South Africa’s energy transition is moving fast – but it is moving into slow, complex terrain. Communal terrain. Governed terrain. Culturally anchored terrain.
Land ownership in South Africa remains a complex and contested matter, shaped by history and persisting socio-economic realities. Addressing these challenges requires policies that promote equitable access, security of tenure, and sustainable land use to support inclusive development.
This matters now more than ever. As grid capacity expansion and private procurement accelerate, we might see more projects on communal land, and whether the sector is ready or not is up for discussion. With grid constraints shaping the energy landscape, communal land often sits near existing or planned infrastructure, presenting opportunities for future development.
Across provinces, in particular, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, renewable energy developers are increasingly pursuing land rights on landscapes controlled by royal houses, traditional councils, Communal Property Associations (CPAs), and layered community governance systems. These institutions do not fit neatly into procurement templates or investor models, yet they hold authority, legitimacy, and the power to grant or deny access to commercially viable project sites.
A transition that fails to engage these structures meaningfully will not be just, and it will not be stable.
This is the clear lesson emerging from INSPIRE’s ongoing Land Matters1,2 work, including our land partnership case studies on projects such as Tsitsikamma and Wesley-Ciskei wind farms, recent field experience supporting a solar developer navigating approvals with two Limpopo royal houses, and insights shared during INSPIRE’s November 2025 webinar3 with speakers from Forethought Capital and Meliquina in Argentina.
The message across all of these is consistent: Renewable energy projects succeed where governance structures are respected, supported, and formalised – not bypassed.
Communal Land Gap
Although the REIPPPP is globally celebrated for community shareholding, fewer than a handful of IPPs have actually been built on communal or traditionally governed land. This gap is not incidental. It reflects a profound structural and systemic barrier preventing communities from participating fully and equitably in renewable energy development.
INSPIRE’s work shows why.
Communal land is governed through complex traditional systems, authority structures, family lineages, council mandates, and customary processes that value relationship-building, consensus, and protocol. Generally, the administration of communally owned land straddles both public (government) procedures and traditional authority codes. In practice, this means navigating bureaucratic processes while also respecting traditional and cultural protocols.
Renewable energy development, however, is organised around a completely different worldview: project pipelines, timelines, permitting gates, financial close deadlines and highly technical milestones.
When these two systems meet without patience and negotiation, the results are often unfavourable. Communities are not opposed to renewable energy, they are apprehensive to exclusion, partial information, and rushed decision-making. They might reject offers or benefit promises that would likely evaporate when leadership rotates or when developers disappear after bid submission.
Over the past 14 years of large-scale renewable energy implementation in South Africa, communal land and community-owned land has experienced significantly less renewable energy development than privately owned land. Fewer administrative hurdles and faster attainment of land rights on private land have made it more attractive for developers seeking to reduce early-stage risk and achieve bankability.
Consequently, the benefits of the renewable energy industry have primarily accrued to private landowners, while communal land has remained largely excluded from these opportunities.
What Limpopo Teaches Us About Real Power
In Limpopo, as described by Methuli Mbanjwa of Forethought Capital, communal land governance profoundly shapes and complicates development processes. Land is rarely demarcated, and decisions are governed collectively through customary systems that emphasise protocol and legitimacy over speed.
Developers entering this terrain must navigate:
- royal houses with historical and contemporary authority
- villages with overlapping rights
- mandates that are socially negotiated, not simply signed
- relational rather than bureaucratic governance
- institutions that may be under-resourced but are deeply respected
What Patagonia Shows Us About What Is Possible
At the same webinar, Juan Dumas of Meliquina shared a contrasting but resonant example from the Mapuche community in Patagonia, Argentina. Their model demonstrates that equitable community ownership is not only possible, but also commercially attractive when designed correctly.
Their shareholding approach was grounded in co-development, not charity:
- Sweat equity
- Land value contributions
- An equity loan facility
Because the Mapuche community was a co-developer and shareholder of the project, permitting moved faster, social opposition risk reduced, and financial institutions were willing to finance community equity – not as a grant but because the model strengthened project bankability and reduced long-term social risk.
This aligns with growing recognition that communities are not merely stakeholders to be consulted for handouts but are strategic partners in development.
Lessons from Tsitsikamma Community and Wesley-Ciskei Wind Farms
South Africa has only a tiny handful of IPPs built on communal or black-owned land. The Tsitsikamma and Wesley wind projects illustrate recurring patterns:
- Strong community leadership leads to fairer outcomes.
- Unclear mandates trigger conflict.
- Benefits without governance structures enable elite capture.
- Developer-driven processes produce shallow participation.
- Time for dialogue results in more durable agreements.
- Consent is fragile without real translation and capacity (speaking to the ‘business language and other corporate terms).
- Formal corporate vehicles cannot be parachuted into customary systems.
In short, where governance is strong and consent is structured, benefits are more likely to be sustainable, and where the opposite is true, projects tend to fracture social fabric and potential project partnerships.
What a Just Transition Requires
A just transition cannot be built on megawatts alone. It must be built on community mandates, legitimacy, participation, and equitable ownership.
South Africa urgently needs:
- Governance Support for Communal Landholding Structures
- Real Equity and Ownership Pathways
- Whole-of-government coordination
- Public transparency
INSPIRE’s Invitation
INSPIRE will be hosting ongoing dialogues and learning engagements in 2026 to begin shaping the frameworks South Africa needs. We are also developing a public learning series based on insights from Limpopo, Meliquina and our case studies.
A just transition will be shaped in royal compounds, CPA boardrooms, grazing fields and community halls — wherever people gather to make decisions about land they hold collectively.
South Africa has the opportunity to lead the world in community-anchored renewable energy — but only if we treat communities as architects, not afterthoughts.
INSPIRE is committed to that future — and we believe South Africa is ready for it.
Referenced material:
1Land Matters Practice Development | An INSPIRE Project
2Unlocking Value on Communal Land: Strategies for Navigating Complexity – Inspire Excellence
3 Webinar: Pioneering Community Equity Partnerships in RE Projects On Communal Land: Click Here
