Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
15 January 2019 | Story Charlene Stanley
COURT Case
From the left: Prof Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights, with his co-counsel Anna-Marie de Vos SC and their legal opponents Lawrie Wilkin and Uday Kiran Naidoo during the Grootkraal case in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.

 

What rights do black farming families have on land they obtained during a period when restrictive legislation made it impossible for black people to own land?

This was the legal issue at stake in the matter of Grace Maledu v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources. In this case, 13 families of the Lesetlheng Village Community in the North-West Province bought a farm a hundred years ago. Apartheid-era legislation prohibited them from owning land, and the land was held in trust for them by the state.

Their descendants were recently threatened with eviction, after a multi-national mining company obtained mining rights on the land.    

Free State Centre for Human Rights Getting Involved

Lawyers for Human Rights in Pretoria instructed Professor Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights on the Bloemfontein Campus, to act as co-counsel for the community in the High Court and the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court has now ruled in favour of the Lesetlheng community, upholding their rights to continue farming.  The judgment effectively protects them against the mining company’s attempt to evict them. It also establishes the important principle that a holder of a mining right may not commence with mining on land, unless it has made a reasonable effort in good faith to reach an agreement with the actual people who use and occupy that land.

“This constitutes an important development in our law,” explains Prof Brand. “It establishes that nobody should have absolute control over land and that different rights to and interests in land can overlap without one trumping the other.”

Assisting Farm Workers

The centre also recently  assisted a community of farm workers in the Western Cape who were threatened with eviction from a portion of the Grootkraal Farm where they have conducted church, school, and other community activities for the past 200 years. Prof Brand acted as co-counsel in this case before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein, where judgment was delivered in their favour.

These two cases herald the re-establishment of a legal services division within the Free State Centre for Human Rights, giving effect to their community-engagement mandate.

 

What rights do black farming families have on land they obtained during a period when restrictive legislation made it impossible for black people to own land?

This was the legal issue at stake in the matter of Grace Maledu v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources. In this case, 13 families of the Lesetlheng Village Community in the North-West Province bought a farm a hundred years ago. Apartheid-era legislation prohibited them from owning land, and the land was held in trust for them by the state.

Their descendants were recently threatened with eviction, after a multi-national mining company obtained mining rights on the land. 
 

Free State Centre for Human Rights Getting Involved

Lawyers for Human Rights in Pretoria instructed Professor Danie Brand, Director of the Free State Centre for Human Rights on the Bloemfontein Campus, to act as co-counsel for the community in the High Court and the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court has now ruled in favour of the Lesetlheng community, upholding their rights to continue farming.  The judgment effectively protects them against the mining company’s attempt to evict them. It also establishes the important principle that a holder of a mining right may not commence with mining on land, unless it has made a reasonable effort in good faith to reach an agreement with the actual people who use and occupy that land.

“This constitutes an important development in our law,” explains Prof Brand. “It establishes that nobody should have absolute control over land and that different rights to and interests in land can overlap without one trumping the other.”

Assisting Farm Workers

The centre also recently  assisted a community of farm workers in the Western Cape who were threatened with eviction from a portion of the Grootkraal Farm where they have conducted church, school, and other community activities for the past 200 years. Prof Brand acted as co-counsel in this case before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein, where judgment was delivered in their favour.

These two cases herald the re-establishment of a legal services division within the Free State Centre for Human Rights, giving effect to their community-engagement mandate.

News Archive

Producers to save thousands with routine marketing strategies, says UFS researcher
2014-09-01

 

Photo: en.wikipedia.org

Using derivative markets as a marketing strategy can be complicated for farmers. The producers tend to use high risk strategies which include the selling of the crop on the cash market after harvest; whilst the high market risks require innovative strategies including the use of futures and options as traded on the South African Futures Exchange (SAFEX).

Using these innovative strategies are mostly due to a lack of interest and knowledge of the market. The purpose of the research conducted by Dr Dirk Strydom and Manfred Venter from the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State (UFS) is to examine whether the adoption of a basic routine strategy is better than adopting no strategy at all.

The research illustrates that by using a Stochastic Efficiency with Respect to a Function (SERF) and Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) that the use of five basic routine marketing strategies can be more rewarding. These basic strategies are:
• Put (plant time)
• Twelve-segment pricing
• Three-segment pricing
• Put (pollination)(Critical Moment in production/marketing process), and
• Pricing during pollination phase.

These strategies can be adopted by farmers without an in-depth understanding of the market and market-signals. Farmers can save as much as R1.6 million per year on a 2000ha farm with an average yield.

The results obtained from the research illustrate that each strategy is different for each crop. Very important is that the hedging strategies are better than no hedging strategy at all.

This research can also be applicable to the procurement side of the supply chain.

Maize milling firms use complex procurement strategies to procure their raw materials, or sometimes no strategy at all. In this research, basic routine price hedging strategies were analysed as part of the procurement of white maize over a ten-year period ranging from 2002–2012. Part of the pricing strategies used to procure white maize over the period of ten years were a call and min/max strategy. These strategies were compared to the baseline spot market. The data was obtained from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s Agricultural Products Division better known as SAFEX.

The results obtained from the research prove that by using basic routine price-hedging strategies to procure white maize, it is more beneficial to do so than by procuring from the spot market (a difference of more than R100 mil).

Thus, it can be concluded that it is not always necessary to use a complex method of sourcing white maize through SAFEX, to be efficient. By implementing a basic routine price hedging strategy year on year it can be better than procuring from the spot market.

Understanding the Maize Maze by Dr Dirk Strydom and Manfred Venter (pdf) - The Dairy Mail


We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept