report of the presidential advi- sory panel on land reform and agriculture. May 04, 2019. Government of South Africa. Roy, J., & Crow, B. (2004). Gender relations and access to water: What we want to know about social relations and women’s time allocation (UC Santa Cruz working papers). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46440859_Gen- der_Relations_and_Access_to_Water_What_We_Want_to_Know_About_ Social_Relations_and_Women’s_Time_Allocation Scott, J. W. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. The American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). (2017). Poverty trends in South Africa. An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2015 (Report No. 03-10- 062015). Statistics South Africa. https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/ Report-03-10-06/Report-03-10-062015.pdf Tekwa, N. (2020). Gender, land reform and welfare outcomes. A case study of Chiredzi district, Zimbabwe (A PhD Thesis). University of South Africa. Tekwa, N., & Adesina, J. (2018). Gender, poverty and inequality in the aftermath of Zimbabwe’s land reform: A transformative social policy perspective. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 19(5), 45–62. UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development). (2006). Transformative social policy: Lessons from UNRISD research. UNRISD: Policy Brief 5. UNRISD. (2010). Combating poverty and inequality: Structural change, social policy and politics. UNRISD. Weidman, M. (2006). Women, patriarchy and land reform in South Africa. https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/f176416e-4e6a- 4a74-b457-c759935c07f7/content Woodhouse, P. (1995). Water rights and rural restructuring in South Africa: A case study from Eastern Transvaal. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 11(4), 527–544. Woodhouse, P. (2012). Reforming land and water rights in South Africa. Development and Change, 43(4), 847–848.
Journal
Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy – SAGE
Published: Mar 1, 2023
Keywords: Land reform; water reform; gender; transformative social policy; South Africa