Reviewing 15 years of resource-poor small-scale agriculture in SA: is there any way forward?

1. Reviewing 15 years of resource-poor small-scale agriculture in SA: is there any way forward? Tim Hart HSRC: CPEG TIPS Forum, Cape Sun 31October 2008

2. Introduction • Agriculture in South Africa • Who are the resource-poor? • What have we done for them? • Can we ignore them? • What must be done?

3. SA Agricultural Landscape • 100 million Ha of Agric Land • 14 million viable for arable farming • 72 million for grazing • 46 000 commercial farming units-mainly white owned • Arable land in former homelands 11%-16% • Irrigation schemes 3.7% of total • Plots small, farming is cyclical • Erosion, hilly terrain, overgrazing • 3.4-4.8 million engaged in agriculture in former homelands – 2 million households • 240 000 commercially focused • Remainder supplement household food supply

4. Agricultural Producers in South Africa • Large-Scale Commercial • Mainly white • Small-Scale Farmers • mainly black – 3 types • Semi-subsistence – cyclical, low risk, very low inputs, no support, multiple livelihoods • Communal – projects, low inputs, little support, multiple livelihoods • Emerging – larger in scale, risk taking, high inputs, more support, sole livelihood?

5. Underdevelopment of the homelands • Current situation not always so • Transkei area exported food in 1850s • 1930s only imported 10% of food • Herschel District exported grain in mid-1800s • Taken from Basotho in late 1800s • Lesotho has lost its most arable land • Current situation a historical process • Colonial expansion and dispossession • Apartheid • Current government policies • Overpopulation – decline of NR • Climate change • Decline in interest in agriculture – activity of the poor • HIV/AIDS • Quick Fix Technologies, projects and policies • BUT Production Continues

6. Labour Force Survey Data (1) • Generally poor Statistics on Smallholders in South Africa • LFS provides some interesting data • Sep 2000-Sep 2007 – 3.4 million to 4.8 million Black South Africans engage in agriculture for some purpose • Agric as main source of food: 33% to 8% with low of 5% (Sep 03) • Agric as supplement to hh food supply: 55% to 81% with high of 88% (March 04) – increased access to social grants?? • Agric as main source of hh income: 3% to 2% • Agric as extra source of hh income: 5% to 6% but typically around 3% • Leisure activity: 4% to 3% with low of 2% • Depends on other livelihoods and people’s socioeconomic circumstances

7. Labour Force Survey Data (2)

8. Labour Force Survey Data (3)

9. Labour Force Survey Data (4) Share of Black Households engaged in agriculture per District Municipality

10. Labour Force Survey Data (5) • In 4 municipalities 57%-72% are engaged in agriculture – in further 8 share is 43%-56% • 2 million of 11 million black households (20%) engage in agriculture • But share in former homelands is much higher • 3 municipalities account for 25% of all black smallholders nationally • Movement away from agriculture, but has dual role in rural livelihoods • Buffer against poverty for most poor • Wealth creation for higher income hhs • Safety net role overlooked by policy makers • Wealth creation supported but often inadequately so!

11. Common constraints of resource-poor farmers • Uncertain property rights • Climate, water, poor soils – not addressed • Lack of income to purchase required inputs – small parcels of land - neglect large • Poverty prevents them from overcoming obstacles • Intense and diverse practices – spread risk to obtain some food • 5% of hh income from agriculture! • Greater income from other sources • Food supplementation is main focus • NOT “real” farmers – do not attract support • But most needy

12. Support and Constraints to Resource-Poor Farmer Development: Govt support • 1994-1998 govt focus on resource poor (1995 White Paper) • Technology inappropriate and transfer not the solution • R&E cannot service the many • Support for the poor needs to consider circumstances and be comprehensive • 1999 to present govt focus on wealthier and better resourced (emerging) farmers (2001 Strategic Plan) • Govt resources now focus on wealthier few • Market production focus • Supplementation of hh food supply ignored • LRAD and CASP focus on the better-off/ “credit worthy”

13. Support and Constraints to Resource-Poor Farmer Development: NARS • NARS is fragmented • Funding structure is inappropriate – core funding reduced • Private sector involvement • Shift away from primary research • Profit driven and IPR • No longer a public good • NARS focus largely on Commercial/Emerging sector • Little attention given to the plight of resource-poor farmers • Scant research on low input low cost technologies • Research still governed by commercial paradigm of yields and not local circumstances • Food Security and reduced expenditure off the map

14. Support and Constraints to Resource-Poor Farmer Development: Private Sector • Seed Companies and Cooperatives • Holistic packages to viable emerging farmers • Too difficult to work with poorer farmers – numbers and technology • No real profit incentive to work with this sector

15. Constraints in smallholder sector (1) • Institutional • Involvement in value-added chains scarce – mainly better-off • Low Govt investment in public goods • Rural Infrastructure • Under investment in roads, transport, storage facilities and communication – reduces competitiveness • Restricted/scarce access to input and output markets – increase production and transaction costs • Global Factors • Low import prices • Unlevelled playing fields – GATT and WTO • SA is middle income country – Black producers do not benefit • Negotiated better agreements would need to be backed up with better support and infrastructure

16. Constraints in smallholder sector (2) • Commercial Sector • Reduced protectionism – competitiveness • Bankruptcies and retrenchments • Collapse of Land Reform farms • Restrictive labour practices • Will not/cannot comply • Pressure on rural economy and households • HIV / Aids • Lack of Extra Income • Redeployment of hh income, labour and other resources • Death leads to skills shortage

17. Discussion • Gradual introduction of support since 1994 • Limited success – little for the poor • Scant attention to socioeconomic, political, gender and agroecological factors at local level • Improving food security activities vital • Largest numbers • People are doing this – not new • Income used for other goods and services • Shift from resource-poor to emerging? • Improve diet and nutrition • Need to reach the 14 million food insecure and the 1.5 million malnourished children

18. Conclusion • Successful poverty focused rural development strategy must include development of resource-poor • Remain on the margins – will not go away • Understand • Diversity of reasons for agricultural involvement and diverse environments • Current risk reduction practices • Past, present and future challenges • Required support and technology • Food security and dietary diversity more important than contribution to economy • Strategy must interlink with broader poverty reduction strategy • Collaborative not a single Department • Not simple • Three-pronged approach to Agricultural growth

19. Thank You