Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 March 2023 | Story Prof Frikkie Maré | Photo Supplied
Prof Frikkie Mare
Prof Frikkie Maré is the Academic Departmental Head: Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State

Opinion article by Prof Frikkie Maré, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State.
President Cyril Ramaphosa recently announced a state of disaster due to the electricity crisis and the appointment of the new Minister of Electricity in the Presidency, Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa. Although there are many arguments for and against the state of disaster and the position of a Minister of Electricity, I think all South Africans agree that drastic measures must be taken to improve the current situation. However, I do not think the state of disaster, or the Minister of Electricity will bring any quick fixes to the table, and therefore we have to assume the crisis will remain in the short to medium term.

The Cause of the Crisis

As South Africans, our biggest crisis at this stage is load shedding. We are confronted with darkness daily, or even twice or thrice a day. Although the impact of load shedding varies according to the time of day it is implemented, it generally hinders us from doing our work, preparing food, and relaxing in front of the television after work. It directly impacts the quality of life of those who need electricity for oxygen machines for them to breathe. It causes damage to our electrical appliances, especially due to power surges when the electricity is turned back on. In short, load shedding is disrupting our lives. It is a nuisance we do not need, and the sooner it ends, the better.

Load shedding may be be a crisis for us as citizens, but it is Eskom’s solution to keep the national grid from collapsing. Thus, the real cause of the crisis is not load shedding but the inability of Eskom to supply enough electricity to meet the demand. The second big concern is the rising cost of electricity in South Africa. From 2007 to 2022, electricity prices increased by 653% in an attempt by Eskom to increase revenue to try and catch up with its heavy debt burden while simultaneously trying to maintain the current power stations and add some new generation capacity.

The problem

South Africa, up until load shedding started in 2007, was always praised as one of the countries in the world with the most stable electricity supply, and electricity was priced among the lowest in the world. Our economy thus developed around the national grid and is heavily reliant on it. Given the above, our food system faces three problems. First and most visible is load shedding that is causing interrupted national power supply and increasing production and processing costs as fuel generators and solar power must be relied on. Secondly, the cost of food production, processing, and distribution increases sharply as national electricity prices increase. Third, new investments in the food chain are discouraged as it is heavily reliant on electricity, which there is not enough of.

The impact

Over the last number of months, the media was full of the impact of load shedding on the food system in South Africa. Visually it ranged from photos and videos of withered irrigated crops which failed as there were not enough hours of electricity to supply water. There were pictures of chicken farms full of dead broilers that died when the heating and ventilation systems could not function during load shedding. Many articles also warned that load shedding would hurt food security in South Africa as it would not be possible to produce or process enough food.

These reported impacts of load shedding on food security caused quite a frenzy among consumers as people tend to run with what is announced in headlines without reading or understanding the context. Consumers immediately fear a situation where there will be insufficient food in South Africa as the headlines read that food security is under pressure.  

Yes, although all the photos, videos and articles in the news might be true and certainly do impact food security, we must also remember that food security is a combination of the availability and affordability of food.  

The impact of load shedding on food production depends on the type of production system. While load shedding has a minimal impact on extensive red meat production, it can be detrimental to intensive systems like poultry production, especially if electrical heating is used to regulate the temperature. It also negatively affects producers relying on irrigation to water their crops as the quality and quantity of the crop will be influenced.

The effect of load shedding can be severe on certain primary producers and even cause farming operations to close. Still, it will not necessarily result in a food shortage in the country as our primary agricultural sector is diverse. However, the price of certain commodities will increase due to a lower supply and higher production costs, negatively influencing food affordability.

The larger problem with load shedding can be found in terms of processing the food, especially fresh produce reliant on a sustained cold chain. For food safety and quality reasons, fresh produce must be kept at constant temperatures, and processors and distributors thus have no choice but to use expensive private electricity generation, further pushing up the cost of food.

Another problem is that, for example, the cold rooms of processors are connected to generators, as power failures might happen even when load shedding is not a problem. Still, the processing line cannot operate without grid-supplied electricity. Although there is thus enough food in the country on a commodity level, these commodities cannot be processed into final food products as fast as in the past. This bottle-neck effect further reduces the supply of food products and increases their price.

We often forget about the impact of load shedding on the consumers’ food choices. If you need electricity to prepare food, the availability of electricity at the time you need to prepare it will affect what you eat. The problem is that more affordable foods usually take longer to prepare, while the quick-to-prepare, ready-to-eat fast foods are expensive. The higher demand for these more expensive products due to load shedding puts further upward pressure on the price of food.

So where are the monsters?

The electricity crisis impacts all roleplayers in the food value chain, from primary producers to final consumers. Although load shedding is the most visible monster here, the fast-increasing price of electricity and the general electricity shortage that discourages future investment are also lurking in the dark and contributing to problems in the overall food system. In my opinion, the electricity crisis currently does not yet threaten food security in terms of availability. Still, it is creating a monster in terms of food prices (inflation) and thus making food less affordable.  

Although private solar power and fuel generators do assist in alleviating some of the influences of the electricity crises, it is not the solution. The problem with solar power, for users requiring large amounts of electricity, is that it is too expensive to install storage capacity (batteries) to use during the night. You also have a problem when it is overcast and rainy, so solar is a mere addition to supplement the national grid during the day. On the other hand, fuel generators can supply electricity 24 hours a day. Still, only the fuel cost to generate 1kW is double what Eskom charges, making it too expensive in the long run.

In my view, the only option to ensure the sustainability of the food value chain in future is to get the national electricity grid functional again. There are many short-term solutions, but none is currently sustainable enough to provide affordable energy needs. Although it will certainly take time to get Eskom fully functional again, I do not think we will run out of food in South Africa. However, we must tighten our belts to be able to afford food while the monsters lurk in the dark.


For more information contact Frikkie Maré at MareFA@ufs.ac.za

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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