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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

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