Workshop on Rural Development and Agrarian Reform

Meeting report

Phuhlisani Solutions Presentation
Mr Rick de Satgé, Partner, Phuhlisani Solutions, and facilitator of the workshop, said that rural development was an elastic term which encompassed the following areas: agriculture, land reform, development finance, local economic development, water, infrastructure development, education, health, social protection, access to information, disaster risk management (especially in relation to climate change) and institutional development.

A critical issue which needed to be addressed in order for effective rural development to become a reality was the fragmentation of these various sectors. Project information was currently held by a variety of different role players and spanned a host of different locations.

An increasingly stressed natural environment in South Africa was characterised by factors such as the unsustainable use of water, river systems being threatened, loss of bio-diversity, the intensification of industrial agriculture and the proliferation of genetically modified (GM) crops, pesticides and fertilisers.

As a result, a number of national and provincial initiatives had been taken. These included support to farmers and their development, land reform, rural service delivery and rural development strategies. Principal moves to support small farmers included attempts to reorient extension services and improve access to development finance. Factors which impacted on the effectiveness of smallholder extension services included distance between farmers, the extent of the geographic areas covered by extension workers, low levels of client literacy, outdated extension approaches and the limited practical functioning of local farmer groups and associations.

Land reform challenges included the fact that, until recently, the land reform programme had been dominated by quantitative targets. There was also inadequate conceptualisation of settlement and implementation support requirements. In addition, the rapid changes in approach rendered strategies redundant.

Attempts to secure tenure in communal areas, on farms, for labour tenants and land reform beneficiaries proved to be the weakest component of the land reform programme. Poor intergovernmental relations limited the coordination of effective support. There was also a lack of shared accountability and inter-departmental key performance indicators as well as insufficient productive potential of the land to support those settled on it. In addition, inadequate attention was paid to the establishment of sustainable human settlements. There was fragmented support for natural resource management to ensure access to water resources and manage environmental risk.

Other land reform challenges included the following: poorly assessed project feasibility being complicated by contested understandings of ‘viability’, inappropriate business planning which privileged the continuity of production of the previous land owner and assumed group-based production models, a failure to assess the assets, capabilities, risk thresholds and stated needs of individual households, a disconnection between economic planning, land rights and benefit-sharing arrangements, declining agricultural output year on year on land acquired through land reform and low levels of benefit being derived from productive activities.
In relation to rural service delivery, infrastructure should be seen to include economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. A wide diversity of rural areas created fundamentally different development and livelihood settings. Rural areas were characterised by scattered settlements which made it costly to provide infrastructure services.

In terms of delivery options, rural development programmes internationally had been designed so that they were either: firmly led, planned and driven by the central State, decentralised and localised so as to allow local government to assume primary responsibility, devolved to specialised rural development agencies or driven by means of partnerships and coalitions which sought to unlock and harmonise different capacities.
As a result of rural development involving multiple development role-players, there were a number of questions for which answers needed to be sought: Where would the responsibility for planning, monitoring and implementation be located? How would consensus on key policies and management issues be established? How would joint planning and budgeting be achieved? And how would institutional arrangements, which would enable the efficient management of joint programmes, be put in place?
Sustainable rural development required a systems approach in order, firstly, to harness a variety of disciplinary perspectives and, secondly, synergise these with the ideas, priorities and knowledge of local people.

The Second Economy strategy identified two clear cross-cutting areas: investment in childhood nutrition and early childhood development; and provision of grants and access to basic services. The latter had had the greater impact on poverty and inequality. The strategy argued that in rural areas emphasis should be placed on “gaps in coverage such as access to basic services... and access to affordable public transport.” It also argued that, in order to develop a smallholder agricultural sector, institutional support that enabled economies of scale and facilitated access to appropriate business services and markets was required. Furthermore, it argued that clarification of tenure arrangements in the Act 9 and former homeland areas could assist in the increased utilisation of available land resources. It also highlighted the importance of new technologies for water harvesting and low-volume irrigation; access to value chains and markets; expanded and improved quality of jobs, living and working conditions in the commercial farming sector; the speedy resolution of land claims; human capital development; and the provision of basic services in rural areas.

The Department had cautioned that the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) could only succeed if the actions and commitments of the relevant sector departments were coordinated across all spheres of Government. This would be achieved through: joint planning, resource allocation and collaborative implementation of agreed rural initiatives; partnership with local government and alignment with Integrated Development Plans (IDPs); increased public-private partnerships; and an enhanced role of traditional leaders, NGOs and civil society in the implementation of the CRDP.

Some of the challenges highlighted from CRDP pilots included under-utilisation or unsustainable use of natural resources, inadequate access to socio-economic infrastructure and services, public amenities and Government services, inadequate water for both household and agricultural development, low literacy, low skills levels and migratory practices, decay of the social fabric, unresolved restitution and land tenure issues, dependence on social grants and other forms of social security and unexploited opportunities in agriculture, tourism, mining and manufacturing.

Discussion
Ms A Steyn (DA) said there needed to be a greater clarity as to the exact roles played by the various stakeholders - Government, private sector, and others.

Mr M Swathe (DA) asked whether the failure to support the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP) would impact on the current rural development agenda.

Mr Satgé answered that the founding logic behind the ISRDP was not based on a need for more money, but rather on a more effective alignment of Government spending. Decisions needed to be made whether there should be a specific rural development fund or whether the present model of trying to align Government spending was to be followed.

Ms P de Lille (ID) said that an enforcement mechanism was needed in order to avoid returning to the same issues. Education was a critical aspect when looking at rural development. Where did South Africa fit in regarding international trends in rural development initiatives?

Mr Satgé answered that South Africa had, through ISRDP, tried the decentralised model. It was best to wait for the release of the Green Paper in order to ascertain where the CRDP stood on this issue currently.

Mr B Zulu (ANC) said that joint planning was essential in ensuring effective rural development became a reality. Why, given all South Africa’s resources, was service delivery so hard to achieve?

Mr Satgé answered that a major factor here was that the performance management system did not rate performance based on collaborations with other departments. There was therefore a deeply entrenched culture of departmentalism in the sector.

Human Sciences Research Council. Centre for Poverty, Employment and Growth. Presentation
Mr Tim Hart, Senior Research Manager, Centre for Poverty, Employment and Growth, Human Sciences Research Council, said that national food security was not equivalent to individual or household food security, but instead depended on levels of food production, distribution systems and household access. South Africa was nationally food secure in terms of staple cereal production but was a net-importer of other foods (especially processed foods). Food cost reviews of the last two years had indicated that, due in part to climate change, soil degradation and expanded bio-fuel feedstock cultivation the country could become a net food importer in all foods. Income was the main means of accessing food and was thus the main determinant of household food security. Food plots and gardens contributed to household food availability, access and nutrition, though this was largely a supplementary coping strategy. Household food security was not solely a rural concern as a large proportion of hungry people were found to live in urban areas.

While the experience of hunger had decreased in recent years, 12% of children and 10% of adults felt the desperation of hunger. At a national level, one out of two households (52%) experienced hunger. Rural households were found to spend around 15% less on food per capita than urban households. Though this could be a result of own food production, there was no reliable evidence to support this. Contrary to this, it was also found that rural households spent 10 – 20% more for a basket of basic foodstuffs than urban households. South Africa also faced the larger problem of under-nutrition and was one of the top 20 countries with the highest burden of under-nutrition.

Ensuring food security for all South Africans centred on ensuring access to sufficient nutritious food. This involved eradicating hunger; reducing under-nutrition (particularly in children, women, person living with HIV/AIDS, the poor and very poor); and ensuring the availability and affordability of nutritious food. Options for improving food and nutrition security included: increasing employment; increasing the rollout of social grants and other forms of social protection; and improving household food plot production.
In terms of the extent of subsistence farming, approximately 2.5 million households (primarily in the former homelands) produced extra for their own consumption. Household subsistence farming was found to be only moderately successful. An absence of household production could worsen the experience of hunger.

International evidence indicated that, for improved nutritional status, home gardens were more successful than other types of agricultural interventions as they were easier to adopt under existing conditions, such as poverty and environmental problems. Home gardens held two distinct nutritional benefits: as the food produced was for own consumption, the levels of micronutrient intake increased; and it permitted the expenditure of more limited incomes on other more nutritious foods.  Without household production, food security for the ultra-poor would be significantly reduced. Traditional leafy vegetables – a good source of various nutrients - were found to be widely consumed and they grew well in semi-arid areas. These vegetables also contributed significantly to calcium, iron and Vitamin A intake of children under nine years old. Small-scale production of livestock (poultry and pigs) could also alleviate iron deficiency.
There were a wide range of small-scale and appropriate technologies available, many of which considered local climate and environmental conditions. These included: rain water harvesting, soil conversion, seed saving and plant propagation, agro-ecology and indigenous technologies. Though numerous pilot studies on these technologies had been conducted, there had been little rollout beyond projects and also limited impact assessment of technologies.

In terms of support services, these technologies were supported by civil society organisations (CSOs) but had seen a lack of integration. There had been the prevalence in the public and private sectors as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for the transfer of conventional and spill-over technologies, which were often supplied in a top-down fashion with little regard for local socioeconomic and environmental contexts. There was also limited monitoring and evaluation and no impact assessments.

Although support needs varied from area to area, some of these included regular supply of water for crops and livestock; soil conservation knowledge and strategies; horticultural and livestock skills; specific and regular support; and renewable inputs. Extension and research personnel were found to be scarce and knowledge of local situations and farming practices were often overlooked. There was room for improvement in relations within and between public sector, private sector and civil society. It was more effective to build upon what people knew than pursuing the unfamiliar.

Some of the issues which needed to be addressed included the following: systematic research needed to be conducted in order to ascertain the information needed in order to develop and implement a widespread and coherent programme; and a programme needed to be developed which could support and fund a wide range of structures, and develop the up-scaling modalities for this.

Discussion
Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC) asked whether the provision of food vouchers was preferable due to the abuse of food grants. Had Government programmes made any impact on food security?

Mr Hart answered that social grants had made an impact on food security, although it was not known whether this had impacted on improved nutrition. The management of food vouchers tended to be more costly. Many Government programmes went in with inappropriate technologies people could often not afford. Evaluation of these programmes was also done with more focus on process and input and not on their actual impact.

The Chairperson said that he was concerned that the issue of genetically modified foods had not given more mention.

Mr Hart responded that this issue needed to be considered in a context-specific way which looked at factors such as sustainability and environmental impact.

Mr I Goldman, Team Leader: Monitoring and Learning Facility, Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development, added that a major issue here was the control over seeds by corporations. The benefits of agriculture were not seen by the farmer and instead went to middlemen.

Mr E Nchabaleng (ANC) asked whether any research had been done on food wastage.

Mr Hart answered that no such research had been undertaken, though there was a clear need to look at food in a different, non-Western way.

Ms De Lille asked whether any study had been conducted into school feeding programmes and their nutritional effects. How was all the research on these issues going to be brought together in order to gain a clear picture of the state of nutrition?

Mr Hart answered that research had not been conducted on the nutritional effects of school feeding programmes. There was a need to consolidate all the research.

Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies. Presentation  
Dr Ruth Hall, Senior Researcher, Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), said that, in order to support both small-scale and larger commercial farmers as well as ensure that they were productive and contributed effectively towards the rural economy and national food security, the following needed to be done: subsistence-oriented farmers should be supported to continue doing what they did, only better; a certain share of subsistence farmers needed to be supported to become more commercially-oriented; and existing commercially-oriented farmers needed to be supported in order for them to prosper.

Over time, more money was concentrated among fewer beneficiaries. This was apparently due to the perception that inadequate grants were responsible for poor project performance. Few large commercial farmers had been established and, where this had happened, the impact on livelihoods appeared neutral.

The Farmer Support Programmes were the first coordinated attempts to support black smallholders. Though the initial focus here was on commercialisation, this broadened over time to include support for subsistence production. The programmes also made use of farmers’ associations and participatory planning. Twenty-five thousand farmers were supported through 35 programmes which made use of support services such as credit, extension, mechanisation, and marketing. Despite its mixed successes and the critiques of it, this was a good model overall and needed to be reviewed and refined.

The Siyakhula / Massive Food Programme had as its main aim the promoting of successful black commercial farmers through the improving of input supply and use, mechanisation and credit access. Among its achievements was an increased maize yield among some farmers. Problems arising out of it included indebtedness, high attrition, funding delays affecting input access and tractor contractors being under-tooled. Its advantages included its being ambitious, area-based and that it also paid attention to supply industries.
In relation to agriculture budgets, the amount of money spent by Government on the agricultural sector had grown impressively since the mid-1990s with expenditure in this regard trebling between 1996/97 and 2008/09. Public expenditure on this sector now exceeded what it had been prior to democracy.

The three most significant forms of support given to small-scale farmers were through the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), the Micro-Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (Mafisa), and extension services. Only 13% of black farming households derived direct benefits from the 58% of the provincial spending made up from these three interventions. The biggest concern here was around extension services which accounted for a large share of provincial expenditure yet reached few people.

In view of South Africa’s massive unemployment problem, and the already large numbers of people farming on a small scale, there should be an aim to maximise the creation of livelihoods, largely of those already engaged in small-scale farming. The purpose of such a strategy must be to focus on the potential of this sector to contribute to labour absorption and poverty reduction, particularly in the economically depressed areas of the ex-Bantustans where self-employment was most needed. Turning small-scale farmers into large-scale commercial farmers was therefore counterproductive on the grounds of both equity and efficiency.

A small-scale farming strategy could focus on the provision of generic support and infrastructure in regions where these farmers were concentrated in order to create generalised conditions for success, adaptation and diversification. In order to achieve scale and impact, a strategy should be chosen that focused on ‘accumulation from below’ for a substantial portion of the existing population of small-scale farmers and also enabled the growth of a ‘missing middle’ of successful small farmers.

A decentralised small-scale farmer support programme would seek means of helping large numbers of existing black farmers to farm more effectively and remuneratively. This was not necessarily the same as ‘integrating into the commercial farm sector’. A proposed approach for the short- to medium-term would be to implement in strategically selected districts; replicate the best features of farmer support programmes and adapt these; and modify existing complementary programmes.

Emphasis should be placed on both national- and provincial-level prioritisation. The following should be kept: extension and training; development of input supply networks; promotion of mechanisation contractors; the development of marketing skills and the promoting of market linkages; institutional and financial support to various kinds of farmers’ organisations, including market co-ops; and a group approach. In terms of what should be changed, the following was listed: less emphasis on high-input production systems; less emphasis on yields; credit uptake should not be imposed or over-encouraged; and ‘consolidation’ of fields should not be imposed. In terms of what should be added, the following was listed: a participatory approach; promotion of land rental markets; more refined market linkage, including incentive schemes to broaden supermarket access and other procurement practices; the promotion of small-scale and decentralised private agro-processing capacity; and capacity support to Government institutions, especially provincial and national agricultural departments.

Complementary programmes could be modified as follows: CASP – through shifting emphasis from on-farm infrastructure that benefited a few, to off-farm infrastructure; extension – could be integrated somehow into the recovery plan, that is, to be used as a collective learning opportunity; and land reform (most notably redistribution of land) – could be dovetailed with emerging approach for strategic area-based planning and land acquisition.
Monitoring and evaluation was found to be weak within the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as well as the Department of Rural Development, despite the dedicated capacity. Pitfalls to avoid in monitoring and evaluation included an over emphasis on costly, overly technical quantitative analysis based on surveys and requiring a long lead time but yielding sparse insights; also to be avoided was reducing monitoring to a mere monitoring of ‘performance’.

Discussion
Ms P Xaba (ANC) asked how Government could assist subsistence farmers in using more natural and less expensive fertilisers.

Dr Hall answered that there was a big debate on this issue. It was important to look at the examples of those large-scale farmers who had switched to using organic fertilisers. There were options for subsidising the use of organic fertilisers nationally through either targeted subsidies or a universal subsidy.

Ms De Lille asked whether credit came from the Land Bank, or from commercial banks and, if the latter, was there any Government intervention to ensure that farmers were protected from the vagaries of the commercial banking world?

Dr Hall answered that small-scale farmers did not access commercial banks. Over the past fifteen years, however, commercial farmers had moved away from the Land Bank. Primary lenders to the sector were currently private commercial banks.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that several small-scale irrigation schemes in the country had failed; he asked whether the time was right for a comprehensive agricultural development policy. When the Land Bank was founded in 1912, it provided loans at interest rates that were affordable. Our people had to depend on Mafisa, which charged interest rates that were too high; and the Land Bank’s rates today were virtually commercial rates. He asked if there was not a need for a developmental finance institution similar to the original Land Bank, or perhaps accommodated within the Land Bank. He said that the rural children needed a subject such as natural sciences. He asked what needed to be done to resuscitate the agricultural colleges.

Dr Hall said this was a major concern and that, although there were currently two policy processes around this taking place, namely the Green Paper on Rural Development and Land Reform and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery’s Sector Plan. It was unclear whether these were connecting at any point. Issues of institutional duplication were still proving to be a major impediment in this regard.

Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Dr Ian Goldman, Team Leader: Monitoring and Learning Facility, Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD), said that the Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) had been translated into a set of 12 outcomes. These outcomes had been deliberately limited in number as this allowed for an increased focus on critical issues. The Programme’s aim was to provide service delivery by increasing the strategic focus of Government and making more efficient and effective use of limited resources through introducing more systematic monitoring and evaluation. Extensive consultations had also been held regarding key outputs, targets, indicators and activities for each outcome. The 12 outcomes were as follows: quality basic education; a long and healthy life for all South Africans; all people in South Africa to be and to feel safe; decent employment through inclusive economic growth; a skilled and capable workforce to support an inclusive growth path; an efficient, competitive and responsive economic infrastructure network; vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities contributing towards food security for all; sustainable human settlements and improved quality of household life; a responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system; protection and enhancement of our environmental assets and natural resources; to create a better South Africa, a better Africa and a better world; and an efficient, effective and development-oriented public service and an empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship.

In terms of the Performance Agreements the President had entered into with all his Ministers, there was no legal framework for these Agreements between members of the Executive though the President could exercise his prerogative. These Agreements would be a management tool for the President to provide Ministers with an indication of key issues on which he would like them to focus as well as his expectations in this regard. For Ministers who were largely concerned with one outcome, the Performance Agreement was to be based on the high level outputs and metrics associated with that particular outcome. For Ministers who contributed to a number of outcomes, the Agreements were based on the agreed high level outputs and metrics for those outcomes. For Ministers whose direct contribution to the 12 outcomes was limited, the Agreements reflected key outcomes, outputs and metrics in their departments’ strategic plans. The President would not enter into Performance Agreements with Deputy Ministers, Premiers, Members of the Executive Councils (MECs) or Mayors, though he would enter into an intergovernmental protocol with Premiers.
In terms of the Performance Agreement on Rural Development, the outputs were as follows: sustainable agrarian reform, improved access to affordable and diverse food, improved rural services to support livelihoods, and an enabling institutional environment for sustainable and inclusive growth.

Delivery agreements would be consistent with the Constitution with individual members of the Executive being held accountable for the implementation of their commitments in the Delivery Agreements.

The Presidency, National Treasury, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) needed to align strategic planning guidelines with the national outcomes.

Discussion
Ms Steyn asked whether the focus was on growth or redistribution.

Dr Goldman answered that focus had to put on both if equity, food security and economic participation by all people were to be achieved.

Mr Abram said that, unless there was passion, integrity, and commitment to the process, effective implementation of any plans would not happen. On oversight visits Members were given much ‘flowery’ information, but when they saw for themselves those very places they found that the poor people were still suffering: “they don’t know where their next piece of bread is coming from”. Mr Abram had “grave doubts” that what Members had seen on paper would see the light of day.

Dr Goldman answered that performance would be measured in terms of the Performance Agreements and that the Intergovernmental Framework was the basis for all service delivery. The Department was also reviewing its staff members in order to ensure that there was commitment on their part.

The meeting was adjourned.