India Scaling Up Agricultural Technologies For Smallholder ...
A review of smallholder support in the Overberg
113
1 District stakeholder engagements and consultations in support of the Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support Overberg District Final Report 24th May 2013
-
Upload
independent -
Category
Documents
-
view
3 -
download
0
Transcript of A review of smallholder support in the Overberg
1
District stakeholder engagements and consultations in support of the
Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support
Overberg District Final Report
24th May 2013
2
Phuhlisani Solutions cc. 85 Durban Rd Mowbray Cape Town. Tel 021 685-1118, Fax 021 685-1115.
Land and Rural Development Specialists
24th May 2013
3
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Task phases, deliverables and implementation activities .................................................... 7
1.1.1 Phase 1 ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.1.2 Phase 2 ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.1.3 Phase 3 ....................................................................................................................... 7
2 Profile of the Overberg District ................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Urban settlements .............................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Poverty ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Land use classification ...................................................................................................... 10
3 Agriculture and smallholders in the Overberg District ............................................................... 12
3.1 Agricultural production in Overberg Local Municipalities ................................................... 12
3.2 Indicative trends in the Overberg agricultural economy ..................................................... 14
3.3 The place of smallholder producers in the District economy ............................................. 20
3.4 Diverse definitions and the questionable quality of data on smallholder producers ........... 22
3.4.1 STATS SA Survey of large and small scale agriculture (2002) .................................. 22
3.5 Surveys in the Western Cape ........................................................................................... 23
3.5.1 WCCOA Survey on Status of Emerging Farming in the Western Cape (2007)........... 23
3.5.2 WCDOA Development of a Spatial Information System on Black Farmers in the
Western Cape (2010) .............................................................................................................. 24
3.6 Current lists of projects ..................................................................................................... 24
3.7 Differentiating projects ...................................................................................................... 26
3.8 Data quality, format, sharing and project monitoring ......................................................... 28
3.9 Institutions and initiatives in support of land reform and smallholder development ............ 28
3.9.1 DAFF ......................................................................................................................... 29
3.9.2 The WCDOA ............................................................................................................. 29
3.9.3 The link between land reform and agriculture ............................................................ 33
3.9.4 DLA/DRDLR Overberg area based land reform plan 2007 ........................................ 35
3.9.5 Smallholder producer organisations ........................................................................... 36
4
3.9.6 CASIDRA .................................................................................................................. 37
3.9.7 Agri Mega Empowerment Solutions ........................................................................... 37
3.9.8 Commodity organisations .......................................................................................... 39
3.9.9 Local economic development agencies ..................................................................... 39
3.9.10 NPOs ......................................................................................................................... 39
4 A review of the consultation process ........................................................................................ 41
4.1 Institutional perspectives .................................................................................................. 41
4.1.1 Cape Agulhas Local Municipality ............................................................................... 41
4.1.2 Swellendam Local Municipality .................................................................................. 44
4.1.3 Theewaterskloof Local Municipality ........................................................................... 46
4.1.4 Overstrand Local Municipality .................................................................................... 48
4.1.5 Overberg Empowerment Centre ................................................................................ 49
4.1.6 Theewaterskloof Agency for Social Transformation & Economic Development
(TASTED) ................................................................................................................................ 49
5 Using the livelihoods framework to assess the smallholder sector ........................................... 50
5.1 Social and material assets ................................................................................................ 51
5.2 Capabilities ....................................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Activities ........................................................................................................................... 51
5.4 Livelihoods analysis .......................................................................................................... 52
6 The view from the ground ........................................................................................................ 53
6.1 Cluster 1: Smallholders with limited recognition or support ............................................... 54
6.1.1 Grabouw .................................................................................................................... 54
6.1.2 Caledon piggery ........................................................................................................ 57
6.2 Cluster 2: Projects in planning .......................................................................................... 61
6.2.1 Belleview Farm .......................................................................................................... 61
6.2.2 Struisbaai: Zisukhanyo .............................................................................................. 62
6.3 Cluster 3: Food security producers ................................................................................... 62
6.3.1 Hawston Hospice ....................................................................................................... 62
6.3.2 Mountain View Food Gardening Project..................................................................... 62
5
6.4 Cluster 4: Smallholders on commonage land .................................................................... 64
6.4.1 Barrydale Commonage piggery ................................................................................. 64
6.4.2 HealthGro: Napier vegetable producers ..................................................................... 66
6.5 Cluster 5: Smallholders leasing land from government departments ................................. 69
6.5.1 Barrydale FALA farm ................................................................................................. 69
6.5.2 Riviersonderend Small Farmers ................................................................................ 72
6.6 Cluster 6: Small holders on Act 9 and Church land ........................................................... 73
6.6.1 Genadendal ............................................................................................................... 73
6.6.2 Suurbraak .................................................................................................................. 77
6.6.3 Suurbraak small scale piggery ................................................................................... 80
6.6.4 Elim Fynbos Co-op .................................................................................................... 82
6.6.5 Elim Melkery .............................................................................................................. 85
6.7 Cluster 7: Smallholders in partnership/ on private land ..................................................... 87
6.7.1 Agri-Ubuhlobo Trust................................................................................................... 87
6.8 Learning from failure ......................................................................................................... 90
6.8.1 Bredasdorp piggery ................................................................................................... 90
6.8.2 Caledon Small Farmers Barley Production ................................................................ 91
6.8.3 Pearly Beach sour figs ............................................................................................... 91
6.8.4 Suurbraak poultry ...................................................................................................... 93
6.8.5 Zola organics ............................................................................................................. 93
6.9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 96
7 Summary of findings and recommendations ............................................................................ 97
7.1 Trends in the agricultural economy ................................................................................... 97
7.2 Potential niches ................................................................................................................ 97
7.3 Institutions and support for the smallholder mandate ........................................................ 98
7.4 Needs, aspirations and challenges of smallholder producers ............................................ 98
7.5 Opportunities for smallholders and how these might be maximised .................................. 99
8 Stakeholder recommendations for localising the SPSS and improving smallholder support ..... 99
6
8.1 Recommendations emerging from report-back session on Smallholder Agriculture in the
Overberg District ......................................................................................................................... 99
8.1.1 Question and Answer Session: ................................................................................ 100
8.2 Group Discussions.......................................................................................................... 101
8.2.1 Group 1 ................................................................................................................... 101
8.2.2 Group 2 ................................................................................................................... 103
8.2.3 Group 3 ................................................................................................................... 105
8.3 Plenary reports ............................................................................................................... 107
8.3.1 Group 1 ................................................................................................................... 107
8.3.2 Group 2 ................................................................................................................... 107
8.3.3 Group 3 ................................................................................................................... 107
8.4 Consensus on priorities: ................................................................................................. 108
9 Conclusion and recommendations ......................................................................................... 108
9.1 An indicative agenda for improved smallholder support in the Overberg context ............ 109
10 References ............................................................................................................................ 111
7
1 Introduction
Phuhlisani has been appointed the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) to
consult and engage stakeholders on the Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support (SPSS) in the
Overberg and John Taolo Gaetsewe Districts in the Western and Northern Cape respectively. The
outcome of these consultations should provide DAFF with a clear statement of the actual conditions
on the ground in the selected Districts and provide different stakeholder perspectives on how the
SPSS can be refined and adjusted to reflect local trends and conditions.
1.1 Task phases, deliverables and implementation activities
The assignment commenced on 16th January and will be completed by 30th April 2013 and has
involved three phases.
1.1.1 Phase 1
The first phase involved a rapid District review and the development of a profile drawing on existing
literature and sources. This synthesises available information on key trends in the agricultural
economy, profiles key institutions and collates available information on smallholder agriculture
within the District.
1.1.2 Phase 2
The second phase focuses on district stakeholder consultations combining key informant interviews,
selected site and project visits, data capture and analysis and a District report back workshop.
1.1.3 Phase 3
The third and final phase has involved the drafting of the final report comprising three chapters,
references and appendices.
Chapter 1: A profile of Overberg District
o A review of key trends in the agricultural economy
o A profile of the commercial and smallholder sector including information on land
reform projects
o A summary of the most recently available data and statistics
o A stakeholder analysis identifying the key District actors associated with the
agricultural sector – government agencies, extension and veterinary personnel,
NGOs, farmer organizations, co-ops, commodity organizations and their actual and
potential role in supporting smallholders and land reform beneficiaries.
o Information on current initiatives to support and strengthen the local smallholder
sector.
Chapter 2: A review of the consultation process
8
o Findings from key informant interviews
o Findings from site visits
o Findings from consultation workshops
o A listing of all actors consulted together with their contact information
Chapter 3: Findings and recommendations
o Analysis of key district challenges and opportunities
o A summary of recommendations for the localization of the SPSS arising from the
consultation.
2 Profile of the Overberg District
The District which has the second lowest population in the Western Cape after the Central Karoo
comprises four local municipalities – Theewaterskloof, Cape Agulhas, Overstrand, and Swellendam.
The Overberg District IDP (2012 - 2016) highlights a problem of “unreliable and inaccurate” statistics
which will not be addressed until Census 2011 data is included in the 2013/14 IDP (Overberg
District Municipality, 2012: 20). This report draws on the same data as the IDP and therefore figures
cited needed to be regarded with some circumspection.
The IDP reports that the District faces “severe financial constraints” and that its budget will not
balance. Projects included in the 2012/16 IDP “had to be removed in an effort to balance the
budget” (Ibid: 26).
2.1 Urban settlements
The Overberg Local Economic Development Strategy provides background information on the
District as a whole and identifies 24 urban settlements of different scales.
9
Figure 1: Urban settlements in the Overberg (Source: Urban-Econ 2008)
2.2 Poverty
The table below (Provincial Treasury, 2011: 24) highlights the rising number of people living in
poverty in the Overberg District. 15560 households or 25.2% of the total households in the
Overberg were reported to be indigent as of August 2011.
10
Figure 2: Poverty over time (Source: Provincial Treasury 2011)
2.3 Land use classification
The spatial development framework of the Overberg District Municipality contains a land use
classification map for the District.
The map highlights the extent of land utilised for extensive and intensive agricultural purposes
which is coded brown and light brown in the key. Extensive production is located closer to the coast
while intensive production is located further inland.
11
Figure 3: Land use classification in the Overberg (Source: Overberg spatial development framework 2012)
12
3 Agriculture and smallholders in the Overberg District
Agriculture is the fourth biggest sector in the District economy accounting for 12% of sector value in
2010 and contributing R850 million. Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fisheries combined provide
21.3% of employment in the District according to 2007 data and are the biggest employment sector.
However the LED strategy cautions that there has been a decline in employment in the agricultural
sector. This is matched by a sharp increase in the number of people living in poverty in the District
between 1996 and 2010. (Ibid: 35). Theewaterskloof and Swellendam have the highest percentage
of poor people with 35.0% and 30.7% respectively living in poverty.
According to the Area Based Plan (ABP) for Land Reform in the Overberg (CNDV Africa, 2008: 62)
the Overberg has some 330 000 hectares for arable agriculture. Estimates vary according to
different sources.
Table 1: Dryland and irrigation cropping breakdown for Overberg (Source CNDV: 2008)
Extensive livestock farming on grazing land includes mutton and wool sheep, chickens, dairy and
beef cattle, ostriches and angora goats.
Approximately 116,000ha is under dry land production and 38,000ha is irrigated. There is a
significant agro-processing sector in the District which includes milk, canning, and distilling of wine,
beer and spirits. Pioneer, Tiger and SAB purchase grains while Parmalat and Nestlé are major
buyers in the dairy sector.(Tshintsha Amakhaya, 2012: 110)
3.1 Agricultural production in Overberg Local Municipalities
The table below provides a synopsis of key agricultural activities and local economic development
trends in the four local municipalities within the Overberg.
13
Table 2: Local municipalities compared
Local
Municipality
Local towns Municipal
capacity
assessment
Local economic development
trends
Theewaterskloof
LM
Villiersdorp,
Grabouw, Caledon,
Genadendal,
Greyton and
Riviersonderend
Low capacity Income inequality has increased
between 2007 and 2010 making TWK
most unequal municipality. The
largest local municipality by land area
is primarily dependent on agriculture
with a local economy growing more
slowly than the three other local
municipalities. The municipality is
reported to have experienced service
delivery and capacity constraints
(UrbanEcon, 2008: 22)
Caledon is the centre of the Overberg
agricultural region which produces
barley, wheat and wool. Overberg-
Agri, which provides services and
support to the farming sector, has its
head office located in Caledon.
The largest malt producer in the
southern hemisphere Associated
Maltsters is located in Caledon.
Agri-processing firms, including
Appletiser and Elgin Fruit Juices also
operate within the District.
Cape Agulhas
LM
Napier, Bredasdorp,
Struisbay, Elim,
L’Agulhas and
Arniston
Low capacity Reasonably diversified local economy
combining manufacturing, agriculture,
forestry and fisheries.
The Cape Agulhas LM has supported
the formation of local Independent
Development Corporation to promote
LED.
The Cape Agulhas area supports
livestock farming, with a specialisation
14
Local
Municipality
Local towns Municipal
capacity
assessment
Local economic development
trends
in the breeding of Merino sheep.
Wheat, barley, oats, canola and dry
land lucerne are also cultivated.
Cape Agulhas made available
commonage land to Agri Dwala1 who
developed it into a viable economic
unit and in 2011, was awarded the
emerging
farmer of the year. Cape Agulhas
Municipality hosted an emerging
farming summit in 2012.
Overstrand LM Kleinmond/Hangklip,
Greater Hermanus,
Stanford and
Gansbaai
High capacity This municipality has a strong
economy combining tourism, fishing,
aquaculture and agriculture. There is
very little focus on smallholder
agriculture in the municipality.
Swellendam LM Swellendam,
Suurbraak,
Barrydale
Low capacity Agriculture and tourism are the main
economic activities with a focus on
wheat, canola, oats, sheep and dairy
farming.
3.2 Indicative trends in the Overberg agricultural economy
Indicative trends of a broad nature are extrapolated from a rapid scan of published and web based
sources. The agricultural sector in the Overberg is the domain of large scale producers in a market
increasingly dominated by large diversified agribusiness companies with interests throughout the
value chain. The concentration of these large companies has caught the attention of the
Competition Commission which has investigated “the prevalence of cartels within the staple foods
industry” (Rakhudu, 2008) and alleged collusion in the setting of grain storage tariffs.
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1J9iP0ErgvI
15
Grains
Since the deregulation of the agricultural sector in 1997 and the dismantling of single channel
marketing grain is traded through the Johannesburg Stock Exchanges’ (JSE) South African Futures
Exchange (SAFEX) platform.
The commodity derivatives market is thought to be an effective way for all players involved to
manage price risk and market exposure within the South African agricultural markets. Farmers can
hedge their grain on SAFEX to secure desirable future months prices in order to protect them from a
possible drop in spot price at the time of harvest. Similarly, millers and grain traders hedge in order
to counter the effect of price increases at the time of purchasing their stocks.
(Higgins, 2010: 7)
The SAFEX platform has numerous implications for smallholder grain producers requiring them to
enter into partnerships and joint ventures to secure market access and secure reasonable prices for
their produce.
Key agricultural activities in the Overberg include the production of wheat and barley. Wheat is
grown in rotation with lucerne, canola and lupins. The sharp increases in the price of fuel and input
costs have resulted in significant cost increases for grain production aggravated by relatively lower
grain prices. There is increasing adoption of conservation tillage and no till techniques. Lucerne is
grown as pasture for wool/mutton type sheep, as well as a rotation crop for small grains and canola
in the Overberg (van Heerden, 2012).
Wheat
The quantity of wheat produced in the Western Cape Province showed a continuous increase
between the years 2004 and 2008. The average producer prices for wheat experienced a marginal
decline below R2 500/ton during 2008 and declined further in 2009 to about R1 600/ton
(Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs, 2005). A recent article in the African
Agricultural Review notes that:
Wheat production in South Africa has been declining over the past decade although high levels of
mechanisation have boosted productivity from a smaller acreage. Ten years ago, South African
wheat farmers grew 2.5 million tonnes on 974,000 hectares but this was reduced to 1.76 million
tonnes on 551,000 hectares this year, compared with 604,000 hectares last year. This smaller area
planted to winter wheat is directly linked to the low domestic price of the grain in the first half of this
year.
(Hannon, 2012: 4)
16
The Western Cape is expected to produce 734,400 tonnes or 42% of the total wheat crop.
Nationally the total acreage devoted to wheat will be 551,200 hectares which “represents the lowest
wheat acreage since government record-keeping began in 1931” (Ibid: 15).
The milling industry which processes wheat into flour for bread making has experienced a decline in
employment.
Barley
Barley is produced almost exclusively by large scale commercial producers and grown in areas
surrounding Caledon, Bredasdorp, Riviersonderend, Napier and Swellendam under dry land
conditions. In South Africa barley is planted mainly as malt for beer, South African Breweries
Malting (Pty) Ltd is the single buyer which supplies South African Breweries with malted barley.
Barley producers have a guaranteed market and fixed price contracts. Barley producer prices
declined marginally from R2300.02/ton in 2008 to R2096.96/ton in 2009. (DoA, 2012)
There is a well developed support network for barley producers operating throughout the value
chain. The South African Barley Breeding Institute is located near Caledon. The initiative was
started in 1978 by Sensako which found that the majority of varieties from abroad are not suitable to
the growing conditions of the Southern Cape. This led to the development of a breeding
programme. During 2000 Sensako was taken over by Monsanto a multi-national agricultural biotech
company. The barley breeding programme was taken over by SA Breweries Ltd in 2001 (SABBI,
2013) .
Production inputs, machinery, technical support, insurance services, marketing and grain storage
are provided by large agricultural support companies and co-operatives. For example in Caledon
Overberg Agri operates an agricultural development division to provide producers with advice and
support. This is backed by a farming unit at Caledon, which is also used as a research farm.
Overberg Agri is also involved in the marketing process of all grain and grazing crops. The company
stores the largest amount of malting barley in South Africa and runs two seed processing factories,
where approximately 10 000 ton seed is cleaned and distributed every year (Overberg Agri, 2013).
Oats
96% of the oats crop is produced in the Western Cape. Oats are among the grain crops produced in
the Overberg. Oats like other agricultural commodities operate in a deregulated market
environment. The local oats prices are determined by forces of demand and supply which are
affected by global prices and harvests in major producing countries such as Russian Federation and
Canada. Local oats prices were very low during the year 2000 rising increased slightly between
2001 and 2003. As indicated in the figure, the highest price was experienced during the year 2008
17
(R2 055.41/t) while the lowest was experienced in 2000 (R727.33/t). The period under analysis
closed at a moderate price of about R1 512.95 for a ton of oats. (DAFF, 2010b)
Livestock
Sheep
Higher wool and mutton prices have resulted in a renewed interest in wool and mutton production.
The Western Cape is the fourth largest provincial producer of sheep accounting for 11% of the
estimated national herd. The value of livestock production and its contribution to smallholder
livelihoods is difficult to assess as slaughtering outside of abattoirs is difficult to record.
The price of mutton increased continuously from 2001 to 2010. In 2001 the price of mutton was
R14.62/Kg but in 2010 it was R 32.28/Kg, this means in a period of 10 years there was an increase
of R 17.66/kg (DAFF, 2011b).
The diagram below illustrates the value chain for formal mutton production. Smallholder producers
(as well as some commercial producers) will frequently bypass many of the links in this chain and
sell directly to consumers. Sales and slaughter sheep are particularly important for customary
ceremonies and funerals. Data on production and sales in this sector of the market is hard to come
by.
18
Figure 4: Schematic of mutton and wool value chain (Source: DAFF 2011)
Nationally smallholder sheep producers face challenges with competition, access to good quality
grazing, access to veterinary services, predation and stock theft, compliance with meat handling
and health and safety regulations. Interviews in Phase 2 will examine the extent to which these
challenges are relevant in the Overberg.
Beef cattle
The red meat industry evolved from a highly regulated environment to one that is totally deregulated
today. The national market is dominated by eight large suppliers. The commercial beef supply chain
has become increasingly vertically integrated where companies running feedlots also or have
business interests in abattoirs, and in some instances their own retail outlets. (DAFF, 2011a)
It is estimated that SMME’s, emerging and subsistence producers account for 23% of beef cattle.
Reliable data on how producers in this sector manage and dispose of their stock remains difficult to
obtain. There are also urban producers in metropolitan areas and small towns who keep stock and
graze them informally on public land. Prices of beef increased significantly from 2000/01 to
2009/10 mainly due to increased consumption caused by rising living standards of larger
number of consumers and low domestic production. There was an increase of R13.79/Kg in
2009/10 compared to 2000/01. (Ibid: 2011a)
19
Dairy cattle
In 2009 Western Cape accounted for 28% of milk production in South Africa. The milk price
increased from 1999/00 to 2003/04 and declined from 2004/05 to 2006/07 before a sharp
increase from 2007/8 to 2008/09. (DAFF, 2010a)
Figure 5: Schematic of the dairy value chain (Source: DAFF 2010)
As can be seen from the production and market chain diagram above small dairy operations usually
sell directly to consumers. There are significant barriers to entry to the dairy industry. The market is
dominated by 4 major processors in the milk industry. Setting up a commercial dairy is an extremely
costly operation. Jacques de Satgé (2012) cites Pauline Stanford, from UWC’s Institute for Poverty,
Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), who estimates that it costs an estimated R15 – 20 million to
start up a commercial dairy farm of 400 cows today which deemed to be the minimum start up herd
size for an economically viable dairy operation.
Fruit and wine
Overberg has a flourishing fruit and wine sector. However the capital and management intensity of
these enterprises creates significant barriers to entry for small scale producers. There are some
exceptions though such as Thandi Wines in Elgin established in 1995 owned by 250 farm-worker
families who hold 55% shares in the company and an ownership shares in three farms, ranging
between 50% to 100% shareholding. Thandi Wines (Pty) Ltd became a stand-alone wine company
as from October 2009.
20
The majority of attempts to broaden the ownership base in this sector has been through share
equity schemes where employees have accessed government grants to obtain a share in the
business in which they are employed.(Thandi, 2013). There is currently a project in planning at
Belleview farm near Villiersdorp where the owners have sold a portion of the property to DRDLR
through the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) who will in turn rent this on to the workers.
3.3 The place of smallholder producers in the District economy
The contribution which smallholder producers make to the formal agricultural economy of the
Overberg is miniscule in financial terms. The context is characterised by the increasing dominance
of a small number of large producers and agri-businesses operating at ever larger scales. However
in a setting shadowed by high levels of unemployment and poverty in the rural areas, on farms and
in small rural towns in the District there are strong arguments that agriculture can make an important
contribution to the livelihoods of poor households as a source of food and a generator of additional
cash.
These arguments acknowledge that agricultural activities are associated with high levels of risk with
drought, unseasonal weather, fire, pests, predators and theft. They recognise that high transaction
costs and difficulties in accessing formal markets confine many small producers to a particular kind
of adaptive and often informal agricultural production in the margins. Despite these constraints there
are some areas where access to land, water, infrastructure, support and markets have enabled the
emergence of a small number of producers who are increasingly reliant on income from agriculture
as a major source of their livelihood.
For the SPSS to be localised and adapted to conditions in the Overberg there needs to be a much
better understanding of the profile and production contexts of small producers in different settings.
As we examine below the data on smallholders and smallholder production remains inadequate.
This is partly a reflection of the lack of agreed definitions concerning different categories of
smallholder coupled with a lack of in depth research to assess the contribution made by agriculture
to the livelihood strategies of small producers.
Nationally and in the Western Cape NGOs which make up the Tshintsha Amakhaya (TA) 2 network
have recently tried to address this gap with recent research studies in the Hessequa and
Swellendam Local municipalities (SCLC, 2011, TCOE, 2012) which examine the issues facing small
producers in the Western Cape.
2 The partner organisations in TA are the Association for Rural Advancement (AFRA), Border Rural Committee (BRC),
Farmer Support Group (FSG), Legal Resources Centre (LRC), Nkuzi Development Association (Nkuzi), Southern Cape Land Committee (SCLC), Surplus People Project (SPP), Transkei LandServices Organisation (TRALSO), Trust for Community Outreach and Education (TCOE), and Women on Farms Project (WFP).
21
DAFF’s Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support (SPSS) acknowledges the elusive character of the
sector and the difficulty of identifying the characteristics of a “smallholder”:
As much as smallholders are distinct from subsistence producers on the one hand and
commercial producers on the other, the ‘‘smallholder sector’’ is itself very diverse. This
diversity relates to a complex combination of contextual factors (e.g. former homeland versus
land reform beneficiaries), specific personal circumstances (e.g. former farm workers, or those
renting land versus those owning land), and to ‘‘scale’’ of production (e.g. from those not far
beyond subsistence producers to those who are difficult to distinguish from commercial
producers).
(DAFF, 2012b: 11)
The SPSS proposes the following typology:
SP1 (‘‘Smallholder producer type 1’’): Smallholders for whom smallholder production is a
part-time activity that forms a relatively small part of a multiple-livelihood strategy.
SP2 (‘’Smallholder producer type 2’’): Smallholders who are more or less in the middle of the
spectrum, meaning that they rely largely on their agricultural enterprises to support
themselves and are not living in poverty, but need further assistance both to expand
production (or make it more efficient and/or profitable), join in the value addition and find
markets.
SP3 (‘‘Smallholder producer type 3’’): Smallholders who operate according to commercial
norms but who have not reached the threshold at which they are obliged to register for VAT3
or personal income taxes4.
We have attempted to apply these definitions in our engagement with a small sample of producers
in the district. The overwhelming majority of those interviewed fall into the SP1 category with a
minority of producers falling into the SP2 category. However as we review below there has been
multiple definitions in use which shape the collection of data and which make comparative analysis
of different data difficult or impossible.
The place of smallholders in the Overberg appears particularly tenuous at present. While there are
some well publicised success stories these usually involve small producers gaining market access,
technical and financial support through partnering with existing commercial producers. The cases of
the Suurbraak grain farmers and Agri Dwala are examples of this type of partnership or joint venture
arrangement.
3 Individuals are required to register for VAT when their turnover is in excess of R 1 million rand per annum 4 Individuals become liable for personal tax when their annual income is in excess of R165,600 annum
22
The majority of smallholder producers operate on municipal commonages, in their backyards or
within the Act 9 settlements where people have historical access to land. They typically have little
support and mainly produce for local and informal markets. Where support has been made available
it is often in the form of capital injections for infrastructure, equipment and inputs with less attention
paid to day to day operations, marketing, business management and cost accounting.
Annex 1 provides an amalgamated list of the different smallholder projects identified to date in the
Overberg.
3.4 Diverse definitions and the questionable quality of data on smallholder producers
One of the key constraints preventing the development of a clear picture of the smallholder sector
are the different definitions in play which variously refer to “farming operations”, “emerging farmers”,
“subsistence producers”,” smallholders” etc. Data has been collected by different actors at various
times using different methodologies which makes means that data on smallholder agricultural
production at different scales is highly fragmented and much is of questionable quality.
We briefly report on some of the findings from different national and provincial surveys undertaken
since 2000.
3.4.1 STATS SA Survey of large and small scale agriculture (2002)
For the purposes of this survey Stats SA defined a household as “a farming operation” if it met at
least one of the following specifications:
(a) It had access to land for farming purposes,
(b) It had livestock, or
(c) It grew crops, and, in addition,
(d) The respondent considered the household or a member of the household to be a farming
operation.
If a household complied with any one of (a), (b) or (c) above but not (d) i.e. the respondent did
not consider the household to be a farming operation, it was classified as a farming operation
if it complied with at least one of the following:
(a) It had sold crops, livestock or other agricultural products produced on/by the operation, in
the 12 months prior to the survey
(b) It had access to 0, 5 hectares or more of cropland,
23
(c) It produced enough crops and livestock products to feed household members for six
months or more,
(d) It had five or more of any of the following animals: cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, mules or
donkeys, or
(e) it had 25 or more chickens (Stats SA, 2002: 5)
3.5 Surveys in the Western Cape
There have been two relatively recent attempts to enumerate “emerging farmers” in the Western
Cape:
In 2007 WCDOA commissioned a survey to enumerate emerging farmers which it defined as
those who farmed at least one hectare or who had at least one large animal unit.
In 2010 WCDOA sought to develop a methodology to target farm properties in the Western
Cape Province “to determine whether the land is used by Black Farmers”(Geostratics, 2010:
1) irrespective of scale.
Data from these two surveys is not directly comparable due to the evolution of definitions and
change of survey focus. It has been observed that there is no single source of data on ‘emerging’
‘black’ ‘smallholder producers’ or commonly agreed definitions to guide data collection. In 2010
Geostratics reported that various lists exist and which are maintained by the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Local Municipalities and other
institutions such as CASIDRA and AgriMega which are involved in rural and agricultural
development. This continues to be the case as we explore further below.
3.5.1 WCDOA Survey on Status of Emerging Farming in the Western Cape (2007)
WCDOA (2007: Annexure A) reported that a comprehensive baseline survey on the status of
Emerging Farming in the Western Cape was conducted in 2007.
Emerging farmers were identified as those farmers who farmed on at least one hectare of land
and/or who had at least one large animal unit...This survey determined the spatial status of farms,
the demographics of emerging farmers and the diverse set of agricultural enterprises this subsector
farms with. The results of this survey were important to the Department not only from a data
benchmarking perspective, but also from a resources allocation, farming support and focused
policy-making perspective.
The process entailed the identification of subjects, the design of a database and questionnaire, the
physical visits to sites, the recording of GPS co-ordinates, the capturing of the data and the design
of queries and the final analysis of data before disseminating it to approved clients.
24
The survey identified 654 emerging farmers on 13 599 ha in the Overberg whose locations were
recorded on GIS maps. The recent study by TA also cites this figure:
In the Overberg district (where Swellendam is located), there are 654 (mostly group)
smallholder projects on 14,000 ha. But less than 2,000ha of this is cultivated. About one third
of this is under irrigation. There are also 96 food garden projects on 401ha in the district,
mainly vegetable production and livestock (mainly poultry and pigs). Fifty-six percent of these
projects produce for their own consumption and 37% produce for informal markets.
(Tshintsha Amakhaya, 2012)
3.5.2 WCDOA Development of a Spatial Information System on Black Farmers in the Western Cape
(2010)
The Department of Agriculture commissioned a service provider (Geostratics, 2010) to develop a
spatial information system to determine the number of black farmers in the Western Cape Province.
“The objective was to map the location of the farmers on the departmental geospatial database with
supporting data concerning contact details, level of commercialisation, products produced and the
demographic composition of these farmers” (Ibid: 1).
The survey only targeted properties categorised as farms outside former municipal boundaries. In
the process this may have excluded a number of small livestock and food security producers
residing in urban townships within the District.
Data captured from the four municipalities in the Overberg was reported as follows:
Table 3: Source: Geostratics (2010: 11)
Municipality Individuals Groups Unknown
Theewaterskloof 7 14 1
Cape Agulhas 6 4 2
Swellendam 61 2 0
Overstrand 0 0 1
Total 74 20 4
The 2010 survey does not appear to offer any explanation of what appears to be a sharp difference
between the data captured in 2007.
3.6 Current lists of projects
Annex 1 contains an amalgamated list of 241 past and current projects purporting to promote
agricultural production for small scale agricultural producers. Projects lists were obtained from:
25
AgriMega
CASIDRA
Cape Agulhas Local Municipality
DAFF
WCDOA
DRDLR
Theewaterskloof Municipality.
Figure 6: Data provided on small scale agricultural production by source
Figure 7: The distribution of projects involving smallholders within the Overberg District
26
3.7 Differentiating projects
The projects amalgamated in the spreadsheet have different origins. For a few projects it was not
possible to identify their origins. Some projects are the individual initiatives of smallholder producers
which have never received any form of government support. Some projects originate through the
land reform programme, others are supported by WCDOA either as food security projects or
through the appropriate Commodity Project Allocation Committees. However this differentiation
needs to be treated with some caution as a project could originate though land reform, on a
municipal commonage, as a joint venture on private land or in an Act 9 area and subsequently
receive support as a food security initiative or through a particular CPAC. For data to be valuable a
project life cycle approach is required which tracks all projects according to their origins and the
support that they have received.
We present a basic differentiation of projects by municipality below which has been cleaned of
duplicates.
27
28
3.8 Data quality, format, sharing and project monitoring
The lists kept by different actors all employ different formats. The same projects appear with
different names: e.g. Elim Dairy and Elim Melkery. Several projects do not contain spatial
descriptions which enable them to be located by local municipality. Where data is provided on
project participants this is often out of date and inaccurate. In several instances the data on group
projects does not match the situation of the ground. People leave groups if they perceive the group
not to be succeeding or meeting their expectations. This makes it very difficult to reliably estimate
the number of small producers, let alone differentiate them into the three categories proposed by
SPSS.
Data remains in institutional silos and there appears to be no current initiative to agree on shared
data capture conventions and which enable project information to be accessible online for access
by authorised users. Overall there also does not appear to be a uniform system of monitoring which
provides project status updates and which distinguishes between active projects and those which
have collapsed. The current data also does not provide an indication of the material and support
costs associated with individual projects to date. This is essential to enable evaluation of the costs
and benefits of government support programmes.
We have attempted to clean the data which we have obtained from different sources, eliminating
duplicates and obtaining information on project locations where possible. This process surfaced
some projects listed under Overberg District but which in fact are in neighbouring District
municipalities.
3.9 Institutions and initiatives in support of land reform and smallholder development
There are a number of institutions and initiatives to support and promote small scale agriculture and
land reform over the last ten years. However these do not appear to be well co-ordinated at present
– a key focus of the SPSS. Initiatives have been supported and implemented by a range of
development actors
29
Figure 8: Diverse actors support small producers
3.9.1 DAFF
The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries approach to agricultural and smallholder
development is set out in various strategy and planning documents:
The South African Agricultural Production Strategy (DAFF, 2010c)
The Integrated Growth and Development Plan for Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF,
2012a)
The Strategy for Smallholder Support (DAFF, 2012b).
It has adopted a commodity approach for the implementation of the Comprehensive Agricultural
Support Programme (CASP).
3.9.2 The WCDOA
The structure of the Western Cape Department of Agriculture as of 30th October 2012 is
represented in the diagram below (WCDOA, 2012: 9).
30
The Chief Directorate: Farmer Support and Development is the primary vehicle for supporting small
holders and land reform beneficiaries. The Chief Directorate enables access to grant funding
through Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and the Ilima Letsema food
security programmes. Funds from CASP are allocated through Commodity Project Allocation
Committees (CPAC).
Programme 3: Farmer support and development:
makes use of focus areas to concentrate service delivery
provides an aligned comprehensive support package
promotes co-operative government by establishing joint planning, budgeting, approval and
implementation
promotes partnerships in order to exploit the strengths of key non-governmental
stakeholders with a specific focus on commodity organisations.
Support is also provided through other programmes:
Programme 2: Sustainable resource management
Programme 4: Veterinary Services
Programme 5: Technology, research and development services which aim to “convert the
research rand into an information rand to the benefit to all producers in the Western Cape,
irrespective of scale”(WCDOA, 2013) through the work of three institutes established in
2004.
o Institute for Animal Production
o Institute for Plant Production
o Institute for Resource utilisation
Programme 7: Structured agricultural training
Programme 8: Rural development
31
Figure 9: The structure of the Western Cape Department of Agriculture: Source PAIA Manual 2012:9
32
The WCDOA differentiates between three categories of farmers:
Table 4: Categories of smallholders used by WCDOA (Source: WCDOA no date)
In 2003 there were 26 extension officers serving 142 projects in the Western Cape, of which
approximately 40% could be classified as small-scale farming projects (Jacobs, 2003: 10).
Western Cape Department of Agriculture: Strategic plan 2010/11 – 2014/15
WCDOA (2010: 23) identified five factors necessary for successful land reform which needed to be
addressed either at policy level or at implementation level:
Revitalisation of previously transferred land reform properties,
Provision of integrated and seamless post settlement support,
Promotion of private sector involvement in agricultural development
Prioritising small farmer success over hectares of land transferred
Development of credible farm plans.
WCDOA’S support criteria for subsistence farmers, community and household projects
In order to access WCDOA support subsistence farmers need to submit a comprehensive Farm
Plan while household and community food production initiatives must submit an Implementation
Plan for consideration and final approval.
Production must be mainly for own consumption,
Land can be commonage, leased (at least 5 years) or own land,
Applicants must have access and rights to water (WCDOA, n.d).
WCDOA’S support criteria for small holder and commercial farmers
In order to access support smallholder and commercial farmers must submit:
A Business Plan developed according to the 13 point Business Plan Framework.
The compilation and submission of the Business Plan which includes the Project Proposal is
the responsibility of the applicant/farmer which is forwarded to the relevant Commodity
Committee for consideration and approval.
The farm and the project must be registered on the Department’s farm database prior to
support being authorised.
33
All projects have an exit clause stipulating the conditions that must be met to ensure service
and failure to meet these requirements result in termination of the DoA’s support (WCDOA,
n.d).
The CPAC system for CASP
WCDOA has chosen to focus on specific commodities and has appointed three entities – Agrimega,
CASIDRA and Hortgro to act as CPAC Secretariats administer and screen CASP applications to
various Commodity Project Allocation Committees and provide project management services for
procurement and implementation of projects approved by the respective CPACs.
Table 5: Commodity focus of the three CASP implementing agents
AGRIMEGA CASIDRA HORTGRO
Dairy Viticulture Fruit
Grain Vegetables
Sheep and Wool Beef
Angora goats and Mohair Ostrich Feather and Products
Piggery
Aquaculture
Seed production
Extension Officers assist applicants to complete application forms and develop business plans
which are presented to the CPAC structures for assessment and approval.
3.9.3 The link between land reform and agriculture
Multiple actors acknowledge a protracted history of poor alignment between the DLA, its successor
DRDLR and the Provincial Department of Agriculture and other provincial actors. This has
contributed to the high failure rate of land reform projects in the Western Cape.
CASIDRA attributes the failure of land reform to three causes:
“Land has been allocated to large groups of beneficiaries without successful institutional
arrangements to enable productive and sustainable use of the land...not enough structured
institution al support was given to beneficiaries that in most cases have very little agricultural
and management experience... and the support offered did not address all the needs of new
entrants...in a structured and comprehensive way.”
(CASIDRA, 2013a: 10)
As far as can be established the linkages between DRDLR District Offices and other Departments
and local development actors remain weak and fragmented. There was a period when DLA/DRDLR
34
committed itself to the development of District Area Based Plans for Land Reform. These plans
were intended to be incorporated as sector plans within municipal IDPs.
The table below highlights the phasing and structure of the original ABPs
Table 6: The DLA/DRDLR area based planning process
Phase 0: Inception The inception report was designed to provide the foundation for the subsequent
ABP process which was based on:
A process plan
A communication plan
A district planning framework to integrate land reform issues
The establishment of a formal multi-sectoral ABP substructure as part of
the IDP Steering Committee
Phase 1: Situation
Analysis
The Phase 1 report aimed to provide all the relevant District data including land
demand. This was to provide a baseline from which to plan and to monitor
progress and change.
Phase 2: Vision,
strategy and
conceptualisation of
focus areas
Phase 2 aimed to involve key stakeholders within the District in the agreement on a
shared vision supported by realistic goals and strategies for meeting local land
reform objectives.
Phase 3: Programme
definition, project
identification and
formulation
Phase 3 aimed to formulate clear District level programmes to give effect to this
vision and which identified the projects which would be the focus for subsequent
land reform implementation.
Phase 4: Project
integration and
prioritisation
Phase 4 aimed to ensure the integration of the identified projects within the District
IDP and establish their relative prioritisation. Phase 4 aimed to clarify the roles,
responsibilities, institutional arrangements, budget and resource allocations of
different development actors to ensure effective implementation
Phase 5: Formal
approval of the ABP
The final phase aimed to formalise the ABP as a sector plan within the District and
Local Municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) which would be reviewed
and updated annually as an integral part of the IDP review process.
DLA/DRDLR experienced a number of difficulties in the roll out of the first wave of ABP plans. The
majority of ABPs remained incomplete, very few were formally approved and as far as can be
established no ABP has been implemented.
Following the establishment of the DRDLR in 2009 contracted service providers were instructed not
to proceed with further phases of ABP planning while the Department clarified its new rural
development mandate. DRDLR began to conceptualise the content and focus of second generation
Area-based Rural Development and Land Reform Plans (RDLRPs).
35
3.9.4 DLA/DRDLR Overberg area based land reform plan 2007
The Department of Land Affairs commissioned an ABP (CNDV Africa, 2008) for land reform in 2008
but it does not appear to have been implemented or taken forward. The plan aggregates planning
proposals and strategies at local municipality scale which are summarised below. TCOE (2012: 8)
extrapolates from figures in the ABP to estimate that black people owned approximately 23 000 ha
in the Overberg District of which less than half had been transferred through land reform.
The ABP reviewed the status quo with regard to land reform and small farmer development in the
Overberg. However as noted below this plan was never implemented. Since the drafting of the plan
the DLA has been replaced by DRDLR and there have been policy changes. The most significant is
the phasing out of the Land Reform for Agricultural Development Programme (LRAD), the
introduction of the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy in which the DRDLR retained ownership of
land purchased through land reform and the Recapitalisation Programme which aimed to
resuscitate failed land reform projects.
The ABP undertook a scan of land reform projects and potential in District by local municipality
which is summarised below:
Overstrand Local Municipality
No specific land reform or agricultural development strategies have been developed by this local
municipality when the ABP was drafted
Theewaterskloof Local Municipality
The ABP notes that the Department of Agriculture identified sites for a piggery and cattle farming in
the vicinity of Caledon and was of the view that this area has the best opportunity in the
municipality for small scale farming. In Grabouw land still needed to be identified for emerging small
scale farmers. It was noted that public land is extremely limited here. In Villiersdorp there was
some unused commonage but this was evaluated by the Department of Agriculture are unsuitable
and characterised as having no agricultural development potential. The ABP identified a piggery in
Riviersonderend and a chicken project near Oostergloed. In Botrivier Farm 436/17 had previously
been identified for land reform purposes with potential for vegetable and fynbos development. Areas
were identified in Greyton suitable for the development of agriculture however it was noted that the
lower areas of the commonage were not suitable for cultivation without intensive soil enrichment
measures. In Genadendal the preparation of a detailed agricultural development plan was
proposed to retain all land identified as medium to high agricultural development for agricultural
purposes. At the same time there was a need to formalise the transfer of ownership of the land.
Tesselaarsdal was reported as experiencing a water shortage aggravated by subdivision of the
original farm was divided into 347 units with no provision made for water transfer to these
subdivided pockets.
36
Swellendam Local Municipality
No spatial development framework had been prepared for Swellendam Local Municipality when the
ABP was being developed in 2007.
Cape Agulhas Local Municipality
The ABP notes that no farming was taking place on the Arniston/ Waenhuiskrans commonage
and no significant agriculture in the immediate areas. In Bredasdorp big sections of the
commonage, mainly on the northern portion of the town were identified as having potential for small
farming activities. Studies were proposed to examine agricultural potential and a piggery was
proposed to satisfy local need. Klipdale was identified as having a small commonage which was
considered not suitable for smallholder farming although no reasons for this were provided.
According to the ABP L’Agulhas does not have a commonage that is suitable for smallholder
producers. Napier does have a commonage that is currently being leased and used for emerging
farming. This has been leased to the Agri Dwala project. Protem has a small commonage deemed
not suitable for smallholder farming. Struisbaai does not have municipal owned land that can be
used for agricultural purposes. Suiderstrand also does not have commonage suitable for
smallholder farming.
The ABP also referred to a plan funded by the Department of Agriculture to serve as a framework to
facilitate the organised and integrated development of agriculture in Elim. The plan identified wine
and flower projects which were developed with the local Elim agricultural planning committee. The
plan records that in 1991:
only 10% of the population of Elim were involved in agriculture;
the population was about 2500 people;
the church owned 6446 ha of land; and
the town had 425 residential erven.
Of the approximately 6500ha of church owned land approximately 3000 ha was highly arable (with
the greater proportion of it being utilised) and about 3500ha less arable that are covered with
endemic fynbos. Three projects were proposed:
Elim Mission vineyard creating 40 permanent and 30 seasonal jobs;
Elim Dairy creating 4 permanent jobs; and
Elim Flowers retaining the 30 permanent and additional 30 jobs over time.
3.9.5 Smallholder producer organisations
There are organisations representing small holder producers operating at different scales. At the
provincial scale the United South African Agriculture Association (USAAA) which is now affiliated to
37
the African Farmers (AFASA) represents many more established smallholder producers while
numerous local associations of Kleinboere have been established to represent small producers in
different towns and localities within the District. These local associations tend to be fairly informal
and lack institutional support to be able to effectively represent and serve their members.
USAAA has linkages with AgriWesKaap (AWK) and local associations of commercial producers.
However it appears that small local producers are largely disconnected from organised commercial
agriculture.
3.9.6 CASIDRA
CASIDRA Pty Ltd is a Schedule 3D Public Entity (Provincial business entity) in terms of the Public
Finance Management Act (PFMA) and supports the WCDOA with project implementation and state
farm management. CASIDRA has a mandate to promote agricultural and economic development
within a rural and land reform context. It operates a range of programmes which focus on agriculture
and land reform, rural infrastructure and local economic development.
CASIDRA assists government departments, municipalities, rural communities and other
stakeholders with the implementation of the land reform programme, Comprehensive Agricultural
Support Programme (CASP) and agricultural rural development projects. Key functions are:
To facilitate and implement agricultural settlement support to agrarian reform beneficiaries,
mainly through funding from the CASP programme. This includes subsistence, small holding
and commercial projects.
To assist Department of Agriculture to provide vulnerable communities and households with
the means to produce their own food and to increase their accessibility to safe and healthy
food.
To assist Department of Agriculture and other clients with the implementation of agro
industrial projects.
To assist Department of Agriculture with the financial management of the disaster funding
made available in the Western Cape following droughts, floods and fires.
CASIDRA also has a mandate to manage and render support to government farms (Anhalt,
Amalienstein and Waaikraal) until their transfer to a receiving entity. (CASIDRA, 2013b)
3.9.7 Agri Mega Empowerment Solutions
Agri Mega Pty Ltd is an agribusiness company which has established an empowerment subsidiary
AgriMES which it describes as a broad based economic empowerment business. AgriMES is an
implementing agent for both government and the private sector organisations that focus on
empowerment. AgriMES core focus on grain, dairy, sheep and wool partnership with GSA (Grain
38
South Africa), the MPO (Milk Producers’ Organisation), NWGA (National Wool Growers’
Association) and USAAA (United SA Agricultural Association). AgriMES aims to provide:
Project development and planning
Drafting of business plans
Approval of business plans with commodity appraising entities
Enhancing commodity organisational involvement
Creation of legal business structures
Project implementation
Provision and facilitation of training
Market development and marketing support
Support with businesses administrations, planning and control
Interaction between producers and commodity organisations.
Money scouting and obtaining project funds.
Agri Mega Empowerment Solutions website5 reports the implementation of the following projects in
the Overberg District:
Overberg Feedlot that is situated in Bredasdorp.
Agterplaas is situated in Houtkloof Area.
Versig Trading is situated near Elim.
Spring Forest Trading is situated in Spanjaardskloof.
Romansflora is situated in the Swellendam municipal district.
Elim Melkery is situated in Elim.
Two share milking projects were approved, namely Agri Ubuhlobo Trust and Agri Umhti
Wobimo Trust which are situated on two different farms in the Swellendam Area.
A calf-rearing project was approved with three beneficiaries in the Overberg.
Four grain projects were approved in the Overberg Area:
o Agri Dwala is situated near Napier and the project is completed. They also won the
National Emerging Farmer of the Year Competition.
o Swart boerdery is situated in Elim.
o Suurbraak Grain Farmers
o Umhlaba Wobizo is situated in Bredasdorp.
5 http://www.agrimega.co.za/article.php?art_id=39
39
3.9.8 Commodity organisations
There are a number of commodity organisations operating in the Overberg including:
GSA (Grain South Africa),
the MPO (Milk Producers’ Organisation),
NWGA (National Wool Growers’ Association)
3.9.9 Local economic development agencies
Overstrand and Cape Agulhas local municipalities have established local development agencies.
OLEDA
The Overstrand Local Economic Development Agency (OLEDA) was established in November 2008
with the main aim to promote sustainable economic development in the Overstrand area. One
project in the Hemel and Arde valley focuses on the redevelopment of three farms owned by the
Overstrand municipality.
Southernmost Development Agency
The SDA was registered in March 2013. The Industrial Development Corporation is funding its
operational activities in partnership with the municipality. The SDA will focus on large scale
development projects within CALM. At present no smallholder projects or agricultural activities are
on the SDA agenda.
3.9.10 NPOs
There are a number of Advice Offices and NPOs and operating in the Overberg. These carry out
research and take up issues of importance to poor households. However the current adverse
funding climate which has seen many NPOs close down can impact negatively on the potential for
co-operation between different organisations.
Theewaterskloof Agency for Social Transformation & Economic Development (TASTED)
This advice office is located in Riviersonderend. The Advice office highlighted the importance of
small producers obtaining long leases as this was a minimum requirement for producers to be able
to access support from the WCDOA
Overberg Empowerment Centre (OEC)
The Overberg Empowerment Centre in Caledon appears to have had some advocacy involvement
with/on behalf of small scale producers on the commonage. However relations between the OEC
and certain farmers involved in piggery seem strained with the perception articulated by one
informant that the OEC was using the existence of small producers as a means to fundraise without
consulting them.
40
Trust for Community Outreach and Education (TCOE)
TCOE is part of the Tshintsha Amakhaya network and is linked with the Mawubuye Land Rights
Forum which has been active in 14 rural towns in the Western Cape. TCOE works with the rural
poor to:
Create consciousness and demand for alternative agrarian reform models as a key strategy
for livelihoods and food security.
Develop a campaign to access land/marine resources for livelihoods.
Develop and profile the needs of small producers and farming groups and/or coastal
communities and fishers.
TCOE has carried out research (2012) on small producers in the Swellendam Local Municipality.
Grootbos Foundation
The Grootbos Nature Reserve near Gansbaai has established a Green Futures college and a
Growing the Future programme which provides opportunities to selected local applicants to gain a
combination of life skills, practical nursery skills in indigenous landscaping as well as skills in
organic vegetable, honey, free range poultry and pig production. The centre seeks to expand to
provide ecotourism, hospitality and nature conservation training. Grootbos reports that 72 graduates
have completed the course since the college opened and that all have found subsequent
employment.
41
4 A review of the consultation process
We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss the SPSS and to identify key
opportunities and constraints affecting the smallholder sector. The consultations have involved
discussions with the Department of Agriculture, municipalities, implementing and support agencies
as well as a range of small producers located within the four local municipalities which make up the
Overberg District.
4.1 Institutional perspectives
4.1.1 Cape Agulhas Local Municipality
Name Department Email Phone
Julian Engel Cape Agulhas Local
Municipality
Project Coordinator: Agriculture
079 565 9460
Mr Engel explained that Cape Agulhas Local Municipality (CALM) had a programme to support
emerging farmers. The Municipality had already leased commonage land to groups and individuals
for vegetables, poultry, livestock and grain production. Leases were managed in terms of the
Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) which restricts the Municipality to leasing land for not
more than two consecutive five year lease periods. The municipality’s support for smallholder
agriculture was linked to IDP aims and objectives to address food security and poverty. Mr Engel
noted that the Municipality cannot do agriculture themselves but they can facilitate support in
collaboration with key stakeholders.
Mr Engel explained that Smallholders in Cape Agulhas mainly fell within the mostly SP 1 category
but there were some who could be categorised as SP2.
CALM has attempted to bring on board different government departments and research institutes
such as the Agricultural Research Council (ARC). He noted some role confusion between Agri
Mega and CASIDRA, which (together with Hortgro) have MOAs with the Department of Agriculture
to implement CASP through the commodity approach. He also noted that the relationship between
the District and the local municipalities could be improved and a common strategy developed to
support smallholder agriculture and share data. This was currently very uneven within the District.
Mr Engel provided information on various projects CALM is supporting or working with. These have
been amalgamated into the project list in Annex 1. CALM has a focus on promoting fisheries as
well. Currently there is a fisheries development worker based in Arniston.
42
Emerging farmers summit 2012
Cape Agulhas LM had organised an emerging farmer’s summit in Arniston on 9th November 2012
which had been very successful and which had been fully supported by the District Office of the
Provincial Department of Agriculture. Key departments present included:
DTI.
Commodity organizations.
Agri mega.
USAAA.
Issues identified and discussed by the commissions at the summit included:
Access to land.
Access to finance and start up capital.
Mentorship.
Water.
Access to markets.
Training and development.
The summit report (AgriMega, 2012) highlighted the amount of under-utilised arable land (municipal
and private) in CALM and noted that projects on land acquired through land redistribution have
largely been unsuccessful. It identified challenges to be addressed including:
Tenure insecurity and lack of functional land rental arrangements.
Lack of alignment amongst producer support programmes.
Lack of accessible markets and high transactions costs.
Lack of marketing skills among producers.
Lack of access to finance.
The lack of clear settlement and selection criteria for prospective producers.
The summit made the following recommendation:
Cape Agulhas Municipality should develop a Strategic Plan (including an assessment of
opportunities) for Emerging Farmers within the municipal area. The plan should aim to
coordinate, align and avail all programmes that target support and development of emerging
farmers towards achieving optimum utilisation of resources for sustained food security and
economic returns. The strategic plan should seek to address immediate challenges faced by
emerging farmers in the Municipal area, whilst providing alternative solutions for producers in
the medium and long-term.
43
At the summit AgriMega Group proposed five main mechanisms (which come directly from the
SPSS) that can be pursued in parallel in order to have maximum impact for smallholder support:
Improved planning and investment co-ordination.
Massifying investment in skills.
Revising and refining infrastructure and mechanisation support programmes.
Scaling-up scheme-based interventions; and
Phasing in and expanding systemic interventions.
Resource investment choices
While the majority of people involved in agriculture in CALM are small producers it appears that
much state investment is directed towards producers in the SP3 category or those who have
entered into partnerships with commercial producers such as the AgriDwala project. See box
below. Where support for small producers is concerned much of this takes the form of infrastructure
and input provision. However there appears to be less support available for market and value chain
analysis and systems for monitoring production performance. The different role players need to
develop a shared assessment framework which will better enable analysis of the relative costs and
benefits of current models of support and the potential of current approaches to be more
sustainable.
Many of the small scale projects have experienced challenges and some have collapsed which
requires a rethink by the municipality and other actors of the best ways to support small producers.
This highlights the importance of municipalities developing policies and strategic plans as
recommended by the Emerging Farmer Summit which address the systemic challenges and
examine different options and approaches to supporting small producers.
Table 7: The AgriDwala partnership builds from an initial base on the commonage
Agri Dwala (Pty) Ltd is a joint venture established in March 2006 with three shareholders:
Agri Dwala Workers trust with twenty-nine (29) beneficiaries from the coloured and black communities
of Napier and the surrounding farms: 70 %
Jacobus van Zyl Trust: 15 %
Piet Blom: 15 %
The company obtained a five year lease on municipal commonage totalling 643 ha of arable land around the
town of Napier in 2006 from the Cape Agulhas Municipality. It has successfully farmed this land and has since
purchased two farms, tractors, a harvester, a truck, and some pick-ups. The company runs a 200 head of
44
cattle and 250 ewes. In 2008 the Agri Dwala group rented two farms comprising approximately 100 ha from
two small-scale farmers, and planted grain on it. The small-scale farmers are still farming with sheep, while
Agri Dwala plants grain on the arable land on a rotation system.
Agri Dwala Properties (Pty) Ltd bought the 268 ha farm Jafters Krantz, in 2009, with the help of the then
Department of Land Affairs through the LRAD program, where the beneficiaries of Agri Dwala Trust are the
sole shareholders in this new farm. During the next year, 2010, the Agri Dwala Properties (Pty) Ltd Company
bought another 316 ha farm, Karsrivier, with the financial help of Pioneer Foods utilised as a grain and
livestock production unit.
Projects visited in the Cape Agulhas Municipality included:
A piggery in Bredasdorp
A horticultural project in Napier
Elim Fynbos Co-op
Elim Melkery
Zisukhanyo Farmers
These are reviewed in the project consultation section below.
4.1.2 Swellendam Local Municipality
Name Department Email Phone
Jonathan
Marthinus
Director Community
Services: Swellendam
Local Municipality
[email protected] 028 514 8500
Mr Jonathan Marthinus: Director for Community Services in the Swellendam Local Municipality
(SLM explained that support for smallholder agriculture currently had a low profile in SLM. The main
municipal focus was on the former Act 9 area of Suurbraak (see below) where a committee was to
be formed in terms of the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act (No. 94 of 1998).
Mr Marthinus said the SLM lacked capacity to provide strong support for LED and smallholder
agriculture. The Department of Agriculture was responsible for providing these services. He noted
that municipalities like Agulhas had capacity which SLM lacked.
He acknowledged there was a need to get smallholder farmers together to better understand their
support needs. He indicated that some small farmer have access to commonage land and noted
that there was land in Buffelsjagsrivier which belonged to the Dept Public Works which smallholders
45
sought to access. He also alluded to Land which had been previously held by the Regional Services
Council which was transferred to the District Municipality which he argued should revert to the local
municipalities. Mr Marthinus said he was not aware of agricultural projects in Swellendam. However
the Municipality did own some forest land which had potential for a BEEE forestry initiative.
However there has been a recent study (TCOE, 2012) of smallholders in this local municipality
which has four urban nodes Swellendam, Barrydale, Suurbraak and Buffelsjagsriver. Swellendam
has experienced increasing ‘lifestyle purchases’ of farms by urban dwellers from Cape Town and
foreign nationals. Agriculture which is a major employer is in decline in the municipality.
TCOE reports that in terms of the Swellendam LED strategy minimum financial support has been
allocated for SMMEs. What support there is focuses on vegetable gardening projects in
Swellendam, Suurbraak and Barrydale, an organic vegetable farm in Barrydale and the
Belleview Farm Project which is a PLAS project. It is not clear whether plans to support 100 food
gardens and provide rain water harvesting tanks have been implemented.
TCOE undertook a survey of 99 food producers in Swellendam, Barrydale, Suurbraak and
Buffelsjagsrivier of whom 47% reported starting farming in the last five years. Most farm on
municipal commonage or in their backyards while 30% of the sample reported that they bought the
land they farm on. The majority (57%) use the land for livestock while 30% cultivate crops and 12%
did both. Of the sample 51% of respondents were producing on less than a hectare. None of the
food producers had acquired land through the land reform programme.
Members of Koornlande Kleinboere Association are engaged in stock farming on 100 ha municipal
commonage in Swellendam. The land was previously used by a commercial farmer for crop and
stock farming. The infrastructure includes fencing and two dams. The municipality has granted a
lease of 9 years and 11 months which enabled access to funds provided by the DoA. A group of 13
pig farmers has been provided infrastructure by the DoA. Barrydale has allocated 132 hectares of
commonage (of an unknown total) which have been subdivided into 29 allotments (Langeberg
Bulletin 22/01/2010 in TCOE 2012:13)
Of producers on the commonage 50% have leases between 6-10 years; 28% have leases for less
than 5 years and 20% have not signed leases. The latter two categories are excluded from
accessing funds from the WCDOA which requires a 5 year lease.
46
Table 8: Smallholder livestock numbers in Swellendam Local Municipality (Source TCOE 2012)
TCOE reports generally low levels of State and NGO extension support for small producers
although several of the producers we interviewed reported regular visits by extensions staff.
Projects visited in the Swellendam Municipality included:
A FALA rental farm near Barrydale
A piggery on the Barrydale Commonage
Suurbraak Vegetable Growers
A Suurbraak piggery producer
A Suurbraak poultry producer
Suurbraak Small Grain Farmers Co-op
These are reviewed in the project consultation section below.
4.1.3 Theewaterskloof Local Municipality
Name Department/Organisation Email Phone
Joanna Dibden LED Manager,
Theewaterskloof
Municipality
[email protected] 028 214 3345
Ms. Joanna Dibden, TWK Local Economic Development Manager explained that TWK had recently
commissioned a status report on the state of smallholder agricultural projects and groupings within
the municipality. She identified a range of small agricultural producers in the Municipality. Many
were small survivalist producers raising livestock or growing crops for their own consumption and
local sale. There were some producers who were producing on a larger scale and working in
partnership with commercial farmers either through mentoring arrangements or joint ventures and
47
share equity schemes. In her view the latter approaches had been the most successful as they
enabled producers to obtain technical and financial support and access markets.
Theewaterskloof municipality was in the process of exploring different options for improving support
to smallholders as part of its LED strategy so the DAFF SPSS consultation process was well timed.
She hoped there would be opportunities to develop a fresh and better co-ordinated approach to
smallholder support. There was political support for the smallholder assistance but a number of
challenges had to be overcome. This could require the development of a municipal strategy and
finding ways to increase the capacity of the municipality to support smallholders on commonage
and other land. This needed to look both at primary production and agri-processing opportunities.
At the same time there was a need for small producers to be better organised. There was often a
high turnover of members in project groups which complicated liaison and communication
processes. Within the municipality approvals for the awarding of leases on commonage land had to
follow due process which was time consuming. There were also constraints imposed by the Public/
Municipal Finance Management Acts on the duration of leases on state land.
The status report provides insight into projects which the Municipality has supported as well as
others which were in its boundaries. These include:
Grabouw Small Farmers – Abafuyi Co-operative which has 26 members and has cattle, pigs
and goats which sells informally to local communities operating on private land owned by a
fruit farm.
Caledon Farmers Trust with 9 members growing grain on 82 ha of municipal commonage.
Caledon Small Farmers Piggery which has 20 members and a 100 pigs operating in an
environmentally sensitive area and selling informally to the local community.
RSE farmers with 25 members raising livestock on land owned by Public Works where the
lease has lapsed.
Greyton Kleinbegin with 9 members aiming to farm with pigs, cattle sheep and vegetables,
but no access to land.
A range of small projects in Genadendal, Villiersdorp, Bereaville/Bosmanskloof and
Voorstekraal.
It was noted that there were a number of organisations with a mandate to provide support to small
producers. These included CASSIDRA , Hortgro, and Agrimega. However while these organisations
worked within the municipal boundaries communication was often not good between them or with
the municipality. Support programmes like CASP and the CRDP often went ahead without engaging
the municipality. If there were problems in the way services were delivered by these other agencies
48
local people would often hold the municipality responsible as the sphere of government closest to
the people.
TWK argued that there needed to be a much closer and clearer working relationship between
different state actors and a more coherent approach to supporting smallholders in local
municipalities. There needed to be ways to better share information and data. Currently each
department and organisation maintained its own data which was often not available to other
stakeholders. There was a possibility that TWK could be selected as a pilot local municipality to
explore new approaches and roles.
4.1.4 Overstrand Local Municipality
Name Department/Organisation Email Phone
Xolile Kosi LED Manager,
Overstrand Municipality
[email protected] 028 313 8195
In the Overstrand local municipality we met with Mr Xolile Kosi, the recently appointed LED
manager as well as staff from the WCDOA from Overstrand and Swellendam local municipalities.
Overstrand undertook to send information on smallholder agriculture within the municipality which
had not been received by the time finalising this scoping report. However the poor soil quality and
general shortage of water were said to be major constraints in large parts of the local municipality.
A potential honey bush projects had been assessed in Stanford but was rejected as unfeasible.
There was some interest in Aquaculture noting that the Western Cape is the leading Aquaculture
Province in South Africa producing R272 million worth of output in 2009, with exports comprising
R243 million. Projections are that this sector can create more than 10 000 sustainable direct full
time jobs along the Western Cape coastline (WCADI, 2012: 6). However aquaculture was a highly
specialised and capital intensive undertaking with complex markets. This meant that it was of
questionable feasibility for smallholders unless there was some sort of outgrower model put in place
which provided start up capital, technical advice and market access. Currently there is a range of
small fishing co-ops registered in this sector but these often ended up by selling their quotas to
lager concerns. New licensing regulations were reported to be coming into play later in the year
which would change this.
Other small co-ops had been registered in the municipality which were receiving training and
support from Productivity SA. One of these co-ops was rearing goats. There was also an organic
vegetable farm which had been challenging because it was on municipal land and WCDOA required
a five year lease agreement to be able to provide support. However the poor quality land and
availability of water had resulted in a shift in focus by WCDOA to household food security projects
49
together with school and hospice gardens. A project in Pearly Beach producing sour fig had
received initial funding from the NDA but this had later been withdrawn after the project experienced
marketing problems.
4.1.5 Overberg Empowerment Centre
Name Department/Organisation Email Phone
David
Kroukamp
Co-ordinator OEC [email protected] 082 530 3220
David Kroukamp from the Overberg Empowerment Centre (OEC) – an advice office in Caledon
explained that about five years ago a committee had been established to represent smallholders in
Caledon. There are currently approximately 25 smallholders making use of the commonage raising
pigs and grazing cattle. He said that small producers needed slaughter facilities and adequate
water. They also needed security of tenure to produce on the land and be able to attract funding
from WCDOA.
The WCDOA had provided some training and support to smallholders in the Caledon area, but his
perspective was that the Municipality had been reluctant to provide support to smallholders. He
highlighted growing economic inequality, unemployment and difficulty in accessing land which were
fuelling protests and popular discontent. The meeting discussed a project in Riviersonderend where
smallholders were on Public Works land but without a lease and also faced a shortage of water.
People’s livestock had been impounded and a case had been brought to court to appeal this matter
which had been successful. The National Development Agency had provided funding to this project
some years back but had subsequently stopped their support. The OEC argued that there was a
need for a better co-ordinated and more coherent approach to supporting smallholders in the
Overberg.
4.1.6 Theewaterskloof Agency for Social Transformation & Economic Development (TASTED)
Name Department Email Phone
David Owies TASTED
Riviersonderend
[email protected] 071 0736034
We met with Mr David Owies who provided information on smallholder producers in the
Riviersonderend area. He indicated that there was a local small farmers association with
approximately 30 members which made use of land which was owned by the Department of Public
Works. Some members were raising pigs primarily for their own consumption. Others had cattle.
There had been an ostrich project at some point but the ostriches died. There had been a poultry
50
project in town but this had created a public health problem and the municipality had asked it to
move. The project subsequently broke down
He said that farmers on this land were largely working on their own and were poorly supported. The
key issue was how to get a secure long term lease on the Public Works land. At present Public
works will only enter into an annual lease. Mr Owies said that there was a need for research into
what land was held by government which small producers could access. Mr Owies indicated that
there were small producers who were effectively part of the agricultural informal sector. They
included some people who used to work on farms that retain some livestock there as well as
residents in the townships and informal settlements that keep stock and graze this on public land.
He cited how the municipality had impounded livestock and the case had gone to court which had
ruled in favour of the livestock owners.
5 Using the livelihoods framework to assess the smallholder sector
The livelihoods framework (Carney, 1999, Chambers and Conroy, 1992, de Satgé et al., 2002,
Quan, 2003, Scoones, 1998, Scoones, 2009) provides useful perspectives for analysing small
holder production at different scales and identifying the opportunities and challenges within the
institutional, social, economic and environmental context that shapes smallholder production.
The livelihoods approach focuses on households which come in different shapes and sizes and
which are distinguished from each other by the social and material assets they can access, the
capabilities they command – skills, education, health which combined enable them to draw on their
assets to diversify their livelihood activities and develop more sustainable strategies.
51
Figure 10: Assets, capabilities and activities (de Satgé et al., 2002: 61)
5.1 Social and material assets
Livelihoods frameworks distinguish between social assets and material assets. Social assets are
‘intangible’. They are the benefits that come through relationships with people and institutions, the
social and economic rights and entitlements that are determined by local rules, social norms,
policies, institutions and political structures. Social assets may help to secure material assets such
as rights to utilise land, access to social grants and government programmes. Material assets are
tangible actual physical things that people own, control or have access to. They include land, water,
housing, services, cash from production, business activities, family remittances and government
grants, together with stores of food, furniture, tools and equipment, livestock etc.
5.2 Capabilities
Household capabilities include health, ability to work, education and skills levels as well as the
power to command rights to key entitlements – land, natural resources, social support, services etc.
5.3 Activities
The framework separates those livelihood activities which are more sustainable and which impact
positively on the household and grow its asset base and those strategies which are less sustainable
and which may have the unintended consequence of eroding the household livelihood base.
Agriculture remains a high risk livelihood strategy which is affected by a wide range of policies,
institutions and processes (PIP). These shape the economic, institutional/political, social and
ecological dimensions of the local and global environment and which may enhance or undermine
livelihood security.
52
Figure 11: Livelihoods in context (de Satgé et al., 2002: 70)
5.4 Livelihoods analysis
Livelihoods analysis examines how households derive their livelihoods and identifies the factors
which enhance or undermine their livelihood security. It attempts to understand change over time
and examine what makes the livelihoods of poor households more or less secure. This analysis
helps to identify where and how policies, institutions and processes need to change to better
address poverty, vulnerability and livelihood insecurity.
Poor individuals and households attempt to manage shocks or stresses that emanate from the local
or external environment that undermine their livelihoods.. Shocks are sudden events that undermine
household capabilities, erode assets and restrict activities. These include fire, floods, pests and
disease There are also economic and social shocks such as retrenchment, the sudden death of a
breadwinner, stock theft or an eviction.
Stresses by contrast are long-term trends that undermine livelihood potential. These can result from
mounting pressures from factors as diverse as water stress, environmental degradation and climate
change. Stresses may emanate from poorly maintained infrastructure, poorly functioning state
bureaucracies or dysfunctional local institutions.
53
Integral to both livelihoods and risk assessment is the identification of trends and change over time
and the impacts of these trends on household resilience and livelihood security. This underlines the
importance of data collection and the identification of local indicators to track and monitor changing
patterns of risk and vulnerability.
6 The view from the ground
In addition to conducting key informant interviews with institutional actors Phuhlisani set out to visit
a sample of projects from across the four municipalities, profile the projects and the producers
involved in them. We sought to visit projects located in the four municipalities within different
categories.
Figure 12: Distribution of project sites visited across the Overberg District
54
Figure 13: Distribution of projects by municipality
The categorisation set out below was not applied in a rigid way. Sometimes the location of a project
within a particular category was fairly arbitrary as several projects had attributes which would allow
them to be allocated across several different categories. Through purposive as opposed to random
sampling we sought to assemble a diverse portfolio of projects operating within different settings
and producing at different scales for different markets. We sought to construct a continuum which
ranged from small informal projects which had received little or no support through to larger scale
projects where the state and/or private sector partners had made a significant investment. Seven
different clusters could be identified within this continuum.
6.1 Cluster 1: Smallholders with limited recognition or support
There are also those who cultivate home gardens, or make use of land and water on the grounds of
schools and clinics. These producers are more likely to receive some sort of support in the form of
equipment, seed packs etc which may come from WCDOA or through other departments like Social
Services or the Department of Health.
6.1.1 Grabouw
In Grabouw we met with two urban livestock farmers from Grabouw Small Farmers who told us that
they are part of a co-op which received some assistance from BAWSI to register some five years
ago. No details of this registration were available at the time of the interview.
55
Figure 14: Abafuyi Co-operative members graze their stock on open land (Source: Google earth)
The members currently have no secure access to land and graze their stock informally on vacant
land and the road reserve surrounding the township. They have no lease and no permission. Our
informant indicated that there were approximately 150 cattle and 40 goats being grazed in the
vicinity. Cows are milked and livestock is sold and slaughtered informally for funerals and
ceremonies as the need arises. Prices depend on the size and condition of the animals sold but
cows can fetch between R3000 and R 4000 each. The farmers appear to have no support from any
quarter although they have had contact with DRDLR to try and identify land. There had been some
discussion about acquiring a farm near Caledon or Greyton but the land was too far from where
people stayed and this made management difficult and expensive. Grazing land is needed in the
immediate vicinity, but there is reportedly none available. The Department of Agriculture is currently
unable to support them as they do not meet the Department’s criteria. The relationship with the
Theewaterskloof municipality appears strained as law enforcement impounds stray cattle as a traffic
hazard.
Indicative assets, capabilities and activities
The household livelihood profile of the lead informant is summarised below.
56
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Family Well located
homestead
adjacent to
vacant land
Livestock knowledge Tending livestock
Social networks +/- 30 cattle,
goats and
poultry
More than 10 years of
farming experience
Selling milk, informal livestock sales,
occasional slaughter
Kraal close to
the homestead
Casual and seasonal work
Social grants
for children
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Local informal markets
for milk, eggs and stock
sales
Rights to state grants Family labour Proximity of vacant land
utilised as grazing
Casual work and EPWP
opportunities
Past NGO support Social networks Water from the
homestead and natural
sources
Child support grants
57
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Stock theft Invisibility of informal
livestock producers
Shortage and quality of
grazing
Impoundment of livestock Risks associated with
farming informally and
without permission
Animal health risks
Urban livestock
producers perceived as a
nuisance and health
hazard
Lack of land rights
prevents support from
WCDOA and makes
production precarious
It needs to be recognised that there is a strong economic rationality underpinning informal livestock
production in urban settings despite the risks of impoundment or possible legal action for the
infringement of municipal bylaws. Grazing and kraaling livestock in the immediate vicinity makes
economic sense to the producers for several reasons:
They will not incur the transport costs or other overheads associated with leasing land at
some distance from town.
Local informal markets are immediately available for milk, poultry products and livestock
sales.
However the municipality’s perspective and legal obligations also have to be taken into account with
regard to public health, animal health and road safety. The challenge is to identify well located land
and provide an adequate level of services to support small producers while ensuring public health
and safety.
6.1.2 Caledon piggery
Our informant stated that originally people had originally kept pigs at home or on vacant sites in the
residential area. However this had resulted in complaints about health – smell and flies which had
resulted in the municipality moving pig producers to informally constructed piggeries far from town
on a piece of land owned by the municipality which was also being used by a company working on
the roads as a hostel to accommodate workers.
58
Figure 15: The Caledon small farmer’s piggery is located far from town
Indicative assets, capabilities and activities
The household livelihood profile of the informant is summarised below.
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Family Pigs Livestock knowledge Tending pigs
Social networks Access to
equipped
piggery
More than 10 years of
farming experience
Casual and seasonal work
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Local informal markets
for pigs
Municipality has made
available commonage for
piggery
59
Family members in
employment
CASP support to build
piggery
Casual work and EPWP
opportunities
Extension officers visit
Social grants providing a
regular source of cash,
some of may be used for
livestock rearing.
Veterinary officers also
test pigs for disease
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Distance to piggery Lack of land rights
prevents support from
WCDOA and makes
production precarious
Low level of organisation
among piggery producers
Poor conditions in the
piggery with associated
animal health risks
High transport costs Lack of support means
pigs kept in poor
conditions
Pressure to form a co-
operative as a
precondition for support
Roaming animals
High feed costs Neighbours complain to
animal welfare
Economics of small scale
production unknown
Informal piggery outside Caledon houses over 300
pigs
Conditions in the piggery
Figure 16: Informal piggery 12 km outside Caledon
60
There is clearly a local market for pigs which is largely informal and which mostly involve sales of
live animals to buyers who arrive in bakkies. Conditions at the piggery deteriorate in the winter
months. ARC highlights key management requirements for keeping healthy pigs:
Hygiene is important in preventing pig diseases
Keep pigs in pens that are well drained and cleaned every day
Make sure that clean fresh drinking water is always available
Clean feeding troughs and containers before putting in fresh feed
Control flies by removing dung and covering it to make compost.
(Penrith, 2001)
Many pig producers lack the resources to keep pigs in the recommended conditions. This is
exacerbated by the distance between the piggery and the town where people live. The economics
of small pig herds need to be carefully evaluated before opting for formalisation as this carries
associated overhead costs which many producers may not be able to afford.
The requirement that producers form a co-operative as a prerequisite for being eligible for a lease
and to qualify for support also requires careful thought. The Department of Trade and Industry’s
(DTIs) recently reported that:
The promulgation of the new Co-operatives Act, No.14 of 2005, facilitated a boom in the registration of
new cooperatives never seen before in South Africa. According to the Companies and Intellectual
Property Registration Office (CIPRO) register, 19 550 new cooperatives were registered from 2005–
2009 in various sectors, representing a growth rate of 86%. Within a period of four years, the number of
new cooperative registrants has almost quadrupled the number of cooperatives that were registered
over the previous 82 years (1922–2004).
(DTI, 2010: 27)
The significance of these figures has been challenged. It has been observed that
“Many cooperatives have not even entered a start-up phase and merely exist as formal entities
waiting for government support. Put more sharply, many of these institutions have a paper
membership and are dysfunctional.
(Satgar, 2007: 10).
This is corroborated by evidence from our small sample where we have encountered more than one
defunct co-operative.
61
6.2 Cluster 2: Projects in planning
We visited two projects which had not yet started but were at various phases in the planning
process.
6.2.1 Belleview Farm
The owners of Belleview Farm are in the process of negotiating the sale of a portion of the property
to a Workers Trust representing 13 permanent workers. The property will be purchased by the
Department of Rural Development in terms of PLAS which will then lease this on to the workers. In
the course of our interview it became clear that problems had been experienced on the property due
to the close proximity of a large informal settlement adjacent to the farm boundary. An informant
from another land reform project stated that there had been another land reform project in the same
vicinity previously, but the project had collapsed partly as a consequence of theft of equipment and
pilferage of fruit. However this could not be verified at the time of writing. Given the proximity of the
portion being sold to the expanding township questions can be raised about it being offered for sale
to the workers at this juncture. Given its setting the value of this property on the market is likely to
have declined dramatically in the last few years.
Belleview farm 2009 and Villiersdorp Belleview farm 2012 showing settlement expansion
towards the farm
Figure 17: Belleview farm in its spatial setting. The farm borders on a large and rapidly growing settlement. Source: Google earth historical imagery.
The workers were due to sign a lease with the DRDLR on the 1 June 2013 and will take over
management of the sold portion. The current owner will continue to act as a partner for five years,
The Workers Trust will hold 55% of the shares while 45% will be retained by the seller as partner.
Belleview is a 350 ha farm growing apples and pears. Fruit for the export market is grown on 30,6
ha while fruit on 8.6 ha is for juice. While the workers have many years experience in the
management of orchards they acknowledge that they lack knowledge of the financial and marketing
side of the business. Workers interviewed were also not clear about how the lease payment due to
DRDLR would be calculated. Informants said that DRDLR had discussed a figure of 5% annum but
62
it was not clear how this 5% was to be calculated – of profits, turnover or productive value. The
project highlighted the multiple challenges which need to be addressed in projects of this nature and
the difficult circumstances which often face workers who gain access to high value land.
6.2.2 Struisbaai: Zisukhanyo
We met with representatives of a group which was planning to lease private land to produce
vegetables. They were in the process of registering a co-op, but it appeared that the project still had
a long way to go before it got off the ground.
6.3 Cluster 3: Food security producers
6.3.1 Hawston Hospice
The Hawston Hospice provides support for people living with HIV/AIDs. They operate from a
property in the residential area. The Department of Agriculture has assisted the Hospice with inputs
and tools to develop a food garden to provide fresh vegetables to support the nutrition of patients.
The garden is tended by a full time gardener with the support of volunteers and patients. The
garden has been cultivated for a number of years and is a good example of small scale food
security projects supported by the WCDOA which have the backing of an NPO. Hawston Hospice is
seeking to expand its garden to the adjacent property by agreement with the neighbouring
organisation.
Figure 18 Hawston Hospice grows vegetable to augment nutrition of hospice patients
6.3.2 Mountain View Food Gardening Project
The project which is on a privately owned farm Kaaimansgat Boedery north of Villiersdorp was
initiated in 2009 when the Director signed an agreement allocating 1 ha of land and water to the
project for a period of five years. Project participants organised by an agricultural community
development worker were assisted to form the Mountain View Agricultural Primary Co-operative
which was registered on the 19th January 2010. The co-op drew its membership from farm dwellers
63
and workers from the farm and adjacent properties. However it appears that members of the co-op
may have had unrealistic expectations about the income they would derive from the enterprise and
conflated income from sales with profit. Our informant stated that members expected a speedy
payout from produce sales and many lost interest when they were advised that they should bank
the money to cover future production costs. The co-op subsequently collapsed but has not been
deregistered. The food garden was taken over by the Elandsrivier Primary School which won a
R15000 prize in November 2012 from Nestlé which supports an ecoschools and community
nutrition programme. The school apparently made use of email lists and the Internet to advertise
produce grown in the garden. Currently however it was reported that several people earn a stipend
cultivating the garden through the Community Work Programme. Despite the relatively large
numbers of people employed to work on it the garden was not fully utilised.
Figure 19: Mountview Co-op Garden Jan 2012. Source: Google earth
64
Mountview garden has been taken over by the local
primary school
Sweet potatoes
Figure 20: Mountview Co-operative has collapsed and the garden is now under the local school
6.4 Cluster 4: Smallholders on commonage land
6.4.1 Barrydale Commonage piggery
Three producers were interviewed at the Barrydale Commonage. All the informants stated that they
had more than 10 ten years experience of farming with pigs on a small scale.
Indicative assets, capabilities and activities
The household livelihood profiles of the informants are summarised below.
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Family Pigs (7)(15)(5)
Access to
piggery units
constructed by
WCDOA
Mixed levels of formal
education of the producers
(Matric, Std 11, No
schooling)
Raising pigs
Social networks Social grants More than 10 years of
farming experience with
pigs
Other unspecified livelihood activities
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Local informal markets
for pigs
Ongoing support from
WCDOA
Lease on commonage
land which enables
support from WCDOA
Access to training
Access to fully equipped
piggery unit constructed
through CASP
Seasonal work
opportunities
65
Social grants
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
High feed costs Low level of organisation
among piggery producers
Fire risk
Economics of small scale
production unknown
Unequal access to
facilities – some
producers in constructed
piggery units, others
informal
Animal health risks
Poor maintenance of
infrastructure
Limited potential to scale
up
Figure 21: Barrydale commonage piggery: Google earth 2009
66
Barrydale piggery units constructed by WCDOA Local pig producers
Figure 22 Barrydale Commonage piggery
6.4.2 HealthGro: Napier vegetable producers
This horticultural project started with six members – 4 women and two men. One man has since
dropped out of the group. The project gets support from the Departments of Health, Department of
Trade and Industry Small Enterprise Development Unit, the Department of Agriculture as well as the
Expanded Public Works Programme.
The project has access to a piece of municipal land where two tunnels have been constructed and
an open area garden plot has been fenced. Much of the land is heavily infested with alien trees
which constitute a high fire risk. Production of tomatoes and peppers is currently underway in one of
the tunnels. Informants spoke about a commitment to provide a further three tunnels. Water is a
constraint. A borehole had been sunk by the Department of Agriculture but the water is reportedly
‘brak’ and of poor quality. This represents a major constraint for the expansion of the project and
may require the additional cost of desalination equipment.
67
Figure 23: Location of the Napier horticultural project HealthGro
The project is producing good quality vegetables but has been facing the challenge of how to
market these. Consistent with the preferential procurement opportunities set out in the SPSS the
Department of Health has assisted Healthgro to sell produce to local hospitals and clinics. In the
time available we were not able to establish how this was working in practice and whether the group
was able to produce the consistent volumes required to meet the terms of institutional procurement
contracts. The group has no transport and must walk back and forth to their garden from the
location. They have to hire transport to get vegetables to market which is a major expense.
One tunnel is currently in production A good crop of tomatoes but market access and
seasonal price variations remain a problem
Figure 24 HealthGro has been supported by the Department of Health to sell supply clinics and hospitals
68
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Group
members and
volunteers
Tunnels with
irrigations
system,
borehole,
electric pump,
production
equipment.
Fenced plot
Generally low levels of
formal education of the
producers
Horticulture – tomatoes and peppers
Social networks
and linkages
with private
sector expertise
Social grants
EPWP
Some experience of
vegetable production
reinforced by training at the
KaapAgri Institute in
Porterville
Other unspecified livelihood activities
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Assistance with market
access facilitated by Dept
of Health
Ongoing support from
WCDOA
Access to training
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
High costs of electricity
and transport
Poor co-ordination of
support to the project
which is coming from
different sources
Management of group
projects, allocation of
responsibilities and
benefits which can lead
to disputes
Very high fire risk due to
invasive aliens. Fire
could destroy the
enterprise
Limited working capital Conflicting advice Group members
withdrawing
Salinisation due to poor
water quality
Low levels of business
skills and production
planning
69
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Project record keeping
and analysis of costs and
sales
High tech system with
skilled and costly
maintenance
requirements
Highly competitive fresh
produce sector
dominated by large
producers and retailers
While the group is active in production it faces a number of challenges which raise questions about
its sustainability. While the group currently receives technical advice and some support with
accessing markets there appears to be no systematic analysis of the profitability of the business
and what is required for it to make a greater contribution to the livelihoods of those working on it.
High tech systems require skilled maintenance and the operating capital to keep the system
operating at full capacity.
6.5 Cluster 5: Smallholders leasing land from government departments
Two projects were leasing land – one from DAFF and the other from the Department of Public
Works.
6.5.1 Barrydale FALA farm
Three beneficiaries - a man, his wife and daughter are leasing a formerly abandoned and derelict
farm which is owned by the National Department of Agriculture. This property which is 303 ha in
extent is State Agricultural Land known by acronym FALA/ ADMA. FALA stands for Financial
Assistance Land while ADMA is Agricultural Debt Management. These properties are received from
the Directorate Debt Management after previous owners and Land Bank debtors have gone
bankrupt. The properties are managed by the sub directorate Land Settlement which is responsible
for:
Valuating properties
Advertising them
Short listing applicants
Conducting interviews
70
Selecting suitable applicants
Preparing a lease submission
Signing of the Lease Agreement
Ensuring the rental payment to the Department.
The sub-directorate supports the Lessees of the FALA farms with basic infrastructure in terms of
fencing, basic water, creation of firebreaks and the removal of alien/invasive plants. The farm was in
a very poor state before the current lessee took over. The farm house had been gutted and the
arable lands completely overgrown.
Approximately 30 people had been to view the property before the current lessee took over. The
smallholder has been on the farm for four years and has received substantial state support. The
smallholder family together with the four workers who stay on the farm have put in a great deal of
work to try and turn the farm around. Like many commercial producers this smallholder family is not
reliant on agriculture for their livelihood. This makes them able to invest in the property. The family
has rehabilitated the gutted farmhouse, much of this has been at their own expense. The family
probably is located on the boundary between DAFF’s SP2 and SP3 categories. This is the only
smallholder in our sample who reported taking out a loan to purchase equipment.
The restored farmhouse Some of 180 head of cattle currently on the
farm.
Figure 25 Langewacht is a leased FALA farm
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Family actively FALA farm with Entrepreneurship and Beef cattle, sheep (not on the farm as
71
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
involved in
agricultural
enterprise
renewable
lease and
nominal rent.
180 head of
cattle
diversified business skills yet). Oats planted for fodder
Social networks
and linkages
with private
sector expertise
CPAC support
for sheep and
rams
Tractor and
planter
Seed cleaning
equipment
Fire fighting
equipment
Farming experience and
training
A building sand business and a range of
other off farm business enterprises
Fencing and
boreholes
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Support from WCDOA for
business planning and
CPAC applications
Linkages with
organisations
representing emerging
farmers
CPAC support in excess
of R2 million rand
Close linkages with
WCDOA who visit
property twice a month
Nominal rental for
property
Non farm income from
sand mining business to
cross subsidise/augment
agricultural income
Credit rating enabling
him to purchase
equipment.
Own transport
72
Investment in
infrastructure and
equipment
Support provided for farm
record keeping and
business analysis
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Infrastructure still
requires further
rehabilitation
Hostility from
neighbouring farmers
who have put obstacles
in his way including
requiring that he open his
own road to the property
Farm is fairly marginal
Availability of water
6.5.2 Riviersonderend Small Farmers
Members of this local association originally leased a property from the Department of Public Works
and received a grant from the National Development Agency for an ostrich project, but the many of
the ostriches died and the project failed. There is very little infrastructure on this property. Our
informant confirmed that currently Public Works will only issue an annual lease issue. This lease is a
nominal R500/annum. However all the lease is affordable the limited period has excluded small
producers from accessing WCDOA support for which a lease of five years or more was a
prerequisite. There is currently very little happening on the property. There are some residual
ostriches and one or two members keep a few head of cattle on the 59 ha property.
It appears that those remaining members of the RSF have entered into an informal sub letting
agreement with a neighbouring farmer who had ploughed the arable portions to plant fodder crops
for his livestock. The revenue from this lease appears to earn members of the association more
income per annum than they made from their own farming.
73
Figure 26: RSE have a short annual lease on Public Works property
6.6 Cluster 6: Small holders on Act 9 and Church land
This cluster contains many of the smallholders with a depth of farming experience and access to
productive land. However land tenure arrangements are often complex and contested which can be
a constraint. Land in these areas was previously administered in terms of the Rural Areas Act (Act 9
of 1987) which was subsequently repealed with the passing the Transformation of Certain Rural
Areas Act (TRANCRAA). TRANCRAA set in motion a process which sought to make provision for
the transfer of land to Municipalities or other land holding entities. This has entailed the election of a
local Land Development Forum to oversee a land rights enquiry, a related land use planning and
tenure management plan and the choice of a land holding and land management entity (DRDLR,
2010).
6.6.1 Genadendal
Genadendal is 4641 ha in extent. It is the site of the first and oldest mission station in South Africa
established by the Moravian Missionary Society in 1738. Today approximately 30,000 people live in
the area. Unemployment is high and many residents are employed as seasonal workers on the
surrounding farms. Historically LANOC which was the organisation which preceded CASIDRA
74
funded agricultural projects in the Act 9 Areas. In 2000 the Genadendal Strategic Development
Trust (GESOT) was created to oversee the development of 1200 ha for agricultural purposes and
operate a local mechanisation centre. At that point Genadendal had 200 ha under cultivation and
the Genadendal Farmers Association was reported to have 50 members. Like all rural communities
with long settlement histories, the potential for agriculture and the processes of accessing and using
land need to be understood against this complex social and institutional backdrop. Local production
patterns have also been influenced by historical relationships with neighbouring commercial farmers
who entered into agreements with local land holders to grow crops on a contract basis.
Unfortunately the narrow and rapid nature of our enquiry meant that we were unable to explore and
understand the social and economic context of Genadendal better.
Genandendal Groente
We met with three members of Genadendal Groente which consists of five people – three men and
two women. They had access to 30 ha of land of which 20 ha were planted with vegetables. The
group employs 32 casual/seasonal workers.
Figure 27: Location of vegetable production in relation to residential area
CASIDRA had assisted them with a business plan and preparation of an application to the CPAC.
They had also received technical and logistical support from the Overberg District Office of the
WCDOA. The group had obtained a tractor, irrigation equipment and inputs to prepare 20 ha of
vegetables. The group was producing pumpkin, butternut, cauliflower, broccoli, and beans. The
amount of produce was in excess of what the local market could absorb and the group needed to
find alternative market outlets. Individual smallholders were in the DAFF SP2 category where
income from agriculture made a significant contribution to household livelihoods.
75
Marketing was a key concern for the group. At present much of the produce was sold to buyers who
came to purchase with trucks and bakkies. The group was concerned that where produce was sold
middle men were capturing much of the value. They wanted to promote Genadendal as a distinctive
brand for fresh produce which would be able to secure a market niche. However at present the
group was using chemical fertilisers and pesticides and therefore were not able to access the
organic market which might be enhanced by a distinctive brand which drew on Genadendal’s
heritage.
The group raised some concerns about delays in the project approval and disbursement processes
which had resulted in the delivery of a tractor via the horticultural CPAC without implements as well
as other delays which impacted on the group’s cash flow and their ability to pay workers on time.
The group wanted to obtain a packing facility so that they could capture more value from their
produce and provide downstream local employment.
Members of the project with green beans and
peppers ready for sale
Cultivated broccoli
Figure 28: The members of Genadendal Groente are experienced smallholder producers
76
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Genadendal
heritage and
community
30 ha of land,
tractor,
irrigation, water,
inputs
(implements)
Entrepreneurship and
business skills
Vegetables: Pumpkins, butternut, green
peppers, green beans, potatoes, brassica
Social
networks,
linkages with
neighbouring
farmers
Livestock and
bakkies owned
by individuals
Extensive farming
experience and training
Other economic activities carried out by
individual members
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Support from WCDOA
and CASIDRA for
business planning and
CPAC applications
Close linkages with
WCDOA and CASIDRA
Declining interest in
agriculture creates
potential for those who
are involved to obtain
access to larger portions
of land
Productive land
CPAC support Genadendal heritage and
community of 30 000
people make it a focus
for government and NGO
development initiatives
Available water
Access to high value
productive land and
water
Potential to develop a
distinctive Genadendal
brand
Availability of grazing
land
Local markets and
downstream value
adding potential
TRANCRAA process
should clarify land rights
and tenure
Own transport Potential for consensus
local development
planning and investment
Investment in
infrastructure and
equipment
77
Opportunity to invest in a
packshed and create
local jobs in
agriprocessing following
a value chain analysis
and feasibility
assessment
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Lack of dedicated
marketing and branding
expertise
The TRANCRAA process
may surface historical
disputes over land and
tenure which could
impact on production
Social tension arising
from economic
differentiation
Middlemen capture much
of the value in the
vegetable value chain
Possible capture by local
elites of valuable local
development resources
Scaling up may present a
management challenge
and require dedicated
management support
services
Support for record
keeping as a basis for
business monitoring and
analysis key
6.6.2 Suurbraak
Historically Suurbraak was an area settled by the Attaqua Khoisan. The London Missionary Society
established a mission station there in 1812 and a rural settlement developed which was
subsequently declared a Coloured Rural Area in terms of the Rural Areas Act (Act 9 of 1987)
(House of Representatives) There are a range of agricultural activities being undertaken at
Suurbraak at different scales and for different purposes.
Around 40 previously disadvantaged individuals farm on a total area of 2755 hectares, of which
2145 hectares are arable land. Most of these individuals have access to between five hectares and
35 hectares, paying a minimal rental amount to the municipality to farm here. Around a decade ago,
the Department of Agriculture completed a farm management plan for this farming area. Following
78
this, the Department funded considerable infrastructure development through building roads,
contouring and putting dams into the camps.
(Steyn, 2012)
Figure 29 Location of various production enterprises in Suurbraak
We met with producers from four enterprises:
Suurbraak vegetable garden
Suurbraak small grain producers
Individual piggery producer
A former poultry producer (See section 5.8.4 below
Suurbraak vegetable garden
A vegetable garden was started in 2003 on school grounds as an initiative to address food
insecurity amongst some households in the community. Soil analysis indicates that the Suurbraak
land is among top 10 percent of best land in District and the quality of produce grown there is
reportedly excellent.
By 2003 the project had outgrown the space available and its members (then 21) expanded
production to 2.5 ha and later to 4.5 ha of municipal commonage across the Tradow River. The
Department of Social Development (DSD) provided R55 000 to start the project, training and paying
stipends for trainees. Once stipends were withdrawn some left looking for employment. The current
remaining members (two males and two females) are farming full-time and hire casual labour for
land clearing, harvesting and packaging. The project produces a variety of vegetables (e.g.
79
cauliflower, broccoli, sweet corn, sweet potatoes, cabbage and green beans) and last season they
produced 1 000 Kgs of potatoes, 800 Kgs of green beans,10 000 heads each of cabbages and
cauliflower, 1 000 Kgs of broccoli and 8 000 cobs of sweet corn.
TCOE (2012: 49)
This project faces the challenge of baboons which damage crops and make production very risky.
They have made applications to obtain baboon proof fencing but to date this has not been
approved. They also highlighted the problem of securing market access to ensure the sale of their
produce. This presented serious obstacles to progress as although the group could produce
vegetables of high quality they were not always able to sell their produce at a good price. The high
costs of transport and distance to markets threatened profitability.
Project members state that smallholders have not received support from the Swellendam
municipality which did not appear to have recognised the local economic development potential of
agriculture and agriprocessing. The group confirmed that they have received regular visits from
extension staff.
The group had applied for funding through CASP and completed “a thick funding proposal” but
reported that they still don't know the outcome of their application. Informants talked about the need
to receive training before being allocated funding and the need for intermediaries to help them
access markets and the value chain. They were exploring the potential of adding value through a
cold room and vegetable packaging. Informants said that government departments needed to
change their approach to farmer support. They were critical of what they regarded as state dumping
of resources and short term support on people before moving on to the next project.
Suurbraak Grain Farmers Co-operative
We met with two members of the Co-operative which has five members in total. We met with one
member in Cape Town and another in Suurbraak itself. The co-operative brings together individuals
who have access to land in Suurbraak but who have vastly different skill sets. One member of the
co-op is a prominent corporate lawyer based in Cape Town who is also a commercial farmer and
entrepreneur with multiple agricultural interests which include a vineyard, livestock stud, honey
production and grain farming. He has assisted the Department of Agriculture in establishing
cooperatives in the Overberg District in the past. The second co-op member we interviewed lives in
Suurbraak and has a Std 6 education but is clearly also a successful smallholder involved in grain
production as well as grazing cattle and sheep. Suurbraak Grain Farmers have won an award for
Conservation Farming.
80
Suurbraak Grain Farmers are members of Grain SA, a commodity organisation who represents 46%
of grain farmers in the country. The members of Suurbraak Grain Farmers worked on the following
model:
Reserves are built up over a six year period
All equipment is owned by the co-op
Each member is to pay 10% of their grain income to the cooperative for maintenance and
upkeep of equipment
Should a member wish to use the equipment for purposes other than grain farming, the
member is to pay a fee for the use of equipment
20% of grain income is to be paid as a salary
There is an annual audit of their books and business performance.
Suurbraak grain farmers are involved in production which requires precision equipment and high
level management skills. This has required the support of private sector mentors and partners. The
co-op has benefitted from its relationship with a successful local farmer who has acted as a mentor
to the co-op since 2009. He has assisted the co-op to adopt a conservation agriculture approach
based on minimum tillage production methods in order to increase soil carbon. He helped introduce
a crop rotation system which combines wheat with canola and barley undersown with lucerne.
Each member of the co-op is responsible for their own production plan which they discuss with the
mentor. Currently extension support staff lack knowledge and experience with this level of precision
farming.
The co-op has been able to access tractors and minimum tillage equipment through the grain
CPAC. In future the co-op will need to acquire its own harvester.
In 2011 the co-operative produced and sold 730 tons of grain Suid-Sentraal Koöperasie (SSK). This
included:
Canola on 75 hectares (with yields of up to two tons per hectare)
Oats on 81 hectares (up to three tons per hectare)
Barley on 19 hectares (2.5 tons per hectare)
Wheat on 98 hectares (up to three tons per hectare). (Steyn, 2012)
It is envisaged that the co-op which is set to expand will hire land from other members of the
Suurbraak community
6.6.3 Suurbraak small scale piggery
WCDOA had supported the construction of small piggery and poultry units at Suurbraak.
81
Figure 30 Suurbraak piggery combines formal and informal piggery units
We met with an individual pig farmer in Suurbraak who was operating from a piggery constructed by
WCDOA utilising CASP funding. The producer was a part time farmer. Adjacent to him were other
pig producers operating from informally constructed piggeries. The piggery was well located in
relation to where the informant lived being within easy walking distance. In addition to the piggery
unit the producer bought and sold livestock and sold freezer packs of pork from pigs he slaughtered
at home. Both he and his wife were employed by the local municipality which meant that the
household had alternative sources of income to draw on and to invest in the piggery. This producer
had made good use of support provided by government and had been in production for some years.
Most of his sales were of live pigs. People arrived in bakkies to purchase pigs either to add to their
own herds or to slaughter elsewhere. Suurbraak came up in other interviews as a place where small
producers went to buy pigs.
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Support from WCDOA Close linkages with
WCDOA and CASIDRA
Declining interest in
agriculture creates
potential for those who
are involved to obtain
access to larger portions
of land
Productive land
Access to a well
constructed piggery unit
Genadendal heritage and
community of 30 000
people make it a focus
Available water
82
for government and NGO
development initiatives
Access to water Potential to develop a
distinctive Genadendal
brand
Availability of grazing
land
Local markets for pigs TRANCRAA process
should clarify land rights
and tenure
Own transport Potential for consensus
local development
planning and investment
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Lack of dedicated
marketing and branding
expertise
The TRANCRAA process
may surface historical
disputes over land and
tenure which could
impact on production
Social tension arising
from economic
differentiation
Middlemen capture much
of the value in the
vegetable value chain
Possible capture by local
elites of valuable local
development resources
Scaling up may present a
management challenge
and require dedicated
management support
services
Support for record
keeping as a basis for
business monitoring and
analysis key
6.6.4 Elim Fynbos Co-op
Elim is a Moravian church mission station Founded in 1824. The land is still owned by the Church
and people who reside in this historic area are still all members of the Moravian church. The church
land is just over 2500 ha in extent but several inhabitants of Elim have acquired privately owned
farms in the vicinity. Five such individuals with access to their own land combined to form a
cooperative for the sustainable harvesting and marketing of fynbos products.
83
Figure 31: Elim Fynbos co-operative produces fresh and dried fynbos products
This cooperative was registered in 2007 and consists of 18 members. However the number of
members active in the co-op at any one time is variable and there is an active core of around 10
members -- five women and five men. The co-op harvests fresh flowers between May and October
and that has dried flower arrangements and products available throughout the year. Marketing
remains a key challenge for the co-op as the fynbos industry is dominated by a few large companies
which leaves little space for the operation of small cooperative producers. Currently the cooperative
supplies flowers for Moravian church functions and weddings. It also provides floral arrangements
for special Easter church events. The co-op has tried to produce products designed for the
Christmas market and aspires to have a range of products and distributed through large retailers
such as Woolworths and SPAAR. It has also attempted to supply flowers and other fynbos products
for large conferences. However these attempts have not been very successful to date as there are a
number of constraints to overcome before these markets can be accessed. There is also potential
to export fynbos to overseas markets which can be lucrative. However there are complex and
expensive phytosanitary requirements which have to be met before fynbos can be exported blooms
have to be fumigated.
84
The co-op members can gather fynbos from more than 1500 ha of land. Currently the proceeds
from the co-op only make a small contribution to the livelihoods of the members. However the co-op
has clear potential to expand. The members interviewed highlighted the high unemployment figures,
particularly for youth in Elim which required urgent attention. At present the co-op hired about 20
people those seasonal workers to harvest different varieties of fynbos. The co-op has had some
assistance from DTI Red Door to prepare a business plan, produce brochures and business cards.
However to date the business plan has not been supported by the Department of Agriculture as the
support of fynbos products does not appear to be a priority. However individual farmers have
received some assistance for fencing through the Landcare programme and have received some
training on sustainable fynbos harvesting and irrigation techniques. Specialised support for
marketing however has not been forthcoming. This would require thorough analysis of the whole
fynbos value chain and an assessment of different local and international market options. The
cooperative has not been able to develop a website to publicise and market its products. While the
fynbos show room is on the tourist route many tourists simply visit, take photographs and leave
without making a purchase. Cooperative members identified three priority areas of support which
were:
affordable transport
access to markets and specialised marketing advice
access to infrastructure such as a refrigerated container to store harvested fynbos products
to ensure that their freshness was retained
Assets, capabilities and activities
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Elim heritage
and community
Access to the
land for fynbos
harvesting
Extensive local knowledge
of fynbos varieties,
harvesting and
processing/fabrication into
dried flower arrangements
and products
Harvesting and sale of fresh fynbos
Moravian
church
networks
Fynbos show
room
Business skills and
entrepreneurship
Manufacturer of dried fynbos
arrangements and decorations
85
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Support from Red Door Support from the
Moravian church
community
Social networks Productive land with a
variety of endemic and
rare fynbos species
Elim heritage and tourism
route
Potential to develop a
distinctive Elim brand
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Lack of dedicated
marketing and branding
expertise limits market
access
Fluctuating co-op
membership
Social tension arising
from economic
differentiation
Fire can negatively
impact on harvesting for
a period before the
fynbos recovers
Lack of affordable
transport and
infrastructure for storing
and packing fresh fynbos
Middlemen capture much
of the value in the fynbos
value chain
Scaling up may present a
management challenge
and require dedicated
management support
services
6.6.5 Elim Melkery
The Elim Dairy operation in a highly challenging context where many small dairies have closed as it
is estimated that a dairy herd of a minimum of 400 milking cows is required for a viable dairy
enterprise. The dairy which was established in 2007 has received extensive support from the
WCDOA which by 2009 had included “mentoring support and donations of cows, equipment and
other assets to the tune of R3.54m”(Ross, 2009). The dairy farm has been able to counter trends
forcing small producers out of business through the leveraging of support from a variety of sources
including local commercial farmers, the Milk Producers’ Association, Agri-Mega and Overberg-Agri.
86
Figure 32: Milking parlour at Elim Dairy
The Elim dairy project started in September 2007, milking 47 cows and producing 700 litres of milk
per day. By the end of 2008 there were 80 cows in milk producing 17.5 litres per cow per day (±1
400 litres of milk per day). Milk SA has been funding the mentorship since 2007.
Mr Dèan Kleynhans (project mentor) chairs an advisory committee that meets on a monthly basis to
discuss the entire operation. The Annual report of the Board of Directors of Milk South Africa (2012)
states that
There were 117 Cows in the herd on 23ha of pasture under irrigation.
Herd health is good.
Sound financial control is in place.
The report states that the immediate goal is to
Expand the herd to at least 150 cows in milk.
Establish more pastures to support the cows.
87
Facilitate ownership of the cows to members of the community through a cow sharing
scheme.
Empower members of the community to take full control of the dairy.
Nurture effective communication and trust with the community.
The dairy is owned and run by the Moravian Church, the 450 members of which have shares in two
companies, the Elim Milk Cow company and the Elim Dairy company. Each company has seven
directors and is overseen by the Elim supervisory board (Ross, 2009)
In 2009 the dairy was producing an average of 2 400 litres of milk per day, which was sold to
commercial dairy producer Parmalat. The dairy employs a full-time dairy manager and three
workers (two of whom are women) who are community members. There is an advisory committee
In the past have been attempts to encourage smallholders from the surrounding areas to grow
fodder for sale to the dairy. However we were not able to establish whether this had been
successful in the limited time available.
Plans to expand the number of hectares under irrigated pasture had been delayed because
application had been made to the Heritage Association to construct and connect irrigation facilities.
This was initially turned down and a second application was about to be heard which informants
were confident would be approved.
There are important developments in the Dairy industry with respect to dairy management software
and web based reporting systems. These recording systems capture and analyse key information
including
Average milk production per cow/day in relation to herd composition
Kg of solids per day in relation to herd composition.
Profile of milk production per cow in relation to days in milk; and herd averages for first,
second and third lactations.
Informants noted that new management tools of this nature are necessary to ensure the tight
management of the dairy and maintain profitability.
6.7 Cluster 7: Smallholders in partnership/ on private land
6.7.1 Agri-Ubuhlobo Trust
This project is a joint venture between farmer and a Workers Trust comprising six farm employees
which has attempted to emulate aspects of the Agri Dwala approach reported on above. The farm
88
owner is a Stellenbosch trained agricultural economist. The workers have low levels of formal
education and have been working on the farm for many years.
The joint venture involves a complex business model. The Workers Trust has obtain support from
the grain and dairy CPACs to:
obtain a shareholding in 100 dairy cows
raise and fatten bull calves from the dairy herd on 8 ha irrigated pasture for sale to a local
butchery
operate a contract land preparation service with a 165 kw tractor and specialised minimum
tillage planter worth a million rand
obtain a chipper to make compost.
A representative of USAAA chairs the Workers Trust and provides independent oversight of the joint
venture. As could be expected, there are enormous differentials of skill and power between the farm
owner and the workers who are members of the Trust. The workers lack of a formal education
prevents them from engaging with the financial side of the business venture. They are dependent
on the good faith of the farm owner who also their mentor and the support provided by the
independent chair of the workers trust. However this remains a challenging relationship as workers
are both employees and business partners and operate on land they lease from the farmer.
Interviews with the farmer, members of the workers trust and the independent trustee highlighted a
number of issues and lessons from this type of venture. The complexity and inflexibility of CPAC
application processes was highlighted by the farm owner while working members said they were not
totally clear about what benefits they could expect from the project. They expressed uncertainty
about the business model and operational costs. Workers also stated that the trust was not meeting
every second month as required. Some mistrust had surfaced after the farmer allegedly used the
tractor owned by the workers trust without first obtaining their permission but this had subsequently
been addressed.
The experience of the Trust highlighted a number of problems with the CPAC application process
and the procurement of equipment once approval had been given. The business plan had included
revenue from contract land preparation services. However the tractor was delivered without the
planter which resulted in a season of lost production. The project has been able to access a total of
3,2 million rand though CPAC applications. However delays in the procurement process have cost
the trust and the farmer money. The farmer highlighted inflexibility in the standard operating
procedures which governed the operations of the CPAC and which were not well geared to the
dynamic nature of agricultural production. Concerns were also raised about the role of extension
officers who were responsible for the preparation of documents in support of CPAC applications but
89
who had not been trained or equipped to carry out this project management type function. This
meant that there were occasions when deadlines had been missed which had a knock-on effect on
project implementation. The farm owner expressed frustration with the CPAC administration stating
that they had never visited the project to understand issues and concerns firsthand.
Assets, capabilities and activities
Assets Capabilities Activities
Social Material
Employer
goodwill and
mentorship
Tractor and
planter
Skills and experience in
dairy and small grain
production
Dairy production for sale to Parmalat
Support of
independent
trustee
Irrigation
infrastructure
and water for 8
ha
Farmer business skills and
entrepreneurship
Raising of bull calves on irrigated pasture
for sale
Shareholding in
100 dairy cows
Worker practical farming
skills and experience
Land preparation and planting services
Compost
chipper
Compost making with dairy manure
Factors enhancing livelihood security
Enabling influences
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
3.2 million rand support
from grain and dairy
CPAC
Support from Agri Mes Social networks Productive land with
established pastures
Secure markets for milk,
beef and tillage
Water rights
Factors undermining livelihood security
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
Procurement delays cost
money
Inflexibility of SOPs
governing CPA
administration and
approval processes
Differentials of education,
power and knowledge
create stresses in
relationship between
owner/mentor and
employee/partners
Tight margins on milk Extension officers Neighbours unsupportive
90
Shocks and stresses
Economic Institutional/political Social Environmental
production – many small
producers going out of
business
untrained for the role
expected of them in the
CPAC application
process
of Agri Ubuhlobo model –
persistent conservatism
slows spread of new
ways of working
Missed deadlines delay
project and cost money
Questioning of whether
the joint venture
represented a win-win for
the partners
6.8 Learning from failure
About 20% of the projects which we visited had either failed completely or were experiencing severe
stress. However these projects should be regarded as learning opportunities so as to identify key
challenges and constraints to be addressed in future small holder support strategies to promote the
objectives of the SPSS and the National development plan.
6.8.1 Bredasdorp piggery
Cape Agulhas Municipality with the assistance of Department of Agriculture established a piggery
facility just outside of Bredasdorp for emerging farmers. The original group consisted of 15 pig
farmers of whom 4 were women. CALM reported that group members underwent extensive training
with the Department and grew their herd from 25 in 2004 to 240 in 2010. However the market for
the pigs presented a problem as the local abattoir in Bredasdorp is certified Halaal and cannot
accept pigs for slaughter.
An eight unit piggery in Bredasdorp Currently the facilities are abandoned
housing a single remaining pig
Figure 33: Bredasdorp commonage piggery faced market access and security problems
91
According to a submission to the Minister of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries by CALM this forced
producers to send pigs to an abattoir in Cape Town which was uneconomic. There was talk of
constructing a local abattoir to slaughter the pigs but nothing came of this. Our interviews also
revealed that there were security problems and disputes among the users of the facility after
members allegedly stole and slaughtered pigs belonging to others. At present CALM is trying to re-
establish the project and has made it a prerequisite that people wishing to restart the piggery must
form themselves into a cooperative and work as a group. However it seems clear that an in-depth
analysis of what contributed to the demise of the project will need to be conducted including an
assessment of the market and the economics of production given the slaughter constraints.
6.8.2 Caledon Small Farmers Barley Production
In Caledon the National development agency provided funding for a small grain project to plant
barley on a portion of commonage land. According to our informant there were delays in obtaining
inputs and the barley was planted too late in the season which resulted in low yields which made it
uneconomic to harvest and the crop was used as fodder. There were also allegations that some
money from the NDA had been misappropriated which caused the NDA to withdraw and cease its
funding.
6.8.3 Pearly Beach sour figs
This project was also supported by the NDA and it was intended to provide members of the
women's group residing in the informal settlement adjacent to Pearly Beach with a source of income
from the cultivation and drying of sour figs (carpobrotus edulis) for unspecified markets. An
informant from DAFF who is a trained horticulturalist pointed out that sour fig requires the right
conditions in which to grow, usually on a sea facing slope. The site selected was unsuitable for the
propagation of the plant and it soon died.
92
Figure 34: The site which was cleared and planted with sour figs has since reverted to a mix of fynbos and invasive aliens
An interview with project participants indicated that sour figs were easier to harvest naturally and
that they had obtained a permit from Cape Nature for this purpose. However the in the final analysis
the supply of sour figs was not the issue – but rather marketing of the product.
In addition to jam making Malan and Notten (2006) note that sour fig has a number of medicinal
uses:
The leaf juice is astringent and mildly antiseptic.
It is mixed with water and swallowed to treat diarrhoea, dysentery and stomach cramps
It is used as a gargle to relieve laryngitis, sore throat and mouth infections.
Leaf juice or a crushed leaf is a famous soothing cure for blue-bottle stings-being a coastal
plant it is luckily often on hand in times of such emergencies.
The leaf juice is used as a soothing lotion for burns, bruises, scrapes, cuts, grazes and
sunburn, etc
93
This suggests that research and development is required to explore the development of
pharmaceutical and cosmetic products which harness these medicinal properties and which might
expand the market for sour fig konfyt. Overall it would appear that generally projects funded by the
NDA in the Overberg in Riviersonderend, Pearly Beach and Caledon all failed completely which
suggests that funding was allocated without proper market evaluation and feasibility assessment
which led to wasted expenditure. Attempts to contact the NDA to discuss its role in supporting
agriculture in the Overberg proved fruitless. The project officer who worked on these projects has
since left the agency and there was no one who could provide any further information.
6.8.4 Suurbraak poultry
The WCDOA constructed some small fenced poultry units at Suurbraak and provided feeders and
drinkers, chicks, start up feed, veterinary support and training. These units are currently not in use.
We interviewed a former producer in one of the units who explained that he had started off with
broilers and later switched to layers. The project experienced many of the same problems which
have affected small scale poultry projects countrywide. Steep feed and transport cost fluctuations
coupled with the challenge of selling all the broilers at once when they reach six weeks quickly
make the projects uneconomic. This particular project also experienced additional problems due to
the orientation and location of the poultry house which resulted in weather damage and flock
mortality.
This suggests that the model for small scale poultry production needs to be rethought. Small scale
emulation of large scale production practices seems almost certain to fail. There are none of the
economies of scale enjoyed by large scale producers. The sharp rise in fuel and feed prices quickly
puts this farming model out of reach of small scale producers. This suggests that where feasible
smallholder poultry needs to be integrated as part of a household food security drive using hardy
indigenous or multipurpose breeds such as the Koek Koek. The ARC already has implemented the
Fowls for Africa project which provides poultry breeds adapted to low input systems with the most
basic requirements of shelter, feed, water and hygiene. (ARC, 2013)
This particular project in Suurbraak was also affected by disputes arising out of the TRANCRAA
process which according to the informant led to the rezoning of the area and the withdrawal of his
lease rights. However we were unable to investigate this further.
6.8.5 Zola organics
Zola Organic Farming project started in 2003 on 800 sq metres of land leased from the municipality
which also assisted with provision of water and fencing. The group of six – five women and one man
grew a wide range of vegetables including spinach, tomatoes, carrots, cabbage, spring onion green
pepper and beetroot which they supplied to Pick ‘n Pay.
94
In 2007 the group won the Western Cape Farmer of the year project and collected prize-money
worth R50,000. WCDOA subsequently invested significant sums of money to supply the group with
two state-of-the-art high-tech tunnels complete with micro-irrigation systems and electric pumping
equipment.
Figure 35 Zola organics garden in Zwelihle, Hermanus
The receipt of the award and a cash prize had the unintended consequence of creating a dispute
within the group, reportedly over how to make use of the prize-money. This dispute appears to have
rendered the group inoperable and the municipality has since unilaterally withdrawn its support for
the project, turned off the water and electricity and has reportedly rezoned the garden area for
housing despite the investment by the WCDOA into the facility. In this instance the principles of
cooperative governance appear to have been abandoned completely.
However despite these actions by the municipality and the hostility of the local councillor who is
apparently the son of one of the group members, one remaining project participant continues to
make use of the garden facilities, even though these are now in a poor state of repair and despite
the fact that there is no electricity or water available on site. The member is continuing to grow
vegetables, bringing in water using a bakkie and drums and watering the plants by hand. He has
also established a small informal piggery adjacent to the garden where his pigs are fed on crop
residues and substandard produce. He continues to grow and supply vegetables to Pick ‘n Pay,
albeit on a smaller and more irregular scale. When we conducted our interview he was about to
harvest and sell a consignment of green peppers which he estimated were worth about 950 rand.
95
A new planting of green beans Green peppers grown in damaged tunnel
Figure 36 Zola organics highlights the need for improved intergovernmental relations and communication
This project highlights a number of systemic weaknesses in government support for smallholder
producers. Currently much support remains technical or infrastructural in focus whereas in group
projects of this nature social dynamics may emerge which threaten continuity. This indicates the
need for social facilitation and dispute resolution services. These can often be provided by NPOs. It
also highlights the need for improved intergovernmental relations. At our first meeting with the
Overstrand LED Department which was also attended by extension personnel working in the area it
appeared that there was no structured working relationship between the municipality and the
Department. The absence of this relationship had enabled the municipality to proceed without
consultation to withdraw its support from the project and rezone the land for housing.
On the positive side of the project highlights the resilience and determination of small producers to
make use of resources to augment their livelihoods with or without the support of government. The
fallout from the dispute and the subsequent actions of the local municipality had turned a prize-
winning project into a grey semilegal space of continued agricultural production. There are
numerous lessons to be learnt from this project:
Careful thought needs to be given to the award of large cash prizes as these awards are
often shadowed by unintended consequences
Extension staff need to be able to broker in social facilitation and dispute resolution services
and these functions need to be considered as an integral part of the work of extension
services
Resources need to be invested in structures and processes which improve
intergovernmental relations so that enterprises like Zola organics which were reportedly
96
successful in producing for the market do not find themselves in the situation described
above.
This project has been provided with sophisticated and expensive infrastructure which has
gone to waste. There are questions as to whether such a level of investment which has high
management and maintenance costs was appropriate in these circumstances.
As a result of the SPSS Overberg scanning process officials from WCDOA and Overstrand are now
in discussion with each other concerning the future of the project.
6.9 Conclusion
The visits to different production sites provided valuable insights into the diverse settings in which
small producers operate. These range from those producers who are largely invisible and outside
the support systems through to higher profile projects which have attracted millions of rand worth of
state grants. As we examine in Chapter 3 below many smallholders irrespective of commodity or
scale struggle with similar problems and constraints.
97
7 Summary of findings and recommendations
This scan has set out to:
Understand the nature of the agricultural economy in the district and how it is changing over
time with the purpose of identifying niches of particular district.
Determine which institutions of relevance to the producers are operating in the district and
what roles they could play in advancing the smallholder mandate
Evaluate and consolidate the needs, aspirations and challenges of existing smallholders in
the district
Understand the opportunities for smallholders in the district and how these can be
maximized.
7.1 Trends in the agricultural economy
The Overberg has a well diversified and developed agricultural economy and linked agro-
processing sectors. The production context is characterised by the increasing dominance of a small
number of large producers and agri-businesses operating at ever larger scales. The contribution
which smallholder producers make to the formal agricultural economy of the Overberg is miniscule
in financial terms. Very few smallholders have established a secure economic foothold in the formal
agricultural sector. While there are the examples like the Genadendal Groente and the Suurbraak
Grain Farmers Co-op these tend to be concentrated in the Act 9 areas where people have secure
access to good quality land and water. There are the examples like Agri-Ubuhlobo Trust and
Langewacht where commercial production is taking place. However in every case agriculture forms
just a part of people’s livelihood strategies which are diversified and draw on multiple sources of
income. Alongside the larger and more prominent projects there is a largely invisible informal
agricultural sector which involves people who live in the small rural towns and who keep livestock on
the margins and grow vegetables for home consumption. Much of this homestead based production
is poorly supported as government programmes tend to favour the establishment of projects. This
is of great concern given the rising levels of unemployment and poverty in the rural areas, on farms
and in small rural towns in the District.
7.2 Potential niches
In the setting sketched above there are strong arguments that commonage land held by
municipalities which is often relatively close to where people stay can make an important
contribution to the livelihoods of poor households as a source of food and a generator of additional
cash. Two municipalities in the Overberg have recognised the importance of these resources, but
they often lack resources and human capacity to manage this land optimally and facilitate provision
of support to smallholders. While it is clear that continued support and investment is required in the
98
Act 9 and Church land areas where people already have access to productive assets, there also
needs to be a dedicated focus on production on urban allotments, municipal commonage and land
leased from other government departments in ways which supports the needs of SP1, SP2 and SP3
producers respectively. This will require DAFF and WCDOA to carefully consider the priorities
driving the distribution of funds through CASP and determine the balance between support provided
to these respective categories.
7.3 Institutions and support for the smallholder mandate
There are numerous state, parastatal and private sector institutions operating in the Overberg which
support smallholder producers which have been profiled above. However there appears to be
universal agreement that communication between them and co-ordination of their activities could be
vastly improved.
As this scan demonstrates so clearly that for the SPSS be localised and adapted to conditions in the
Overberg there needs to be a much better understanding of the profile and production economics of
small producers in different settings. We still don't have a clear picture of the smallholder sector.
There are many different definitions in play. Surveys variously refer to “farming operations”,
“emerging farmers”, “subsistence producers”,” smallholders” etc. Generally data on smallholder
agricultural production is poor in quality. Different surveys have produced widely different counts of
smallholder producers. In particular there is very limited information on urban agriculture and the
extent to which farm workers and dwellers on commercial farms are engaged in any form of
agricultural production on their own account.
Without there being agreement on data collection frameworks, shared definitions and protocols for
the collecting, capturing and sharing of information between key actors and support institutions the
diversified nature of the smallholder sector will continue to elude those who seek to support it.
Without mechanisms for keeping data updated actors within different spheres of government will
struggle to adequately monitor and evaluate the programmes they implement.
7.4 Needs, aspirations and challenges of smallholder producers
While smallholder producers operate at very different scales and in different settings common
issues and concerns emerge. As discussed in more depth below smallholders consulted identified
six core priorities:
Improved and more secure access to land, water, and funding
A dramatic improvement in communication and dialogue between stakeholders and the
alignment of programmes through the adoption of holistic approach
99
Greater clarity about who is eligible for support from government and how this support is
allocated to different categories of producers and how the support systems and processes
are supposed to work
Continued investment in capacity development and training with an emphasis in on farm
support services
A much more rigorous focus on market access and value chain analysis and the economics
of small scale production
Improved and more participatory monitoring, evaluation and sharing of data to provide
information for adaptive management and proactive problem solving.
7.5 Opportunities for smallholders and how these might be maximised
There are no easily generalisable opportunities for smallholders. Opportunities are locality and
sector specific. They have to be located in the context of a highly competitive, increasing
concentrated and vertically integrated agricultural economy. Smallholder producers are seldom able
to secure market access on favourable terms. Preferential procurement may offer some
opportunities here together with the promotion of local farmers markets and schemes which enable
bulk buying of inputs and feeds. Investment in more affordable and reliable rural transport systems
may also assist the development of the sector.
However at the same time that these interventions are explored it is clear that more research and
investigation is required of agricultural activities and markets which are predominantly informal in
order to identify how best to support urban homestead and commonage agriculture which supplies
local markets.
8 Stakeholder recommendations for localising the SPSS and improving
smallholder support
During our interactions smallholders put forward ideas for how support for small producers could be
improved. We set out to invite all the producers we had met with to gather for the report back and
meet with each other and with officials from different departments and spheres of government. This
was an important conversation and for many who attended it was a new experience to have all the
key stakeholders in the room to think about what needed to be done differently. Section 7.1 below
reports on the discussions emerging from the report back.
8.1 Recommendations emerging from report-back session on Smallholder Agriculture
in the Overberg District
The report back session took place on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 in Caledon, Western Cape. The
session enabled smallholder farmers and other actors in the Overberg district to respond to the
100
scan of key trends in the agricultural economy and Phuhlisani’s primary research to investigate the
state of smallholder agriculture in the District.
The report-back session:
enabled small producers and small farmer’s associations from different local municipalities
to meet one another and network together.
brought together representatives from DAFF, WCDOA, DRDLR, CASIDRA, Agrimega,
GrainSA, local municipalities and NPOs.
The session began with people introducing themselves. This was followed by:
a presentation in which Phuhlisani presented an overview the research findings;
a question and answer session;
group discussions to identify key five priority areas for the improvement of support services
to smallholder producers
a plenary session to identify consensus priorities for inclusion in the final report.
8.1.1 Question and Answer Session:
The following are the main themes highlighted in the Q&A session:
Concerns about whether there are processes on a national level to address local problems
Communication problems between levels of government were highlighted. Furthermore, it was
noted that in reporting our findings of this study, we can make recommendations to National DAFF
to address this issues.
Research to better understand the operation of informal markets
There was a proposal that a study be done regarding the working of informal agricultural markets
which provide outlets for much smallholder produce and whether any support exists for these
traders. Here the participant noted that these traders do not supply large companies such as Pick n
Pay and Woolworths, but serve local markets in rural towns. It was concluded that a more in-depth
study would need to be conducted to properly document the production and marketing activities of
small famers.
Problems with the land reform programme
Participants argued that the land reform programme was not succeeding in addressing land needs
of small producers. Issues that were dealt with related to the fact that farmers do not always have
access to land and if land is available, there is a lack of support for their farming activities from local,
provincial and national government. The participant stated that in his opinion, there is an abundance
of land, and that the land in itself was not an issue, but getting assistance from the Department to
101
access such land was. He stated that they have been struggling with the Department for a long
time.
Communication problems between local, provincial and national government were again raised here
where farmers were unhappy about the fact that land reform and development departments and
local municipality were not simultaneously included in the land allocation activities. It was concluded
that local municipality does not deal with land reform and agriculture, but is pivotal in creating an
environment where communication and information flows freely between departments.
Leasing and long term occupancy rights
Various concerns were raised regarding the leasing of land. Some farmers have only been able to
negotiate an annual lease with the Department of Public Works. The short term nature of the lease
disqualified the group from obtaining support for WCDOA which required a five year lease
agreement for producers to be eligible for funding. One participant asked where is government and
what is it doing to make it easier for smallholders to access land and obtain support. In the
discussion which followed it was acknowledged that municipalities do not have a direct mandate for
agriculture but that their responsibility to promote local economic development and their access to
resources such as commonage land made them an actor in the smallholder development sector.
8.2 Group Discussions
Three groups were formed which combined farmers and officials. The groups discussed issues and
problems raised by the Phuhlisani report and set out to identify five priority interventions to address
the problems facing smallholder farmers. Key issues were raised in all three groups which are
summarised below.
8.2.1 Group 1
Land and water
Land as a resource was discussed in-depth. Several concerns related to the fact that lease
agreements were too short and most projects can only be successful in a timeframe in excess of the
lease period currently proposed. Alignment between the provincial and national departments of
agriculture and other national departments such as DRDLR and Public Works with regard to policies
and procedures for leasing of state land was recommended. It was also proposed that after a 10
year period of successful farming activities under leasehold ownership could be granted.
Zoning was an area of concern as farmers have to go through many procedural requirements in
order to ensure that land is zoned properly for the farming activities they want to pursue.
102
The use of dams were proposed for areas which experience much rain and thus water flow during
the rainy seasons but who experience water shortages during dry seasons. Dams would help
alleviate the need for water during dry seasons.
Funding
Farmers feel that funding approval criteria may be too strict as they restrict eligibility for funding and
many small producers have been unable to secure funding due to current selection criteria. There
was a general consensus between the farmers that funding needs to also extend to some sort of
continuation plan if projects are unsuccessful. Farmers that have engaged in a project over several
years may not be involved in other income producing activities and thus, if their project is deemed
unsuccessful they may not have any other means of income. It was proposed that funding support
for smallholder producers should address the needs for water pumps and infrastructure for the
implementation of proper irrigation.
Capacity
On a municipal level, discussions concluded that municipalities are not always adequately staffed
with people with the right skills to understand and respond to the needs of smallholder producers. In
some cases municipalities are unable to respond adequately to requests due to shortages of skilled
staff. On a production level, some farmers raised concerns about land being too small for their
farming needs and therefore they do not have the productive capacity for successful operations.
Farmers also raised issues pertaining to skills development for their farming activities. It was stated
that with access to adequate skills development programmes, small producers would be able to use
funding more effectively. It was concluded that if the right people were involved with the right
activities, farmers’ needs would be prioritised and funding could be used more efficiently and
effectively.
Theft
Theft of equipment and/or produce was also an area of concern. Some farmers raised the issue that
they do not live on the land where their farming activities are done, thus they are unable to prevent
theft effectively.
Communication:
There was extensive discussion on the topic of communication. On a government level there was a
general consensus that communication between departments on a local, provincial and national
level was almost non-existent. In order for land reform and funding initiatives to be effective it is
important that information flows freely between departments. Communication between farmers and
government also requires improvement. All stakeholders in the process need to included in
103
discussion and the need for sustained relationship building between farmers and government was
highlighted.
Concerns were raised relating to information not being available in a timely fashion or not being
available at all. Farmers discussed the need for information about funding organisations as well as
clarity about which departments handle different queries and the procedures to be followed.
Marketing
Farmers expressed concerns about the demand for their products and concluded that they do not
have sufficient access to the market. There were calls for policy review which would result in
practical strategies to increase their access to markets. Farmers recognised that marketing of
agricultural produce – particularly fresh produce required particular skills and that there was often
insufficient expertise in this area. It was concluded that networking between farmers to market the
products they produce could help to alleviate this problem, but it was noted that networking alone
will not suffice if farmers are hoping to sustain projects. Government support in relation to marketing
is required, both in terms of preferential procurement as well as providing marketing support
services and expertise. Marketing was often the limiting factor which undermined project profitability.
Procurement policy and CASP disbursements
On a government level, be it local, provincial or national participants raised concerns about the time
lag which exists before decisions are made due to the extensive bureaucratic processes that must
be completed before funds are actually approved and then transferred. They proposed that
processes need to be streamlined and better aligned agricultural seasonal calendars. Bureaucratic
time and farming time operated on different calendars. For a farmer a delay by week or two in the
allocation of funding at planting time might cost them a whole season of production.
Monitoring and evaluation
Participants identified the need for improved monitoring controls need to be implemented which
monitor the project from start to finish. These monitoring controls will help identify if the project is
going off track and allow for an effective evaluation of the project at the end of the lease agreement.
8.2.2 Group 2
Availability of Land and Tenure Security
The group noted that the provision of 1 year or 5 year lease is not enough time to produce results
especially when other key resources are lacking e.g. water. They proposed that at least 3 to 5 years
money should be supplied for projects. Participants agreed that access to funding should to be
made available for longer periods but be closely monitored to prevent wastage of public money.
104
Holistic Approach
The group proposed that agricultural projects on municipal land should be better supported by the
local municipality. They proposed that one person overseeing a project was not enough and that a
team of people need to be involved.
One participant proposed that national DAFF should play a more active oversight role and help
prioritise which categories projects should be worked upon and which require support most urgently.
It was suggested that farmer organisation should be strengthened, that committee’s should be
formed and members from each community should discuss what they’re experiencing. This could
also be used as a networking opportunity for farmers.
Rental and ownership
Currently, leases are granted for a period of five years. Farmers questioned this approach stating
that if you are leasing for long periods then at some point land transfer should occur or a long term
use right be awarded.
Benchmarking support provision
The group discussed the need for clear benchmarking levels which clarify what support can be
provided up to which point to enable farmers to be progressively ‘weaned’ off state support.
Clarifying selection and prioritisation criteria
Agreed prioritisation standards and selection criteria would be useful, identifying the farmers who
need the support the most or who more urgently require support during distress. It was felt that at a
national level, farmers were merely seen as a statistic, and that their individual stories are not
noticed. Multiple role players are needed to ascertain who most needs the support.
Communication
Participants stated that communication should not only be between individuals but also between
producer groups. The identification of the correct people to contact about pressing matters is
important so that people are not sent on a run-around, when they are trying to attain information.
This may also assist in ensuring that the right process is followed in order to get voices heard.
Issues that were highlighted as needing to be reviewed and assessed were as follows:
The availability of land and water,
The adoption of a holistic approach to stakeholder relations,
The timeframe of support for projects, and
A suggestion that farmers should be allowed to earn for a period before rent becomes
payable.
105
Market Strategy
The group discussed marketing strategies at length. They stated that it may be useful to have a
strategy to market produce, and as such, have a guideline that should be followed. As part of the
strategy, a system of service providers should be compiled, which should include the sourcing of a
local quality controller. Participants were of the opinion that if a State entity was established to
govern the quality control process, access to the market would become easier for smallholder
producers. One of the issues that were encountered with the local sales of produce is that a link i.e.
the SABS approved link was missing. It was proposed that a system of Municipal Approved
Standards for fresh produce, piggery and livestock production could be introduced which would
ensure the quality of goods sold in the local markets. There was a proposal the municipalities
provide support to establish a “municipally approved farmers market” and use its resources to
publicise local market days.
Procurement Policy
The group noted that the procurement policy should ensure that funds were being distributed to
those who need it.
8.2.3 Group 3
Group 3 highlighted the following issues and suggestions in their discussion regarding what must
change:
Standardised Selection Criteria
Participants suggested that with regarding to applying for funding, one standardised application
form should exist for both the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Rural Development
and Land Reform.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Participants noted that a need for monitoring and evaluation exists, with particular focus being paid
to how subsidised funds were to going to be utilised. A representative from an implementing entity
stated that in reality, the implementing agent and extension officer is compelled to log a monthly
report until funds are exhausted. However, there have been instances where groups of farmers
have paid dividends to themselves – in which case M&E could not resolve an issue where the funds
have already been depleted.
Interaction and Communication
A participate noted that since there are so many entities and departments involved in supporting
smallholder producers, it may be useful to create a central point from which to communicate.
Furthermore, information should be regularly disseminated to the public: “taking the law to the
people.”
106
Accessing resources through municipal LED programmes
One representative stated that the local municipalities serve as the information hub. However, either
people do not realise this, or they simply do not make use of the information that does exist and is
accessible. However often the LED system overlooks infrastructure development and support for
small farmers, and this may be an issue. Municipalities seem to have only supported groups of
farmers who operate as businesses. It was suggested that the thinking of municipalities need to
change regarding farmers versus businessmen – need to realise that farmers are also
entrepreneurs.
A municipal representative stated that she thought people were not aware of the incentives provided
by the Department of Trade and Industry, and that municipalities have not paid enough attention to
supporting people in rural areas.
Revision of lease agreements
Higher levels of government, it was suggested, should look into revising the current lease
agreement system. In order to support small farms and grow them into bigger corporations, the
current clauses which restrict access to land should be revisited. There should be an alternative, a
participant suggested – for example, the option to buy the land, since currently, no planning can be
done beyond a period of ten years which is the maximum period that municipal land may be leased
to an individual or smallholder group.
Amalgamation of smallholders associations
In order that smallholder producers’ needs be heard and addressed, a participant suggested that in
addition to having farmers associations in each town, these individuals should come together to
form one association for the District. Furthermore, he argued that smallholder producers should use
more initiative, rather than waiting for the organisations (e.g. NGOs) to act on their behalf.
Levy
A participant suggested that beyond the exporting permit as required by law, perhaps government
should enforce a levy upon commercial farmers. Should these farmers be compelled to pay a levy
for each ton of produce they were exporting, those funds could be funnelled into supporting
smallholder producers.
Training
It was suggested that all recipients of government funding should be attend a mandatory training
programme. This opened a discussion in which opposing views were noted:
Sometimes government institutions and implementing agents organise training, but individuals
despite having confirmed their attendance simply do not pitch. On the other hand, it is one farmer’s
107
experience that no infrastructure and/or training is provided, and that there have been instances
where they (farmers) did not receive information about training timeously.
8.3 Plenary reports
Each of the groups presented their five priorities as listed below.
8.3.1 Group 1
1. Resources: land, water.
2. Capacity
3. Communication: Stakeholder relations should be built. Relationships should be built between
municipalities and farmers.
4. Marketing: People need to network with each other.
8.3.2 Group 2
1. Resource availability: DRDLR needs to assist people in gaining access to land.
2. Holistic approach: involve all stakeholders. People are currently working on their own little island,
doing their own thing.
3. Longer support for projects: three seasons are too short for support. A project needs to be
supported for longer so that it could be made a success.
4. Prioritising selection and farmer needs. Involving CBOs, councillors and others in this process
5. It is difficult for farmers to access the markets. There should be a revised standard or method of
accessing the market and strategies to improve market access.
6. Procurement policy and procedures: sometimes the money is approved, but delivery and
procurement processes takes a long time. Look at shortening the process.
8.3.3 Group 3
1. Change selection criteria for accessing funds
2. Monitoring and evaluation
3. Compulsory training
4. Communication and access to information
5. Revision of lease agreements
108
8.4 Consensus on priorities:
In the plenary participants debated the compilation of a consensus list of priorities which drew on
the three group discussions. As noted above the following priorities were agreed:
Improved and more secure access to land, water, and funding
A dramatic improvement in communication and dialogue between stakeholders and the
alignment of programmes through the adoption of holistic approach
Greater clarity about who is eligible for support from government and how this support is
allocated to different categories of producers and how the support systems and processes
are supposed to work
Continued investment in capacity development and training with an emphasis in on farm
support services
A much more rigorous focus on market access and value chain analysis and the economics
of small scale production
Improved and more participatory monitoring, evaluation and sharing of data to provide
information for adaptive management and proactive problem solving.
Also noted in discussion was that different commodities must have different funding support
arrangements and government needs to consider making support available for longer periods,
subject to progress monitoring and evaluation.
9 Conclusion and recommendations
Currently support services for smallholder producers are quite patchy and remain poorly co-
ordinated across different programmes and between different actors. There remains a disjuncture
between the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and virtually all other role players.
Thus is partly a reflection that offices of DRDLR are upwardly accountable to Pretoria and that the
operations of the Department appear to have been recentralised once more following a period of
decentralisation and delegation to Chief Directors in the Provinces. Structures established for co-
ordination and project approval such as the District Assessment Committees and the Provincial
Project Approvals Committee which brought DRDLR together with provincial and municipal role-
players appear to have been disbanded. The DRDLR now runs a recapitalisation and development
programme.
According to the DRDLR website
One of the key objectives of the Land Reform programme, through the recapitalisation
initiative, is to increase agricultural production, guarantee food security and job creation, and
graduate small scale farmers to commercial farmers in the agricultural sector. The DRDLR
109
committed itself to recapitalise more than one thousand deserted and unproductive farms. The
model is designed in such a way that a farm will be funded, under close supervision of the
department in order to ensure sustainability. To ensure the success of this project, the
department has selected strategic partners who are currently farmers themselves; co-
operatives who were previously assisting white farmers, or commodity organisations who
have a vested interest in the projects because the sustainability of their businesses depend on
agricultural produce.
(DRDLR, 2013)
This programme appears to operate largely disconnected from the commodity focused CPAC
system which disburses CASP funding administered by DAFF, the WCDOA and its implementing
agents. Both RECAP and CASP programmes have similar objectives but are not aligned in space.
Neither programme effectively involves District and Local Municipalities. There is no co-ordinated
mechanism for the integration of land reform and smallholder agriculture into municipal IDPs.
The District area based planning undertaken by DLA and DRDLR have all been abandoned
although DRDLR had once again begun a process with the support of Belgian Technical Co-
operation (BTC) to review and revive these plans to include a broader rural development
perspective.
Municipal IDPs originally conceptualised as a window into government spending and programme
priorities within a District appear to have lost this vision. This contributes to the continuing
fragmentation of programmes which are essential to grow the smallholder sector and meet
smallholder’s primary demand for secure access to land, water, market access and funding support.
This gap is reflected in the common call for improved co-ordination and alignment of government
and non government programmes and actors which is also one of the central thrusts of the SPSS.
9.1 An indicative agenda for improved smallholder support in the Overberg context
1 Reinvigorate structured dialogue between government and non government stakeholders in the
Overberg (WCDOA, DRDLR, DWA, Local Municipalities, Agrimega, CASIDRA and Hortgro,
organised agriculture and local producer organisations to better align and co-ordinate
programmes in support and land reform, rural development and smallholder development.
2 Agreement on a data collection, curation, sharing and management plan to enable the most
accurate and up to date information on smallholder producers in different categories to be
available to key role-players. Data management specialists need to design and operate such a
system and align it with StatsSA protocols to make data available to all support agencies and
stakeholders and ensure that it is regularly updated.
110
3 Each local municipality in the Overberg District needs to be supported to undertake a baseline
survey/census of smallholder producers involved in informal and formal agricultural production
as a basis for planning future support strategies and identification of priority support areas.
4 Create opportunities for municipalities to become involved in the CPAC and RECAP systems.
5 Support the development of municipal smallholder support policies and systems for
commonage management and urban agricultural support as part of municipal LED strategies.
6 Commission research to better understand informal agricultural production and markets as part
of the livelihood strategies.
7 Conduct an inventory of land zoned for agriculture or acquired for land reform owned or held in
trust by municipalities, DAFF, DRDLR, Forestry, Public Works and other government
departments needs to be consolidated and managed by WCDOA.
8 Support and encourage the development of District wide organisation of smallholder producers
9 Support networking and farmer to farmer extension between smallholder producers.
10 Standardise lease agreements consistent with the PFMA, MFMA and other relevant legislation
to enable smallholders secure access to land.
11 Develop a more rigorous assessment of the economics of small scale production and enable
small producers to track costs and returns to identify the factors impacting on enterprise
profitability
12 Undertake value chain analysis for small scale producers and processors and provide specialist
marketing and branding support together with preferential procurement to enable small
producers and processors more secure access to markets.
13 Make better use of digital information technology to keep in touch with and provide information
to small holder producers through bulk SMS, messaging software and low cost communication
platforms.
14 Develop capacity to support the institutional development of group or co-operative schemes
including conflict and dispute resolution capabilities.
15 Shift to more participative systems of monitoring and evaluation which allow for multiple
perspectives on the effectiveness of smallholder support measures which simultaneously
enable shared learning.
16 Consider the selection of a District or local municipality as a learning laboratory to pilot new
approaches to smallholder support.
111
10 References
AGRIMEGA 2012. CAM smallholder summit: Executive summary deedback from AgriMega. . Cape Agulhas Local Municipality.
ARC. 2013. Fowls for Africa [Online]. Poultry Breeding Resource Unit: Agricultural Research Council. Available: http://www.arc.agric.za/home.asp?pid=2611 [Accessed 20 April 2013].
CARNEY, D. 1999. Introduction to sustainable livelihoods: What difference can we make?, London, DFID. CASIDRA 2013a. Corporate Plan 2013 - 2014. Paarl: Cape Agency for Sustainable Integrated Development in
Rural Areas. CASIDRA. 2013b. Programmes [Online]. Available:
http://www.casidra.co.za/framework/Programmes.asp?ParentID=1&P=Agricultur [Accessed 15 February 2013].
CHAMBERS, R. & CONROY, G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper No 296. Brighton: Institue for Development Studies, University of Sussex.
CNDV AFRICA 2008. Area based plan: Overberg District Municipality. Cape Town: Department of Land Affairs.
DAFF. 2010a. A profile of the South African Dairy Market Value Chain [Online]. Pretoria: Directorate Marketing. [Accessed 28 February 2013].
DAFF. 2010b. A profile of the South African Oats Market Value Chain [Online]. Pretoria: Department Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Available: http://www.daff.gov.za/docs/AMCP/OatsMVCP2010-11.pdf [Accessed 20 February 2013 ].
DAFF. 2010c. South African Agricultural Production Strategy: Concept Document [Online]. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Available: http://www.daff.gov.za/doaDev/doc/IGDP/AGRIC_PRODUCTION_STRATEGY_FRAMWK.pdf [Accessed 19 April 2013].
DAFF. 2011a. A profile of the South African Beef Market Value Chain [Online]. Directorate of Marketing. Available: www.nda.agric.za/docs/AMCP/BeefMVCP11-12.pdf [Accessed 28 February 2013].
DAFF. 2011b. A profile of the South African Mutton Market Value Chain [Online]. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Available: www.nda.agric.za/docs/AMCP/MuttonMVCP11-12.pdf [Accessed 28 February 2013].
DAFF 2012a. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Integrated Growth and Development Plan. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
DAFF 2012b. Strategic Plan for Smallholder Development 2011-2014/15. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries.
DE SATGE, J. 2012. Milked dry [Online]. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. [Accessed 28 February 2013]. DE SATGÉ, R., HOLLOWAY, A., MULLINS, D., NCHABALENG, L. & WARD, P. 2002. Learning about
livelihoods: Insights from southern Africa, Cape Town, Periperi Publications and Oxfam Publishing. DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS. 2005. Planning acronyms
[Online]. Available: www.devplan.kzntl.gov.za/General/Brochures/2005Oct6/Commonly%20Utilized%20Acronyms092005.pdf [Accessed 1 May 2006].
DOA. 2012. Barley: Market value chain profile 2011-2012 [Online]. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Available: http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/amcp/barleymvcp2010-2011.pdf [Accessed 20 February 2013].
DRDLR. 2010. A to Z of the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act (Act No. 94 of 1998) [Online]. Pretoria: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Available: http://www.ruraldevelopment.gov.za/phocadownload/Land-Reform/Land-Reform-Administration/trancraaazrevisedjuly2010.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2013].
112
DRDLR. 2013. Recapitalisation and Development Programme [Online]. Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Available: http://www.dla.gov.za/services/land-reform/recapitalization-and-development#.UX1G0LXviSo [Accessed 15 April 2013].
DTI. 2010. The dti integrated strategy on the development and promotion of co-operatives: Promoting an integrated co-operative sector in South Africa 2010- 2020 [Online]. Pretoria: Department of Trade and Industry. Available: http://www.dhet.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AuTvXguFqKg%3D&tabid=479&mid=1377 [Accessed 1st February 2012].
GEOSTRATICS 2010. Farmer Database Project: Development of a spatial information system on black farmers of the Western Cape for the Department of Agriculture. Elsenberg: Department of Agriculture.
HANNON, P. 2012. Country profile: South Africa. African Agriculture Review. Nedbank Capital. JACOBS, P. 2003. Support for agricultural development. Evaluating land and agrarian reform in South Africa
series; no. 4. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape. MALAN, C. & NOTTEN, A. 2006. Carpobrotus edulis [Online]. Kirtstenbosch: South African National
Biodiversity Institute. Available: http://www.plantzafrica.com/plantcd/voteplant.php [Accessed 20 April 2013].
MILK SOUTH AFRICA. 2012. Board of Directors Annual Report [Online]. Available: http://www.milksa.co.za/reports/board-direcors-annual-report-20-june-2012 [Accessed 15 April 2013].
OVERBERG AGRI. 2013. Grain Division [Online]. Available: http://www.overbergagri.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Itemid=5 [Accessed 20 February 2013].
OVERBERG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY. 2012. Third Generation Integrated Development Plan 2012/16 [Online]. Bredasdorp: Overberg District Municipality. Available: http://www.odm.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ODM-Final-IDP-2012-16.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2013].
PENRITH, M. 2001. Common diseases of small pig herds [Online]. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture
ARC Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute. Available: http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Infopaks/pigsDiseases.htm [Accessed 21 April 2013].
PROVINCIAL TREASURY 2011. Regional development profile: Overberg District - Working Paper. Cape Town: Western Cape Government.
QUAN, J. 2003. Better livelihoods for poor people: The role of land policy. London: DFID. RAKHUDU, M. 2008. Competition Commission’s focus on Agriculture and Food value chains [Online].
Johannesburg: Competition Commission. Available: http://www.compcom.co.za/assets/Uploads/AttachedFiles/MyDocuments/Sept-08-Newsletter-29.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2012].
ROSS, C. 2009. Community dairy turning a profit against all odds [Online]. West Cape News. Available: http://westcapenews.com/?p=484 [Accessed 15 April 2013].
SABBI. 2013. The SABBI programme [Online]. South African Barley Breeding Institute. Available: http://www.sabbi.org/program.html [Accessed 20 February 2013].
SATGAR, V. 2007. The state of the South African Co-operative Sector [Online]. Johannesburg: Cooperative and Policy Alternative Centre. Available: http://www.copac.org.za/files/State%20of%20Coop%20Sector.pdf [Accessed 1 February 2012].
SCLC. 2011. The role of agriculture in strenthening rural livelihoods [Online]. George: Southern Cape Land Committee. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/tshintshaintranet/research [Accessed 20 March 2013].
SCOONES, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis [Online]. Sussex: Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex. Available: http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp72.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2010].
SCOONES, I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of peasant studies, Vol. 36,, 171–196.
113
STATS SA. 2002. Report on the survey of large and small scale agriculture [Online]. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Available: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/LargeSmallScaleAgri/LargeSmallScaleAgri.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2013].
STEYN, F. 2012. Conservation Agriculture: The Suurbraak Grain Farmers’ Cooperative [Online]. Elsenberg: Western Cape Department of Agriculture. Available: http://www.overbergagri.co.za/documents/Bewaringslandbou%20-%20BLWK%20No%2013%20-%20November%202012.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2013].
TCOE. 2012. Small scale farmers in the Swellendam Local Municipality, Western Cape Province: [Online]. Cape Town: Trust for Community Outreach and Education. Available: tcoe.org.za/archives/tcoe-annual.../53.../download.html [Accessed 15 February 2013].
THANDI. 2013. Thandi - Nurturing a success story [Online]. Thandi. Available: http://www.thandiwines.com/ [Accessed 20 February 2013].
TSHINTSHA AMAKHAYA. 2012. The Agrarian Rural Household Economy: Status report on livelihoods, rights, and land use in selected sites in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, and Western Cape [Online]. Cape Town: Surplus People Project. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/tshintshaintranet/research [Accessed 20 February 2013].
URBANECON. 2008. Overberg District: Local Eeconomic Development Strategy [Online]. Cape Town: Department of Trade and Industry. Available: www.savebantamsklip.org/docs/odm_draft_led_200.pdf [Accessed 15 February 2013].
VAN HEERDEN, J. 2012. The production of dryland lucerne in the Swartland, Overberg and Heidelberg Vlakte. Grassroots, 12, 27-32.
WCADI. 2012. Draft Western Cape Aquaculture Market Analysis and Development Programme/strategy [Online]. Cape Town: Western Cape Aquaculture Development Initiative. [Accessed 28 February 2013].
WCDOA 2010. Department of Agriculture Strategic Plan: 2010/11 - 2014/15. Cape Town: Weestern Cape Department of Agriculture.
WCDOA 2012. PAIA Manual Cape Town: Western Cape Department of Agriculture. WCDOA. 2013. Technology, Research and Development [Online]. Cape Town: Western Cape Government:
Agriculture. Available: http://www.elsenburg.com/trd.html [Accessed 28 February 2013]. WCDOA. n.d. Advertorial on accessing agricultural support services [Online]. Cape Town: Western Cape
Government: Agriculture. [Accessed 15 February 2013].
