Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

The future of smallholder farming in South Africa

22 February 2022 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs

smallholding symposium — Talking about the future of smallholder farming in South Africa, were from the left: Prof Linus Franke, Prof Philippe Burger, Dr Qinisani Qwabe, and Prof Ken Giller.

On 17 February 2022, the Department of Soil, Crop, and Climate Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS) presented a symposium on the future of smallholder farming in South Africa on its Bloemfontein Campus. Head of the department, Prof Linus Franke, says with this symposium they aim to contribute to a change in the conversation about smallholder farming.

Prof Philippe Burger, Pro-Vice-Chancellor: Poverty, Inequality and Economic Development at the UFS, presented on The forgotten: South Africa’s former Bantustans today. He believes in 30 years – although the first democratically elected government introduced new labour legislation, abolished the Bantustans, and created a single non-racial education system – not much has changed for the former Bantustans.

“Communal land in South Africa, mostly the former homelands such as the Transkei, Ciskei, and Bophuthatswana, is today trust land that are managed by traditional leaders. With the 2011 census, it was found that a large part of the population is still living on traditional land (32%),” he says.

According to his data, the number of people depending on subsistence farming has increased from 1 767 000 to 2 285 000 in the past ten years.

The deeply poor, traditional leaders, and tenure rights

He says he does not believe that South Africa is only two nations in one, as was stated by former President Thabo Mbeki, but three. “There are the rich and poor in cities, with the poor still being predominantly black, and then there are the people living in what is euphemistically called deep-rural areas, basically the former homelands. There, the poor are even poorer than in the cities and they are virtually all black. And the ones who benefit in these deep-rural areas, are the traditional leaders.”

He believes that the poverty we see in communal areas can be largely linked to the lack of tenure rights. “People live and work on the land, but even though the constitution states that they should have tenure rights, they do not have tenure security. Thus, they cannot use tenure rights to leverage themselves to a better financial position,” he explains.

The literature on tenure reforms, according to Prof Burger, boils down to one of three options. Firstly, individual titling of land where individuals farm on pieces of communal land allocated to them or their families, but without a title deed to the land.

In the scenario of individual titling, it is impossible for people to sell land or to use it as collateral to obtain investment loans. He says in the Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto proposes the allocation of title deeds to individuals, thereby allowing them to use the land as capital to improve their lives. “It is, however, not the best solution because of overlapping use rights,” he states.

The other two options are a combination of communal ownership and small-scale farming, and a combination of communal ownership and large-scale commercial farming. Prof Burger says the two-tier system of titling is a better solution. “Here, the land is communal and the use rights to the land are recognised in the law. With recognised use rights, small-scale farmers can offer future income from their land as security to get loans,” he adds.

However, according to him, what is also needed is the design of an economic ecosystem within which small-scale farmers can operate, proper education for the youth can take place, and extension services and training of farmers can be provided. “Government, the private sector, and universities can play a role.”

He also believes that democratising control over communal land – taking power from the chiefs and putting it in the hands of the community – will take away control from the chiefs, without denying them their constitutional right to have a role in society. “They will have a role in terms of tradition, belief, and culture, while control of the land will then reside with the people living on the land.”

“It is time that we bring the everyday life of the people living on communal land also into democratic South Africa. It needs to be done in such a way that it will improve their well-being,” Prof Burger concludes.

A food security conundrum and small-scale commercial farmers

Taking a step back to talk about smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, was Prof Ken Giller from the Department of Plant Production Systems at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. The title of his presentation, Smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Stepping up, stepping out and hanging in, refers to the different aspirations and livelihood strategies that smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa pursue.

By 2030, the population is estimated to have grown by an extra billion people, with sub-Saharan Africa experiencing the most rapid growth. “As the population numbers rise fast, there is an urgent need to increase production of food,” says Prof Giller, who sees an opportunity for smallholder farmers in the challenge.

Defining a living income as the net income that a household will need to earn to enable it to make a decent living, he says in sub-Saharan Africa, 37% of households are food insecure. Given the small areas of land to which smallholder farmers have access, even a drastic increase in productivity per unit area will not be sufficient for many smallholders to make a living from farming. Nevertheless, agricultural development has proven to be the most effective way to reduce poverty and hunger among the poorest rural households.

To address hunger and poverty, a continued focus on food production in Africa is needed, as global food production for Africa cannot achieve zero hunger. – Prof Ken Giller

He says to address hunger and poverty, a continued focus on food production in Africa is needed, as global food production for Africa cannot achieve zero hunger (Sustainable Development Goal 2).

Prof Giller believes a drastic rethink of policy is needed to support agriculture in Africa in order to achieve zero hunger, acknowledging the wide diversity of agro-ecologies, socio-economic situations, and farmers’ livelihood strategies.

“Action is needed to rethink the future of farming. It is, however, a food security conundrum – achieving on the one hand cheap, nutritious, and affordable food for all, including the urban poor, and at the same time providing appealing livelihoods for smallholder farmers, with them receiving decent prices for their agricultural products,” he says.

Speaking on the topic, Tackling sustainability through small-scale commercial farming, was Dr Qinisani Qwabe, Lecturer in the UFS Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development.

He believes that small-scale farmers see themselves as commercial farmers on a relatively small scale. They actively contribute to the market. Dr Qwabe suggests that most farmers who are considered emerging farmers do not like this term themselves, as it seems to put a label on them.

Talking to small-scale commercial farmers, he learned that there are some hard realities they need to overcome on a daily basis. Some of the challenges they are encountering, include poor infrastructure, lack of capital, water restrictions, operational cost, access to markets due to poor roads in the area, and discrimination if you are a woman.

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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