by Wandile Sihlobo | Feb 24, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
South Africa’s chairing of the Group of 20 (G20) also means the country leads the G20 business forum, the B20.
The G20 comprises 19 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, the UK, and the US) and two bodies: the AU and the EU.
South Africa’s agenda is “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability.”
The B20 brings together business representatives from the G20 countries and sets out workstreams that take their cue from the theme defined by the government, though its actual work is autonomous.
As a critical stakeholder in the B20, the South African agricultural sector must outline bold goals.
1. There should be a strong call for knowledge sharing on climate-smart agricultural practices. This theme is relevant not only for the G20 countries but also for the African continent. There is much more to learn from the experiences of Australia, Canada, the EU and others. South Africa must open an avenue for this discussion. The insights must be canvassed with the continent to help improve Africa’s agricultural resilience in the challenging climatic environment.
2. South Africa should pursue deepening agricultural trade. As a country we already enjoy access to several G20 economies. Still, prioritising trade integration and ensuring the policies of relatively open borders on agricultural trade are maintained is vital. This point is essential in this climate of trade fragmentation and “friendshoring”.
South Africa’s agricultural sector is export-orientated. Therefore, it is in businesses’ interest to ensure practices are maintained. Africa as a whole, whose agricultural sector still faces productivity challenges, may not benefit as much as South Africa from this theme in the near term. However, in the long run the benefits will be widely shared.
3. South Africa should continue prioritising discussions about deepening the fertiliser trade in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding SA) has poor agricultural productivity due to various factors. One challenge is poor fertiliser usage and another is lack of access to affordable finance. More fundamentally, conducive infrastructure is essential to ensure the fertiliser reaches the farmers and their produce gets to market.
Linking the fertiliser matter with a need for investment in network industries is therefore key. If political leaders want to raise a theme that would have a broader positive continental impact in reducing hunger, a discussion about fertiliser would be worthwhile.
This would also entail thinking about ways to raise funds to buy and distribute fertiliser to the most vulnerable regions of the continent. Improvements in agriculture will help reduce hunger.
We know from the literature that growth in agriculture is generally two to three times more effective at reducing poverty than an equivalent amount of growth generated outside agriculture. Moreover, the advantage of agriculture in reducing poverty is largest for the poorest individuals in society and extends to other welfare outcomes, including food insecurity and malnutrition.
4. South Africa must discuss sharing insights about agricultural technology and investment opportunities. This workstream would involve most mechanical and IT-related technologies, which are increasingly vital for agricultural productivity and the efficiency of food value chains. The G20 countries are advanced in this area of work, and knowledge sharing would be beneficial, mainly for the broader African continent. SA, therefore, has good reason to support this theme.
The South African government should define a clear agenda that considers Brazil’s outcomes and charts a new path. This work needs to start sooner rather than later.
South Africa’s businesses must first undertake detailed thinking and formulate priorities linked to the economy’s sectors.
The next step is to engage the government in such priority areas. This will help ensure South Africa formulates an inclusive agenda for the B20 that aligns well with the G20 priorities.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Feb 22, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
In the first two weeks of the month I drove across the various regions of SA visiting farmers and agribusinesses. Two aspects dominated the conversations I had.
First, there is growing discomfort about the rise of misinformation over the Expropriation Act in SA. Farmers understand that property rights are intact and continue with their farming activities.
Worries that linger due to misinformation are the possible exclusion of SA from the African Growth & Opportunity Act (Agoa) at the official review later this year.
While SA’s agricultural exports to the US are small — about 4% of the overall agricultural exports of $13.2bn in 2023 — they are concentrated in a few industries (mainly citrus, wine, grapes, nuts and fruit juices). These industries have enjoyed duty-free access to the US market, making them price competitive.
Exclusion from Agoa would not mean being blocked from the US market, but an imposition of about 3% duties on SA products that would affect their price competitiveness. This uncertainty demands that SA work on a post-Agoa sustainable trade arrangement with the US.
There is a need for SA to continue opening as many new export markets as possible. The focus is on retaining access to the EU, UK, Africa and various other regions of the world where SA products are established, and on promoting tariff-free access between the Brics countries (Brics is not a trade bloc).
Farmers and agribusiness recognise the risks of the unpredictable geopolitical and trade environment to SA’s export-orientated agricultural sector.
Beyond trade, agricultural production conditions in SA are promising. The sector is likely to improve in 225 after the harsh midsummer drought of 2024. However, the recovery may not be uniform across all regions. Some farmers will continue to face a financially challenging environment for some time, and crop production could only recover mildly in some areas.
In field crops farmers have managed to plant well in most regions, though the timing of the planting seems to differ vastly in some areas, partly due to the erratic rains at the start of the season.
However, regional dynamics present some nuances. While the crop fields are visibly green and in good condition, some regions were strained by the heat of November to the beginning of December 2024. In such regions, while the crop has recovered from the recent rains, it is not in its usual health state for this stage of the season.
I noticed this mainly around the small towns of the eastern Free State. I suspect the North West, the western regions of Mpumalanga and the northern parts of Limpopo may have similar experiences.
Unlike the northern and central regions of SA that had these challenging weather conditions, the far eastern areas of the country had better rains. This has benefited the sugar cane and general production prospects of the sugar industry.
The rains also improved dam levels, further supporting the production of fruits and vegetables under irrigation, and even the irrigated veld for the dairy industry. Market prices for fruit farmers look promising, and with eased delays at the SA ports so far, the sector is also likely to benefit from increased exports.
For vegetable farmers, the recent removal of the export ban on SA vegetables in Botswana will also help this year from a demand perspective.
Meat producers and dairy farmers have endured higher feed costs, moderate milk prices and animal diseases. Therefore, improving the grazing veld due to better rains and controlling the spread of animal diseases will improve production conditions this year.
Ultimately, SA’s agriculture is likely to experience a mixed and slow recovery in 2025. The erratic rains and the season’s late start are some challenges. Fortunately, the rainfall outlook to March is optimistic and will support crops, fruits and grazing veld.
Beyond production, the sector must also battle dangerous misinformation from a trade perspective.
Written for and first published in the Business Day.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Feb 8, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
For some time, there has been an emerging narrative that South Africa’s agriculture has not performed well recently.
Inept municipalities, poor road infrastructure, stock theft, and port inefficiencies all contribute to this narrative of failure and despair. Stories of the failings of land reform farms also add to this sentiment of regression in agricultural progress.
The government’s failings over the past decade and the lack of implementation of many development policies also catalysed this narrative.
But this narrative is far from the reality of the South African farming sector. Regardless of how experts feel about the state’s capacity and the government’s policy stance since the dawn of democracy, the one undeniable fact is that the sector has grown tremendously – and certainly not failing.
Data from the Department of Agriculture shows that domestic agricultural output in 2023/24 had more than doubled the size in 1994. A few sectors did not drive this expansion, but it has been widespread; livestock, horticulture and field crops have all seen strong growth over this period.
The higher production levels have mainly been underpinned by new production technologies, better farming skills, growing demand (locally and globally) and progressive trade policy. The private sector has played a major role in this progress.
I use “progressive trade policy” to highlight South Africa’s standing in global agriculture. According to data from Trade Map, the country was the world’s 32nd largest agricultural exporter in 2023, the only African country in the top 40 in value terms.
This was made possible by a range of trading agreements the South African government had secured over the past decades, the most important ones being with African countries, Europe, the Americas, and some Asian countries. The African continent and Europe now account for about two-thirds of South Africa’s agricultural exports, and Asia is now also an important market.
The agricultural subsectors that have contributed most to this progress in exports are fruits, wine, wool and grains. South Africa now exports roughly half of its agricultural products in value terms, reaching a record $13,2 billion in 2023, according to data from Trade Map.
Robust food security levels
The increase in agricultural output is why South Africa is now ranked 59th out of 113 countries in the global food security index, making it the most food-secure country in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I recognise that boasting about this ranking when millions of South Africans go to bed hungry every day may ring hollow, as I pointed out after a few presentations where I cited these statistics.
However, it is essential to note that many South Africans lack access to food due to the “income poverty challenge” rather than lack of availability due to low agricultural output, as is the case in other parts of Africa. South Africa produces enough food but does not export all of it. A lot is kept domestically for the local market.
To address poverty, South Africa must ensure employment and that households have sufficient income to buy food.
The global food security index balances the four elements (affordability, availability, quality, and safety) to arrive at a rating that covers matters at a broad national level.
Inclusiveness
As I argued in my recent book, A Country of Two Agricultures, South Africa still has a long way to go regarding inclusiveness.
“Nearly three decades after the dawn of democracy, SA has remained a country of ‘two agricultures’. On the one hand, we have a subsistence, primarily non-commercial and black farming segment; on the other, we have predominantly commercial and white farmers.”
The book adds that:
“the democratic government’s corrective policies and programmes to unify the sector and build an inclusive agricultural economy have suffered failures since 1994. The private sector has also not provided many successful partnership programmes to foster black farmers’ inclusion in scale commercial production. It is no surprise that institutions such as the National Agricultural Marketing Council estimate that black farmers account for less than 10%, on average, of commercial agricultural production in SA.”
This lacklustre performance by black farmers in commercial agriculture cannot be blamed solely on historical legacies.
“While this paints a bleak picture of transformation in the agricultural sector, what we can also not ignore is the anecdotal evidence pointing to a rise of black farmers in some corners of SA. We see this in field crops, horticulture and livestock in provinces such as Free State, Western Cape, Eastern Cape and other regions.”
Still, plans and programmes are in place to sustainably increase the number of black farmers in the sector.
To be super clear, the plan doesn’t entail replacing the existing farmers with new black farmers. The government has around 2.5 million hectares of land to distribute with title deeds to black farmers.
This will be “growing the agricultural piece“. The land reform process will continue under the current market principles. There will be no land grabs, as I argued and clarified the confusion about the recent Expropriation Act here.
Concluding remarks
The stories we tell about ourselves and the country are essential. While the emerging narrative of the sector under siege is gaining traction, we must highlight the sector’s gains, protect it, and address the domestic challenges that may threaten this robust progress.
Inept municipalities, poor road infrastructure, stock theft, and inefficiencies at the ports, among other things, require stronger focus and improvement to support the long-term growth of South Africa’s agriculture.
This will require the efforts of the government, organised agriculture, and the private sector. Addressing these issues must start with boldly telling the positive story of this sector, protecting the fortunes it has created for South Africa, and emphasising that property rights are intact in South Africa.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jan 30, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
The South African agriculture and land policy discourse risks entering a period of stagnation like much of the country’s developmental agenda.
More than three years ago we knew that government had over the years acquired about 2.5-million hectares of land through its Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy.
Much of this land was previously used for various farming activities, but some is now underutilised, and some is under short-term leases to farmers who struggle to access the capital required to unlock the land’s potential.
Whenever we consider the long-term growth prospects for agriculture we assume this land will be fully used productively to boost agricultural output and add jobs.
On various occasions over the past three years President Cyril Ramaphosa and then agriculture, land reform & rural development minister Thoko Didiza pushed for the establishment of a Land Reform & Agricultural Development Agency, which would drive the release of land to appropriately selected beneficiaries with title deeds, address finance challenges, and lean on organised agriculture and private sector skills.
The process has taken inordinately long. Still, there has been some progress in setting up the agency, with conceptual work completed, driven primarily by the leadership of the department of agriculture, land reform & rural development. The release of this land with title deeds to appropriately selected beneficiaries has the support of the presidency.
In his opening of parliament address in July Ramaphosa stressed the importance of this process when he stated: “We will increase funding to land reform, prioritise the transfer of state land and improve postsettlement support by strengthening the institutional capacity of responsible structures.”
The department of land reform & rural development should therefore accelerate the process of establishing the Land Reform & Rural Development Agency and ensure that it begins its work this year.
There is always a temptation to indulge in elaborate consultation and dialogue about land matters. In fact, over the past three decades SA has spent more time talking than on policy implementation. This year land reform & rural development minister Mzwanele Nyhontso and his director-general should strive to avoid the allure of these elaborate, unproductive meetings and consultations, and rather move ahead with the programmes established by the previous administration, tweaking and improving as they implement.
Failure to begin will result in another year of discussions while farmers on the ground, and the sector as a whole, continue to suffer.
If the government cannot move ahead and release more land and support for farmers there is a real risk to the long-term growth prospects of SA’s agriculture and rural economy. The success of other government programmes such as the Agriculture & Agro-processing Master Plan hinges on the progress of land release. When the work begins the approach should not follow the practice of the past few years, in which a land parcel is allocated to numerous beneficiaries. The policy focus should be a deliberate attempt to support and nurture a new cohort of individual commercial farmers, not groups.
The “Better Few, But Better” concept should be the running theme as we build the agricultural sector and rural economy. This entails selecting a few and better cohort of commercial farmers to support.
Focusing on creating and nurturing a new cohort of farmers does not mean the government can ignore smallholder farmers. They should continue receiving the necessary support as they play a vital role in household food security.
Deliberate support for commercial farming will also ensure there are farmers in each region who could be aggregators for the surrounding smallholder farmers who wish to access noncommercial value chains.
This year must be a period of implementation and progress in land reform and agriculture. It will ensure that the goodwill that exists within organised agriculture to collaborate does not wane while also boosting the farming economy.
–Written for and first appeared in the Business Day.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jan 28, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
I am on the mini roadshow, seeing some of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz) members in central regions of the country. During the long drives, I have listened to many talk radio shows. As it happens when one crosses from one region to another, the radio stations tend to change in frequency, and I have found myself tuning into various radio stations. The one theme I have heard consistently across most stations is the commentary about the “Expropriation Act” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently assented to law.
The commentary is interesting. However, I think some confusion is emerging, where some view this Act as a new direction for land reform. This is not the case – land reform policy in South Africa hasn’t changed and is still under the three pillars of (1) restitution, (2) redistribution, and (3) tenure.
The government is still buying land from the open market for land reform processes, amongst other things. This is unlikely to change as expropriation is no ‘shortcut’; it is a long and cumbersome process, and the law provides a safeguard that it may only be used where attempts to purchase the property on reasonable grounds have failed. The other important thing to underscore is that South Africa is not unique in having an Expropriation Act; most countries have one. Notably, the Expropriation Act per se is not new; we see an update from the 1975 existing piece of legislation here.
So, what is the Expropriation Act about if that is the case?
Drawing on my work with my colleague at Agbiz, Annelize Crosby, let me state that the first thing to highlight is that the Expropriation Act’s provisions are subject to the provisions of section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which has not been amended. This section requires that compensation be just and equitable, striking an equitable balance between the public interest and the rights of those affected with regard to all relevant circumstances.
Although the new Expropriation Act now explicitly refers to the possibility of (Rands/R) Nil compensation to be awarded, the result must be just and equitable. The term R Nil compensation implies a calculation that considers all relevant factors, including those listed in the Act and the Constitution. The application of relevant factors will have to be justified.
Also important to note that section 12(3) of the Act states that it may be just and equitable to award R Nil compensation, which makes it clear that it is only a possibility where the balance of circumstances justify it; it is by no means a foregone conclusion that compensation will amount to Nil and the courts will have the final say on compensation where an offer is disputed.
A calculation will have to be done considering all relevant factors. Awarding little or no compensation will have to be justifiable in an open and democratic society, and the state will have to show precisely how and why it arrived at an offer of Nil Rand’s compensation. There will likely be a lot of litigation over the Nil Rand compensation clauses, and jurisprudence will develop over time regarding what is just and equitable in this regard and what is not.
The new Act contains many checks and balances, including a provision that an agreement must be attempted before the state decides to expropriate and an opportunity to object to the intention to expropriate. The Act guarantees that expropriation can only be used as a last resort after all other attempts to buy the property have failed. It also provides for the possibility of mediation in the case of disputes over compensation.
With that said, I must agree that the definition of expropriation remains a concern, and we will need to watch closely how it is applied and interpreted by the courts. This definition may exclude all instances where the state does not acquire the property but nevertheless limits the owners’ rights to such an extent that it becomes of no value.
It opens up the possibility of all sorts of regulatory limitations on the property with no compensation where the state does not acquire the property but rather limits the use and enjoyment of the property by the owner or any other party with a right in the land (i.e. a lessee, mortgagor, occupier etc.).
Another crucial point often missed in this conversation is that the state’s right to expropriate still exists, even without this Act. The state’s power to expropriate land for a public purpose or in the public interest is derived from the Constitution itself. More than 200 other pieces of legislation provide details on the type of property that can be expropriated, the conditions under which it can be expropriated, and the state entity with which this right vests.
The Expropriation Act is merely procedural. It grants no expropriation powers to anyone other than the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure and only for purposes connected to his/her mandate. In all other instances, the powers to expropriate already exist in other legislation, such as the Restitution Act, Labour Tenants Act, and the proposed Redistribution Bill.
While we should not blow the potential impact of this Act out of proportion, people’s concerns are understandable, as South Africa recently had a robust conversation about Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. But this is not that discussion, and the Expropriation Act is not unique to South Africa. In the coming months and years, we will have to watch closely the developments and how the Act may be applied, as all that will offer valuable lessons.
The South African agricultural sector is on solid ground for now, and we shouldn’t be as worried but vigilant.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my newsletter here for free. You can also Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jan 20, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
South Africa’s agriculture must constantly monitor global developments and risks that could undermine its competitiveness in the world market as an export-oriented sector. Several environmental, social, and political risks remain at the top of farmers’ and agribusiness leaders’ minds.
However, one issue that is not always fully appreciated is the contribution of agricultural input providers—various agrochemicals and seed breeding. The lack of public focus mainly stems from consumers and policymakers monitoring the end products: harvest size and, in animals, the health and expansion of herds.
Rare appreciation of technological advancement
Since 1994, South Africa’s agricultural value has more than doubled. Two significant catalysts are at the centre of this progress: the expansion of export markets, which creates a demand for products; the early adoption of high-yielding seed varieties in crops; the improvement of animal genetics; and the use of agrochemicals to nurture the sector.
South Africa was especially embracing technological advancement in ways that much of the African continent was not, thus setting the country apart from much of Africa in terms of its yields. This technological embrace primarily explains higher crop yields in South Africa compared to some of the neighbouring African countries with even better climatic conditions. A case in point is South Africa’s embrace of genetically modified crops, whose adoption in the early 2000s saw maize and soybean yields improve notably over time, thus keeping the country a net exporter and boosting food availability domestically.
With this encouraging track record in embracing science, a semi-arid country like South Africa should invest more resources in science in the present day, where climate change and changing geopolitical environments have introduced new risks, and each country should strive to improve its food security.
Fortunately, South Africa has a thriving private-sector-led agricultural sector. Resources have been channelled into research and could continue to be devoted to this effort. In fact, while the government’s spending on research and development has continued to fall, the private sector has significantly increased its research and development.
Still, the country’s regulators, specifically the Department of Agriculture, need to share the urgency of the present moment and productively support technological advancement.
Such support would come from constructively evaluating the various agrochemicals and seeds the private sector offers and registering them for use after satisfying the testing. The process, though, needs to be faster and more agile and not boxed down into the usually organized agriculture and government politics.
What must be done?
What should be a priority is the health, improvement, sustainability, and competitiveness of South African agriculture. This is a perspective through which the regulators should engage the input providers and private sector researchers.
Equally, the organized agriculture groupings should ensure that their scientists are leading the engagements with the regulators and not muddy science with various issues they often raise with the government, which could be discussed elsewhere.
A case in point of legislative work that needs to be revamped and modernised is Act 36 of 1947, the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act. This act regulates the registration of fertilizers, farm feeds, sterilizing plants, and specific remedies.
Even countries that have always maintained a sluggish view of scientific progress in agriculture, like the European Union, are suddenly changing their approaches. For example, on 07 February 2024, the European Parliament issued a statement highlighting that they have adopted a “position for negotiations with member states on the Commission proposal on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), which alter the genetic material of an organism, with 307 votes to 263 and 41 abstentions.”
The European Parliament further stated that “the objective is to make the food system more sustainable and resilient by developing improved plant varieties that are climate resilient, pest resistant, and give higher yields or that require fewer fertilizers and pesticides.”
Currently, in the EU, “all plants obtained by NGTs are subject to the same rules as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) agree with the proposal to have two different categories and two sets of rules for NGT plants. NGT plants considered equivalent to conventional ones (NGT 1 plants) would be exempted from the requirements of the GMO legislation, whereas other NGT plants (NGT 2 plants) would still have to follow stricter requirements. MEPs want to keep mandatory labelling of products from both NGT 1 and NGT 2 plants.”
Take away
South Africa should also review its regulations on gene-editing matters to be at the forefront, as the country has been within acceptable health regulations in the past two decades. The goal should be to support a growing and competitive agricultural sector.
Trade and scientific embrace have been central to South Africa’s agricultural progress, which should continue today.
Importantly, with the EU now recognizing this, South Africa and New Zealand are the only major agricultural producers globally that regulate NGTs and new breeding techniques under GMO legislation. This needs to change.
Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jan 17, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
The current supply glitch in South Africa’s avocados should not be a primary concern for consumers but a temporary inconvenience. On January 16, News24, a media organization, reported that South Africa has tight avocado supplies.
While I know some of you won’t be able to have your “smashed avocado on toast” breakfast for a week or so, there are a few reasons for this slight inconvenience, and it will ease soon.
First, one must appreciate that avocado season in South Africa runs from February through to September. Therefore, we were bound to have lower supplies around this time of the year.
Second, South Africa exported a large number of avocados in 2024 due to strong global demand, which led to tight domestic supplies. However, this is temporary; we could see supplies improving next month and prices moderating.
After all, we now have a diversified avocado industry with production in various South African regions with different yielding periods.
Importantly, we produce sizable avocados in this country, over 120,000 tonnes a year. Our production has increased notably over the past few decades due to the expansion in plantings on the back of strong demand locally and globally.
The produce is for both the domestic and the export market. We generally export about half of the harvest. Our key export markets include the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates.
Like other agricultural commodities, the South African avocado industry wants to continue widening its export markets to various regions to diversify and support its long-term profitability.
However, I must emphasize that this export drive is not at the expense of the domestic market; that remains important while we continue to expand the export markets. There are generally sufficient supplies for the local market. Not every year, we see news of tight supplies.
So, when you read that there were ample exports in 2024, such is good. We need to see continuous exports and new markets. Plenty of trees still have yet to bear fruit in this country, and the local market will not absorb them. For that, we need export markets.
Notably, exports are key for farmers to earn revenue and sustain jobs in this industry. Better profitability levels are vital for the long-term growth of the avocado industry, job creation, and sustainability of various rural communities.
By the way, the talk of exports does not suggest that things have been smooth for farmers. We continue to see challenges of inefficient ports, poor roads, rising crime, and inept municipalities, all of which add costs to business and threaten the long-term growth of the broader agricultural sector.
So, the news of the temporary tight supply of avocados and a possible slight increase in price will not make the industry rich. As I have listed above, we should resolve fundamental constraints to agricultural growth as a country.
If you enjoyed this piece, consider subscribing for free to my newsletter here, and follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo)
by Wandile Sihlobo | Jan 14, 2025 | Agricultural Environment and Natural Resource
The Competition Commission of South Africa released its final Report on the Fresh Produce Market Inquiry (FPMI) on January 13, 2025. The authors shared our long-held views, which were clearly highlighted in the National Agricultural Marketing Council’s Report on the National Fresh Produce Markets some years ago.
So, in essence, the Commission’s Report is a valuable resource about the industry’s structure and price developments and primarily provides sensible and correct findings. The Report reaffirmed the importance of fresh produce markets in price discovery and food security.
The report also raises vital points about the deteriorating infrastructure of various municipalities and others that should maintain or reinvest resources in fresh produce markets. This confirms our long-held belief that local government is the biggest culprit in all of this.
In various ways, the service and governance of municipalities prohibit the participation of black farmers in economic and commercial activity. That is the single biggest reason these markets have few black farmers and black Agents. A case in point is Pretoria, where the operating conditions and infrastructure remain in bad shape, and the municipality — custodians of the market––needs to improve and pay closer attention to it. The lack of maintenance presents problems such as cleanliness, hygiene, food safety, and cold and ripening rooms.
However, the recommendations and some findings of the inquiry push the limits a bit by trying to be unrealistic. Some of the points raised move the inquiry outside the Competition Commission of South Africa’s mandate and the initial scope of the FPMI. The most important recommendations are in itself uncompetitive by forcing quotas in terms of volumes and numbers.
The Report correctly identifies the challenge of low participation of black farmers or small and medium-scale market producers. However, this issue is not unique to the markets; it resembles a broader challenge in South Africa’s agriculture. The government-owned agricultural land – about 2,5 million hectares – is some of the land that could help boost black farmers’ production. Indeed, not all this land is for fresh produce, but it would help.
The Report correctly recognises that the established stakeholders in agriculture would have to help with skills transfer for new entrants; these are activities that even the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan already supports and has identified.
Regarding concentration and price transparency at the retail level, we see where the Competition Commission comes from, but there is no clear evidence of any wrongdoing amongst industry stakeholders. The FPMI could not find evidence that large retailers have excessive buying power over farmers when directly contracting with them. They make an interesting finding:
“….most growers appear not to be in a vulnerable bargaining position when dealing directly with large retail chains”.
One reason is the way the contracts are specified, as well as the fact that fresh produce markets provide an alternative market outlet for farmers. Retailers also do not demand exclusivity. It also confirms the vital role of fresh produce markets and why local governments must play their part.
Regarding retail prices, the extra labelling burdens retailers, but the value to consumers is unclear. We would not support this suggestion. We already see that fresh produce prices in South Africa are relatively affordable, and there is transparency in price discovery. Therefore, in our view, all the other interventions won’t add that much value except for “comparison”.
Overall, the Report is a valuable addition to deepening the understanding of the fresh produce market structure in South Africa.
Notably, the findings and recommendations are not binding, and the relevant government departments will need to assess them.
Follow me on X (@WandileSihlobo).
