Increasing Land for a Better Quality of Life – Moneyweb

The discussion around rural development in South Africa often begins with a recurring notion: if rural households possess more land, they can produce greater quantities of food, generate higher incomes, and transition into “emerging farmers,” ultimately evolving into commercial farmers.

This concept is reflected in various government policy documents, including the National Development Plan 2030, the Comprehensive Rural Development Programme, the Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support, and the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan.

Within these documents and the associated political discourse, agriculture is anticipated to serve as the primary catalyst for economic growth in the impoverished former homelands of South Africa. This aspiration is deeply rooted in the nation’s historical context.

During the eras of colonialism and apartheid, policies like the 1913 Natives Land Act severely limited Black land ownership and confined much of the Black populace to the former “homelands.” Consequently, these regions became synonymous with overcrowding, poverty, and insufficient infrastructure, issues that continue to influence rural livelihoods today.

Thus, the current agricultural and rural development policy encompasses multiple goals: remedying unequal land access, enhancing agricultural productivity and food security, generating employment, increasing market participation, and nurturing an inclusive rural economy.

This often entails providing smallholder farmers with land, agricultural inputs, infrastructure, financial assistance, training, and various forms of support aimed at boosting production and involvement in agricultural value chains.

Read: Land reform: How new landholders can prosper from wildlife, not just farming

However, findings from research conducted in two rural communities suggest that this narrative is overly simplistic. Our farming systems research team at the University of the Free State sought to understand the actual role of farming in rural households’ livelihoods, the challenges faced in agricultural production, and potential future farming prospects.

We engaged with 132 smallholder farming households across two provinces, utilizing household surveys, life history interviews, farm mapping, and focus group discussions.

The research sites included Emmaus, near Bergville and the Drakensberg mountains in northern KwaZulu-Natal, and Thaba Nchu, located about 60 km from Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State.

These communities were selected because they both reside in former homeland regions but differ in environmental and socioeconomic conditions.

Our study revealed that farming is vital for food security and rural household income, yet it rarely serves as the primary income source. Instead, households often combine farming with wage employment, small businesses, social grants, and other income-generating activities.

This is significant because rural development policies that primarily aim to boost agricultural production or increase land access (as is common in South Africa) overlook the interconnected factors that genuinely influence households’ capabilities to improve their livelihoods.

Factors such as labor dynamics, infrastructure, markets, institutions, and household aspirations dictate whether individuals can and desire to expand their farming activities.

Farming constitutes a component of a broader livelihood system rather than serving as a solitary path out of poverty.

Farming is just one aspect of rural livelihoods

Initially, we conducted a household survey that gathered extensive information regarding land, production, incomes, and more.

In both survey locations, the rural households varied significantly from one another.

Some households had minimal incomes and relied heavily on off-farm income sources like social grants, wage employment, and small enterprises. They often channeled these resources back into farming.

For the majority of households, farming played a role in food security and contributed to income, but it seldom provided sufficient income to sustain the household independently.

Only 16% of households in Emmaus and 19% in Thaba Nchu could exceed the South African Food Poverty Line (currently R868 or US$54 per person per month), with off-farm sources being the primary contributors to their income.

Variances among households are crucial. A household with a consistent income from employment might afford livestock, hire labor, or invest in farming inputs.

Conversely, a poorer household may possess land but lack the capital or labor necessary for cultivation. Thus, two households may have access to similar agricultural resources yet face distinctly different opportunities to capitalize on them.

Read:
How white farmers still dominate land ownership in SA
AgriSA seeks fix for rural-road ‘crisis’

Aspirations also differ: some households view farming primarily as a means to ensure food security, while others regard it as a revenue source. Merely 12% of household heads in Emmaus and 36% in Thaba Nchu aspired to pursue farming as a business.

In contrast, a significant number of household dependents (aged between 18 and 32) expressed aspirations for education, wage employment, or migration (64% in Emmaus and 80% in Thaba Nchu).

This indicates that there is no singular pathway leading from small-scale farming to improved livelihoods. Rural households commence from various starting points, encounter different barriers, and aspire to diverse futures.

Classifying them under a single category of “small-scale farmers” can result in policies that succeed for some households while offering little benefit to others.

The most significant barrier to expansion is labor

Another notable finding was that land was not necessarily the foremost impediment to increasing production. Many households had access to land but were unable to utilize all of it effectively.

Our research identified four key barriers.

First is labor; a household may have land available but lacks sufficient labor to cultivate it.

Second, infrastructure poses challenges. For instance, in Emmaus, inadequate roads and water infrastructure hindered the ability to expand or diversify production.

Read: Most South African farmers are black … Why Trump got it so wrong

Third, in Thaba Nchu, communal grazing land was vital for livestock farmers, yet conflicts regarding its use and management diminished productivity.

Fourth, farmers may struggle to develop alternative farming ventures. For example, in Emmaus, individuals prefer to grow maize and beans for personal consumption, leaving limited land for more market-oriented crops and additional farming activities.

A farming system can appear productive and profitable in theory but may fail in practice if it does not align with the community’s social and institutional realities.

Rural households have aspirations beyond agriculture

One of the crucial insights is that numerous rural households are not merely awaiting agricultural interventions. They harbor their own visions of what a better future entails.

Many households within our study regarded farming as a necessity for survival and social security, rather than a long-term commercial pursuit. Younger members of these households often express disinterest in inheriting the farm.

This does not imply that agriculture lacks potential in South Africa’s former homelands. Instead, it indicates that the future of rural livelihoods is likely to engage a mix of activities. Accordingly, rural development programs should be structured to reflect this reality.

A comprehensive approach is essential

This is where adopting a farming systems approach can prove advantageous. Rather than solely examining whether farmers possess adequate land, fertilizer, water, or technology, it scrutinizes how these elements interconnect with household dynamics, labor availability, markets, institutions, natural resources, and individual aspirations.

Instead of merely questioning how to transition small-scale farmers into commercial farmers, we ought to explore the combination of opportunities that could assist rural households in constructing the futures they desire.

For younger generations, especially, better opportunities may exist partly outside the agricultural sector.

Neo Mathinya, lecturer, University of the Free State and Linus Franke, professor Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.