Safety and security of farmers, farm workers and farm dwellers: stakeholders' briefings

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson explained that Mr Jan Bezuidienhout, from Landbouweekblad (Media 24) had conveyed to the Committee a petition signed by at least 2 000 people under the title ‘Petisie Stop Plaasmoorde, 25 Maart 2010’.  She said that farm workers and farmers needed each other, and appealed to all stakeholders to talk to each other. A holistic approach was needed. However, she ruled that a stakeholder might not respond to issues raised by another stakeholder in this very important meeting.

Agri SA submission
Agri SA (Agri SA) was a federal organisation consisting of nine provincial and 28 commodity organisations which, on behalf of its members, promoted the sustainable profitability and stability of commercial agricultural producers through its involvement and input at the national and international level. It was also recognised by Government and the private sector as the official voice of agriculture.

Agri SA submitted that without a safe and prosperous farming sector, food security, rural stability and rural job creation could not be guaranteed. The farming community’s right to safety was one of the most important rights in the country’s democratic dispensation that were affected by crime. The organisation gave figures for attacks on the farming community since 1991. These included 11 785 attacks and 1 804 murders. It noted with especial concern that family members of farmers were in most cases raped by perpetrators during farm attacks. It gave figures for stock theft and the financial losses through crime. The total lost through absence arising from injury or consequences of crime, burglary, lifting and stealing of tools, stealing of crops, and the expense of security services amounted to more than R269 million. The organisation said that it condemned any violation of the rights of farm workers and non-compliance with labour legislation.
 
Mr Andre Botha, the chairperson of organisation’s rural safety policy committee, said that there had been 11,785 attacks on farms and 1 804 murders since 1991. This was two a week and it was increasing. Mr Botha emphasised that South Africa had very dedicated policemen and policewomen. There was nothing wrong with legislation and systems. There was however a morality problem and a lack of dynamic leadership. Farmers sought to be part of the solution. Crime was ‘a pothole in the highway of South Africa’. Farm murders numbered two a week. The brutality with which the attacks were carried out was appalling.

The other aspect was the loss to the industry from crime. Mr Botha said that losses in agriculture due to stock theft alone had cost the union's members around R365 million since 1991.  No industry could survive losses of this magnitude. Commercial farmers were part of a struggling industry and food security was under threat.

Mr Botha told the Committee that if Members wanted to see Ubuntu in action, they should visit the rural areas. Farmers lived by Christian values, and cherished their workforce. Farmers complied with labour and other legislation and recognised the interdependence of employers and employed. In many cases farmers provided employees with food, clothing, transport and medical care. 

‘Irresponsible remarks’ by paid Government officials and politicians were one of the biggest challenges confronting the agricultural industry. Such derogatory remarks from senior politicians indicated ‘a big question mark put on democracy’. He pleaded that all concerned stopped talking about white and black farmers. Hate speech and inflammatory remarks would not be tolerated on farms. Whenever such occurred, the organisation would open a case at the local police station.

Agri SA saw itself in partnership with Government and highlighted resolutions of the Rural Crime Conference that it had hosted at Centurion on 08 March 2010. Agri SA supported the rule of law as a prerequisite for a fair and equitable society. It expected the Government to demonstrate that it condemned the senseless murders of farmers, farm workers and their families through its actions and policies. Causes of the attacks were complex: a safety approach aloe could not solve the problem in the long term.  Agri SA expected the Government to implement an integrated plan to prevent and manage crime. This included a streamlined criminal justice system. Purposeful action was needed to eliminate corrupt elements in the police force. Alleged hate speech and inflammatory remarks would not be tolerated. Effective law enforcement was of immediate importance. Agri SA accepted the Rural Protection Strategy supported by sector policing and reservists. The dispensation for reservists must enable volunteers from the farming community to be incorporated to a greater extent in the police force. Farming community private initiatives within the legal framework and in conjunction with the police were acknowledged. Agri SA acknowledged the financial contributions of the Agri Securitas Trust Fund to acquire additional resources. Stock theft negatively impacted on the profitability of commercial farmers and especially on emerging farmers. Government must sustain improvement of the criminal justice system. The police must keep records of all crime in farming areas, analyse such information, and provide quarterly reports of trends. The integrity of South Africa’s borders must be enhanced. To prevent unlawful access to farms, the farm protocol will in future have to be applied more strictly. The right of state departments to enter farms to perform their lawful function was recognised.

United South African Agricultural Association oral submission
Mr Ismail Motala, Head of Transformation, United South African Agricultural Association, which represented around 1 800 farmers in the Western Cape, regretted that crime on farms was reported in the media only when it affected white farmers. What made it worse for black farmers was that they had fewer resources and less cash to protect themselves. Their capital and cash flow was small. The cost of security was high. Loss of produce impacted immediately on small farmers’ profitability. In some cases, theft of equipment had caused farmers to abandon farming. Theft of produce seemed to be widespread on farms.

Historically the farming community had perpetuated the dop system. This had left a horrible legacy and had destroyed the fabric of society. Use of alcohol was widespread and affected both the young and the old and leads to more violence in our society especially against women. It remained unreported in most cases. Most of the attackers were drunk, but this was not reflected in statistics.  Relations between farmers and farm workers were very important. Many workers live in poor conditions, while their employers often lived opulently.  Stables for race horses were often better than housing for farm workers, as Mr Motala had witnessed whilst driving through Franschhoek. Such conditions were an incentive to crime.

Short term solutions would include increasing the number of patrols, and a more proactive approach by the police instead of the current reactive approach. However, he understood that the wide areas that the police had to cover led to a reactive approach. It was important to have a close and good relationship with the commercial farmers, since it was only together that the issues of crime could be resolved. It was necessary to find a lasting solution that addressed the causes of which the breakdown in morality was a symptom. Domestic violence indicated a breakdown of family ties which historically had been the background of our rural society. Religion, communication, and education went together. Socialisation beginning with the family was the beginning of moral regeneration. The older generations whose members had grown up on the dop system had led the members of the younger generations to follow suite. There was need to intervene and put a comprehensive moral regeneration strategy in place.

Food and Allied Workers Union oral submission
Mr Mlawleli Pukwana, Deputy General Secretary, Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU) was accompanied by Mr Howard Mbama, Project Co-ordinator, FAWU. Mr Pukwana apologised for not providing copies of his submission but these would be available later. He referred to the Union’s policy document. His organisation had identified such problems as land ownership and agrarian reform, voting rights and access to identity documents, and absence of collective bargaining. Inequality was a major problem on the farms, together with health and safety deficiencies, labour broking, and child labour.

Mr Pukwana said that Agri SA had mentioned the provision of transport for farm employees. He said that lack of alternative transport made farm workers dependent on farmers to get into and out of farms. There was a low level of communications on all issues on the farms. Agri SA had testified that its members were providing food and clothing. While discussing wages, it was arguable that such provision increased the workers’ dependence on their employers. The workers had no health, security or electricity. There were no integrated programmes.

Mr Pukwana said that the violence against farm workers and the need for safety and security of farms were a concern to everyone.  All concerned needed to participate towards a solution. He noted that when a farm owner was a victim of crime, it became a big issue, but when farm workers were ‘thrown to the lions’ this was less emphasised. The issues of land ownership and agrarian reform needed to be addressed. Safety and security for all needed to be enhanced. 

Rudnet submission
Mr Vukile Mafilika, Project Co-ordinator, Rural Development Network (RUDNET), said that his organisation was based in the Western Cape but also did work in the Eastern Cape. Its programmes included capacity building with a focus on organisational development to address socio-economic needs such as poverty, unemployment, tenure security, crime prevention, substance abuse, moral regeneration, business plans, fundraising, and networking. Another programme was leadership development, with a focus on management skills, training of previously disadvantaged people such as emerging entrepreneurs and current and prospective foremen and women on farms, as well as facilitation of succession planning to equip prospective emerging farmers and entrepreneurs with necessary leadership, management and planning skills to sustain a business. The farm health annual award programme was a holistic health promotion programme designed to motivate and acknowledge farm working communities and individuals, including employers, to achieve service excellence and improve the quality of life for farm communities. RUDNET also had a programme of organisational support with a focus on supporting and co-ordinating the competencies of member organisations and other community-based initiatives.

Mr Mafilika noted RUDNET’s concerns on safety and security on farms. Farm violence, including attacks on farmers, was increasing.  A South African Police Service (SAPS) committee of enquiry into farm attacks had noted that white people were not targeted exclusively; in 2001 61% of farm victims were white. Media reports on the recent killing of Eugene TerreBlanche portrayed a one-sided viewpoint that minimised the attacks on black farmers and farm workers.

Mr Mafilika said that Sikhula Sonke, a trade union led by women for South African farm workers had cited that black farm workers and their families were facing mounting intimidation and violence from white farm owners and their agents.  The problem was compounded by a severely strained criminal justice system with poor or no access to services and lack of protection of farm workers. Violence against women and children increased annually regardless of the legislation and policies that had been established.  There was a general lack of knowledge amongst police officers and lack of assistance provided to victims and information on how victims could protect themselves.

Mr Mafilika said that production of agricultural goods and food security would be affected negatively over the long term. Labour relations, job creation and employment stability was compromised by failure to address crime and violence on farms. Lack of improvement in land reform processes adding to demand for land ownership, and innovative and accelerated land reform processes, were needed to satisfy demand and reduce racial tensions. There was an increase in drug trading on farms through illegal shebeens and substance abuse especially amongst the youth.

Mr Mafilika highlighted the local drug action committees (LDACs) which were authorised by the Department of Social Development to address the challenges facing farm workers witnessed by RUDNET. The prevalence of substance abuse on farms had been identified and a link established between substance abuse and crime. Alcohol was part of substance abuse. There were illegal shebeens on farms.

Possible solutions included an improvement in sector policing for farming areas, and an improvement in the capacity of police stations and mobile units to serve communities by addressing also domestic violence and drug trading and trafficking.  Incentives for farmers and farm workers to participate in rural policing forums and reservist units were suggested. Capacity building of community policing forums (CPFs) to develop, implement and manage crime prevention programmes in rural areas and on farms was recommended. RUDNET also urged support for farm committees to participate in sector policing forms and CPFs, and regular engagement with communities to monitor crime prevention initiatives with visible policing at farms and schools and elsewhere. There should be co-operation with the local drug action committees (LDACs) to develop integrated interventions.

RUDNET was disturbed by a lack of participation on the part of the police in the CPFs in which they were required to participate by legislation. Another problem was the lack of facilities and transport. Without these RUDNET could not train the farm workers. RUDNET had tried to raise this through a number of stakeholders. Mr Mafilika asked Agri SA to send their members to participate in the forums. 

Discussion
Mr M George (COPE) asked what efforts the agricultural organisations were making to put into effect their stated aims of working together. ‘They are spot on but why are they not doing it?’ He also noted a statement that there must be an increase in security patrols on farms. However, he asked how such patrols were compatible with the fact that farms were on private property with large gates. The media reported mainly on attacks on white farmers. However, life was life, irrespective of race. He said he had a problem with the provision of food and clothing in so far as it created dependency. However, it would be foolish to ask employers to withdraw such provision until such time as employees could afford to make their own provision. Transport must be available before unions could ask for employers’ provision to be discontinued. If the unions wanted farm workers to stay on their own land outside the farms, then they would need transport to travel to work, and the Government would have to provide them with land. He asked Agri SA why it allowed shebeens and taverns on farms which were private property.

Mr H Chauke (ANC) said that he was from a small town 80 kilometres from Ventersdorp. The relationship of farm workers and farmers was an everyday issue there. He had worked closely with the Transvaal Agricultural Union. In the past two months farmers had lost huge amount of livestock. Such losses necessitated mobilisation of communities. The local branch of the African National Congress (ANC) had joined hand in hand with farmers to investigate why stock theft had occurred. In one case of stock theft, it was found that that a white farmer had mobilised his farm workers to steal cattle from other farmers at night. The police had arrested that farmer and his workers. Mr Chauke had gone there and met the units responsible. It had really changed his thinking about stock theft. He asked himself where the thieves took the stolen cattle. The problem of white farmers and their relationship with their black labourers needed to be addressed. The farm unions and organisations such as Agri SA were aware of this. With reference to Mr George’s observations, the solution was a commitment to come together and work to solve the problem. The Committee was aware of how much work the police had to do. He noted that the local branch of the ANC in Worcester worked with farmers every day. Most of the taverns were run by farmers. Also tuck shops were owned by farmers. Employees who patronised these facilities had to work to pay off loans which they had incurred.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) said that she had found such different figures from one organisation to another. She did not know whom to believe any more. She had heard a report the previous night about the situation on a farm in KwaZulu-Natal where a farm worker had refused to leave, and was threatening the lives of others on the farm. There were difficulties on the farms that could not be ignored. She referred to the need to import grain. When the commandos had been disbanded, farmers had been assured that there would be no security vacuum. However, there had been cases where police were allegedly finding stolen cattle and then charging the owners for returning their cattle to them. She asked the representatives if their members were satisfied with the service that they received from the police.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) noted that all the representatives had said that the police needed to be more effective. However, none had said exactly what should be done. He asked the representatives to tell the Committee what they really wanted the South African Police Service to do. He noted the vastness of the farms. 

Ms D Schafer (DA) asked Agri SA what it meant when it said that it accepted the strategy. She asked why farmers were not involved sufficiently in the LDACs. She noted that when people accused others of generalising, they then went on to do the same. There were many white farmers killed about whom one did not hear. She concurred with Mr George, and asked what the organisations were doing about it.

Ms A van Wyk (ANC) said that one tended to think about agriculture in terms of white farmers, but emerging farmers were suffering too. She urged all representatives present to admit if any of their members were guilty. She agreed with her colleague Mr Schneemann. She asked about sector policing. The police had raised this with the Committee as a challenge. Communities were not sufficiently involved. Such involvement could make an effective difference.

 Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked how the farming organisations thought the problems of child labour and drug use within the farming community could be solved.

The Chairperson asked who was stealing the farmers’ stock and who the customer was. She asked if it was true that farmers employed illegal foreign migrants. Perhaps the farming organisations and unions were aware of these problems? What were they doing to ensure that their members did not involve themselves in such illegal activities? She narrated how she had visited a farm and seen for herself the deplorable living conditions of farm workers there. No one could live under such circumstances.

Mr Botha responded that Agri SA was an organisation of members who were required to subscribe to the organisation’s ethos when joining. It served commercial farmers irrespective of gender or race. It accepted the responsibility to empower the less fortunate, and had several membership programmes. With regard to the increase of police patrols, Agri SA had discussed a strategy for safety and security with police structures. The organisation had a strategic plan for agriculture, a vision for farm labour, and a child labour forum. There was nothing wrong with the strategy. However, policy was instituted by politicians and required to be implemented at the level of police stations. It worked excellently at some police stations. Agri SA supported the policing plan and command system. The previous system of commandos did not have any power. With the new reservist policy members were empowered as members of the South African Police to protect the community. Agri SA supported the new system and was confident that it worked very well. He was surprised to hear Members still talking about white farmers, despite his plea. If one kept compartmentalising, one would get nowhere. He said that he was either a South African or not.

Mr George said that Agri SA appeared to lack the necessary powers to act against its members.

Mr Botha replied that members of Agri SA were bound by a code of conduct. Violators faced expulsion from the organisation.

The Chairperson said that the xenophobic attacks and illegal migrants were an important issue.

Mr Botha extended an open invitation to visit farms.

Mr Ndlovu said that Agri SA must be very careful in extending such an invitation. It was placing itself in an awkward position. In opening its gates it must be very careful.

Mr Botha replied that luckily he was not a politician. He said that statistics were ‘contaminated’. He alluded to a serious problem of unwillingness to take responsibility in police stations and lack of dynamic leadership. He wondered why station commanders and shift commanders appeared to sit in the charge office while outside the cars of members of the public were damaged. The police must perform the duties for which they were appointed.

The Chairperson said that the Committee’s responsibility was one of oversight.

Mr Botha said that he would ‘bow down’. He admitted that he had become ‘emotional’. He considered that stock theft was organised crime. There were insufficient statistics on crime. He said that there were many new farmers in the system, and that Agri SA’s members were aware of the legislation as it applied to them.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked how many had been murdered.

Mr Botha replied that statistics were important, but one murder was one too many. There were 3 365 documented names. The incidence of rape had increased since the previous year.

Mr George said that Agri SA must accept some responsibility and asked how that was going to happen.

Mr Motala responded that United South African Agricultural Association was not a racial grouping. The term ‘emerging farmer’ had been denigrated. It was necessary to continue dialogue until real transformation could be seen. It was necessary to involve the farmers in addressing substance abuse. He referred to the importance of the CPFs. Farmers and farm workers were members of one South African nation. With reference to farm workers who refused to leave, it was necessary to follow the relevant labour processes. The number of farm evictions was a critical issue that had not been covered. The Association acknowledged the benefits provided by farmers to their workers in the form of food, clothing, transport, and other amenities, as alluded to by Agri SA, but asserted that making workers dependent was wrong. While the Association appreciated these services, they were not enough. The Association was concerned about the situation of workers who were born on the farms and who retired there. A big political issue was burial rights. He agreed with Members’ concerns about organised stock theft, especially that which involved one farmer stealing from another and involving farm workers in the crime.

Mr Ndlovu criticised allegations that some farm workers stole cattle for weddings.

Mr George asked how many organisations representing farm workers and farmers existed altogether.

Ms Anelize Crosby, Parliamentary Officer, Agri SA, said that a protocol for visiting farms existed; there was also a code of conduct, and a protocol for burial on farms.

Mr George asked for more information on farm evictions.

Ms Crosby responded.

Mr Schneemann said that Agri SA had contradicted itself.

 Mr Mbama said that the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 1997 (Act No. 62 of 1997) was not assisting farm workers.

Lieutenant-General Ray Lalla, South African Police Service, representing the Department of Police, referred Members to the Rural Safety Strategy.

The Chairperson said that it was necessary to engage further on the problem of stock theft. She called for research. It must be surely very difficult for one criminal to steal ten cows. Such crime must be organised. The issue of substance abuse also needed to be discussed further. Most farms were far away from towns, but farm workers had such easy access to alcohol and many of them consumed their wages on it. Many alcoholics, rather than social drinkers, could be identified on farms. Also children were consuming alcohol on farms. It had to be asked why alcohol was so easily accessible on farms. She felt that this meeting was the beginning of a process of communication between the Committee and the farming community, particularly on issues that related to crime and safety. The discussions had indicated that there were many role players who should be consulted but were not present in this meeting. Legislation relating to farm evictions needed to be reviewed. Despite differences, there were many things which the various stakeholders present had in common. She agreed with Agri SA that it was necessary to avoid derogatory remarks that led to disunity. It was necessary to act in a way that kept us together in diversity. It was necessary to address the issues attacks on farmers and farm workers holistically. It was not possible ‘to work in silos’.  The Committee would subsequently deliberate on the discussions that had taken place and decide on a way forward. Other departments besides the Department of Police would be involved. She thanked Mr Bezuidienhout for handing over the petition to the Committee. She had noted some of the very positive comments in the petition.

The meeting was adjourned.