Agricultural development through contract agents ‐ appropriate for smallholders?

Abstract

Agriculture in developing areas of South Africa has undergone much experimentation as recommended by academics and administrators. Notwithstanding the latest moves towards a more representative government, which may usher in the rediscovery of individual initiative, present policies are largely responsible for the underdeveloped state of agriculture among the black community. The top-down approach (whose existence is denied by policy-makers) is evident even in quasigovemment and private agricultural management agencies. This and the wanton control of resources by these institutions has led to retreat by small-scale farmers. Promotion of agriculture in the black community through highly centralised, administered projects has proved unappealing. The country's policy-makers have not taken heed of the argument that 'The poorer and more exposed one is, the more one becomes aware of sustainable survival techniques. If an outsider tells one how to survive, then that is the start of one's downfall'

Joint ventures in the Flag Boshielo Irrigation Scheme, South Africa: a history of smallholders, states and business.

“…Government budgets reduced by more than 40% (Maloa and Nkosi 1993). By 1993, the incoming government started to see the (white) publicly funded agencies as expensive and inefficient (Maloa and Nkosi 1993). Once the new African National Congress (ANC) government came to power, the political will to keep funding these 'apartheid structures' was even less.…”

“…Already from 1989 onwards, the apartheid government's investments to finance the whitedominated irrigation management agencies began to dwindle. Government budgets reduced by more than 40% (Maloa and Nkosi 1993). By 1993, the incoming government started to see the (white) publicly funded agencies as expensive and inefficient (Maloa and Nkosi 1993).…”

“…Indeed, farmers were no more than laborers on their own plots, bearing the risks of this high-input, expensive and highrisk form of farming (Shah et al 2002). A farmer compared his situation before with the later dependency on central AMS managers and high production costs to be paid at harvest: "Though we produced little before they came, we owed nobody" (Maloa and Nkosi 1993).…”

“…The central management dictated from the top down: the crop to be sown, which was alternately wheat and maize, sometimes cotton, but hardly ever high-value vegetables, although farmers were quite interested (Maloa and Nkosi 1993); dates of ploughing and other operations; provision of paid mechanized ploughing services; fertilizers and chemicals to be used; day and hours when the sprinkler pipes had to be moved; days for harvesting and central collection of the produce; and payment days. The management insisted on collecting all produce and discouraged any local trade (though it still occurred).…”