Four Lessons From Colombia To Reimagine Land Reform In Southern Africa
On a crowded hillside above Durban Deep on Johannesburg’s West Rand, shacks press up against a disused mine fence. There is no title deed, no service connections, no official recognition – but for the families who live there, this is home. Across the border in Zimbabwe’s Epworth, informal settlements tell a similar story: when state land reform and housing programmes move too slowly, people occupy the land they can find.
It is against this backdrop that a set of fresh ideas is emerging – not from Pretoria or Harare, but from rural Colombia.
Writing in Food For Mzansi, researcher Nkanyiso Gumede of the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) reflects on lessons from the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD+20), held in Colombia in February 2026. His argument is stark: if South Africa is to fix its stalled land reform, it must combine political will, smart redistribution tools, and new ways of valuing land – and it can learn from Colombian experiments in doing exactly that.
For Zimbabwe, Zambia, and other African countries wrestling with skewed land ownership and stubborn rural poverty, these lessons are uncomfortably familiar – and potentially transformative.
How Unequal Is Land Ownership – In South Africa And Globally?
Global land inequality is sharpening. Gumede cites a FAO report on the Status of Land Tenure Governance showing that the top 10% of the largest landholders operate, on average, 56% of the world’s agricultural land.
South Africa sits squarely inside that pattern. Despite three decades of democracy, the country still battles intense land and spatial inequality, widespread landlessness, and a chronic housing shortage for the poor.
Since 1994, Gumede notes, South Africa’s land reform programme has redistributed only 11% of the country’s 86 million hectares of farmland. Worse, the pace is slowing:
- In the mid-2000s, redistribution and restitution together peaked at about 938 278 hectares per year.
- By the 2024/25 financial year, annual delivery had fallen below 100 000 hectares.
Backlogs are piling up. Land restitution claims lodged in 1998 remain unresolved, while a second wave of claims (2014–2016) has not yet been processed.
PLAAS research on land justice, Gumede says, shows a harsh reality: for many poor people, the only realistic way to access land is through occupations, because formal land reform and housing programmes are failing to deliver land and shelter “at scale and with speed”.
FFA Explainer:
Land reform usually has three pillars: redistribution (giving land to those who lack it), restitution (restoring land or compensating people dispossessed by past injustice), and tenure reform (strengthening the rights of people already on the land). An effective programme must move on all three.
South Africa’s challenge mirrors those of neighbours like Zimbabwe, where the fast-track land reform of the 2000s redistributed land at scale but left unresolved questions about tenure security, support, and inclusive growth under the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1).
What Did Colombia Put On The Table At ICARRD+20?
The ICARRD+20 conference, hosted in Colombia from 24–28 February 2026, placed four big themes at the centre of global agrarian debates:
- The urgent need for land redistribution.
- Restitution of land to dispossessed and displaced people.
- Recognition of land rights for communities often excluded from formal systems.
- Regulation of land ownership in the face of rising land concentration and commodification.
The conference highlighted how concentration and the treatment of land as a commodity – rather than as a social and ecological resource – undermines the environment, livelihoods, and human security. Colombia, still grappling with its own history of conflict, displacement, and rural inequality, has begun to experiment with tools that blend restitution, redistribution, and new models of shared farming.
Gumede distils four lessons that South Africa – and by extension, other African governments – could adapt.
Lesson 1: How Can Restitution Also Drive Redistribution?
South Africa’s restitution system is built on a powerful principle: people who were dispossessed of land under racially discriminatory laws have a right to have that land restored or to receive compensation.
In practice, though, strict insistence on returning to specific ancestral parcels has slowed delivery, raised conflicts over overlapping claims, and sometimes left beneficiaries with land that is difficult to use productively.
Colombia offers a different angle. There, people who were dispossessed or displaced are sometimes given land acquired by the government in areas where they have no ancestral claim. The state offers them an option: accept alternative land elsewhere, rather than waiting for a return to the exact piece they once held.
This approach blends restitution (recognising a historical grievance) with redistribution (using state-acquired land to meet that need more quickly). It speeds up access without closing the door on traditional claims.
South Africa’s own Presidential Advisory Panel on Agriculture and Land Reform has proposed a similar mechanism. Gumede argues that the state should:
- Systematically collect data on claimants who are willing to accept land elsewhere.
- Proactively acquire well-located farmland and peri-urban land that could be offered to such communities.
- Treat this as an additional option, not a replacement for conventional restitution.
For Zimbabwe, where post-2000 land reform left some communities still seeking redress – including farm labourers and displaced urban residents – a restitution-with-redistribution model could help address emerging claims without reopening every historical boundary.
Earlier FFA coverage has shown how urban and peri-urban land near Harare and Bulawayo is especially contested. Structured options for alternative land, backed by transparent processes, could ease pressure on courts and informal occupations.
Lesson 2: Why Should We Subdivide Farms And Diversify Land Use?
The second Colombian lesson challenges a deeply held assumption in South African and Zimbabwean policy circles: that “viable” farms must be large, single-enterprise, and commercial in a narrow sense.
Gumede describes a farm visited during ICARRD+20 where:
- One portion of land was under crop production.
- Another portion carried livestock.
- Other sections hosted fish production and processing activities.
- Each family controlled a plot where they had autonomy to grow food for their homestead.
- A commercial production section was collectively managed to supply markets.
The key was subdivision and mixed farming within one larger unit, blending household food security, local markets, and commercial sales.
Crucially, these farmers sold directly to consumers, often in nearby urban centres, at prices that worked for both sides. Avoiding long corporate value chains reduced the squeeze of being perpetual “price takers”.
Gumede argues that similar models in South Africa, supported by government-led procurement for schools, hospitals, and public institutions, could:
- Tackle market access challenges faced by land reform beneficiaries.
- Guarantee household food security while generating cash income.
- Revive rural economies through localised food systems.
- Deliver fresh, affordable food to urban populations via shorter value chains.
These Colombian farms relied on agro-ecological production methods, keeping input costs down and environmental benefits up.
FFA Explainer:
Agro-ecology is a way of farming that uses ecological processes – such as crop diversity, natural predators, and recycling of nutrients – instead of depending heavily on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. It aims to support both biodiversity and farmer livelihoods.
For Zimbabwe, where smallholder irrigation schemes in places like Honde Valley already mix tea, bananas, vegetables, and poultry, Colombia’s example strengthens the case for:
- Subdividing resettlement blocks to allow more families secure plots.
- Supporting co-operative marketing and direct sales into Harare, Mutare, and Bulawayo.
- Embedding fish ponds, small livestock, and processing units alongside cropping.
Lesson 3: How Should Expropriation Be Used – And For Whom?
Expropriation is politically charged in South Africa and across the region, but Gumede’s third lesson is unambiguous: use it – and use it in a targeted, pro-poor way.
South Africa already has multiple land acquisition tools:
- Purchase on the open market.
- Donations.
- Expropriation for land reform purposes.
With land reform budgets declining, less land is being purchased and redistributed. The Colombian example, Gumede says, is more assertive: the state expropriates and grants the land to the landless poor.
PLAAS research on land justice suggests that many urban and peri-urban occupations happen where land and buildings are not being put to beneficial use, and where occupants cannot realistically afford to buy homes at current prices.
In such cases, Gumede argues, the South African state should:
- Intervene via expropriation where owners are not using the property beneficially.
- Prioritise the poor and landless for secure tenure on that land.
- Ensure that expropriated land also reaches smallholder farmers needing space in or near urban centres, farm dwellers on commercial farms, and landless households seeking land for housing and livelihoods.
For Zimbabwe, where questions around compensation and expropriation remain central to re-engagement with global partners, this lesson is more delicate but still relevant: expropriation is one tool among several, and its legitimacy rests on transparency, fair process, and clear prioritisation of the poorest and most marginalised.
FFA’s reporting on farm dwellers in Mashonaland and Matabeleland has shown how often they fall through the cracks of formal land allocations. A carefully designed expropriation framework, backed by independent oversight, could help secure their place in the countryside rather than pushing them into precarious urban peripheries.
Lesson 4: Why Political Will And A Pro-Poor Vision Matter More Than Slogans
Gumede’s final lesson is perhaps the most fundamental: without demonstrable political will and a clear pro-poor vision, technical fixes will not transform South Africa’s rural landscape.
He notes long-standing criticism that land reform lacks a coherent vision centred on the poor, and that government has not shown the determination needed to meet its constitutional obligation of ensuring equitable access to land.
The conference in Colombia underscored the need to flip this script, through:
- A publicly articulated, pro-poor land reform agenda with measurable milestones.
- Increased financial commitment, including a land reform budget of at least 1% of the total national budget.
- A shift in how the state conceives the value of land – not only in commercial terms, but in its social and ecological roles, as Brazil has attempted to do.
Public land and property, Gumede argues, must be deployed to benefit those who are most in need – the poor and landless – through instruments like South Africa’s planned Equitable Access to Land Bill, expected soon.
He insists that the Bill should clearly spell out how beneficiaries will be prioritised, with the poor and landless at the top of the list. That, he suggests, is what inclusive land reform looks like in practice.
FFA Explainer:
Political will in land reform is more than speeches. It shows up in budgets, in the speed of processing claims, in whether farm dwellers get title, and in how quickly idle public land is made available to landless people and smallholders.
For governments across the region, including Zimbabwe under NDS1 and the AU’s Agenda 2063, Gumede’s call resonates. Land is central not only to historical justice, but to food security, youth employment, and climate resilience.
What Can Southern Africa Take From Colombia – Without Copying Blindly?
Colombia’s history of armed conflict, displacement, and rural marginalisation is distinct. Yet the tools showcased at ICARRD+20 – restitution with redistribution options, multi-use subdivided farms, targeted expropriation, and bold pro-poor politics – speak directly to challenges facing Southern Africa.
For South Africa, Gumede’s four lessons point toward a more agile, people-centred programme that:
- Clears restitution backlogs faster by offering flexible land options.
- Designs farms around mixed livelihoods, not only export monocultures.
- Uses expropriation surgically to unlock underused land for those who need it most.
- Backs land reform with money, laws, and a moral commitment to the poor.
For Zimbabwe, where land redistribution happened quickly but follow-through has been uneven, the Colombian experience underlines the importance of:
- Securing tenure for women, youth, and farm workers on redistributed land.
- Encouraging diversified land use – from citrus in Mazowe to horticulture in Nyanga – rather than one-size-fits-all models.
- Strengthening support systems so that land reform fuels vibrant rural economies, not just new maps.
Youth and women farmers have the most to gain from such shifts – and the most to lose if land remains concentrated, under-used, or tied up in slow, elite-driven processes.
From Conference Halls To Contested Fields
Back on that hillside above Durban Deep, or in the crowded informal settlements of Epworth, land is not an abstract policy concept. It is the ground where children play, the space where a chicken run might stand, or a small vegetable garden could cut a food bill in half.
Gumede’s reflection from Colombia is a reminder that land reform is not only about hectares, but about how those hectares are shared, used, and governed – and who gets to decide.
If Southern Africa’s leaders can turn these four lessons into law, budget lines, and practical support, then the next generation of farmers and urban dwellers may inherit something rarer than a conference declaration: secure land, dignified livelihoods, and a food system that works for the many, not the few.
About The Author
