Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
05 June 2023 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied
Prof Bahta
For the past three years, Prof Yonas Bahta has studied the resilience of smallholder livestock farmers in agricultural drought, and the competitiveness of agri-food commodities.

The agricultural sector is marked by farmers’ daily struggles, including price hikes, climate change effects, and pest and disease outbreaks.

Prof Yonas T Bahta, Associate Professor and astute National Research Foundation (NRF) C2-rated researcher in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State (UFS), found that smallholder farmers who received drought relief support saw an improvement in their welfare. The study also found that economic capital, social capital, human capital, and natural capital substantially affected the welfare of smallholder farmers.

Agricultural drought

These findings came from the study, titled: The resilience of households to agricultural drought in the Northern Cape province of South Africa. Prof Bahta’s aim with this study was threefold – to assess household resilience to agricultural drought among smallholder livestock farmers, to evaluate the welfare of smallholder farming households affected by agricultural drought, and to identify factors influencing agricultural drought resilience and food insecurity among smallholder livestock farmers.

During his investigation, he found that only 9% of the smallholder livestock farmers were resilient to agricultural drought. According to him, farming households with access to credit, farmers who received assistance from the government (such as training and feed) during drought, and farmers who are part of a cooperative proved to be more resilient to agricultural drought.

When it comes to food security, he discovered that assets, social safety nets, and indicators of adaptive capacity had a positive influence on households' ability to withstand food insecurity. Alternatively, climate change indicators negatively impacted households’ resilience to food insecurity.

For the past three years, he has studied the resilience of smallholder livestock farmers in agricultural drought. He believes that resilience – the ability to bounce back from adversities – is crucial.

According to him, both the smallholder livestock sector (farmers) and the agrifood industry need to develop resilience to effectively cope with and recover from agricultural drought, macroeconomic stability (inflation), competitiveness, productivity, and other related factors.

Competitiveness of agri-food commodities

Prof Bahta also launched investigations into the competitiveness of agri-food commodities in South Africa as well as Namibia.

The studies were titled: Competitiveness of Namibia’s Agrifood Commodities: Implications for Food Security and Competitiveness of South Africa’s Agrifood Commodities.

In these studies, he respectively looked at the competitiveness of South Africa’s and Namibia’s agrifood products, the factors that influence it, and its implication for food security.

In both countries, he discovered a combination of comparative advantage and disadvantage.

“South Africa and Namibia exhibited a trade structure that was less concentrated and not dependant on international trade in the agri-food industry, having minimal impact on Namibia's food security. The productivity of agriculture and GDP per capita positively influenced the comparative advantage of South Africa, whereas land productivity and GDP per capita influenced the degree of food insecurity in Namibia,” explains Prof Bahta the main research findings.

Research outputs

The study on the resilience of smallholder livestock farmers was supported by funding from the National Research Foundation. To explore the competitiveness of agri-food commodities, Prof Bahta collaborated with the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), benefiting from their strong existing academic relationship. The UFS Office for International Affairs played a key role in facilitating this study, with research partnerships existing between the universities of both countries.

According to Prof Bahta, the findings of these two studies have resulted in the publication of more than 13 articles in journals ranking in the highest (Q1) and second highest categories (Q2) in the specific field. A paper will also be presented at the upcoming International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) international conference in New Zealand from 17 to 20 June 2023.

Furthermore, five popular articles on the main findings of the studies (written in non-technical language) were also published on these topics, focusing on the farmers and policy makers (as a policy brief and popular) as the target audience. These articles looked at, among others, the impact of policy intervention on food insecurity in times of shock; coping strategies of smallholder livestock farmers during food insecurity shocks; measuring the resilience of female smallholders in South Africa; and farming for success.

This study also resulted in the graduation of three master's students (two with distinction) and three honours students.

Looking ahead, Prof Bahta emphasises the necessity for conducting similar studies targeting both commercial and smallholder farmers, focusing on crops and livestock in various provinces across South Africa. He also feels that connections need to be established with universities besides NUST.

News Archive

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

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