SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A
VIABLE OPTION FOR
ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
SYNTHESIS REPORT
ASSET RESEARCH
30 NOVEMBER 2015
1
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A
VIABLE OPTION FOR
ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
2
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
This Research Report was prepared under the Research Funding Programme, ‘Research and Policy Development to
Advance a Green Economy in South Africa'
By:
CONTACT PERSON:
Prof. James Blignaut
[email protected]
PO Box 144
Derdepark
Pretoria
0035
3
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
GREEN FUND
RESEARCH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO ADVA NCE A GREEN ECONOMY IN SOUTH A FRICA
GREEN ECONOMY RESEA RCH REPORTS
The Government of South Africa, through the Department of Environmental Affairs, has set up the Green Fund to
support the transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient and pro-employment development path. The Green Fund
supports green economy initiatives, including research, which could advance South Africa’s green economy transition.
In February 2013, the Green Fund released a request for proposals (RFP), ' Research and Policy Development to
Advance a Green Economy in South Africa’, inviting interested parties with relevant green economy research projects
to apply for research funding support. The RFP sought to strengthen the science-policy interface on the green economy
by providing an opportunity for researchers in the public and private sectors to conduct research which would support
green economy policy and practice in South Africa. Sixteen research and policy development grants were awarded in
2013. This peer-reviewed research report series presents the findings and policy messages emerging from the research
projects.
The Green Economy Research Reports do not represent the official view of the Green Fund, Department of
Environmental Affairs or the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived
at, are those of the author/s.
Comments on Green Economy Research Reports are welcomed, and may be sent to: Green Fund, Development Bank
of Southern Africa, 1258 Lever Road, Headway Hill and Midland 1685 or by email to [email protected].
Green Economy Research Reports are published on:
www.sagreenfund.org.za/research
Please cite this report as:
De Wit, M.P., Blignaut, J.N., Knot, J., Midgley, S., Drimie, S., Crookes, D.J., and Nkambule N.P. 2015. Sustainable
farming as a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable productive resource
base. Synthesis report. Green Economy Research Report, Green Fund, Development Bank of Southern Africa,
Midrand.
4
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
LIST OF BOXES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Aims and objective........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Literature review ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Challenges and constraints ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Main results .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
General conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Policy messages ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Research recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Practical recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Recommendations on CA policy development process ..................................................................................................... 16
RESEARCH TEAM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 19
2 BACKROUND TO RESEARCH .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 22
4 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23
What is sustainable agriculture?................................................................................................................................................ 23
How far has South Africa progressed already? ...................................................................................................................... 25
Towards a sustainable agriculture food system ..................................................................................................................... 28
Value chain analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Quality of the food system ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Food safety ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Natural resource use and environmental impact.................................................................................................................. 31
Food security ................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Comparing conventional and sustainable agriculture and food systems ........................................................................ 31
Institutional and policy context ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Policy implementation challenges ........................................................................................................................................... 33
Policy instruments ......................................................................................................................................................................... 34
5 IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH PROJECT DESIGN ...................................................................................................................... 35
6 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 39
General approach ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Analytical research methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 40
5
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Field surveys................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Policy engagement process ...................................................................................................................................................... 41
7 CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................................................................. 42
Research challenges ................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Survey challenges ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Policy challenges ......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
8 RESULTS/FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Analytical research results .......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Results from value chain analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Results from policy analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 55
Results from field surveys ............................................................................................................................................................. 57
9 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 59
General conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Key policy messages ................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Conservation agriculture policy ................................................................................................................................................ 63
10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND ACTION............................................................................................ 66
Research recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Practical recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 68
Recommendations on the CA policy development process.............................................................................................. 68
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
ANNEXURE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Appendix A
SWOT analyses of the maize, citrus and beef sectors as based on surveys ........................................... 78
Annexure 2
Reports and theses produced from this study ............................................................................................. 80
6
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
The gradual process from conventional ways of farming to alternatives ................................................................ 9
Schematic conceptual overview of farming systems towards sustainable agriculture ...................................... 24
Schematic presentation differentiating between Conservation Agriculture, Conservation Tillage and
conventional tillage ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Distribution of CA adoption among grain producers (circa 2014/5) ...................................................................... 26
Water footprint (in m3 per annum) of the South African horticultural sector ......................................................... 27
Consumption and production of beef in South Africa .............................................................................................. 28
CO2 emissions (tCO2/t) and Ecological Footprint (EF) (gha/t) for farm meats ...................................................... 32
Comparison of the productive efficiency and environmental demand among 12 different farming systems,
with Farm 10 (national average)=100 .......................................................................................................................... 47
Comparison of net present value (R/kg meat produced over 30 yrs) among six production systems under
five scenarios .................................................................................................................................................................... 48
NPVs without externalities ................................................................................................................................................ 52
NPVs with externalities ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
NPVs of CV and CA-friendly systems ............................................................................................................................. 53
Simplified diagrammatic representation of a typical agri-food value chain ........................................................ 54
Simplified diagrammatic representation of Net Present Value (NPV) over time for conventional and CA
maize production systems in South Africa ................................................................................................................... 64
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Estimated ha under CT and NT practices – SA (2003/2004) .......................................................................................... 26
Table 2 Diagnostic specification of different extensive beef production systems .................................................................. 45
Table 3 Estimated total farm-level life-cycle environmental demand per farming system ................................................... 46
Table 4
Profile of maize production systems (2013/2014) ........................................................................................................ 49
Table 5 Target yields after 20 years for CA systems ....................................................................................................................... 50
Table 6 SOM, SOC, AWHC and yield relationships ........................................................................................................................ 50
Table 7 Emission factors for various production inputs.................................................................................................................. 51
Table 8 CO2e emissions of CV and CV to CA-friendly systems ................................................................................................... 53
Table 9 The major purpose of key policies, strategies, plans and Acts which can influence the uptake of CA in South
Africa, and the national government departments primarily responsible for each ................................................................... 56
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1
Box 2
Box 3
Box 4
Box 5
Box 6
Interrelationships among various components ................................................................................................................ 36
Constituents of each component ...................................................................................................................................... 37
Student feedback on the ASSET/Greenfund Project ...................................................................................................... 42
The role of smallholder farmers in the value chain for sustainable production systems........................................... 55
The ‘policy hierarchy’ ........................................................................................................................................................... 57
Measuring conservation agriculture .................................................................................................................................. 67
7
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In South Africa arable land and permanent pastures account for 10–12% of land, while agriculture uses 63% of the
country’s water resources. South Africa has a debilitating water deficit with no surplus water available for future
development. It is therefore of utmost importance to identify and promote production systems with a high water-use
efficiency. South Africa is also one of the largest importers of pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa which poses local health
and environmental risks. Between a fifth and 26% of the population in South Africa is food insecure with another 28% at
risk of being food insecure. Smallholder farms, cooperatives and agro-processing business have been recognised by
government for their role in responding to this challenge.
The prevailing business-as-usual option for agriculture is deemed to be unsustainable. More people are consuming more
food with fewer resources, producing more waste at an increasing impact on the ecosystems of the world. Sustainable
agriculture has been proposed as an alternative to conventional farming systems. Sustainable agriculture can be
described as “…a move away from short-term profit maximization towards ecologically sound farming that strives not for
the highest possible, but for the highest sustainable yields, conserves soil and water, and enables smallholders…to find a
way out of poverty” (Swissaid 2012).
Recognising that such a transition impacts on and will be impacted by broader global responses to natural resource and
environmental constraints and the innovations such may bring, an explicit link has been made between sustainable
agriculture and the broader transition towards a green economy. The central idea is to enhance agricultural productivity
by managing the natural resource base in a more sustainable way. This can be done, for example, by diversifying crop
rotations, using organic soil nutrients, reducing soil erosion and improving water-use efficiencies, and making increased
use of biological regulation functions. The transition to a green economy is also underway in South Africa with integrated
sustainable agricultural production recognised as one of nine focus areas for green economy programmes.
Aims and objective
The overall objective of this research project was “to translate the emerging knowledge on sustainable farming systems
and food security in South Africa into viable larger-scale options in support of a greener, lower carbon economy that
continues to create jobs and improve human wellbeing” (Blignaut et al. 2014a).
Would sustainable agriculture as an alternative work in the South African context? To start answering this question, the
next steps were i) to do a comprehensive literature review on sustainable agriculture with a focus on South African
developments, ii) to empirically test and model the viability of emerging, alternative forms of sustainable agriculture as
central components of the South African green economy, and iii) to identify areas that would deserve dedicated policy
intervention.
Literature review
The main emphasis in sustainable agriculture is on fostering synergies between agricultural production, conservation and
rural livelihoods. For the purposes of this project, we used categories developed in the literature on sustainable agriculture.
We started with the term Conservation Agriculture (CA), a term that has historically developed with regards to field crops.
Figure A depicts the gradual process from conventional ways of farming to alternatives. It explains the definitions of its
three main components: tillage, soil cover and multi-cropping, and gives a better understanding of and highlightes the
plurality of alternatives to both conventional and organic CA. Conservation tillage (CT) and No-Tillage (NT) are gaining
more acceptance in South Africa.
8
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Tillage
Soil cover
Multi-cropping
No primary and/or
secondary cultivation
allowed
Full vegetative
cover
Usually
Allows only secondary
cultivation (e.g.
chisels, disks,
cultivators, sweeps)
Moderate
vegetative cover
(at least 30%)
Usually
Primary and
secondary cultivation
allowed (especially
the mouldboard
plough)
Little or no
vegetative cover
Sometimes
Conservation tillage
Conservation agriculture
Zero-tillage
No-tillage
Minimum tillage
Reduced tillage
Conventional tillage
Figure A
The gradual process from conventional ways of farming to alternatives
Farming systems in horticulture are predominantly conventional, relying on intensive management and inputs of agrochemicals (although mostly with Integrated Pest Management (IPM)). This has been justified both from a profitability point
of view and because of the strict phytosanitary requirements of export markets. Commercial production of fruit crops is
very water-intensive and almost entirely under irrigation, and the promotion and adoption of practices to increase wateruse efficiency and better use of scarce water resources are needed to achieve greater sustainability. Intensive
industrialised agriculture, together with other drivers, has further contributed to the deterioration of water quality in certain
catchments. There are several barriers towards adopting more sustainable practices in horticulture, including costs, the
difficulty in isolating organic from intensive farms, small and slowing demand for organic products, and unstable land
tenure systems.
The area involved in cattle, sheep and goat farming in South Africa represents at least 53% of all agricultural land. There
are concerns of the effects of overgrazing on soil characteristics, as well as bush encroachment and the availability of
palatable grass species. Beef production is a relatively water-intensive food system. Sustainability regarding beef or cattle
production includes the same elements as the other food systems: striving to have a lower carbon footprint, reducing
GHGs, increasing water-use efficiency, improving the soil and grazing, integrating pest management, and improving the
profitability in the sector.
As the achievement of multiple objectives is an important feature of sustainable agriculture, a systems approach to
farming is required, relying on knowledge-based development of whole farms and communities to address the myriad of
socio-economic, ecological and political challenges in sustainable agriculture. The scope is broadened to the entire
Sustainable Agricultural Food System (SAFS), reviewing food consumption and distribution across the value chains, the
quality of the system in relation to resource use, environmental impact, employment and human dignity, and the issue of
food security and nutrition.
Agriculture has some of the strongest backward, forward and employment multipliers in the economy. A specific issue
that deserves further attention in value chains is to link emerging and smallholder farmers to agri-food supply chains for
sustainable production systems. Smallholder and emerging farmers require linkages with the input and output markets in
the same manner as commercial farmers. The outcomes to date have not been encouraging owing to a multitude of
barriers. By and large, the mainstream commercial agri-food value chains are not well-positioned to serve the needs of
sustainable agricultural production systems and alternative value chains have been proposed. Ultimately, CA/OCA must
gain acceptance across the value chain and be demanded by informed South African value chain actors and
consumers if it is to succeed and scale up as a dominant paradigm.
The quality of food can be assessed variously as the overall quality of the diet (nutrition), the safety of the food consumed
(in terms of risk to cause illness or even death), and the quality of a specific food type grown under different production
9
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
systems. In South Africa, sufficient food, including fresh fruit and vegetables, is almost always available, but still a high
number of South Africans suffer from poor nutrition.
Food safety is further a primary concern for the agro-food industry. The food sector is subject to stringent legislation and
regulation aimed at ensuring that food reaching consumers is not harmful to their health. Despite these measures there
exist a number of risks to food safety which appear to be increasing. South African river water that is used for irrigation
purposes shows high concentrations of faecal indicators and numerous other pathogens which can cause severe illnesses
in humans.
South Africa is considered nationally food secure – at a national level there is enough food available for the whole
population. Taking a longer-term view, the current ability of South Africa’s farmers to continue meeting the increasing
demand for food is expected to be tested by the emerging impacts of climate variability and climate change on
production. The trend towards greater consumption of wheat, fuelled by the preferences of the growing middle class,
could see the country moving into a situation of production deficit and net import of grains. Food security in South Africa
is largely about direct or indirect access to cash to purchase food, particularly in the urban context, where purchasing
food is the dominant means of accessing food. The country is further experiencing a nutrition transition in which undernutrition, notably stunting and micronutrient deficiencies, co-exist with a rising incidence of overweight and obesity and
the associated consequences such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
The next question is whether feeding more people in a more sustainable way can be achieved through alternative
sustainable farming systems. Drawing on several meta-analyses worldwide, a few key observations can be made:

Increased economic benefits are not directly associated with organic farming, conservation agriculture, or NT
technologies.

Yields are typically lower for organic farming systems, but much variation occur.

Positive impacts of alternative farming systems on environmental indicators are most notable for soil organic
matter (SOM) and biodiversity indicators.

Apart from SOM and biodiversity gains, the only environmental impacts that differ significantly between organic
and conventional farming systems (in Europe) are nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions per unit of field area,
energy use and land use.

Organic production may offer significant GHG reduction opportunities by increasing the soil organic carbon
stocks.

Results are divided on the differences in nutritional quality of organically- or conventionally-produced plantbased foods, but the most recent and most rigorous statistical review conducted to date on the subject found
that organic crops/crop-based foods, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants such as
polyphenolics, lower concentrations of the toxic metal cadmium, and lower incidence of pesticide residues than
the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.
The benefits of applying CA to South(ern) African farming systems has been pointed out in various field-level studies, but
the uptake of CA in sub-Saharan Africa is very slow. For beef, not many empirical comparative studies on alternative beef
production systems were found in South Africa either, but one study did conclude that feedlot cattle showed a higher
profit than conventional and organic pasture groups, mainly due to faster and more efficient growth.
The difficulty then is how change can be affected towards the desired outcome of sustainable farming systems, shifting
focus to what is required from an institutional and governance perspective in achieving more sustainable agriculture and
food systems. Institutional arrangements in the South African agricultural sector are generally characterised by weak
governance and governance structures, resulting in poor and fragmented implementation of existing programmes. The
most recent Strategic Plan for DAFF (2012/2013 to 2016/2017) is aimed at providing an effective framework to address the
challenges facing agricultural sectors and to set the delivery targets for the departmental programmes from 2012 to 2017.
The most recent policy directive to (begin to) emerge from DAFF is the Agricultural Policy Action Plan (APAP), seeking to
provide a long-term vision of the agricultural sector and more focused interventions in five-year rolling cycles. The NDP
identifies agriculture as a primary economic activity in rural areas with the potential to create one million new jobs by
2030. The plan also proposes a number of approaches to land reform and its financing. Existing policies and interventions
that aim to alleviate food insecurity have been fragmented and are generally narrowly linked to the work of specific
departments. These include agricultural credit and production programmes by DAFF, the National School Nutrition
Programme by the Department of Basic Education, the Integrated Nutrition Programme by the Health Department, and
the Department of Social Development’s “food for all” programme and “Zero Hunger” campaign.
One of the major reasons South Africa falls short of addressing food insecurity in a comprehensive manner is, in part,
because food insecurity is not a technical issue that can be addressed by programmes run by existing departments. It
requires a more co-ordinated approach that has both political will and resourcing, including elements of immediate and
10
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
direct relief, and structural and institutional change to address distribution problems in the food system. The biggest
problem with the implementation of current agricultural and food policies is the total absence of any coordination
mechanism and the duplication of efforts and programmes.
The literature review suggested areas in need of further study, made recommendations on an appropriate modelling
framework to inform questions on the form sustainable agriculture could take in the country, and outlined policy processes
and interventions needed to steer towards sustainable agriculture in support of green economic development. These
aspects were taken into account in further study design.
Methodology
As initially proposed, the following aspects were included:

Multidisciplinary and team-based approach: a core team from multiple disciplines guided research on food
systems (production, value chains and consumption), food security, institutions and policy as well as systems
thinking. Students on the project came from various disciplines (including economics, policy, agriculture,
environment) and from various universities.

Process-based approach: the research process was characterised by an intensive collaborative process in the
form of colloquia where progress on student research components was discussed by the entire project team,
serving as a learning event for students and supervisors, and providing a reality check for systems integration.

Systems modelling approach: the various strands of research in the project was integrated by the core research
team and supported with a system dynamics modelling approach. The integration of results across various
disciplines and levels in the food system was the responsibility of the core team.

Policy social learning process: policymakers in the agriculture and the green economy spheres were invited to
sessions that were scheduled close to the research colloquia. As the research progressed, feedback from
decision-makers served as inputs to further iterations of the work, keeping the project focused on its green
economy objectives. Building and maintaining dialogue with key decision-makers was an explicit part of the
research strategy.
This comprehensive approach ensure that at the completion of the research project, decision-makers will be in a better
position to make well-informed decisions on the importance of sustainable farming and food security to South Africa’s
green economy policies and practice, while researchers have gained disciplinary and interdisciplinary understanding of
the agricultural system and its multiple components.
The general study approach was further augmented with more specific analytical studies. As studying the complete
agricultural sector was not possible within this project, three main South African farming systems were considered, namely:

maize production

beef cattle production

citrus production
The reason for selecting these production systems is that they cover field crops, animal husbandry and horticulture. In
addition, these systems were expected to have rich experiences both in terms of conventional as well as conservation
agricultural and organic alternatives. The first two production systems are also important from a food security perspective
whereas citrus is the country’s largest horticultural export commodity with high water demands. The lessons learnt from
studying these three production systems would be generic enough to apply to other systems as well. These lessons were
then further integrated using system dynamics modelling techniques.
In parallel to these analytical research projects, a field survey was conducted to capture efforts, ideas, achievements
and approaches of various role players who are part of the current food production systems in South Africa and contribute
towards ongoing sustainable ways of farming.
Lastly, engagement with policymakers is seen as both an important part of the research process, as this will keep informing
the research and system modelling effort, and a way to inform policymakers on research outputs. The research process
included two back-to-back policy workshops where draft results were presented and policy suggestions obtained,
followed by the distribution of two information booklets and the compliation of three policy briefs.
11
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Challenges and constraints
The main challenges and constraints were to conduct Masters’ level student projects during the timeframe of the project,
difficulties experienced in sourcing and accessing data, the relatively low response to field surveys, and the lack of a welldeveloped policy context for conservation agriculture in the country.
Main results
For beef production systems, the research focused on the environmental demand and thus sustainability of the full
production cycle of the various management systems (i.e. commercial, communal, emerging, national) of producing
calves that are market ready (i.e. ready to be sold into the feedlot system). It should be noted that this is not the only
system of producing beef in South Africa, but it is by far the most dominant system. The environmental demand in raising
calves includes the same elements as in any other agricultural system. While not seeking to include all aspects, this study
focused on:

measuring the greenhouse gas emissions and striving to reduce it per unit of beef produced as much as possible,

measuring the water use and seeking to increase water-use efficiency by increasing the beef production per litre
of water, and

measuring the fodder production and seeking to reduce the grazing material required per unit of beef produced
as much as possible.
Two approaches to analysis of beef production systems were used, namely a static approach and a dynamic approach.
Under the static approach, the environmental demand per hectare per year was estimated. Under the dynamic
approach a system dynamics model to estimate the net present value (NPV), which expresses future financial values in
today’s terms, of the various farming operations under different scenarios over 30 years, was applied. The static analysis
indicated that all the net values were negative, which indicates that the environmental demand exceeds the value of
the calf sales. From the dynamic analysis it became apparent that the values can become positive under certain
scenarios. The greatest risk, however, lies in unsustainable communal management practices.
In maize production systems the main research question focused on the financial and economic viability of commercial
dry-land maize production under both conventional (CV) and conservation agricultural (CA) systems. A system dynamics
modelling approach was used to model the transition from CV to CA systems accounting for both private and societal
costs in four maize producing regions in South Africa. Early results depict a large monetary benefit from adopting CA
systems, with or without the incorporation of positive side-effects. It can further be seen that the financial viability of maize
production improves in all regions with the adoption of CA systems. These preliminary results are encouraging maize
farmers to start adopting CA systems to improve the profitability of their farms (more so in Eastern Free State, Western Free
State and North West) while reducing the environmental load of maize production.
Sufficient citrus data was not available to do a full-scale comparative analysis, but preliminary data analysis revealed that
i) operational cost for organic citrus was twice as much as for conventional citrus, ii) the difference in gross margins
between conventional and proto-type organic citrus was huge, and iii) the net margins of organic citrus are competitive
which is attributed to price premiums. The preliminary conclusions are that conventional citrus has higher gross margins
which can be attributed to being an established industry.
The study on value chains concerned itself with the question of how institutions along the agricultural value chain
encourage or hinder CA at all farming scales. The value chain analysis was conducted through a literature review and
targeted, semi-structured interviews with banks, traders (silos and mills) and local retailers. The study found that CA is not
well understood or seen as providing benefits in the banking, trade and local retail sectors, and that there are no
imperatives to moving away from the existing conventional system. In contrast, value chain actors agreed that CA uptake
could be accelerated through smallholder farmer development, supported by CA-based training and extension, and a
drive to cooperatively aggregate and market CA produce. The study recommends challenging the dominant economic
argument of conventional agriculture and factoring in environmental and social costs.
The current policy and instrument framework of South Africa appears to not adequately support the greater uptake of
CA, and institutions along the agricultural value chain are slow to move on CA. The research questions investigated to
support policy analysis in this project are focused on how current economic policies and instruments in South Africa
influence the uptake of CA at all farming scales, and what policy approaches could support the greater uptake of CA in
South Africa within a multi-institutional and multi-policy landscape. Relevant policies and instruments were analysed to
12
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
establish how they affect the uptake of CA. Six analytical criteria were applied to policy decision-making, namely,
effectiveness, unintended effects, equity, cost, feasibility and acceptability. It is concluded that the assumption that
careful alignment of policy underpins the support and ultimately the implementation of CA, is misplaced. The reality is
that a “policy hierarchy” exists that requires careful analysis and understanding. The existence of the “policy hierarchy”
implies that some policies enjoy greater attention and resourcing at the highest level than others. This has important
consequences for a CA policy.
The field research captured efforts, ideas and achievements about sustainable agriculture from a divergent set of
respondents. The results clearly indicate that respondents are promoting sustainable agriculture, that they are seeking
restoration and healing of current production systems, that most work in practial aspects of agriculture, and that finance,
knowledge and research are the highest perceived needs in making the transition.
General conclusions
To evaluate whether the objective of this study has been reached, the conclusions of this study are interpreted by focusing
on three separate questions:

Can sustainable farming be done on a larger scale in South Africa?

Will sustainable farming support a greener and lower-carbon economy?

Will sustainable farming support an economy that create jobs and improve human wellbeing?
The first conclusion is that sustainable agricultural technologies and systems cannot be scaled up in the South African
context as yet. The reasons are that the benefits of sustainable agriculture are specific to regions and sectors, that the
industry itself is in its infancy and that there is not yet a supportive and coherent policy framework.
The second conclusion is that sustainable farming could support a move towards a greener and lower carbon economy,
especially by reducing greenhouse gases, improving soils and positively impacting on biodiversity. Maize production offers
the greatest immediate rewards, although entrenched value chains and misaligned policies remain formidable
challenges.
The third conclusion is that, although sustainable agricultural technologies are known for being more labour-intensive than
conventional systems, both the infancy of sustainable agriculture and linkages with smallholders work against
expectations of large-scale job creation in the immediate future. A longer-term, supportive policy with appropriate
incentives and disincentives for sustainable agricultural technologies and systems is required.
Policy messages
The key policy messages for maize production are as follows:

Facilitate the formation and operation of farmer innovation platforms, for sharing, learning, implementation and
scaling out of Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices.

Facilitate farmer-driven research where different stakeholders (i.e. scientists/researchers, extension officers,
farmers, agri-business) share responsibilities.

Involve and enhance extension officers to learn, participate and facilitate.

Improve the general awareness and understanding of the impact and the sustainability of the various farming
systems through social media, publications, conferences and farmers’ days.

Identify and strengthen the various rural institutional arrangements, especially under smallholder farmers, as
platforms to improve local crop production systems through CA.

Facilitate smallholder and commercial farmers’ production into value chains that demand sustainable CA
practices.

Raise the awareness of the main (market) stakeholders on the qualities, role and success of CA.

Restore the soils to improve the net primary production.
13
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

Introduce incentives and market-based mechanisms to facilitate CA on a broader scale across the country.
The key policy messages for beef production are as follows:

Appoint dedicated extension officers to the beef sector who can assist commercial, emerging, small and
communal cattle farmers in improving the health and genetic quality of the livestock, disease control, grazing
management and breeding patterns.

Improve the general understanding of environmental demand and sustainability of the various farming systems
through mechanisms such as social media, publications, conferences and farmers’ days.

Define the various institutional arrangements in especially rural areas under communal farmers and strengthen
the cattle management systems.

Manage stock theft as a matter of priority to allow better use of grazing resources.

Invest in good infrastructure such as dip tanks, roads and marketing support, and restore the soils to improve the
net primary production of the veld.
The key policy messages for conservation agricultural policy are as follows:

A farmer-led practical approach is recommended with support for local research and system development,
training and extension, appropriate financial instruments for different scales of farming, and special attention to
smallholder farmers, women and youth and linkages into the agricultural value chain.

Agri-food value chain actors and institutions in South Africa must be made aware of and linked to this transition.
Related policies should seek to incentivise different actors to ensure increased uptake.

The transition towards a more sustainable agriculture and food system must be accelerated through the
development of partnerships and a government-led discourse between actors to develop a consensus and clear
vision.

In order to gain system-wide political and institutional buy-in, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(DAFF) should launch a wider set of engagements with other national departments at the highest level and nonstate actors and institutions across the agri-food value chain – including those “outside of it” as critics of the
system.

A wide range of policy instruments are at government’s disposal in order to achieve the above objectives. They
include, but are not limited to, the following:
o
Carbon and water pricing and other incentives to reduce their use and footprint within agriculture
o
A CA/OCA-friendly carbon tax regime for agriculture
o
A land valuation system which rewards good land use and farming practices
o
Shifting agricultural subsidies (e.g. synthetic fertilisers for smallholder farmers) towards more sustainable
practices
o
Incentives for the removal of alien invasive plants on land with high potential and using the cleared land
for CA/OCA farming, thus providing jobs, rehabilitating the soil and its water holding capacity, and
producing more food
o
Offset systems whereby carbon offsets are used to rehabilitate conventionally farmed degraded land by
shifting to CA/OCA
o
Brokerage systems for PES on farmland, where groups of farmers collaborate to access the financial
benefits of PES in return for landscape-level sustainable farming
o
Incentives for beef cattle farmers to improve production efficiencies and lower the environmental
footprint of meat production
o
Assistance schemes for farmers who want to purchase specialised CA implements (such as CA planters)
by

reducing or lifting import duties

supporting the local development and manufacturing capability (in the Western Cape locallydeveloped machinery was better able to deal with local soil specific challenges than imported
versions; this also has job creation potential)
14
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

providing low or no interest asset finance
o
Bank guarantees for CA/OCA farmers
o
Incentives aimed at speeding up the transition from HEI to LEI
o
Rewards for proven social benefits brought about by conversion to CA/OCA (jobs, food security)
o
Encourage corporate social responsibility programmes to support the transition to sustainable agriculture
Research recommendations
Given the infancy of sustainable agriculture in the country, there is an associated lack of empirical observation and
longer-term research programmes supporting the industry. Several research recommendations are made:



Invest in multi-disciplinary knowledge of multi-functional agricultural systems. The main options for improving the
sustainability of agriculture that need to be tested for various agricultural systems in a South African context are
the following:
o
improving land and water management, including ecological restoration and the removal of invasive
alien plants
o
increasing yields on unproductive farms
o
addressing barriers to entry for smaller-scale farmers
o
shifting to degraded lands
o
reducing losses during distribution and storage in food value chains
o
minimising post-consumption food waste
o
shifting to different diets
o
investing in research and innovation systems
Invest in research, monitoring and evaluation that lead to a better understanding of the agricultural and food
system:
o
long-term field data work, analysis and modelling is required on sustainable production systems,
measuring environmental, social and economic indicators
o
research on entities in several value-chains needs to be intensified
o
research on the consumption and waste of agricultural products and food is needed
o
research on the implications of sustainable agriculture on human welfare, including employment, is
needed
Invest in research that leads to a better understanding of the relationships between sustainable agriculture, food
security and human health:
o
research on access to food, food availability, the stability of food supply and the quality of food, including
nutrition, in sustainable agricultural systems
o
include nutrition data and protein categories in the research
Practical recommendations

Practical, green bookkeeping skills are required

Survey respondents called for increased networking, such as through the creation of platforms for discussion

Extension is a central component and the new Farmer Support and Extension Policy needs to be aligned with the
CA policy
15
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Recommendations on CA policy development process

It is proposed that DAFF launches a wider set of engagements with other national departments at the highest
level as well as key actors and institutions across the agri-food value chain – and those “outside of it” as critics of
the system.

A common vision for the transition to such systems is required by government and the private sector, civil society
and academia, based on the acceptance that “business-as-usual” is no longer an option.

Future research is needed to explore how a CA policy merged with an organic policy could potentially look like.
16
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
RESEARCH TEAM
The core research team members are listed below together with their primary responsibilities. To allow for maximum project
integration, all members acted as participating members on all facets of the study, but not in the same lead capacity.

Prof. James Blignaut, project leader and responsible for research integration, project management, research on
economic instruments and assistance to system dynamics modelling.

Prof. Martin de Wit, responsible for literature review, assistance to system dynamics modelling and integration,
internal reviews and synthesis report.

Prof. Stephanie Midgley, responsible for value chain analysis, food security analysis, policy analysis and the
development of policy briefs.

Dr Scott Drimie, responsible for policy analysis and the development of the policy briefs.

Dr Jaap Knot, co-responsible for the literature review, and the development of the food production system
research.

Dr Doug Crookes, responsible for systems dynamic analysis and modelling.

Leandri van der Elst, administrative support.
The core research team worked closely with four Masters’ level students and their supervisors at accredited South African
institutions, who acted as partners to the research project as well as one post-doctoral fellow. The appointed students
and supervisors, were as follows:

Beef production: Ayanda Saki supervised by Dr Willem Hoffmann with support from Prof. James Blignaut and Dr
Doug Crookes.

Citrus production: Nyasha Kamsasa supervised by Dr Emmanuel Mwakiwa with support from Dr Jaap Knot and
Prof. James Blignaut.

Value chain analysis: Wolfgang von Loeper supervised by Prof. Stephanie Midgley and Dr Scott Drimie.

Economic policy instruments: Shepherd Mudavanhu supervised by Prof. Nick Vink and Dr Scott Drimie with support
from Prof. James Blignaut.
The maize production component was researched by Dr Jaap Knot and Prof. James Blignaut and the system dynamics
modelling component by Dr. Doug Crookes (beef) and a post-doctoral student, Dr. Nono Nkambule (maize).
Close collaboration with industry existed as well, without which this project would not have succeeded. The participation,
contribution and active involvement of the industry partners are hereby gratefully acknowledged:

Maize: Grain South Africa represented by Dr Hendrik Smith

Beef: Red Meat Research South Africa represented by Prof. Hettie Schönfeldt and Dr Heinz Meissner

Citrus: Outsource represented by Mr Reinhardt Siegruhn
The project team was also very fortunate to have had the opportunity to actively engage with the Agricultural Research
Council, represented by Dr Aart-Jan Verschoor and Dr Moses Lubinga, and through them with a broad community of
people with respect to the development of the policy recommendations.
The participants of the two student colloquia and the two-day policy workshop, totaling more than 50 people, enriched
the project greatly.
Finally, the study also benefitted from the reviews done by Prof. Kennedy Dzama and Dr Heinz Meissner. We would like to
thank them for their efforts.
17
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
ABBREVIATIONS
AFOLU
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-use
APAP
Agricultural Policy Action Plan
AWHC
Available Water Holding Capacity
CA
Conservation Agriculture
CARA
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act
CRDP
Comprehensive Rural Development Programme
CT
Conservation Tillage
CV
Conventional Agriculture
DAFF
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
DEA
Department of Environmental Affairs
DRDLR
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization
GEA
Greening the Economy with Agriculture
GHG
Greenhouse Gases
GM
Genetically Modified
HEI
High External Inputs
IFSS
Integrated Food Security Strategy
INS
Integrated Nutrition Strategy
IPAP
Industrial Policy Action Plan
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
LEI
Low External Inputs
NDP
National Development Plan
NPV
Net Present Value
NT
No-Tillage
OCA
Organic Conservation Agriculture
PES
Payments for Ecosystem Services
R&D
Research and Development
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SAFS
Sustainable Agriculture and Food System
SES
Social-Ecological System
SOC
Soil Organic Carbon
SOM
Soil Organic Matter
18
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
1
INTRODUCTION
The National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ (DAFF) latest Strategic Plan (2013/14–2017/18) (DAFF 2013)
recognises that a fifth of households in South Africa is vulnerable to food insecurity. Echoing this to some extent, the South
Africa National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Shisana et al. 2014) established that 26% of the population is
food insecure and 28.3% is at risk of being food insecure. The reasons for food insecurity range from the inability of
individuals and households to produce adequate food to provide for themselves, to a lack of adequate income to access
sufficient food. Furthermore, produced or bought food is not always adequately nutritious and is sometimes even harmful
to people’s health. In response, DAFF recognises the role of smallholder farmers and cooperatives as well as agroprocessing businesses in addressing food security, job creation and economic development objectives. Specific policies
are earmarked to “…advance the shift to agro-ecological agriculture, supported by a national mechanisation
programme initiated in 2010/11, and extension recovery programme, the development of a comprehensive approach
to agro-ecological agriculture (Conservation Agriculture), a policy on labour-intensive commercial agriculture and a
strategy on urban agriculture” (DAFF 2013).
A transition to a green economy in South Africa is also underway, linked to several policies and plans, notably the National
Development Plan, the National Climate Change Response Policy and the Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP2). Integrated
sustainable agricultural production is recognised as one of nine focus areas for green economy programmes. At this stage
more research is needed on the parameters under which a green economy is feasible in several sectors, including the
agricultural sector. There is also a need to link agricultural science and policy more closely to ensure policy outcomes that
support sustainable natural resources management while improving the competitiveness of the sector and the wellbeing
of its participants.
A sustainable farming vision in support of a greener economy is a multifaceted research problem, as conceptualised in
three key areas of focus (ASSET Research 2013):

Food system (production, jobs, value chains, distribution, trade, consumption, waste)

Food security (access to food, food availability, stable food supply, use and quality of food, nutrition)

Institutional and policy context required for effective change towards a greener economy
To investigate these and other matters pertaining to sustainable agriculture in South Africa, ASSET Research (an NGO and
NPO) applied for research funding to the Green Fund, an initiative of the Development Bank of Southern Africa and the
Department of Environmental Affairs, in May 2013. A research grant amounting to R2.5million (VAT incl.) was awarded to
ASSET Research for the project, the starting date was April 2014 and the duration was 18 months.
This report is the final synthesis report of this contract and draws on several reports, presentations and policy briefs
produced by the ASSET Research team over the course of the project. Section 2 of this report presents a broader
background and context of the research work done. Section 3 outlines the objective and key research questions of the
project. Section 4 gives a synopsis of a literature review on sustainable agriculture. Section 5 outlines the general approach
and more specific research methodologies adopted in the study. Section 6 discusses the main challenges and constraints
encountered during the project Section 7 presents the key results and Section 8 concludes this report.
19
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
2
BACKROUND TO RESEARCH
The world will need between 70% and 100% more food by 2050 to feed 9 billion or more people with less land, water and
energy available, while having to cause much less degradation and pollution of natural support systems (Paoletti et al.
2011). In addition, agriculture will have to support further economic development, a situation which has been referred to
as the “Great Balancing Act” (Searchinger et al. 2013). Current farming practices already use approximately 70% of global
freshwater resources, 37% of total land area (excl. Antarctica), and is responsible for an estimated 24% of the world’s
greenhouse gases (Tubiello et al. 2014; IPCC 2014; Searchinger et al. 2013; UNEP 2011; IAASTD 2009). In South Africa arable
land and permanent pastures account for 10–12% of land and uses 63% of the country’s water resources (FAOSTAT 2013).
The land sub-sector within the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-use (AFOLU) sector is accountable for 8.5% of national
GHG emissions (this excludes the carbon sequestered by landscapes) (DEA 2013a). Also, there are many signs of
environmental degradation through land degradation (Botha & Fouche 2000; Oldeman 1992 as cited in Reeves 1997;
Bojo 1991) and soil erosion; over-extraction of water; loss in biodiversity, ecosystem functionality and –resilience; as well as
water pollution and increased vulnerability to climate change (IAASTD 2009).
South Africa has a debilitating water deficit with no surplus water available for future development (WWF 2010; Van der
Merwe 2008 as quoted in Smith et al. 2010; Beukes 2003). The country is water-stressed, allowing 1 034m3 renewable fresh
water per person, and is expected to become a water-scarce country with below 1 000m3 per person within 15 years
(Smith et al. 2010). The agricultural sector is one of the main water users in South Africa. It is therefore of utmost importance
to identify and promote production systems with a high water-use efficiency.
Globally, current farming practices are also related to 3–5 million cases of pesticide poisoning and over 40 000 deaths per
year (UNEP 2011). South Africa is one of the largest importers of pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa (Quinn et al. 2011), which
poses local health and environmental risks (Thiere & Shultz 2004; London 2003). FAO data (FAOSTAT 2014) shows that in
2012, South Africa imported pesticides to the value of approximately US$341 million, which represented 95% of all pesticide
imports into southern Africa and an increase of 206% from 1997. With the intensification of agricultural production,
particularly the strong growth in horticultural production (i.e. fruit, potatoes) and field crops such as soybean, has come
an increase in the use of pesticides.
Another shortfall of current food systems is that it does not provide adequate food security and nutrition to the global
population. FAO (2013) estimated that approximately 870 million people globally are under-nourished (in terms of calories
and proteins), of which close to 100 million people are in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) alone.
According to this estimation there are not a large number of under-nourished people in South Africa (De Wit & Midgley
2012). But, when other forms of nutritional deficiencies are included (e.g. vitamins and minerals), up to 3.7 billion people
worldwide can be considered malnourished (Gomiero et al. 2011). In South Africa, at a household and individual level,
the prevalence of food insecurity has decreased substantially since the mid-1990s, but an estimated 25% of South Africans
are still food insecure (Labadarios et al. 2011). It is further estimated that 30–40% of food produced in the field is wasted
throughout the food system (Gomiero et al. 2011), with South Africa being no exception (Oelofse & Nahmann 2012).
The agricultural sector plays an important role in providing livelihoods (i.e. an employment and economic base for
households) worldwide. On the whole, this sector provides livelihoods for 40% of the world’s population (20% in South
Africa). Over 70% of the poor live in rural areas and these people are directly dependent on agriculture as 90% of all farms
worldwide have a size of less than 2ha (IAASTD 2011). By contrast, the average farm size in South Africa in 2007 was
approximately 1 400ha (Ramaila et al. 2011). However, the agricultural sector is associated with a rapid decline in
employment and a loss of income to workers with no clarity on whether it has played any role in the reduction of poverty
in the country since 1995 (Bhorat et al. 2011).
From the study’s inception it was therefore stated that it should be self-evident that the prevailing business-as-usual option
for agriculture is unsustainable (Blignaut et al. 2014a). More people are consuming more food with fewer resources,
producing more waste at an increasing impact on the ecosystems of the world. Sustainable agriculture has been
proposed as an alternative to conventional farming systems (Pretty 2014; WRI 2014; FAO 2013; Middelberg 2013; Gomiero
et al. 2011; UNEP 2011; NRC 2010; IAASTD 2009; Du Toit 2007; Bruinsma 2003), including the redesign of the global food
system to achieve better food security and nutrition (FAO 2013). Sustainable agriculture, as presented in a synthesis by the
IAASTD, an independent assessment by a group of 400 agricultural scientists and experts, is described as:
“…a move away from short-term profit maximization towards ecologically sound farming that strives not
for the highest possible, but for the highest sustainable yields, conserves soil and water, and enables
smallholders in the global South to find a way out of poverty” (Swissaid, 2012).
Whether African agriculture needs to primarily focus on smallholders is still a matter of debate, although alterative, labourintensive smallholder sustainable agriculture is gaining much ground (Fanadzo 2012; Tshuma 2012; De Janvry 2010). The
20
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
conditions under which a transition towards a more sustainable agriculture and food system would be successful is now
a matter of intense debate and of utmost importance to South African agricultural and food policy in the immediate
future.
Recognising that such a transition impacts on and will be impacted upon by broader global responses to natural resource
and environmental constraints and the innovations such may bring, an explicit link has been made between sustainable
agriculture and the broader transition towards a green economy (FAO 2012; UNEP 2011). The FAO’s Greening the
Economy with Agriculture (GEA) initiative focuses on improving food and nutritional security, contributing to the quality of
rural livelihoods, maintaining healthy ecosystems, respecting natural resource constraints in food production, and
improving equity throughout the food supply chain. The central idea is to enhance agricultural productivity by managing
the natural resource base in a more sustainable way, for example by diversifying crop rotations, using organic soil nutrients,
reducing soil erosion and improving water-use efficiencies, making increased use of biological regulation functions (Ten
Brink et al. 2012; UNEP 2011). Other studies present concepts of socio-economic improvement as a direct result of
sustainable agriculture such as the creation of green jobs, achieving synergies between poverty alleviation and the green
economy, the possibility of the green economy being an engine for development, and growing export markets for green
and sustainable food (UNEP 2013; Maia et al. 2011; UNEP/ILO 2008). In the aftermath of the financial and debt crises
around the globe and an increased realisation of the intensity of ecological crises, economic growth and development
models are clearly under scrutiny again.
Would sustainable agriculture as an alternative work in a South African context? To start answering this question, the next
steps therefore were to do a comprehensive review of the literature on sustainable agriculture with a focus on South
African developments, to empirically test the viability of emerging, alternative forms of sustainable agriculture as central
components of the South African green economy, and to identify areas that would deserve dedicated policy
intervention.
21
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
3
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The overall objective of this research project was as follows:
“to translate the emerging knowledge on sustainable farming systems and food security in South Africa
into viable larger-scale options in support of a greener, lower carbon economy that continues to create
jobs and improve human wellbeing” (ASSET Research 2013).
The questions that were identified to guide the research are as follows (ASSET Research 2013):

How does the current road of industrial modernisation of agricultural production compare against more
sustainable and low‐carbon alternatives for South Africa on a micro- and macro level?

What is the potential of creating ‘greener’ jobs in sustainable farming for smallholders?

What are the main deficiencies in agricultural value chains and what are the implications for sustainable farming
options?

How can the food system be better focused on achieving food and nutritional security goals on a household
level, with recognition of gender and age disparities?

What are the options for addressing the problem of excessive food waste?

What institutions, policies and policy instruments are needed for a more sustainable low-carbon food system and
better food security?
Before the final study approach and methodology were formulated a comprehensive literature review was conducted,
the focus of the next section.
22
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
What is sustainable agriculture?
The main emphasis in sustainable agriculture is on fostering synergies between agricultural production, conservation and
rural livelihoods. Several definitions have been attempted, all expressing a desire to integrate environmental health,
economic profitability as well as socio-economic equity. For the purposes of this project we used categories developed
in the literature on sustainable agriculture and start with the term Conservation Agriculture (CA), a term that has historically
developed in regards to field crops. Conservation Agriculture refers to a farming system where three principles – minimum
disturbance of the soil, year round soil cover and sound crop rotations including legumes – are applied simultaneously
(Dumanski et al. 2006; Fowler 2004). The focus of CA is on producing good crops with healthy soils (Dumanski et al. 2006).
CA encourages plant diversity, increased biological regulation functions (Djical et al. 2012), and risk minimisation. Cover
crops, grown to protect and improve the soil quality, have been identified as probably being the main reason for the
worldwide success of CA (Moyer 2011; Derpsch et al. 2010; Uchino et al. 2009; Steiner et al. 2001). CA is not a standard
model that can be applied everywhere. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) concluded that CA should be tailored to the
specific area in which it is applied. It is ecotype specific, context dependent, seasonally variable, and a constant tradeoff of simultaneously balancing adherence to various divergent sustainability objectives.
CA can be conceptualised as a stepwise and gradual process including production stages like No-Till (NT) or CA with high
external inputs (HEI) and CA with low external inputs (LEI) (Knot 2014; Davis et al. 2012; Bilalis et al. 2011; Neto et al. 2010;
Dumanski et al. 2006; Kelly et al. 1996; Zentner et al. 1992). The most sustainable form of an agriculture production system
is portrayed as Organic Conservation Agriculture (OCA) (Tuck et al. 2014). While CA refers to a farming system where the
three principles mentioned above are applied simultaneously, OCA is based on these three CA-principles and enhanced
with management systems and approaches (Figure 1).
Sustainable Agriculture
Agriculture is at the nexus of three of the greatest challenges of the 21st century – achieving food security, adapting to
climate change, and mitigating climate change while critical resources such as water, energy and land become
increasingly scarce.
Sustainable agriculture simultaneously increases production and income, adapts to climate change and reduces GHG
emissions, while balancing crop, livestock, fisheries and agroforestry systems, increasing resource use efficiency (including
land and water), protecting the environment and maintaining ecosystem services. The goal for sustainable food
production systems is to maximize productivity of both land and seascapes within humanity’s ‘safe operating space’ for
the planet – ‘safe’ from the perspective of achieving food security within the planet’s safe environmental boundaries.
Contexts will vary in different geographic regions and locations. Improvements to agricultural production systems should
allow more productive and resilient livelihoods and ecosystems, and allowing poor rural people to escape from and
remain out of poverty. Sustainable agriculture lies at the heart of delivering poverty reduction.
Source: Beddington et al. (2012)
23
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
1
Convent
ional
tillage
2
Minimu
m or
reduced
tillage
Type of farming system
Stage
Level of
sustainabilit
y
Figure 1
Not
sustaina
ble
3
Conventio
nal No
tillage
4
Conventio
nal Zero
tillage
(Direct
seeding
equipmen
t using
tines).
Productio
n system
lacks
adequate
soil cover
and
sound
crop
rotations.
(Direct
seeding
equipmen
t using
discs).
Productio
n system
lacks
adequate
soil cover
and
sound
crop
rotations.
5
CAHEI
6
CALEI
7
Organic CA
(NT or ZT
using high
quantities
of
external
artificial
inputs (i.e.
fertiliser,
herbicides
,
pesticides
).
Productio
n system
has
adequate
soil cover
and
sound
crop
rotations.
(NT or ZT
using low
quantities
of
external
artificial
inputs (i.e.
fertiliser,
herbicides
,
pesticides
).
Productio
n system
has
adequate
soil cover
and
sound
crop
rotations.
(ZT using no
external
artificial
inputs (i.e.
fertiliser,
herbicides,
pesticides).
Production
system has
adequate
soil cover
and sound
crop
rotations.
Increased
sustainabilit
y
Schematic conceptual overview of farming systems towards sustainable agriculture
Source: Based on Knot (2014)
However, organic agriculture is characterised by decreased yields (Tuck et al. 2014) and higher prices compared to
conventional agriculture, raising valid questions pertaining to a strategy singularly focused on OCA to achieve food
security objectives. Instead, a gradual process from conventional ways of farming to alternatives gives a better
understanding and highlights the plurality of alternatives to both conventional and organic CA (see Figure 2).
Conservation tillage (CT) leaves at least 30% of crop residue on the soil surface. Minimum or reduced tillage refers to the
minimum amount of soil disturbance which can be achieved using the equipment available to the farmer. No-Till (NT) is
defined as disturbing the soil as little as possible – only up to 25% – by using tine planters or a combination of tine and disc
planters. The main differentiating factors in defining and comparing alternative farming systems over its various stages are
the quantity of external inputs used, the type of tillage technology used, the amount of soil cover left and the frequency
of using multiple crops (see Figure 2).
24
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Tillage
Soil Cover
Multi-cropping
No primary and/or
secondary cultivation
allowed
Full vegetative
cover
Usually
Allows only secondary
cultivation (e.g.
chisels, disks,
cultivators, sweeps)
Moderate
vegetative cover
(at least 30%)
Usually
Primary and
secondary cultivation
allowed (especially
the mouldboard
plough)
Little or no
vegetative cover
Sometimes
Conservation tillage
Conservation agriculture
Zero-tillage
No-tillage
Minimum tillage
Reduced tillage
Conventional tillage
Figure 2
Schematic presentation differentiating between Conservation Agriculture, Conservation Tillage and
conventional tillage
Source: Du Toit (2007)
How far has South Africa progressed already?
The next question addressed is how far South Africa has already progressed towards a more sustainable agriculture.
Concerning field crops, approximately 70% of South Africa’s cereals and 90% of its commercially grown maize is mainly
rain-fed on the Highveld. However, both water scarcity and soil degradation are pressing issues. Commercial farmers,
producing 95% of South Africa’s food, are heavily dependent on fertilizers to maintain yield levels. This results in roughly
60% of the cropland area in South Africa being moderately to severely acidic in the topsoil, while 15% of the cropland
area is affected by subsoil acidity. Cover crop trials have been conducted in the eastern Free State with good results in
water-use efficiencies and suppressing weeds. Further, one of the main causes of land degradation is intensive tillage
used during land preparation, planting, and weed and pest control. Commercial farmers in South Africa have already
started reducing tillage on their farms. Conservation tillage (CT) and No-Tillage (NT) are gaining more acceptance in
South Africa. An estimated 35% and 9% of total hectares in South Africa was under CT and NT, respectively, in 2004 (Table
1).
25
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Table 1
Estimated ha under CT and NT practices – SA (2003/2004)
Hectares
Conservatio
n Tillage:
Provincial
Percentage
Provincial
Hectares
National
Percentage
No-Tillage:
Provincial
Percentage
Provincial
Hectares
National
Percentage
Total
Wester
n
Cape
Easter
n
Cape
Limpop
o
Norther
n Cape
KwaZulu
- Natal
Gauten
g
Free
State
Mpuma
langa
North
West
4,402,25
5
452,11
0
22,925
85,600
110,450
101,350
133,500
1,590,90
0
694,650
1,210,77
0
40.7%
19.3%
19.9%
19.6%
44.1%
24.6%
39.2%
29.1%
32.4%
184,00
9
12.1%
4,425
17,034
21,648
44,695
32,841
623,633
202,143
392,289
0.3%
1.1%
1.4%
2.9%
2.2%
41.0%
13.3%
25.8%
18.1
3.4
5
5.3
17.9
7.4
7.4
10.9
5.2
377,169
81,832
779
4,280
5,854
18,142
9,879
117,727
75,717
62,960
8.6%
21.7%
0.2%
1.1%
1.6%
4.8%
2.6%
31.2%
20.1%
16.7%
1,522,71
8
34.6%
Source: Hittersay (2004, as cited in Fowler 2004)
Figure 3 further shows the distribution of CA adoption among grain producers.
Figure 3
Distribution of CA adoption among grain producers (circa 2014/5)
Source: Personal communication: Sybrand Engelbrecht, Maize Trust (2015)
26
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
The horticulture sub-sector plays a significant role in the agricultural economy due to a strong export focus and its labourabsorbing ability. In 2010/2011 the citrus industry contributed R6.9 billion to the total gross value of South Africa’s
agricultural production, representing 19% of the total gross value of horticulture. Farming systems are predominantly
conventional, relying on intensive management and inputs of agro-chemicals (although mostly with Integrated Pest
Management). This has been justified both from a profitability point of view and because of the strict phytosanitary
requirements of export markets. Efforts to reduce chemical inputs and increase efficiencies of inputs have been driven by
demands of the export market and input price concerns (mainly related to market access and profitability), rather than
ecological health concerns.
Commercial production of fruit crops is very water-intensive and almost entirely under irrigation. Water resources in many
of South Africa’s core horticultural production areas are coming under increasing pressure from other major users. Figure
4 shows that horticultural crops consume considerable volumes of water in South Africa. Citrus production alone depends
on approximately 500 million m3 of irrigation (blue) water per annum, much of it in Limpopo and the Western Cape where
water resources are already constrained. Promotion and adoption of practices to increase water-use efficiency and
promote better use of scarce water resources are needed to achieve greater sustainability.
Figure 4
Water footprint (in m3 per annum) of the South African horticultural sector
Source: Baleta and Pegram (2014)
Note: ‘Green’ water refers to water use from rainfall and ‘blue’ water refers to irrigation water.
Much of the deciduous horticultural production of the Western Cape takes place in soils of poor fertility, and regular
fertilisation is standard practice in order to achieve consistently high yield and quality. Other inputs include herbicides,
pesticides, fungicides and rest-breaking agents (for apples). Intensive industrialised agriculture, together with other drivers,
has contributed to the deterioration of water quality in certain catchments. Precision agriculture has been adopted by
some fruit and wine producers in an effort to increase efficiencies of inputs such as fertilisers and irrigation, and to optimise
crop growth and product quality. The debate concerning “soil health” and biological approaches to soil management
has been ongoing in the fruit industries for many years, with conflicting or inconclusive research results, and little
agreement on what this is and how to achieve it. The soil component of sustainable farming (cover, soil biodiversity, etc.)
cannot be regarded as satisfactory within the mainstream horticultural sector. Soil and water resources are still impacted
negatively by intensive horticulture and further interventions are required towards a more sustainable system. There are
several barriers towards adopting more sustainable practices in horticulture, including costs, the difficulty in isolating
organic from intensive farms, small and slowing demand for organic products, and unstable land tenure systems.
Livestock is the largest agricultural sub-sector in South Africa, contributing approximately 25–30% of the total agricultural
output per annum. The area involved in cattle, sheep and goat farming in South Africa represents 53% of all agricultural
land. Rainfall is a major driver of national herd size, notably cattle. However, there are also concerns of the effects of
overgrazing on soil characteristics, as well as bush encroachment and the available palatable grass species. In all cases,
beef production is by far the most water-intensive food using a global average of 15 400m3/ton produced (Mekonnen &
Hoekstra 2010), with some notable variation between countries and production systems. There are approximately 14
million cattle in the country (80% of which are beef and 20% dairy), as well as 24 million sheep, 6 million goats and 1.6
million pigs. South Africa’s beef production and consumption is illustrated in Figure 5. An important observation is the
growing trend in beef production and consumption since 2000.
27
1200
30
1000
25
800
20
600
15
400
10
200
5
0
0
kg
1000 tons
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Year
Imports
Figure 5
Total production RSA origin 1 000 t
Consumption of meat
Per capita kg
Consumption and production of beef in South Africa
Source: DAFF (2015)
Feedlots are used to fatten animals quickly and now account for 75% of all beef production in South Africa. Feedlot cattle
show higher profits than conventional or organic pasture cattle (Esterhuizen et al. 2008), but issues around animal welfare
and the use of penicillin, vaccinations and growth hormones have been raised (WWF 2010; Pickover 2005:150). Cattle
productivity in the smallholder sector is declining due to the prevalence of diseases and parasites, a lack of feed
resources, and poor breeding and marketing management. Cattle under commercial systems still spend considerable
time outside of feedlots and are either directly or indirectly grass-fed. The impacts of the extensive grazing system of South
African producers are most evident in the communal rangelands of Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape (WWF
2010a). Approximately 60% of South Africa’s soil is classified as having less than 0.5% soil organic matter (Du Preez et al.
2011). Sustainability regarding beef or cattle production includes the same elements as the other systems: striving to have
a lower carbon footprint, reducing GHGs, increasing water-use efficiency, improving the soil and grazing, integrating pest
management, and improving the profitability in the sector. There were a number of certified organic cattle farmers in
2002–2004 but due to various difficulties, certified organic beef production is no longer a feature of the South African
organic industry. A new Grassfed Association of South Africa has been established recently.
Towards a sustainable agriculture food system
As the achievement of multiple objectives is an important feature of sustainable agriculture, a systems approach to
farming is required, relying on knowledge-based development of whole farms and communities to address the myriad of
socio-economic, ecological and political challenges in sustainable agriculture. For the purposes of this project, a
Sustainable Agriculture and Food System (SAFS) was conceptualised that include farming, food security and agroecological sub-systems. The scope, therefore, is broadened to the entire Sustainable Agricultural Food System (SAFS),
reviewing food consumption and distribution across the value chains, the quality of the system in relation to resource use,
environmental impact, employment and human dignity, and the issue of food security and nutrition. The focus of the next
sections thus moves beyond a discussion and measurement of individual components only to a qualitative discussion on
the interrelationships between the components of a Sustainable Agricultural Food System (SAFS). The purpose of this
discussion is to describe interrelationships between components to assist with the development of a system dynamics
model for the South African agricultural food system, which will in turn support decision-making towards more sustainable
agriculture.
28
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Value chain analysis
Agriculture has some of the strongest backward, forward and employment multipliers in the economy, and the agroindustrial sector contributes approximately 12% of GDP (DAFF/IGDP 2012). For dryland maize, beef cattle and citrus (the
sectors that were considered in this study) the following are considerations to achieve sustainability:

The intensity of resource use, especially water and energy:
o
in the production, milling and transport of maize
o
in the manufacture of feed, livestock rearing, and in abattoirs and other forms of processing for beef
o
in the production, packaging and processing of citrus

The management of waste

The use of chemicals:


o
especially pesticides and fungicides in various parts of the value chain for maize
o
for health management and processing in livestock production
o
in production, packaging and processing to meet the local and international requirements for allowable
residue levels for citrus
Reducing carbon footprints especially linked to on-farm fuel, electricity and fertiliser use:
o
for maize, most of the energy used (and thus the carbon footprint) is linked to the production of fertiliser
and on-farm practices
o
for beef it is mainly linked to feed production in the value chain; however, imported meat would have a
higher footprint owing to the carbon emissions associated with long-distance shipping of chilled/frozen
product
o
for citrus it is mainly linked to on-farm use of electricity for irrigation pumping, synthetic nitrogen fertilisers,
and diesel; the use of virgin packaging material, electricity for cooling, and the transport component,
especially for exported fruit
The level of real free market opportunities:
o
as opposed to high concentration and monopolies in parts of the secondary and tertiary value chain for
maize
o
as opposed to high concentration and monopolies in parts of the secondary and tertiary value chain,
especially a high degree of vertical integration for beef
o
as opposed to the increasing degree of vertical integration especially by the dominant local and foreign
retailers which can lead to monopolies and barriers to entry for citrus

The potential impact of the emerging biofuels industry should maize eventually be allowed as a feedstock

The use of genetically modified (GM)-containing feeds in livestock rearing and an inability on the part of the
consumer to ascertain which products contain GM maize to make a personal informed choice

Uncertainty around the safety of GM maize and an inability on the part of the consumer to ascertain which
products contain GM maize to make a personal informed choice

Opportunities within the value chain for sustainably-produced maize, beef and citrus to be processed, marketed
and promoted in a differentiated manner:
o
for example, specifically organic beef has not been able to gain market entry
The following are additional considerations to achieve sustainability in the citrus value chain:

Maintenance and investment in supporting infrastructure such as roads, port handling facilities and electricity
supply

The high administrative burden and cost of certification of sustainably produced citrus (i.e. organic citrus)
29
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
A specific issue that deserves further attention in value chains is to link emerging and smallholder farmers to agri-food
supply chains for sustainable production systems. Smallholder and emerging farmers require linkages with the input and
output markets in the same manner as commercial farmers. The outcomes to date have not been encouraging owing to
a multitude of barriers. While vertical integration and its economic benefits have become entrenched in the commercial
sector, emerging and smallholder farmers rarely have the resources to achieve this even when combined into a group of
small producers. The success of CA depends on the quality of extension and research services provided. If emerging and
smallholder CA in a specific province are to succeed so that CA can be scaled up across the country, technologies for
CA suited to their particular conditions and budgets will have to find greater support from research, extension and input
suppliers, as well as some policy adjustments.
How does income and prices transmit through value chains? Indications are that retailers respond more quickly to shocks
that stretch their market margins rather than to those that squeeze it, a situation attributed to the anti-competitive nature
of the food market chain. Parts of the maize supply chain (milldoor to retailer) and the beef supply chain, suffer from such
asymmetric price transmissions, but the maize supply chain (farm gate to miller) does not show these characteristics. South
African producers already deal with a significant cost-price squeeze caused by a disproportionate increase in the costs
of production as compared to producer prices, and research on CA in the Western Cape has clearly shown to producers
the financial benefits of changing from conventional to CA production systems in certain cases.
By and large, the mainstream commercial agri-food value chains are not well-positioned to serve the needs of sustainable
agricultural production systems and alternative value chains have been proposed (INR 2008). Since retail supermarket
chains in South Africa do not provide easy entry for organic produce owing to difficult demands for volumes and
consistent quality, outlets such as farmers’ markets and other direct marketing avenues provide alternatives. Price
premiums are, however, not guaranteed. This has led to the situation where most of the organic produce grown in South
Africa is exported to lucrative markets overseas (Barrow 2006). Ultimately, CA/OCA must gain acceptance across the
value chain and be demanded by informed South African value chain actors and consumers if it is to succeed and scale
up as a dominant paradigm.
Quality of the food system
The focus now changes to the quality of the food system, including a focus on the quality of the food delivered, the
demands of the system on natural resources, the loading of pollution and waste back into the environment and aspects
of food security. The quality of food can be assessed variously as the overall quality of the diet (nutrition), the safety of the
food consumed (in terms of risk to cause illness or even death), and the quality of a specific food type grown under
different production systems. A recent analysis on the relationship between under-nourishment across SADC and various
food system indicators, found the following (De Wit & Midgley 2012):
1.
A generally insufficient intake of carbohydrate and protein, but proportionally too much carbohydrate.
2.
Mostly an insufficient intake of essential micronutrients.
3.
A strong relationship between an increase in under-nourishment and a decrease in the consumption of fruits
and starchy roots.
In South Africa, sufficient food, including fresh fruit and vegetables, is almost always available, but still a high number of
South Africans suffer from poor nutrition. Even in urban areas where food supply chains exist and fruit and vegetables are
usually liberally available, a high proportion of people either cannot afford or choose not to buy these foods, a situation
that impacts on children as the most vulnerable group (Midgley & De Wit 2013; Naudé 2007).
Food safety
Food safety is further a primary concern for the agro-food industry. The food sector is subject to stringent legislation and
regulation aimed at ensuring that food reaching the consumers is not harmful to their health (DAFF 2012). Despite these
measures there exist a number of risks to food safety which appears to be increasing. Contaminated South African river
water that is used for irrigation purposes shows high concentrations of faecal indicators and numerous other pathogens
which can cause severe illnesses in humans (Britz & Sigge 2012). The potential impacts on agriculture can be harsh,
particularly for fresh produce aimed at the export market. Furthermore, not only are river systems (and groundwater in
some cases) negatively affected by some industrial agricultural practices, but soils can also become contaminated with
heavy metals and other toxins owing to long-term use of toxic agro-chemicals. These then make their way into the food
system.
30
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Natural resource use and environmental impact
Agriculture uses natural resources and impacts upon the environment with pollution and waste. In South Africa, agriculture
uses 63% of freshwater and occupies 79% of total land area (Statistics South Africa 2005). Nutrient levels exceed
recommended water quality guidelines for plant life in all but one of South Africa’s 20 largest river catchments (De Villiers
& Thiart 2007). Many studies have highlighted the occurrence of pesticides in water resources as well as its possible effects
on food safety and public health (Dabrowski et al. 2013). The agricultural sector contributes 8–9% of the country’s total
net greenhouse gas emissions with ruminants contributing 5% (DEA 2013a).
Food security
Recent definitions of food security include concepts of food availability, access to food, use of food, and the stability of
the food system. South Africa is considered nationally food secure in terms of food availability ¬– at a national level there
is enough food available for the entire population (BFAP 2013; Hendriks 2013). Overall production levels and food supply
have kept pace with population growth and even exceeded it. Household food production is making a small contribution
to providing for the needs of individual households, but this is variable across the country. South African cities have
unusually low rates of household food production though (Crush et al. 2010). Taking a longer-term view, the current ability
of South Africa’s farmers to continue meeting the increasing demand for food is expected to be tested by the emerging
impacts of climate variability and climate change on production (DEA 2013b; Ziervogel & Ericksen 2010). The trend
towards greater consumption of wheat, fuelled by the preferences of the growing middle class, could see the country
moving into a situation of production deficit and net import of grains (HLPE 2012).
Food security in South Africa is further largely about direct or indirect access to cash to purchase food (Chopra et al.
2009). South African basic food prices increased steadily across a broad spectrum of a food basket. This is particularly
important when looking at the urban context, where purchasing food is the dominant means of accessing food. The
country is further experiencing a nutrition transition due to a changing use of food, in which under-nutrition notably stunting
and micronutrient deficiencies, co-exist with a rising incidence of overweight and obesity and the associated
consequences such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Schönfeldt 2013; Reddy et al. 2010; DoH 2003).
Rates of childhood stunting (18% of children under 6 years) are comparable to low-income countries in the region (NFCSFB-I 2008), indicating a chronic or severe deficiency in essential nutrients/micronutrients during the growing years – a
significant concern in South Africa. Eleven of the 17 most common risk factors for deaths are directly or indirectly related
to nutrition (Norman et al. 2007). A general decrease in the experiences of hunger by households is observed (Labadarios
et al. 2011; Aliber 2009), but rates of stunting, micronutrient deficiencies, and hunger and food insecurity continue to be
unacceptably high. One explanation is a growing dependence on market purchases for procuring food in South Africa
(Baipheti & Jacobs 2009). The location of supermarkets in Cape Town illustrates the highly unequal structure of the urban
food system that limits the urban poor from accessing healthy foods (Battersby & Peyton 2014). In contrast, urban farming
may contribute to household income and food security (Thornton 2008).
So far, an overview was given of the main aspects that characterise the South African farming, food and nutrition system.
The question that has not been addressed yet is whether the great balancing act of feeding more people in a more
sustainable way can in fact be achieved through alternative sustainable farming systems. Therefore, the next step is to
provide a brief overview of the main results worldwide, and more specifically South(ern) Africa, on comparisons between
conventional and alternative agricultural and food systems.
Comparing conventional and sustainable agriculture and food
systems
Drawing on several meta-analyses worldwide, a few key observations can be made (Blignaut et al. 2014b):

Increased economic benefits are not directly associated with organic farming, conservation agriculture, or NT
technologies (Pannella et al. 2013; Uematsu & Mishra 2012).

Yields are typically lower for organic farming systems, but much variation occurs (De Ponti et al. 2012; Seufert et
al. 2014).
31
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

Positive impacts of alternative farming systems on environmental indicators are most notable for soil organic
matter (SOM) and biodiversity indicators (Tuck et al. 2014; Tuamisto et al. 2012; Mondelaers et al. 2009; Bengtsson
et al. 2005).

Apart from SOM and biodiversity gains, the only environmental impacts that differ significantly between organic
and conventional farming systems (in Europe) are nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions per unit of field area,
energy use and land use (Tuamisto et al. 2012; Mondelaers et al. 2009; Tonnito 2006).

Organic production may offer significant GHG reduction opportunities by increasing the soil organic carbon
stocks (Venkat 2012; Küstermann et al. 2008)

Results are divided on the differences in nutritional quality of organically- or conventionally-produced food (Lairon
& Huber 2014; Jensen et al. 2013; Smith-Spangler et al. 2012; Brandt et al. 2011; Dangour et al. 2009), but the most
recent and most rigorous statistical review conducted to date on the subject (Barański et al. 2014) found that
organic crops/crop-based foods, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants such as polyphenolics,
lower concentrations of the toxic metal cadmium (Cd), and a four times lower incidence of pesticide residues
than the non-organic comparators across regions and production seasons.
The benefits of applying CA to South(ern) African farming systems has been pointed out in various field-level studies (Knot
2014; Thierfelder et al. 2013; Thierfelder et al. 2012; Rusinamhodzi et al. 2011; Du Toit 2007), but the uptake of CA in subSaharan Africa is very slow. Constraints to adoption include competing uses for crop residues, increased demand for
labour for weeding, and lack of access to needed external inputs (Giller et al. 2009). A key challenge for CA in small-scale
(southern) African farming systems is to gather empirical information on all aspects of CA across various scales and regions
and to devise strategies to mainstream and upscale the approach (FAO 2009). No empirical studies were found that
measured the different outcomes of conventional and alternative horticulture production systems in South Africa, but
several studies do report on natural resource and environmental indicators (Kehinde & Samways 2012; Goble et al. 2010).
For beef, not many empirical comparative studies on alternative beef production systems were found in South Africa
either, but one study did find that feedlot cattle showed a higher profit than conventional and organic pasture groups,
mainly due to faster and more efficient growth (Esterhuizen et al. 2008). Other studies indicate that organic beef
production had lower ecological and carbon footprints relative to conventional beef production (Vintila 2011:36) (see
Figure 6).
Figure 6
CO2 emissions (tCO2/t) and Ecological Footprint (EF) (gha/t) for farm meats
Source: Vintila (2011)
Comparative studies between conventional and alternative systems have been and can be done, but are not conclusive
on a general level and, therefore, need to be sensitive to various issues, such as the technologies used, site-specific
conditions, expression of environmental impacts per area and per product, type of environmental impacts measured,
the need to include indicators for nutritional quality, the need for context-specific economic analysis, and the need for a
systems perspective beyond field-level comparisons.
32
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Institutional and policy context
The next question is how change can be affected towards the desired outcome of sustainable farming systems, shifting
focus to what is required from an institutional and governance perspective in achieving more sustainable agriculture and
food systems.
South Africa is characterised by a dual agricultural economy, with highly-concentrated food production by contract
farmers for agri-processing companies focused on modern urban markets as well as extensive smallholder farmers (Sautier
et al. 2006). Institutional arrangements in the South African agricultural sector are generally characterised by weak
governance and governance structures, resulting in poor and fragmented implementation of existing programmes
(DAFF/IGDP 2012). The South African government has struggled for over two decades to adequately define the right to
food and to develop a comprehensive legal and policy response to the issue. Policies dealing with the right to food,
loosely arranged to address the elements of food security, have remained in silos and sometimes in contradiction to each
other.
In terms of food availability, the various policies around agriculture are important to understand. Since 1994, policies in
agriculture have had three main focus areas in common, namely improving competiveness of commercial agriculture in
a free market dispensation, improving participation by the disadvantaged communities, and protecting the natural
resource base. A further challenge is that while South Africa may be food secure as a country, large numbers of
households within the country remain food insecure.
The most recent Strategic Plan for DAFF (2012/2013 to 2016/2017) is aimed at providing an effective framework to address
the challenges facing agricultural sectors and to set the delivery targets for the departmental programmes from 2012 to
2017 (DAFF 2013). The most recent policy directive to emerge from DAFF is the Agricultural Policy Action Plan (APAP),
seeking to provide a long-term vision of the agricultural sector and more focused interventions in five-year rolling cycles.
The NDP identifies agriculture as a primary economic activity in rural areas with the potential to create one million new
jobs by 2030. The plan also proposes a number of approaches to land reform and its financing.
The Integrated Food Security Strategy (IFSS), endorsed by the South African Cabinet in 2002 after years of drafting,
arguably failed due to an over-emphasis on agriculture (food availability) and inadequate institutional arrangements to
align and coordinate related activities and programmes of government (Drimie & Ruysenaar 2010). The new Food Security
and Nutrition Policy for South Africa aims to serve as a key pillar to achieving the objectives of the National Development
Plan. An initial reading of it, however, reveals very little that is different to the IFSS, and it is not clear in terms of how it will
address the challenges that have beset previous attempts at tackling food insecurity. The country’s Integrated Nutrition
Strategy (INS) has three components: 1) a health facility-based component, 2) a community-based component and 3)
a nutrition promotion component.
Policy implementation challenges
Existing policies and interventions that aim to alleviate food insecurity have been fragmented and are generally narrowly
linked to the work of specific departments. These include agricultural credit and production programmes by DAFF, the
National School Nutrition Programme by the Department of Basic Education, the Integrated Nutrition Programme by the
Health Department, and the Department of Social Development’s “food for all” programme and “Zero Hunger”
campaign. The challenge of addressing food insecurity and hunger in South Africa is widely recognised as inherently
complex and the department largely responsible (i.e. DAFF) is poorly equipped, both administratively and conceptually,
to deal with the interlinked priorities of poverty and hunger. One of the major reasons South Africa falls short of addressing
food insecurity in a comprehensive manner is, in part, because food insecurity is not a technical issue that can be
addressed by programmes run by existing departments. It requires a more co-ordinated approach that has both political
will and resourcing, including elements of immediate and direct relief, and structural and institutional change that
addresses distribution problems in the food system. The biggest problem with the implementation of current agricultural
and food policies is the total absence of any coordination mechanism and the duplication of efforts and programmes.
South Africa needs better coordinated and planned food security and nutrition interventions. Advocacy to raise the policy
profile and social consensus for nutrition is essential. A collective vision to implement nutrition and health outcomes in
agriculture is required, as identified in the NDP, Vision 2030.
33
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Policy instruments
The main institutional and policy changes that have been implemented since 1994 in South Africa include the closure of
marketing boards and the agricultural credit board, the abolition of certain tax concessions and a reduction in direct
input subsidies, the introduction of new labour legislation and the start of a land reform process, as well as research and
development (R&D) services to emerging farmers (OECD 2006). Trade tariffs have generally been reduced, and no export
subsidies are applied, with the notable exception of the sugar industry. The agricultural sector is further excluded from
carbon tax for the first 5 years of the programme (National Treasury 2013).
34
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
5
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH PROJECT DESIGN
This literature review suggested areas in need of further study, made recommendations on an appropriate modelling
framework to inform questions on the form sustainable agriculture could take in the country, and outlined policy processes
and interventions needed to steer towards sustainable agriculture in support of green economic development (see
Blignaut et al. 2014b). These recommendations were integrated into the general study approach and in the specific
analytical research projects that were defined as part of this study.
Firstly, one necessary next step that was identified was to perform a comparative analysis between conventional and
alternative systems, preferably based on empirical results from field trials around the country as well as the best available
understanding of the current agricultural and food system in the country. However, actual longer-term datasets were not
yet available, and long-term field trials not established yet, increasing the research team’s reliance on modelling and
simulation approaches. A system dynamics model captured the dynamic interrelationship between system components
and provided the means to simulate the most likely range of outcomes as measured in terms of a multiple set of indicators
for alternative systems over a predefined time period. Monte Carlo techniques helped to define the uncertainties
associated with such simulations (see Crookes et al. 2013 for another application). Based on the literature review
presented (Blignaut et al. 2014b), Box 1 contains suggested components that needed to be included to model the
differences between conventional and alternative sustainable agriculture and food systems in South Africa. High-level
interrelationships between the various components are indicated. The high-level systems components include: the natural
environment, markets, farming production system, the food system including nutritional quality and the institutional
context. Box 2 provides a number of elements that could form part of each of these high-level components. For example,
the natural environment interfaces with the agricultural system in at least three areas: water use, land use and energy use
(see also De Wit and Crookes (2013) for an earlier application). A full systems model conceptualised according to these
inputs was beyond the immediate scope of this particular project.
35
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Box 1
Interrelationships among various components
MARKETS
Prices, Distribution costs, Post-harvest losses, Agricultural products, Other products, Food exports, Food imports, Consumers
FARMING SYSTEM
Land, W ater, Energy
Precipitation, temperature
Production systems
Maize, Citrus , Beef
Production inputs
Fertilizers, labor , capital, agro chemicals, etc
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
Production volumes
FOOD SECURITY &
NUTRITIONAL
SYSTEM
Food availability
Produ ction
Food utilisation
Consumption
Access to food
FARM MANAGEMENT
Effects on erosion, Soil organic matter, Soil
organic carbon, biodiversity, Eutrophication,
Emissions, Acidification, etc.
Maize farming systems
CV, NT, CA HEI , CA LEI , organic
Value chains
Stability
Consumer price
Citrus farming systems
CV, organic
Nutritional quality
Beef farming system
CV, CA, organic
Pesticide residues,
Antioxidants, Toxic Metals,
Antibiotic residue bacteria,
GOVERNMENT
Policy instruments: Taxes, Fuel tax rebate, Drought relief, Input subsidies, Tariffs, Micro-credit, Tax deductions, Carbon tax
36
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Box 2
Constituents of each component
1. Spatio-temporal
scales
Province
Regions
Farm levels
Time period
Time step
Biome (or finer conservation scale)
Landscapes (link to biodiversity)
- Intensive farming
- Small-scale
7. Natural environment (link to
farming systems)
2. Farming system
Farm management (link to Farm
management)
Field crop types
- Maize crop types
Horticulture types
- Citrus types
Livestock types
- Beef types (Nguni)
Environmental inputs (link to natural
environment, resource use)
Fertiliser volume
Fertiliser cost
Capital costs (incl. debt amount,
interest rate, debt terms)
Employment number
Labour costs
Marketing costs
Production volume (link to food
system)
Producer price
Net profits/loss (calculated)
Production (link to farming system;
availability of food)
Consumption (link to utilisation of
food)
Net imports (imports minus exports)
Consumer price
Food waste
Pollution indicators
8. Natural resource use (link to
farming systems)
4. Value chain (link to
access to food)
Institutional arrangement indicators
Post-harvest losses
Distribution costs
10. Farm management
5. Food security and
nutritional system
Food availability (link to
production, trade, value chains)
Utilisation of food (link to
consumption)
Access to food (link to value
chains)
Stability (link to consumer price)
Pesticide residues
Antibiotic residue bacteria
Antioxidants
Toxic Metals
11. Policy instruments
3. Food system
6. Nutritional quality
9. Institutional arrangements
Precipitation
Temperature
Climate variability
Soil organic carbon
Soil organic matter
Biodiversity
Nitrogen leaching
Nitrous Oxide emissions
Ammonia emissions
Eutrophication potential
Acidification potential
Greenhouse gases
Water use
- Irrigation
- Rainfall
- Groundwater
Land use
Energy use
- Diesel use
- Diesel price
- Electricity use
- Electricity price
Ownership types
- Commercial farmers
- Smallholders
- Emerging farmers
- Communal farmers
- Subsistence farmers
Market access
- Contract farmers (link to
commercial farmers;
smallholders, value chain)
- Other markets
Farming technologies for maize
- Conventional tillage
- No-tillage
- Conservation agriculture
- Organic CA
Farming technologies for citrus
Farming technologies for beef
Management practices
Fuel tax rebate
Drought relief
Input subsidies
Tariffs
Micro-credit
Tax deductions
Carbon tax
37
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Secondly, the shift to sustainable agriculture presupposes that investment in knowledge on the management of multifunctional systems is required (Jordan et al. 2007). Agriculture, in order to become more sustainable, needs to become
more multifunctional and policy support is needed towards the joint production of agricultural commodities and
ecological services. The main options of such multi-functional systems that were identified, and need to be tested, in a
South African context are:

improving land and water management

increasing yields on unproductive farms

addressing barriers to entry for smaller-scale farmers

shifting to degraded lands

reducing losses during distribution and storage in food value chains

minimising post-consumption food waste

shifting to different diets

investing in research and innovation systems
Thirdly, the review exposed that one of the biggest challenges facing the implementation of current agricultural and food
security policies – and therefore the success of sustainable agricultural and food systems in South Africa – is the absence
of an effective coordination mechanism that can align different responses across sectors. Initiating cooperation and
managing these relationships require significant resources of time, energy, funds and skills. If carried out carefully, however,
the pay-offs are significant, including finding solutions to difficult yet important development problems such as food
insecurity, triggering catalytic or multiplier effects, fostering sustainable change, and creating multi-sectoral social capital
that promotes new local capacity for joint action.
38
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
6
METHODOLOGY
General approach
Earlier sustainable agriculture trials on farming production systems across South Africa, but in particular in KwaZulu-Natal,
the Free State and the Western Cape, have shown some promising results. The important question for the purposes of this
project is how such successes could be replicated and measured on a larger-scale and supported as a broader country
or regional intervention. However, the reproduction of field trial results is necessary over time, but not sufficient to meet
this project’s objectives. Given the multiple agricultural, ecosystem, social and economic objectives that characterise a
successful food system, and the scarcity of empirical data on sustainable agriculture, systems integration as well as an
interactive dialogue were identified as being needed in advancing the country’s shared thinking on the topic. This is seen
as not merely an academic debate, but one that would have the potential to contribute significantly to South African
policy design.
It is clear therefore that the approach to such a study would have to include inputs from several disciplinary sciences, a
science of integration and a process that facilitates interaction between researchers and with policymakers. As initially
proposed (ASSET Research 2013), the following aspects were included according to an approach that has been
developed and applied previously (Esler et al. under review; Blignaut et al. 2012) and modified for the purposes of this
study:

Multidisciplinary and team-based approach: a core team from multiple disciplines guided research on food
systems (production, value chains and consumption), food security, institutions and policy as well as systems
thinking. Students on the project came from various disciplines (incl. economics, policy, agriculture, environment)
and from various universities.

Process-based approach: the research process was characterised by an intensive collaborative process in the
form of colloquia where progress on student research components was discussed by the entire project team,
serving as a learning event for students and supervisors, and providing a reality check for systems integration.

Systems modelling approach: the various strands of research in the project was integrated by the core research
team and supported with a system dynamics modelling approach – a stock and flow modelling approach that
is fully transparent to input conditions and focused on simulating alternative options as key parameters in the
broader food system were changed. The integration of results across various disciplines and levels in the food
system was the responsibility of the core team, enhanced with the use of system dynamics modelling tools (for
earlier applications see Crookes et al. 2013; De Wit & Crookes 2012).

Policy social learning process: policymakers in the agriculture and the green economy spheres were invited to
sessions that were scheduled close to the research colloquia. As the research progressed, feedback from
decision-makers served as inputs to further iterations of the work, keeping the project focused on its green
economy objectives. The core team explicitly sought to integrate scientific knowledge with concerns voiced by
policymakers through designing alternative options (see Pielke 2007). Building and maintaining dialogue with key
decision-makers was an explicit part of the research strategy.
Such a comprehensive approach ensured that after the research project is completed, decision-makers would be in a
better position to make well-informed decisions on the importance of sustainable farming and food security to South
Africa’s green economy policies and practice, while researchers have gained in disciplinary and interdisciplinary
understanding of the agricultural system and its multiple components.
39
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Analytical research methodology
The general study approach was further augmented with more specific analytical studies. As studying the complete
agricultural sector was not possible within this project, three main South African farming systems were considered, namely:

maize production

beef cattle production

citrus production
The reason for selecting these production systems is that they cover field crops, animal husbandry and horticulture. In
addition, these systems were expected to have rich experiences both in terms of conventional as well as conservation
agricultural and organic alternatives; also the first two production systems are important from a food security perspective
whereas citrus is the country’s largest horticultural export commodity with high water demands. The lessons learnt from
studying these three production systems are generic enough to be applied to other systems as well. The lessons from these
studies were further integrated using system dynamics modelling techniques.
The following student research projects were defined (see Blignaut (2014c) for student proposals):

Farm-production systems: These studies focused on the production aspects of selected commodities (maize, beef
cattle or citrus) at farm-level to provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats within the different food production systems. The studies attempted to investigate how alternative
sustainable agricultural production systems compare while securing a reasonable financial profit for the farmer.

Value chain analysis: This study focused on the value chain of one (or more) of the above commodities (maize,
beef cattle or citrus) to provide an in-depth analysis of the sustainability strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats within this value chain. The research attempted to identify the challenges producers at all scales face in
accessing markets beyond the farm gate (primary as well as beneficiation markets including food security end
points). The study further set out to investigate how alternative value chains can possibly make food more
accessible and affordable at local levels while securing a reasonable profit.

System dynamics modelling: This study acknowledges that farming and land-use systems can be viewed as a
complex social-ecological system (SES). System dynamics modelling is one approach for modelling complexity
and entails understanding how systems change over time with feedback loops, time lags and nonlinearity
characterising the relationships among the building blocks of a system dynamics model. This is facilitated through
the use of user-friendly, graphical simulation packages in VensimTM that helped formulate a model using the
stock flow components based on differential equations.

Economic policies and instruments: This research component considered economic policies and instruments that
affects conservation agriculture (at all scales) either positively or negatively, and identified innovative instruments
and policies that could potentially contribute to the enhancement of conservation agriculture. Important
considerations were policies pertaining to the reduction of degradation, incentives and punitive measures, and
measures to assist the conservation agriculture industry, with a specific focus on small and niche growers’ access
to the market.
Field surveys
Parallel to the abovementioned analytical research components, a field study was conducted to capture efforts, ideas,
achievements and approaches of various role-players who are part of current food production systems in South Africa
and who contribute towards ongoing sustainable ways of farming (see Knot et al. 2014 for the full report). South Africa is
a vast and outstretched country covering many ecotypes and climatic zones, and it includes numerous and variable
rainfall areas, soil types, farming systems and different types of farmer (i.e. small scale, commercial, emerging
commercial). Because of these vast differences, it is impossible to reflect or even to attempt to state what sustainable
agriculture is in the South African context.
In order to gain a rapid, yet as thorough as possible, overview of current activities, perceptions and lessons from the field
in terms of sustainable farming, 87 organisations and individuals were approached by the research team to provide their
views through a questionnaire survey. A structured questionnaire as part of another Masters’ level study would have
yielded more information, but was beyond the scope of this study. These organisations represented a cross-section of
agricultural organisations, research institutions, sector organisations, farmers, NGOs, UN and government working in citrus,
40
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
beef and dryland rain-fed maize agriculture. Starting with the existing networks, the research team used a “snowballing
technique” to confirm key informants and build a broad platform of respondents.
The questionnaire included the following open-ended questions:

What are your working areas?

Define sustainable agriculture?

What work has been done or is currently carried out regarding sustainable agriculture?

What are the research agendas for the next 5–10 years?

What are the areas of specialisation?

Are there any related publications?

What policy intervention successfully promotes sustainable agriculture?

What policy tools can be used to best support sustainable agriculture in South Africa?
Policy engagement process
Engagement with policymakers is seen as both an important part of the research process, to keep informing the research
and system modelling effort, and a way to inform policymakers on research outputs. The research process included two
back-to-back policy workshops where draft results were presented and policy suggestions obtained, followed by the
distribution of a set of booklets and compilation of policy briefs. The policy workshop of 9 June 2015 was attended by 27
people, while the policy workshop on 10 June 2015 by 30 people. A full list of attendees, as well as presentations made at
the policy workshops, are included in ASSET Research (2015). Three policy briefs were prepared; the first on the future
agrarian structure as based on sustainable agriculture (Midgley et al. 2015), the second on conservation agriculture in
maize production systems (Blignaut et al. 2015a), and the third on conservation agriculture in beef production systems
(Blignaut et al. 2015b). Throughout the research process inputs were provided in the development of a policy document
for conservation agriculture in South Africa (DAFF, n.d.).
41
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
7
CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS
Research challenges
It proved to be a great challenge to conduct Masters’ level, student-driven research within this project, characterised by
its relative short time frame and high policy content, resulting in lower-than-expected student output and higher-thanexpected involvement of the core research team. The project started in April 2014 and ended in September 2015, which
does not coincide well with the academic year. Much additional effort, therefore, was required in sourcing capable and
motivated students that were able to work with the research team during this time period. No Masters’ level student
capable of doing system dynamics modelling without additional and time-intensive training, was found. This component
was then outsourced to a post-doc student. During the research process two students were forced to stop their research,
one due to a pregnancy and the other due to administrative/registration-related issues, although the latter is still expected
to complete their studies in 2016.
It further proved problematic to source data on farming operations for all the sectors chosen, especially citrus, a challenge
that was partially addressed by including the core research team in the data collection process. Resulting from the
inadequate data and lack of participation of organic citrus growers, the citrus modelling component had to be dropped
from this study.
Because of these challenges, only four out of the envisaged six Masters’ students are expected to finalise their degrees
at their respective Universities with support from this particular project. The students presented their work at two research
colloquia, and they were active during the two policy workshops that were held with senior policymakers and industry
leaders. During these processes the students had an excellent learning experience in the art of scientific investigation,
communication and policy development (See Box 3 for student feedback on the project).
Box 3
Student feedback on the ASSET/Greenfund Project
“…through participating in the Green Fund project I not only gained extensive knowledge on the topic of sustainable
farming practices but I also had the opportunity of applying system dynamics modelling in such a topic – in this manner
participating in this project have polished my analytical, academic writing, report writing, presentation and timemanagement skills, all being key skills I am going to use in my journey as a researcher. In addition, through the planned
periodic engagements (e.g. meetings, colloquia and workshops) with internal and external experts and as well as
interested parties, I was able to receive timely guidance and comments which helped me with producing well-received
research findings and reports – so through this experience I made contacts, learnt the importance of early collaboration
with stakeholders in the project execution process and furthermore my verbal and written communication skills were
enhanced. I have therefore grown a lot as a researcher working with the ASSET Research team and stakeholders, an
opportunity I wouldn’t have seized if not for the Green Fund. I am therefore looking forward to doing more research in the
topic of sustainable farming in the future.” – Nono Nkambule
“The project was an eye opener, first of all it was a locally funded project from DBSA and the dedication from the team
was amazing this showed me how the state is concerned about public policy in South Africa which is taken for granted
by many African countries and how local institution are able to execute such a task in an internationally accredited way.
It was an encouraging phase for me l am looking forward to do more good work and my confidence is really high after
engaging with such amicable team of scientist. I now have a road map to follow in my career. It was a good time of
mentorship, to experience the hard work and extra effort put by the team leaders. It was equally challenging l remember
from the first day we met as the Asset team and structuring our way forward but we were ready for that challenge. I had
challenges of my own but l managed to get the help l needed to sail through. Amazing experience.” – Nyasha Kamsasa
“The green fund project has helped me to develop a high level ability to undertake independent research in terms of
problem solving, transdisciplinary approaches and scientific scholarship. This project has enabled me to investigate more
complex policy issues that have the potential to set the South African agricultural sector on a trajectory leading to
adoption of sustainable farming practices that will see this sector aligning to the green economy goals and objectives.
The experience that I have gained during the tenure of this project has helped me to become an innovative and
proficient researcher that can analyse complex problem situations and to make novel and sophisticated agricultural and
economic policy recommendations. This project will positively influence the South African government to play its role in
the agricultural sector nationally and continentally.” – Shepherd Mudavanhu
42
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
“First off, working with [my] supervisors, plus doing the colloquia and workshops meant I was considerably better off with
guidance than a few of my other study colleagues writing their MPhil and struggling. The most I learnt was actually
analysing the research/interview material and the way to generate data of more quantitative nature originated from
open structure open ended interviews with much more qualitative nature. Then the findings in itself were interesting and
while some things were to be expected, there were certainly things that I didn’t expect. But also the process of writing up
the material and putting it together through policy workshops was entirely new to me, hugely enjoyable, and something
I’m very glad of having learnt and I’m very thankful for the main authors. Lastly the publishing documents really got me
motivated to follow an academic route with more publishing. There was a lot I could learn about writing publishing journals
through the work with you and ASSET. Thank you. I enjoyed working with you guys.” – Wolfgang Loeper
“This study has taught me the importance of taking externality costs into account when evaluating the viability of a
business and that recommending a shift to sustainable production methods directly to the industry and policies that will
enable farmers to comply would be the most effective way to adapt and mitigate climate change challenges. I would
like to thank Green Fund and Asset Research for the financial assistance that made this study possible. Thank you to Asset
Reasearch team for its persistant and competent guidance and for being patient with me.” – Ayanda Saki
Survey challenges
The most pertinent challenge during the field survey was that only 33 (out of 87) responses were received, necessitating
several follow-up phone calls and meetings to ensure that a reasonable dataset across regions, organisations and sectors
was achieved. Most respondents were from the Free State, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, and most of them are
involved in the maize and beef sectors. These results, however, do reflect those regions and sectors where sustainable
farming practices are most prominent in the country. Very few respondents indicated that they were involved in policy
formulation and market development, with most practically involved in caring for the land, training and research
activities. The surveys provided a good insight into the state of play of sustainable farming in South Africa, but centred on
financial incentives, training and research needs as the main recommendations for policy development.
Policy challenges
Sustainable farming, and specially Conservation Agriculture, does not yet have a well-developed policy context in South
Africa. During the same time period of this project, a draft of the country’s Conservation Agriculture policy was being
written and inputs sought. A particular challenge was to provide sound policy inputs to this process on the basis of a
developing research project.
43
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
8
RESULTS/FINDINGS
In this section the results of analysing and modelling production systems are presented, as well as main insights from the
value chain and policy analyses, survey fieldwork and the policy engagement process.
Analytical research results
Beef production systems
The kilogram of beef produced per hectare and its associated environmental inputs differ for each of the cattle
management systems. The research was not able to focus on the environmental demand of animals raised in feedlots.
The study, however, considered the environmental demand and thus sustainability of the full production cycle of the
various management systems producing calves that are market ready (i.e. ready to be sold into the feedlot system). The
environmental demand of raising calves includes the same elements as any other agricultural system, namely:

measuring the greenhouse gas emissions and striving to reduce it per unit of beef produced as far as possible,

measuring the water use and seeking to increase water-use efficiency by increasing the beef production per litre
of water, and

measuring the fodder production and seeking to reduce the grazing material required per unit of beef produced
as far as possible.
The research question addressed was as follows:
What is the environmental demand of the different cattle management systems in producing a calf
that weighs about 190–220kg and that can be sold to a feedlot?
Two approaches to analysis of beef production systems were followed, namely a static approach and a dynamic
approach (Blignaut et al. 2015a; Crookes 2015; Saki 2015). From the static approach, the environmental demand per
hectare per year was estimated. From the dynamic approach, a system dynamics model was applied to estimate the
net present value (NPV), which expresses future financial values in today’s terms, of the various farming operations under
different scenarios over 30 years. We considered 12 different typical farm-level extensive beef production systems (see
Table 2). While the data was derived from actual data and verified by industry experts, it represents typical farms and is
not actual farm data. It must also be noted that the focus is on relative productivity between existing systems.
44
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Table 2
Diagnostic specification of different extensive beef production systems
Calf
Unproductive Calf birth
mortality
animals
weight
Calf age
at
marketing
Market
weight
Income
Fodder
Average
consumption daily gain
(R/calf) % of weight
(kg/day)
Avg. feed
conversion ratio
(calves)
(kg feed for kg
meat)
%
%
kg
Days
Kg
Farm 1
10%
73%
40.0
244.0
220
4 400
2.8%
0.74
4.95
Farm 2
5%
62%
45.0
213.5
220
4 400
2.8%
0.82
4.56
Farm 3
15%
86%
35.0
305.0
220
4 400
2.8%
0.61
5.90
Farm 4
10%
80%
35.0
305.0
190
3 230
3.0%
0.51
6.66
Farm 5
5%
70%
35.0
305.0
200
3 400
3.0%
0.54
6.53
Farm 6
15%
94%
30.0
305.0
180
3 060
3.0%
0.49
6.42
Farm 7
20%
134%
25.0
549.0
190
3 230
3.2%
0.30
11.46
Farm 8
15%
126%
30.0
457.5
200
3 400
3.2%
0.37
9.94
Farm 9
30%
146%
25.0
732.0
180
3 060
3.2%
0.21
15.51
Farm 10
15%
103%
30.0
335.5
190
3 230
3.0%
0.48
6.95
Farm 11
10%
95%
35.0
244.0
220
3 740
3.0%
0.76
5.06
Farm 12
20%
117%
27.5
366.0
180
3 060
3.0%
0.42
7.49
Note: Farms 1–3 represent typical average, good and bad commercial operations, Farms 4–6 represent typical average,
good and bad emerging farmers’ operations, Farms 7–9 represent typical average, good and bad communal farmers’
operations and Farms 10–12 represent typical average, good and bad national level operations.
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015a) as based on Crookes (2015) and Saki (2015)
The farm-level, environmental demand of producing a market-ready calf over its entire life-cycle for the different farm
production systems have been estimated based on the following baseline assumptions:

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per year:
Cows
Heifers Oxen
Young
Calves
oxen
Commercial 2.83
2.32
1.90
2.24
1.29
1.29
Communal
1.83
1.57
1.82
1.04
1.02
Bulls
2.10
Source: Based on Du Toit et al. (2010)
Note: Carbon valued @R120/t (National Treasury 2013:15)

Water use: 3 litre per kg dry fodder use (RPO & NERPO 2014), which is a conservative estimate especially during
summer times (valued @R2/m3 – own calculation based on Blignaut et al. (2008), adjusted for inflation)

Fodder (grazing): 2,8–3,2% per day of body weight (valued @ R871/ton – own calculation based on Department
of Agriculture Limpopo (2010), adjusted for inflation)

Price of calf (live-weight): Class A: R20/kg; Class B: R17/kg
Based on these assumptions, the environmental demand per farming system was simulated and the results are displayed
in Table 3.
45
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Table 3
Estimated total farm-level life-cycle environmental demand per farming system
Total
kg meat @ kg CO2/kg lit water/kg kg feed/kg
Total
Total water
Total feed
Income
Net
environmental
market
meat @
meat @
meat @
CO2equiv. consumption consumption
hectare income
demand
age/ha
market age market age market age
kg
meat/ha
ratio
ratio
ratio
-395.95
17.6
22.4
163.1
45.3
457.4
-428.92
22.9
20.3
148.8
41.4
610.8
246.3
-364.45
12.3
26.2
190.1
52.9
800.8
750.5
232.5
-518.06
13.7
28.8
210.6
58.6
3 457.8
963.7
903.5
318.1
-585.35
18.7
25.5
184.8
51.5
0.319
2 353.4
652.4
611.1
154.2
-456.98
9.1
35.1
259.5
71.9
Farm 7
0.544
3 756.9
1 087.0
1 019.6
162.8
-856.82
9.6
56.8
392.4
113.5
Farm 8
0.460
3 197.6
925.8
867.9
171.3
-696.61
10.1
45.7
317.3
91.9
Farm 9
0.514
3 543.6
1 024.6
961.2
107.9
-853.29
6.3
81.0
558.1
161.4
Farm 10
0.599
3 993.4
1 157.0
1 087.6
325.7
-761.90
19.2
31.2
208.5
60.4
Farm 11
0.428
2 952.1
854.2
801.3
301.7
-499.64
17.7
24.1
166.4
48.1
Farm 12
0.590
3 968.2
1 146.9
1 077.7
246.8
-830.91
14.5
40.6
273.3
79.0
ton/ha/yr
l/ha/yr
kg/ha/yr
R/ha/yr
R/ha/yr R/ha/yr
Farm 1
0.394
2 869.1
797.7
747.8
351.9
Farm 2
0.465
3 402.4
945.8
886.3
Farm 3
0.323
2 341.5
651.3
Farm 4
0.394
2 879.4
Farm 5
0.477
Farm 6
Note: Farms 1–3 represent typical average, good and bad commercial operations, Farms 4–6 represent typical average,
good and bad emerging farmers’ operations, Farms 7–9 represent typical average, good and bad communal farmers’
operations and Farms 10–12 represent typical average, good and bad national level operations.
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015a) as based on Crookes (2015) and Saki (2015)
The relative difference in the productive efficiency and environmental demand among the 12 farming systems, derived
from Table 3 and expressed relative to Farm 10 (the national average production system), is shown in Figure 7.
46
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
% of kg meat produced /ha
relative to Nat. Avg.
Farm 1
Figure 7
Farm 2
Farm 3
% of CO2 produced /ha
relative to Nat. Avg.
Farm 4
Farm 5
Farm 6
% of water consumed /ha
relative to Nat. Avg.
Farm 7
Farm 8
Farm 9
% of feed consumed /ha
relative to Nat. Avg.
Farm 10
Farm 11
Farm 12
Comparison of the productive efficiency and environmental demand among 12 different farming systems,
with Farm 10 (national average)=100
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015a) as based on Crookes (2015) and Saki (2015)
The above analysis is based on a static, farm-level assessment of the environmental demand of different beef production
systems. Using a system dynamics model based on historic data (DAFF 2015), a country-wide production and
environmental demand model was constructed making provision for the different characteristics of both the national
commercial and communal herds. Using a social discount rate of 4%, which reflects a strong adoption rate sensitivity
among the different management systems, five scenarios for both the commercial and communal production systems
(each subdivided into average, good and bad systems as defined in the previous section) were estimated. These
scenarios are as follows:

Baseline scenario: No change to either production or imports over time. The composition and size of both
commercial and communal herds are kept constant and there is no adoption of sustainable farming practices,
nor any change in production characteristics.

Realistic scenario: Production growth at 4% and import substitution at 1.6% in both commercial and communal
herds. Herd composition follows historical trends. Calf sale values and input costs increase in accordance with
historical data. Change in production structure over 20 years, thereafter constant.

Optimistic scenario: Production growth at 11% and import substitution at 4% in both commercial and communal
herds. Calf sale values increase in accordance with historical data. Increases in fodder price decrease by 50%
from 9.7% to 4.85% as better management of the land results in efficiency gains. No change in production
characteristics.

Pessimistic scenario: Production growth at 4% and import substitution at 1.6% in both commercial and communal
herds. Herd composition follows historical trends. Calf sale values and input costs increase in accordance with
historical data. No change in production characteristics.

Alternative scenario: Production growth at 11% and import substitution at 4% in both commercial and communal
herds. Calf live weight values increase in accordance with historical trends. Increases in fodder price decrease
by 50% from 9.7% to 4.85% as better management of the land results in efficiency gains. Change in production
structure over 20 years, thereafter constant.
From Figure 8 it can be seen that there are very large disparities among the marginal values of producing a kilogram of
meat for each of the five scenarios among the six production systems as represented by differences in the net present
values thereof. The net present value represents the discounted net difference (over 30 years) between the value of the
calf sales and the value of the environmental demand. As indicated in Table 3, all the net values were negative, which
indicates that the environmental demand exceeds the value of the calf sales. From the dynamic analysis it is clear that,
under certain conditions, the values can become positive (i.e. the optimistic and alternative scenarios). The risk, however,
47
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
lies in unsustainable communal management practices where the marginal net present value of producing a kilogram
of meat can be as low as -R11 000. It has, however, the potential to be -R335, as depicted under the national scenario.
The important preliminary conclusion, therefore, based on these assumptions and simulation modelling is that both
commercial and communal herd managers have to change their prevailing (unsustainable) management practices to
reduce the current net environmental loss. However, the risks of unsustainable farming practices are greater for communal
management. These results have various policy implications.
497
599
497
599
306
333
0
-426
-350
-568
-1,046
-1,679
-2000
-2,300-2,294
-1,944-1,940
-592 -335
-597
-1,308
-2,879-2,954
-4000
-6000
-5,727
-8000
-1,153
-2,049
-2,522
-4,763
-5,700
-7,373
-7,853
-10000
-11,029
-12000
Commercial avg.
Baseline scenario
Figure 8
Commercial good
Realistic scenario
Commerical bad
Communal avg.
Optimistic scenario
Communal good
Pessimistic scenario
Communal bad
Alternative scenario
Comparison of net present value (R/kg meat produced over 30 yrs) among six production systems under five
scenarios
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015a) as based on Crookes (2015) and Saki (2015)
Maize production systems
In South Africa, crop production systems based on intensive and continuous soil tillage have led to excessively high soil
degradation rates in grain producing areas. This adds to the growing challenges of profitability and also poverty in some
of the rural areas. According to Le Roux et al. (2007), the average soil loss under annual grain crops in the country is 13
ton/ha/yr. This is much higher than the natural soil formation rate and implies that, on average, we are losing
approximately 3 tons top soil/ha for every ton of dryland maize produced every year. For farmers to have a better chance
of survival and if sustainable agriculture and food security are to be achieved, the paradigms of agriculture production
and management have to change. One such alternative method is conservation agriculture (CA). CA promotes
sustainable and climate-smart agricultural intensification through which farmers can attain higher levels of productivity
and profitability (i.e. ‘green prosperity’) while improving soil health and the environment.
The research question considered was as follows:
What is the financial and economic viability of commercial dry-land maize production under
both conventional (CV) and conservation agricultural (CA) systems?
A system dynamics modelling approach was used to model the transition from CV to CA systems accounting for both
private and societal costs in four maize producing regions in South Africa (Blignaut et al. 2015b; Knot 2015; Nkambule
2015). These regions are the Western Free State (WFS), Eastern Free State (EFS), KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and North West (NW)
48
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
and the simulation period was 20 years. Four region-framed production and environmental sub-models were constructed
that make provision for the unique farming characteristics of both CV and CA systems in the studied regions. A
combination of production, financial and ecological data was used to model the CV, NT (no-till) and CA systems. Table
4 displays some of the production and financial data that informed the modelling. The data was obtained from various
sources (e.g. farmer interviews, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, OVK, Grain SA, Novon, Pannar and
Profert) and was verified by experts through Grain SA channels.
Table 4
Profile of maize production systems (2013/2014)
Plant
pop.
Yield
Growing
season
rainfall
Fertilizer
Pesticide
Herbicide
Diesel
Variable
cost
Overhead
cost
Total
cost
Revenue
Net
income
Farm
NWest:
CV
NWest:
NT
#/ha
t/ha
mm
kg/ha
l/ha
l/ha
l/ha
R/ha
R/ha
R/ha
R/ha
R/ha
19.0k
3.65
550
367
0.3
4.7
79.3
5 921.20
1 776.36
7 697.57
5 521.10
-2 176.47
24.7k
5.5
550
324
0.3
5.9
41.2
5 524.51
1 551.36
7 075.87
8 319.47
1 243.60
WFS: CV
18,5k
5.4
492
418
0.1
7.5
89.2
6 807.29
2 064.66
8 871.95
8 168.20
-703.74
WFS: NT
24.0k
4
492
330
1.1
10.5
48.6
5 832.99
1 767.44
7 600.43
6 050.52
-1 549.91
EFS: CV
27.7k
4.2
700
436
1.7
3.7
67
7 087.12
2 142.63
9 229.75
6 353.05
-2 876.70
EFS: NT
36.0k
7
700
345
2.7
6.5
46
6 828.39
1 859.86
8 688.24
10 588.41
1 900.17
KZN: CV
42.0k
8.4
800
400
0.7
3
68.7
8 178.00
1 652.60
9 830.59
12 736.34
2 905.75
KZN: NT
54.6k
8.4
800
300
0.7
6.7
51.5
7 906.03
1 537.45
9 443.47
12 736.34
3 292.87
Source: Updated in Blignaut (2015c) as based on GrainSA unpublished data and survey results
In order to model the transition from CV to CA systems, the data from Table 4 is used for CV systems, but then moderated
to generate a CA profile per region (see Table 5). This is done in two ways. First by including the relationships between soil
organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC) and available water holding capacity (AWHC), as per Table 6, to inform
incremental changes in yield and carbon build-up gradually over a 20-year period to achieve the targeted yield profile,
as per Table 5. Second, as a result of the transition from CV to CA, the cost of production declines gradually over a 10year period.
49
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Table 5
Target yields after 20 years for CA systems
CV average yield
CA yield
Target yield after
(actual)
(potential)
20 years
t/ha
t/ha
NW
3.65
8.30
WFS
5.40
EFS
KZN
Production % change
Yield growth
p.a.
Regions
t/ha &
%
%
4.15 (50%)
0.26%
13.7%
7.30
5.48 (75%)
0.03%
1.5%
4.20
10.50
7.88 (75%)
1.67%
87.6%
8.42
12.00
9.60 (80%)
0.26%
14.0%
(% of CA potential)
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
Table 6
SOM, SOC, AWHC and yield relationships
Change in soil
organic matter
Change in soil
organic carbon
Change in available water
holding capacity
Change in yield
Ruehlmann &
Körschens (2009)
Reicosky (2005),
Hudson (1994)
Lal (2010)
1.0%
0.58%
3.7%
2.76%
1.5%
0.87%
5.6%
4.14%
2.0%
1.16%
7.4%
5.52%
2.5%
1.45%
9.3%
6.91%
3.0%
1.74%
11.1%
8.29%
3.5%
2.04%
13.0%
9.67%
4.0%
2.33%
14.8%
11.05%
4.5%
2.62%
16.7%
12.43%
5.0%
2.91%
18.5%
13.81%
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
The environmental analysis, which quantifies and monetises the GHG emissions associated with the use of fertilisers,
herbicides, pesticides and diesel in CV and CA systems in the various regions, was informed by the emissions data
contained in Table 7. For the CA systems, the probable soil carbon sequestration in the various regions was also estimated.
50
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Table 7
Emission factors for various production inputs
Units
CO2e emission factors and price
Data source
Direct diesel
KgCO2e/l
2.6769
Defra (2012)
Indirect diesel
KgCO2e/l
0.5644
Indirect fertilizer
KgCO2e/Kg
2.25
Indirect pesticide
KgCO2e/l
0.97
Indirect herbicide
KgCO2e/l
0.76
Damage cost of CO2
R/tCO2e
120
National Treasury (2013:15)
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
Based on the assumptions provided above, Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the simulation results on net present values (NPVs),
which express future financial values in today’s terms, for both the CV and CA systems in the four maize producing regions.
These early results depict a large monetary benefit of adopting CA systems, with or without the incorporation of positive
side-effects. It can further be seen that the financial viability of maize production improves in all regions with the adoption
of CA systems but the potential is more so in the Eastern and Western Free State. Increased financial viability is as a result
of cost reduction owing to lower input use, increases in yields, less greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and
carbon sequestration. While Figure 11 shows improvements in the financial viability of CA systems versus CV, North West
CA systems remain negative (see value at the end of the simulation period) indicating that the investment is not financially
viable without more adaptation and diversification. (It is worth mentioning that the NPV for CA systems is by far better,
although still at a financial loss, than that of not adopting CA; i.e. CV NPV = -R16 billion while that of CA-friendly systems is
approximately -R3 billion.) The NPVs of CA maize production in all other regions are positive indicating CA-friendly systems
to be both financially and economically viable investments. According to this model, maize production is most
economical in KwaZulu-Natal, followed by Eastern Free State and then Western Free State.
The outcomes of this study demonstrate that the transition from CV to CA systems has the potential to not only reduce
costs, increase yields and increase net farm income, but also yield environmental benefits. Environmental benefits are
realised through lower GHG emissions, lower input use and increased carbon sequestration. These preliminary results are
encouraging maize farmers to start adopting CA systems to improve the profitability of their farms (more so in Eastern Free
State, Western Free State and North West – see Table 4), while reducing the environmental load of maize production (see
Table 8).
51
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Figure 9
NPVs without externalities
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
Figure 10
NPVs with externalities
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
52
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Figure 11
NPVs of CV and CA-friendly systems
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
Table 8
CO2e emissions of CV and CV to CA-friendly systems
CV total CO2e emissions
Total net CO2e emissions saved through
adopting CA
ton/ha/yr
ton/ha/yr
NW
1.087
10.705
WFS
1.235
1.326
EFS
1.204
13.613
KZN
1.126
11.532
Region
Note: Total net CO2e emissions saved through adopting CA = CV CO2e emissions - CA CO2e emissions + CO2
sequestrated. It is an averaged value over the modelling period (20 years) due to the fact that the CA emission values
are time varying (i.e. CA emission values gradually reduce as a CV farmer transition to CA-friendly systems owing to
gradual reduction in fertiliser, diesel, herbicide and pesticide use).
Source: Blignaut et al. (2015c) as based on Knot (2015) and Nkambule (2015)
Citrus production systems
According to the FAO, only 859 ha of citrus in South Africa were certified organic, with another 2035 ha under organic
farming and 233 ha under conversion (FAOSTAT 2014). Sufficient citrus data was not available to do a full-scale
comparative analysis, but a preliminary data analysis revealed the following (Kamsasa 2015):

An organic citrus production system has twice as much operating cost as a conventional citrus production system.

The difference between gross margins of conventional systems and proto-type organic citrus systems was huge.

Net margins showed that an organic production system is competitive which is attributed to price premiums.
53
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
The preliminary conclusions are that conventional citrus has higher gross margins which can be attributed to an
established industry with over 40 years of research and various support structures. Organic citrus is struggling with very high
operating costs and low yields, which are characteristic of an emerging sector (Kamsasa 2015).
Results from value chain analysis
The historical legacy of South Africa has led to the current dual agricultural economy, with the dominant commercial
sector pursuing the objective of greater yields on a large scale, made possible by the high external input (HEI) model. This
has contributed to a diminishing number of farmers and entities in the value chain (Van der Heijden & Vink 2013). There
has been a stubborn lack of progress on achieving broader participation at all scales and in all areas of the value chain
(Jordaan et al. 2014; Ortmann & King 2010). The main research question regarding value chains was as follows:
How do institutions along the agricultural value chain encourage or hinder CA at all farming
scales?
The value chain analysis was conducted through a literature review and targeted semi-structured interviews with the
following sub-set of actors within the maize value chain: banks, traders (silos and mills) and local retailers (Midgley et al.
2015; Von Loeper et al. 2015) (see Figure 12). The data was analysed and structured using grounded theory (see Strauss
& Juliet 1994).
Figure 12
Simplified diagrammatic representation of a typical agri-food value chain
Source: Von Loeper et al. (2015)
Uptake of CA requires coordination from multiple institutions across the agricultural value chain (FAO 2009). It was found
that CA is not well understood or seen as providing benefits in the banking, trade (silos, mills) and local retail sectors (Von
Loeper et al. 2015). There are no political, social or financial imperatives to moving away from the existing conventional
systems, and the policy environment is not providing any drivers for the support of CA in the value chain. Thus, producers
and agri-businesses continue to pursue short-term financial goals within a concentrated value chain built around an
unsustainable system.
In essence value chain actors are not willing to engage with CA under the status quo (Von Loeper et al. 2015). The retail
sector is already responding to limited local consumer demand for organic produce (Engel 2008; INR 2008; Barrow 2006),
and claims that it is unable to establish another “brand” of sustainability, with both retailers and consumers failing to
perceive the differences between CA and organic farming systems. This situation can be strategically remedied by
encouraging and rewarding the stepwise evolvement of all agricultural systems towards Organic Conservation
Agriculture (OCA) (Blignaut et al. 2014b).
In contrast, value chain actors are willing to engage with smallholder farmers, who are a stated priority of government.
Indeed, existing policy drivers and instruments have given rise to political momentum and business opportunities to support
smallholders. These actors agreed that CA uptake could be accelerated through smallholder farmer development,
supported by CA-based training and extension and a drive to cooperatively aggregate and market CA produce (see
Box 4).
54
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
The value chain must be encouraged to transition to sustainable agricultural practices by an increase in the consciousness
of consumers for the multiple benefits of such practices. This raises the urgent need to build this consciousness – and to
challenge the dominant economic argument of conventional agriculture to include the factoring in of externalities
(environmental and social costs).
Box 4


The role of smallholder farmers in the value chain for sustainable production systems
For an effective transition to a transformed and sustainable agri-food system, smallholder farmers should be linked
into sustainable agri-food supply chains (Kelly & Metelerkamp 2015; Blignaut et al. 2014b). Linkages with input and
output markets are an essential requirement for the development of the smallholder sector and the growth of the
food system (Shange 2014; Jordaan et al. 2011; Ortmann & King 2010).
An opportunity exists for the development of sustainable production systems including technologies for CA as part
of a continuum of sustainable practices, tailored to the circumstances and budgets of smallholder farmers and
linked to sustainable value chain components. This must be supported by on-farm research, extension services and
supply of inputs, together with access to financial resources, access to informal and formal markets (Kelly &
Metelerkamp 2015; Von Loeper et al. 2015).
Results from policy analysis
There is strong and growing evidence for the economic, social and environmental benefits of CA and it can possibly
provide a systemic pathway towards a more sustainable and resilient future. However, the current policy and instrument
framework of South Africa appears to not adequately support the greater uptake of CA, and institutions along the
agricultural value chain are slow to move on CA. Both factors are critical for an accelerated transition from unsustainable
to sustainable agriculture.
The following research questions were investigated (Midgley et al. 2015; Mudavanhu et al. 2015):
How do current economic policies and instruments in South Africa influence the uptake of
CA at all farming scales?
What policy approaches could support the greater uptake of CA in South Africa within a
multi-institutional and multi-policy landscape?
Relevant policies and instruments were analysed to establish how they affect the uptake of CA. Six analytical criteria were
applied to policy decision-making, namely: effectiveness, unintended effects, equity, cost, feasibility and acceptability
(Morestin et al. 2010).
In order to identify the policy interventions most appropriate to supporting CA, it was important to consider emerging
policy debates and to be aware of the complex inter-sectoral response and coordination required. The current reality is
that there is some discord among policies. For example, the National Development Plan (NDP) (NPC 2011) is concerned
with good stewardship of natural resources and responding to climate change. However, it is (implicitly) geared towards
large-scale irrigation farming, fuel-based mechanisation, and export-oriented and agro-chemical-driven conventional
agriculture. Its ambitious goals of increased production and job creation are questionable given the widespread land
degradation (Mills & Fey 2003) and job-shedding characterising the conventional agrarian system (DAFF 2010).
The most recent agricultural policy emerging from DAFF, the Agricultural Policy Action Plan (APAP) of 2013, seeks to shift
the existing food system to one that is more equitable and efficient, and support the implementation of sustainable
technologies for smallholder farmers. The APAP calls for the pursuance of climate-smart practices and conservation
agriculture. However, it stops short of prescribing a transformative system-wide transition away from conventional and
towards sustainable agriculture. A common vision based on sustainability principles and incorporating nutritional and
social outcomes is not emerging.
The lack of clarity on a common vision is exacerbated by the apparent uncoordinated current development of several
policies pertaining to sustainable agriculture:

an organic agriculture policy

an agro-ecology policy

the policy on agriculture in sustainable development
55
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

a national conservation agriculture policy
While each has a specific focus, it is not clear how they fit into an overall policy framework.
There exists further complexity in the strong intersections with policies and plans in other sectors, for example water
resources management, environmental management, land reform and rural development, food and nutritional security,
the green economy, trade, and climate change. All of these have the potential to positively or negatively influence the
uptake of sustainable practices by farmers (see Table 9; Mudavanhu et al. 2015). The promotion of sustainable agriculture
will only succeed with greater alignment in this multi-policy framework.
Table 9
The major purpose of key policies, strategies, plans and Acts which can influence the uptake of CA in South Africa,
and the national government departments primarily responsible for each
Policy
Major purpose
Department
Climate change policy
Carbon sequestration
DEA
Land reform policy
Redress of economic & social injustice;
Economic development
DAFF
Trade policy
Instrument for industrial policy
DTI
Policy on organic production
Promoting organic agriculture
DAFF and DTI
Policy on agriculture in sustainable
development
Transition of agricultural sector to a
greener economy
DAFF
Food and nutritional security policy
Address food and nutrition insecurity
DAFF
Environmental policy
Environmental management
DEA
Water policy
Water resources management
DWA
CARA
Control & regulation of the conservation
of agriculture
DAFF
CRDP
Creation of decent work and sustainable
livelihoods in rural areas
DRDLR
Control and elimination of invasive and
alien species
DEA and DAFF
Invasive and
(NEMBA)
alien
species
policy
Source: Mudavanhu et al. (2015)
The assumption that careful alignment of policy underpins the support and ultimately the implementation of CA is
misplaced. The reality is that a “policy hierarchy” exists, as depicted in Box 5, which requires careful analysis and
understanding. The existence of the “policy hierarchy” implies that some policies enjoy greater attention and resourcing
at the highest level than others. This has important consequences for a CA policy.
56
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Box 5



The ‘policy hierarchy’
A number of key national goals, such as economic growth, employment creation, food and nutritional security,
rural development, and climate change mitigation and adaptation are articulated within a broad range of
policies at national level. These goals can, however, work against each other if not carefully aligned to a coherent
vision and a co-ordinated approach that has both political will and resourcing.
Depending on the emphasis placed on particular national goals, different policies can be situated within a “policy
hierarchy”. For instance, an agriculture policy that focuses on creating 1 million new jobs will “trump” a policy that
places environmental sustainability before employment creation. Similarly, in debates about land reform, goals of
social justice and sustaining food security (national food production) are often juxtaposed. This hierarchy therefore
shifts according to the particular issue or goal, as well as who is promoting it. This has serious implications for future
policies that promote sustainable agriculture.
By understanding the array of key national goals, policies can be aligned and potential conflicts reduced. In that
context, where does the CA policy fit? How and where does it align to other policy objectives? If it emphasises one
issue at the expense of another it will attract a particular response. As such the “policy hierarchy” allows clear
strategic analysis.
Results from field surveys
The field research captured efforts, ideas and achievements about sustainable agriculture from a divergent set of
respondents (Knot et al. 2014). The respondents represented farmers (26%), NGOs (18%), consultants, researchers and
farmer lobby groups (combined total of 31%). The remaining respondents represented government, sector groups, private
firms and membership associations. The maize, beef and general agricultural sector were represented strongly. The citrus
sector was the least represented mainly due to the limited number of growers in the sector when compared to maize and
beef.
The respondents illustrated what ‘sustainable’ means, what it practically implies in their work undertaken, and gave useful
policy recommendations for the rolling out of sustainable agriculture. The vision and mission statements clearly indicate
that respondents are promoting sustainable agriculture. The word ‘sustainable’ is used by a significant number of
respondents in their vision and mission statements. It implies that respondents incorporated ‘sustainable’ discourse and
started to implement it. Statements included keywords such as healing, restoring, conserve and credible, just to mention
a few. It indicates that conventional or current ways of farming are in need of an overhaul, or at the very least that current
production systems need restoring and healing. It further indicates that the balance between social, economic and
environmental attention in agriculture is currently skewed to predominantly economics. This view is countered by the
respondents by promoting sustainable agriculture to incorporate social, economic and environmental key values. The
most mentioned key issues in the vision statements were: promotion and facilitation of knowledge, findings and
information (19%); stewardship (Christian transformation) (15%); and people care (restoration) (12%). The most mentioned
key issues in the mission statements were: conserve agricultural land (9%); increased community wellbeing (9%); promotion
and sector support (6%); and training/development of human capital (6%).
The keywords most used for the definition of “sustainable agriculture” were: ensuring future production (12%); the triple
bottom-line of agricultural sustainability involving social, economic and environmental aspects (8%); and increased
productivity (7%). Production without erosion, without deterioration of environment/diminishing natural capital, or that is
not destructive was mentioned by 6% of the respondents.
The respondents’ work/projects address almost the complete spectrum of agriculture. The most work done by the
respondents is practical (68%) related to NT/CA research, land care, food security and training. Other work done relates
to information dissemination and networking (19%), exploring markets (value chain research, predictions and modelling)
(8%) and policy formulation and influencing (facilitating with regulations) (6%).
The respondents’ research agendas for the next 5–10 years and the institutions’ specialisations are in line with work
undertaken. This indicates a practice-driven approach focusing on production systems (farming systems with crop-grazing
interface), economic value chain research and modelling (12%), and driving increased awareness/publication of
sustainable agricultural examples. Effective strategies and mitigation (5%) and PES (3%) (which might be affiliated to
policies) only add up to 8% of the respondents’ planned agendas.
This thinking is confirmed by the policy recommendations made by the respondents. Those recommendations most
mentioned (totalling 60%) confirm the need for practical on-farm support policies. The most recommendations refer to
57
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
financial support (18%), increased knowledge (i.e. training, extension, mentorship) (15%), improved applied research (14%)
and dissemination of good/best agricultural practices (13%).
Respondents emphasised the need for improved implementation of existing policies (compliance monitoring and followthrough with non-compliance), streamlining of sustainable agricultural discourse and regulations, and reviewing existing
policies. Appendix A presents a full SWOT analysis for the maize, beef and citrus sectors on the basis of the results of the
field survey.
58
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
9
CONCLUSIONS
General conclusions
The overall objective of this research project was as follows:
“To translate the emerging knowledge on sustainable farming systems and food security in
South Africa into viable larger-scale options in support of a greener, lower carbon economy
that continues to create jobs and improve human wellbeing.”
To evaluate whether this objective has been reached, the conclusions of this study are interpreted by focusing on three
separate questions:

Can sustainable farming be done on a larger scale in South Africa?

Will sustainable farming support a greener and lower carbon economy?

Will sustainable farming support an economy that create jobs and improve human wellbeing?
Can sustainable farming be done on a larger scale in South Africa?
Meta-analyses on comparisons between conventional and sustainable agricultural food systems worldwide provide
mixed conclusions on the net economic benefits of sustainable farming technologies and systems. The international
literature suggests that comparative studies between conventional and alternative systems have been and can be done,
but need to be sensitive to various issues, such as the technologies used, site-specific conditions, expression of
environmental impacts per area and per product, type of environmental impacts measured, the need to include
indicators for nutritional quality, the need for context-specific economic analysis, and the need for a systems perspective
beyond field-level comparisons. Such a conclusion does suggest that more site-specific research must be conducted in
comparing conventional and alternative systems and that the results presented in this study must be treated as preliminary
and indicative.
The economic modelling results presented in this study further suggest that sustainable farming systems may increase net
economic and environmental benefits under certain conditions, but that this cannot be assumed to be the general case
for all sectors. Communal beef production systems are faring worse in economic terms than commercial ones, but both
can improve on environmental performance. In maize production systems, early results indicate a large benefit for
adopting conservation agricultural systems, but the highest potential is mostly confounded to certain regions in the
country. In some provinces the adoption of conservation agriculture may improve financial returns to typical maize
producers, but producers are still expected to operate at a net financial loss. The operating cost of organic citrus is twice
as much as conventional citrus, a situation also attributed to new, emerging sectors, although there is a price premium
that makes certain organic producers competitive. The general conclusion is that there is a potential for upscaling
economically viable sustainable farming systems, but that expected gains are only specific to certain regions and sectors.
Survey respondents involved in sustainable farming are almost all motivated by socio-ecological concerns and interests.
Respondents generally have a vision for sustainable farming centred on stewardship, caring for the land and for people
and improving community wellbeing. Agricultural productivity is still sought after, but there is a willingness to defer
productivity to the future if environmental gains cannot be made simultaneously. Policy recommendations made by the
respondents focus on practical on-farm support, such as financial support and incentives, as well as further research,
knowledge and dissemination of best practices. These indicators suggest that sustainable agriculture is in the earlier stages
of research, innovation and commercialisation in South Africa. A well-designed process of upscaling sustainable
agricultural technologies and -systems, supported by appropriate incentives, further research and policy development, is
called for by respondents.
Domestic commercial agri-food value chains in South Africa are not well-positioned to serve sustainable farming. Maize
value chain actors, for one, are not willing to engage with conservation agriculture under the status quo, but there is a
general willingness to engage with smallholder farms. The linkage of smallholder farms to agri-food value chains, therefore,
remains a priority from a maize value chain perspective.
59
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
There is some discord among current policies and instruments in South Africa that affect agricultural systems. The NDP is
concerned with stewardship of natural resources and responding to climate change, yet (implicitly) supports large-scale
conventional farming. The APAP calls for conservation agriculture and supports sustainable technologies for smallholder
farmers, but does not describe a systems-wide transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Greater alignment
is also required with policies and plans in other sectors, such as water, environmental management, land reform, rural
development, food and nutritional security, green economy, trade, and climate change. A clearer policy hierarchy
would allow better alignment and reduction of conflicts between policy goals. It is concluded that upscaling sustainable
agriculture would be impossible to achieve without a supportive and coherent policy framework.
In summary, sustainable agricultural technologies and systems cannot be scaled up in the South African context as yet.
The reasons are that i) the benefits of sustainable agriculture are specific to regions and sectors, ii) the industry itself is in
its infancy, and iii) there is no supportive and coherent policy framework as yet.
Will sustainable farming support a greener and lower carbon economy?
Comparative studies worldwide indicate that organic production may offer a significant reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as an improvement in soil organic matter and biodiversity indicators. Nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide
emissions as well as energy- and land use may also be positively impacted.
Economic modelling performed in this study suggests that commercial beef production has the lowest estimated
environmental demand over its life-cycle when compared to emerging and communal farmer operations. Both
commercial and communal herd managers therefore have to change their prevailing (unsustainable) management
practices to reduce the current net environmental loss, but the risks of unsustainable farming practices are greater among
communal management. These results point out that a transition to sustainable beef production systems does not imply
a move from commercial to communal or emerging farming systems. In the case of maize production, the potential
benefits of conservation agriculture are clearer; not only reduced costs, increase yields and increase net farm income
are expected, but also environmental benefits through lower GHG emissions, lower input use and increased carbon
sequestration.
Survey respondents generally expect that sustainable farming would play an important role in a greener and lower
carbon economy. Important aspects mentioned were to ensure future production that is non-destructive to the
environment, taking into account the triple bottom-line of agricultural sustainability involving social, economic and
environmental aspects.
The results of the value chain analysis cautions against over-optimistic expectations on the immediate ability of sustainable
farming systems to contribute to a greener economy. The high external input (HEI) model used in conventional agriculture
is historically entrenched and has contributed to a smaller number of farmers and entities in the value chain. There are no
imperatives to move away from the existing unsustainable conventional system and there is a lack of policy drivers in
support of conservation agriculture in the value chain. Smallholder farms are increasingly integrated in the value chain
though, which provides a possible avenue for the uptake of conservation agriculture.
The policy analysis done also concludes that sustainable farming can only contribute to a greener economy when there
is greater alignment of the current multi-policy framework. A “policy hierarchy” does exist, but requires further analysis and
understanding.
In summary, sustainable farming could support a move towards a greener and lower carbon economy, especially by
reducing greenhouse gases, improving soils and positively impacting on biodiversity. Maize production offers the greatest
immediate rewards, although entrenched value chains and misaligned policies remain formidable challenges.
Will sustainable farming support an economy that create jobs and improve human
wellbeing?
Certain international studies (mostly from United Nations and the International Labour Organization) present socioeconomic improvement as a direct result of sustainable agriculture such as the creation of green jobs, achieving synergies
between poverty alleviation and the green economy, the possibility of the green economy being an engine for
development, and growing export markets for green and sustainable food.
60
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
The literature further suggests that agriculture has some of the strongest backward, forward and employment multipliers
in the economy, which raises the expectation that investment into agricultural systems would have positive effects on
employment. The South African situation is more nuanced though. Agriculture provides livelihoods for 40% of the world’s
population, but only 20% in South Africa. The agricultural sector in South Africa has further been associated with a rapid
decline in employment and a loss of income to workers, yet some sub-sectors, such as the horticulture sector, are still
known for its labour-absorbing capacity. Conservation agriculture further requires more labour, and small-holder
sustainable agriculture has been proposed as a labour-intensive option.
Survey respondents often mentioned care for people, informing people, and improvement of human and community
wellbeing as key motivators and concerns in sustainable agriculture. On-farm support through increased knowledge,
training, extension and mentorship of workers is seen as a priority for policy action.
The value chain analysis suggests that producers and agri-businesses continue to pursue short-term financial goals, but
that there is a willingness to engage with more labour-intensive smallholders. The policy analysis presented revealed the
tension between ambitious goals of job creation and job-shedding that characterises the conventional agrarian system.
In summary, although sustainable agricultural technologies are known for being more labour-intensive than conventional
systems, it must be noted that both the infancy of sustainable agriculture and linkages with smallholders mitigate against
expectations of large-scale job creation in the immediate future. A longer-term, supportive policy with appropriate
incentives and disincentives for sustainable agricultural technologies and systems is required.
Key policy messages
Maize production
Maize production is one of the backbone industries in the country and hence the long-term profitability and sustainability
thereof is essential to maintain and develop the resilience of rural societies and the economy in South Africa at large.
Issues to consider are as follows:

Better soil quality sustain higher yields and lessens the need for using (high) external inputs.,

Better soil quality increases water-use efficiency in a drought-prone country.

Less disturbance of the soil lowers the environmental demand per unit of maize produced and increases the
sustainability of the system.

Less use of external inputs like fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides lowers the environmental demand per unit of
maize produced and increases the profitability and sustainability of the system.
To rectify the situation requires the following key outcomes, among others, to be achieved:

Improved access to suitable maize and rotational crop varieties, as well as a range of cover crop species, to be
able to build resilient cropping systems in area-specific environments.

Improved crop (and livestock) management to allow soil quality recovery and enhanced effectivity and
productivity.

More plant (crop) diversity for disease, pest and weed control methods to avoid high rates of pesticides and
herbicides.

The build-up of soil organic matter in the soils by having minimal mechanical soil disturbance, permanent organic
soil cover and diverse cropping systems.
The above can be achieved through the following actions:

Facilitate the formation and operation of farmer innovation platforms, for sharing, learning, implementation and
scaling out of Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices.

Facilitate farmer-driven research where different stakeholders (i.e. scientists/researchers, extension officers,
farmers, agri-business) share responsibilities.

Involve and enhance extension officers to learn, participate and facilitate.
61
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

Improve the general awareness and understanding of the impact and the sustainability of the various farming
systems through social media, publications, conferences and farmers’ days.

Identify and strengthen the various rural institutional arrangements, especially under smallholder farmers, as
platforms to improve local crop production systems through CA.

Facilitate smallholder and commercial farmers’ production into value chains that demand sustainable CA
practices.

Raise the awareness of the main (market) stakeholders on the qualities, role and success of CA.

Restore the soils to improve the net primary production.

Introduce incentives and market-based mechanisms to facilitate CA on a broader scale across the country.
Beef production
The cattle ranching method applied does matter when environmental demands are measured, with further implications
for the long-term profitability and sustainability of the sector.
Issues to consider are as follows:

A better average daily gain and feed conversion ratio shortens the time period a calf requires before it is market
ready and, hence, lowers the environmental demand.

A lower mortality rate and higher calving percentage produces more calves, and thus meat, per cow, per unit
of environmental demand and per hectare.

Fewer unproductive animals per hectare (i.e. non-breeding animals such as oxen, bulls and unproductive cows)
lowers the environmental demand per unit of beef produced and increases the sustainability of the system.
To rectify the situation requires, among others:

An improvement of the genetic material.

Improved grazing management, including aspects such as stocking rates and grazing patterns to allow soil and
veld recovery as well as enhanced productivity.

Better cow selection and disease control methods to avoid high mortality rates and improve calving
percentages.

The introduction of formal breeding seasons to avoid cows having calves in winter when the quality of the fodder
is poor.
The above can be achieved by the following actions:

Appoint dedicated extension officers to the beef sector who can assist commercial, emerging, small and
communal cattle farmers in improving the health and genetic quality of the livestock, disease control, grazing
management and breeding patterns.

Improve the general understanding of environmental demand and sustainability of the various farming systems
through mechanisms such as social media, publications, conferences and farmers’ days.

Define the various institutional arrangements in especially rural areas under communal farmers and strengthen
the cattle management systems.

Manage stock theft as a matter of priority to allow better use of grazing resources.

Invest in good infrastructure such as dip tanks, roads and marking support.

Restore the soils to improve the net primary production of the veld.

Avoid bush encroachment and alien species invasion.
62
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Conservation agriculture policy
The policy framework

The transition towards a more sustainable agriculture and food system is of great importance, as the costs of
conventional agriculture become increasingly apparent.

A common vision for this transition is required based on the acceptance that conventional agriculture is
economically, socially and environmentally unviable and compromises the country’s security.

The development of a CA policy for South Africa is a positive step if seen as part of a continuum on which
agriculture and the food system moves towards a sustainable future and a greener economy.

A policy mix exists in South Africa which can support the increased uptake of CA within a system-wide framework.
However, further policy alignment and resolving contradictions in the policy mix is required.

The move towards sustainable agriculture, including CA, must be responsive to, and adaptive and supportive of
a series of transitions with issues of scale, time and feedback accounted for, and the choice of policy instruments
tailored to specific goals along this transition.
CA as a catalyst for agrarian reform
A more general CA policy needs to carefully align and intersect with broader socio-economic policies and instruments
pertaining to the future agrarian system. There are a number of important considerations:

Acknowledging concerns and contestation: The transition towards a more sustainable agriculture and food
system is contested. These views of different stakeholders should be made explicit and acknowledged. This
includes concerns that CA promotes chemical herbicides, fertilisers and the use of genetically modified crops. As
part of a transition from conventional, high-input, tillage-based practices to regenerative CA systems, soils are
restored. Such restoration is an essential prerequisite to enable low-input organic systems after a period of time.

Policy alignment: The contradictions and challenges among the range of developmental and agricultural
policies and strategies must be identified and acknowledged.

Linking into the existing policy mix: A number of current highly-prioritised, system-wide policies and programmes
are able to support the accelerated uptake of CA, for example, those on smallholder development, food and
nutrition security, water resource management, and rural development and land reform. Implementation
programmes, such as LandCare, should integrate CA wherever possible. In turn, CA has the potential to
contribute to the success of other policies and the optimisation of trade-offs, for example in climate change, the
Green Economy, trade, and the environment.

A responsive and adaptive policy: A transition which takes into account issues of scale, time and feedbacks is
made possible through the progression from conventional to sustainable agriculture. This demands responsive
and adaptive management, and an understanding and sensitive management of the potentially disruptive
nature of systemic changes and unintended consequences for certain elements of the system within the broader
set of benefits.

A chance of success: A CA policy needs to be politically acceptable and administratively feasible within the
context of available capacity and finances, in order to ensure swift implementation.
Supporting the technical transition from CV to OCA
Although CA is much more than a technical tool, the technical considerations must also be addressed by a CA policy to
ensure greater uptake by both large commercial and smallholder farmers. The following recommendations should be
considered:
63
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

A time-bound approach to transitioning: The initial transition period from conventional agriculture to CA is
characterised by re-equilibration and can result in transient reductions in yield, especially in areas with lower
agricultural potential (see Figure 13). This period also demands capital investment in CA machinery. In the case
of beef farming, the transition demands measures to correct rangeland stocking rates and establish integrated
livestock management approaches, which can also take time. A CA policy should provide support during this
period, in order to speed up the successful transition, encourage the shift to a higher category of sustainability
and absorb a proportion of the risk that is taken by the farmer. Thereafter, other instruments and programmes
can be brought in to support long-term continuation of the system, including the proposed carbon tax, water
pricing, punitive measures for malpractices, and rewards for best practices and social benefits.
Figure 13
Simplified diagrammatic representation of Net Present Value (NPV) over time for conventional and CA maize
production systems in South Africa
Source: Adapted from Blignaut et al. (2015c)

Practical on-farm support: A practical, on-farm, bottom-up policy approach is recommended to increase the
uptake of CA through farmer-led innovation and local solutions at commercial and smallholder scales. The
recommendations include on-farm financial support and increased knowledge (through CA-focused training,
extension and mentorship). The LandCare programme and farmer study groups would be well suited to carrying
the message through awareness and capacity building. A core programme should be to mainstream CA into all
education and extension programmes (aimed particularly at supporting smallholder farmers) and to influence
the inclusion of a CA focus within the new participatory extension model currently in draft version. The
development of human resources could include the use of exchange programmes, and a particular focus on
youth and women farmers. Support to land reform beneficiaries should prioritise the adoption of CA practices.

Investment in applied CA research: A great deal of investment and effort is still needed to continue to build
locally-adapted CA systems over the short-, medium- and long-term and to scale out effectively. This should
include the establishment of farmer-led research for various scales of farming, accompanied by financial models
which incorporate the reduction in costs and the offsetting of environmental costs (externalities). Research into
the nutritional and food safety benefits of CA should be stepped up. Case studies of successes in different agroecological areas and different farming systems would complement these approaches and encourage farmers
to make the shift. Aligned to research is the need to invest in long-term monitoring systems of the benefits to
agricultural resources – especially a carefully selected set of soil health indicators.

Developing and nurturing partnerships: CA uptake can be accelerated through the development of partnerships.
These could include various combinations of the public sector, farmers, the private sector, farm workers and
researchers. Commodity organisations and other farmer support bodies should continue to play an important
facilitative and leadership role in linking farmers to government and research. Successful examples exist, such as
the applied research partnerships of GrainSA, ARC and others. Regional partnerships should be encouraged with
countries where CA is already practiced at scale.
64
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

Sustainable agricultural value chains: A CA policy should encompass the whole agri-food value chain and
encourage all actors across the chain to support the transition to sustainable agriculture. Given the current
barriers, policy should identify and target “entry points” in the value chain, initially through the provision of
integrated CA-friendly support and services to smallholder farmers. This should leverage off the existing policy
thrust in support of smallholder development and broadening participation in the value chain. It can also link with
the government’s programme to develop and strengthen cooperatives for smallholder farmers. Further uptake
of CA in the value chain will depend on building a sound business case, greater awareness and incentives for
institutions within finance and insurance, manufacture and sales of inputs, processing and trade, and retail. The
current inability to separate food produced sustainably and unsustainably (including organic produce) limits
current preferential marketing options and requires further attention. Finally, a comprehensive consumer
information and awareness campaign is necessary to scale up the demand for sustainable produce through an
understanding of the environmental and health benefits and the reduction in long-term costs to the taxpayer.

A united coherent understanding and vision of sustainable agriculture: Core actors in the sector do not agree on,
or do not sufficiently understand, sustainable agriculture. Government needs to lead the discourse between
actors in order to develop a consensus and common vision. This is a prerequisite for the creation of an enabling
environment. In order to gain system-wide political and institutional buy-in, DAFF should launch a wider set of
engagements with other national departments at the highest level and non-state actors and institutions across
the agri-food value chain – including those “outside of it” as critics of the system. A greater understanding should
emphasise not only the various system components but also the range of complex interactions within a larger
system, thus acknowledging the wider benefits. The process of participatory exploration and knowledge
exchange should be sustained over the long-term.
Policy instruments
A wide range of policy instruments are at government’s disposal in order to achieve the above objectives. They include,
but are not limited to, the following:

Carbon and water pricing and other incentives to reduce their use and footprint within agriculture.

A CA/OCA-friendly carbon tax regime for agriculture.

A land valuation system which rewards good land use and farming practices.

Shifting agricultural subsidies (e.g. synthetic fertilisers for smallholder farmers) towards more sustainable practices.

Offset systems whereby carbon offsets are used to rehabilitate conventionally farmed degraded land by shifting
to CA/OCA.

Brokerage systems for “Payment for Ecosystem Services” (PES) on farmland, where groups of farmers collaborate
to access the financial benefits of PES in return for landscape-level sustainable farming.

Incentives for beef cattle farmers to improve production efficiencies and lower the environmental footprint of
meat production.

Assistance schemes for farmers who want to purchase specialised CA implements (such as CA planters) by
o
reducing or lifting import duties,
o
supporting the local development and manufacturing capability (in the Western Cape locally
developed machinery was better able to deal with local soil specific challenges than imported versions;
this also has job creation potential), and
o
providing low or no interest asset finance.

Bank guarantees for CA/OCA farmers.

Incentives aimed at speeding up the transition from HEI to LEI.

Rewards for proven social benefits brought about by conversion to CA/OCA (jobs, food security).

Encourage corporate social responsibility programmes in the agri-food value chain to support the transition to
sustainable agriculture.
65
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
10 RECOMMENDATIONS
ACTION
FOR
FURTHER
RESEARCH
AND
Research recommendations
Invest in knowledge of multi-functional agricultural systems
Before a clearer path towards more sustainable agriculture can be outlined, further investment in knowledge on multifunctional agricultural systems is needed. The main options for improving the sustainability of agriculture which need to
be tested for various agricultural systems in a South African context are the following:

Improving land and water management, including ecological restoration and the removal of invasive alien
plants.

Increasing yields on unproductive farms.

Addressing barriers to entry for smaller-scale farmers.

Shifting to degraded lands.

Reducing losses during distribution and storage in food value chains.

Minimising post-consumption food waste.

Investing in research and innovation systems.
Further empirical research is required on alternative farming systems, as results worldwide and now in South Africa point
towards the importance of specific contexts in the success of alternative farming systems. Specific suggestions for further
research include:
Invest in research, monitoring and evaluation that lead to a better understanding of the agricultural and food system.
Key aspects of this research are as follows:

Long-term field data work to accumulate useful data which in future can lead to more accurate models being
developed.

Further analysis and modelling is required on sustainable production systems, measuring environmental, social
and economic indicators. A list of indicators that can be used as a guide in measuring conservation agriculture
is included in Box 6.
o
Further modelling research is needed that includes production-related financial input costs, as well as
environmental, economic and social sustainability indicators.
o
A clear strategy of phasing out of external inputs is recommended. Research is needed on the
practicality and questions around compliance.
o
More research is required on the citrus and beef sectors. The citrus sector was represented by only one
respondent in the survey performed for this study. The beef sector lacked input from sector organisations
as well as intensive and extensive system experts.
o
Connections between sectors need to be included in the research, such as maize and beef through
feedlots and crop residue needed in the fields.

Research on entities in several value chains (this study only focused on maize), as well as the role of distribution,
transport and trade to support sustainable agriculture, needs to be intensified.

Research on the consumption and waste of agricultural products and food is needed. The question of what the
options are for addressing the problem of excessive food waste was not addressed here and needs further
research.
66
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE

Research on the implications of sustainable agriculture on human welfare, including employment. The question
of what the potential is of creating ‘greener’ jobs in sustainable farming need to be answered through empirical
measurement and not through high-level modelling.
Invest in research that leads to a better understanding of the relationships between sustainable agriculture, food security
and human health.
Key aspects are as follows:

Research on access to food, food availability, the stability of food supply and the quality of food, incl. nutrition,
in sustainable agricultural systems.
o

Further research is needed on food health and nutrition policies, for example exploring the use of GM
crops and related chemical weed control programs. The suggestion is that farmers using GM and
chemicals should be registered as pressing issues are health and safety of GM as well as weed resistance
to glyphosate, with the fear of development of “killer weeds”.
Include nutrition data and protein categories in the research. Food and nutritional security goals on a household
level need to be tested with and without sustainable agriculture technologies and systems.
Invest in research that leads to a better understanding of the barriers and opportunities for uptake and preferential
marketing of sustainably produced food throught the value chain.
Box 6
Measuring conservation agriculture
The following is a list of indicators that can be used either individually or in combination to measure CA success and
adoption:
1. return on investment with regard to yield (t/ha)
2. levels of (reduced) external production inputs: measured in R/ha and/or kg/ha/yr for fertilisers, herbicides,
pesticides and lit/ha/yr for fuel use
3. soil health measurements – chemical
a. balanced ratio of certain micro- and macro-nutrients, pH, acidity level, etc. (see also Soil Health
Tool below)
4. soil health measurements – biological
a. Soil Health Tool (SHT Index), and/or
b. microbial genetic diversity (DNA sequencing), microbial functional diversity (BIOLOG assay),
carbon cycling (Solvita CO2 respiration, soil enzymes), nitrogen cycling (part of SHT), soil biomass
(microbial biomass, earthworm populations) and key species (Mycorrhiza, pathogens)
5. soil health measurements – physical
a. soil organic matter (SOM) and soil organic carbon (SOC) build-up with regard to an appropriate
baseline (consider different Soil C fractions, e.g. active or labile fractions)
b. aggregate stability
6. water-use efficiency (WUE) measured in terms of kg/mm rainfall or evapo-transpiration
7. reduced riskiness (combination of yields, WUE and return on investment linked to knowledge and
management levels)
8. soil loss (ton/ha/yr) through soil loss modelling and field observations
9. number of CA farmer groups, such as study groups, clubs, etc. (measured by impact survey)
10. number of CA awareness events, such as farmers’ days, conferences and cross visits
11. number of farmers adopting CA per region (adoption rate)
12. number of no-till planters sold per region per year
13. number of infestations by pests or other forms of invasive alien organisms per season per region
67
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Practical recommendations

Practical, green accounting skills are required on levels of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and diesel on farm (e.g.
analyse the citrus sector’s carbon calculator as an example for multiple sector use).

Survey respondents called for increased networking and creating platforms for discussion (including awareness
raising, sharing results, networking, and knowledge think tank).

o
It is suggested that sector organisations meet across sector boundaries to assist both smallholder and
commercial farmers in SA towards achieving more sustainable agriculture.
o
Reward CA performers and promote successful experiences.
Extension is a central component and the new Farmer Support and Extension Policy needs to be aligned with the
CA policy.
o
Extension officers should be dedicated to a particular sector and not be generalists with shallow
knowledge. Social media provides an important opportunity for extension services.
o
Sustainable farming needs a greater diversity of crops and seeds.
Recommendations on the CA policy development process

In addition and complementary to the CA policy it is proposed that DAFF launches a wider set of engagements
with other national departments at the highest level as well as key actors and institutions across the agri-food
value chain – and those “outside of it” as critics of the system. This is in order to gain system-wide political and
institutional buy-in for the urgent transition towards sustainable and regenerative agricultural production systems.

A common vision for the transition to such systems is required by government and the private sector (farmers,
agricultural organisations, input and service providers, markets), civil society and academia, based on the
acceptance that “business-as-usual” is no longer an option. This is economically and socially unviable,
compromising the country’s food security and, ultimately, national security. Future challenges such as population
growth, water and energy security, and climate change demand strong leadership and courage to do what is
necessary to build a more resilient South Africa that continues to feed itself while providing greater economic
opportunities for its rural population.

Future research is needed to explore how a CA policy merged with an organic policy could potentially look like.
This policy might refer to other sustainable agriculture concepts (i.e. agro-ecology, biodynamic agriculture,
permaculture).
68
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aliber, M. 2009. Exploring Statistics South Africa’s national household surveys as sources of information about
household-level food security. Agrekon, 48(4):384–409.
ASSET Research. 2013. Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a
sustainable productive resource base. Research proposal prepared for The Green Fund Research and Policy
Development to Advance the Green Economy in South Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
ASSET Research. 2015. Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a
sustainable productive resource base. Deliverable 6: Policy workshop. Prepared for the Green Fund, Development
Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
Baipheti, M.N. & Jacobs, P.T. 2009. The contribution of subsistence farming to food security in South Africa. Agrekon,
48(4):459–482.
Baleta, H. & Pegram, G. 2014. Water as an input in the food value chain. Understanding the food energy water nexus.
Cape Town: WWF-SA.
Barański, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G.B., et al. 2014. Higher antioxidant and
lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic
literature review and meta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition, doi:10.1017/S0007114514001366.
Barrow, S. 2006. South African Organic Market Study. Export promotion of organic products from Africa EPOPA.
Driebergen: Agro Eco & Grolink.
Battersby, J. & Peyton, S. 2014. The geography of supermarkets in Cape Town: supermarket expansion and food
access. Urban Forum, 25(2):153–164.
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernández, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo, T., Van Bo, N., Nobre,
C.A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. & Wakhungu, J. 2012. Achieving food security in the face of climate change: Final report
from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture
and
Food
Security
(CCAFS).
Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Available
online
at:
http://www.ccafs.cgiar.org/commission.
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42:261–269.
Beukes, D.J. 2003. Preface. In Beukes, D.J., et al. (Eds). Proc. Symp. And workshop Water Conservation Technologies
for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bloem Spa Lodge, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
BFAP (Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy). 2013. BFAP baseline: agricultural outlook 2013–2022. Pretoria: BFAP.
Bhorat, H., Van der Westhuizen, C. & Jacobs, E. 2011. The role of agriculture in poverty reduction: South Africa. Project
paper
of
Victoria
University,
Melbourne
Australia.
Available
at:
http://www.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/BHORAT_2011_Agriculture_in_Poverty_
Reduction_in_South_Africa.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2014).
Bilalis, D., Karkanis, A., Patsiali, S., Agrogianni, M., Konstantas, A. & Triantafyllidis, V. 2011. Performance of wheat varieties
(Triticum aestivum L.) under conservation tillage practices in organic agriculture. Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 39:28–33.
Blignaut, J.N., Aronson, J., Mander, M. & Marais, C. 2008. Restoring South Africa’s Drakensberg Mountain Ecosystems
and providing Water Catchment Services. Ecological Restoration, 26(2):143–150.
Blignaut, J., De Wit, M., Crookes, D., Saki, A., Drimie, S. & Midgley, S. 2015a. Promoting and advancing the uptake of
sustainable, regenerative, conservation agriculture in the beef production sector. Green Economy Policy Brief Series.
Research and Policy Development to Advance a Green Economy in South Africa. Policy Brief #, July.
Blignaut, J., De Wit, M., Knot, J., Smith, H., Nkambule, N., Drimie, S. & Midgley, S. 2015b. Promoting and advancing the
uptake of sustainable, regenerative, conservation agriculture in the maize production sector. Green Economy Policy
Brief Series. Research and Policy Development to Advance a Green Economy in South Africa. Policy Brief #, July.
Blignaut, J., Knot, J., Smith, H., Nkambule, N., Crookes, D., Saki, A., Drimie, S., Midgley, S., de Wit, M., von Loeper, W. &
Strauss, J. 2015c. Promoting and advancing the uptake of sustainable, regenerative, conservation agricultural
practices in South Africa with a specific focus on dryland maize and extensive beef production. Asset Research,
booklet nr 1. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
69
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Blignaut, J., De Wit, M., Milton, S., Esler, K.J., Le Maitre, D., Mitchell, S. & Crookes, D. (Eds). 2012. Determining the
economic risk/return parameters for developing a market for ecosystem goods and services following the restoration
of natural capital: A system dynamics approach. Pretoria: Water Research Commission and ASSET Research.
Blignaut, J.N., De Wit, M.P., Midgley, S., Drimie, S., Knot, J. & Crookes, D. 2014a. Sustainable farming as a viable option
for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable productive resource base. Inception report. Prepared
for the Green Fund, Development Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
Blignaut, J.N., De Wit, M.P., Midgley, S., Crookes, D.C., Knot, J. & Drimie, S. 2014b. Sustainable agriculture: A viable
option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable productive resource base in South Africa: An
investigation. Baseline Review. Prepared for the Development Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
Blignaut, J.N., De Wit, M.P., Midgley, S., Drimie, S., Knot, J. & Crookes, D. 2014c. Sustainable farming as a viable option
for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable productive resource base. Student proposals prepared
for the Green Fund, Development Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
Bojo, J. 1991. Economics and land degradation. Ambio, 20(2):75–79.
Botha, J.H. & Fouche, P.S. 2000. An assessment of land degradation in the northern province from satellite remote
sensing and community perception. South African Geographical Journal, 82:70–79.
Brandt, K., Leifert, C., Sanderson, R. & Seal, C.J. 2011. Agroecosystem management and nutritional quality of plant foods:
the case of organic fruits and vegetables. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1–2):177–197.
Britz, T.J. & Sigge, G.O. 2012. Quantitative Investigation into the link between irrigation water quality and food safety.
Volume 1: Synthesis Report. Report to the Water Report Commission and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries. WRC Report No. 1773/1/12. ISBN 978-1-4312-0374-1.
Bruinsma, J. 2003. World agriculture: towards 2015/2030: an FAO perspective. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Chopra, M., Whitten, C. & Drimie, S. 2009. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) working paper number 1:
combating malnutrition in South Africa. Available at: www.gainhealth.org/sites/default/files/Working Paper Series
(accessed on 10 September 2014).
Crookes, D.J., Blignaut, J.N., De Wit, M.P., Esler, K.J., Le Maitre, D.C., Milton, S.J., et al. 2013. System dynamics modelling
to assess economic viability and risk trade-offs for ecological restoration in South Africa. Journal of environmental
management, 120:138–147.
Crookes, D.J. 2015. Systems Model of the South African Beef Industry. Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research
Colloquium, Pretoria, 20 May 2015.
Crush, J., Hovorka, A. & Tevera, D. 2010. Urban food production and household food security in Southern African cities.
Urban Food Security Series No. 4. Kingston and Cape Town: Queen’s University and AFSUN.
Dabrowski, J.M., Shadung, J.M. & Wepener, V. 2013. Prioritizing agricultural pesticides used in South Africa based on
their environmental mobility and potential human health effects. Environ Int, 62:31–40.
DAFF. n.d. Conservation Agriculture Policy. Zero Draft. Unpublished.
DAFF. 2010. Estimate of the contribution of the agriculture sector to employment in the South African economy.
Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
DAFF. 2012. A profile of the South African apple market value chain. Pretoria: Directorate Marketing, Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
DAFF. 2013. Strategic Plan for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 2013/14 to 2017/18. Pretoria:
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, March.
DAFF. 2015. Abstract of Agricultural Statistics. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
DAFF/IGDP. 2012. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries: integrated growth and development plan 2012. Pretoria:
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
Dangour, A.D., Dodhia, S.K., Hayter, A., Allen, E., Lock, K. & Uauy, R. 2009. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic
review 1–4. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90:680–685.
Davis, A.S., Hill, J.D., Chase, C.A., Johanns, A.M. & Liebman, M. 2012. Increasing cropping system diversity balances
productivity,
profitability
and
environmental
health.
Available
at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Ad
oi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047149&representation=PDF (accessed on 9 September 2014).
70
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
De Janvry, A. 2010. Agriculture for development: new paradigm and options for success. Available at:
http://are.berkeley.edu/~esadoulet/papers/De Janvry Elmhirst lecture.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2014).
De Ponti, T., Rijk, B. & Van Ittersum, M.K. 2012. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture.
Agricultural Systems, 108:1–9.
De Villiers, S. & Thiart, C. 2007. The nutrient status of South African rivers: concentrations, trends and fluxes from the
1970s to 2005. S. Afr. j. sci., 103(7–8):343–349.
De Wit, M.P. & Crookes, D.J. 2013. Improved decision-making on irrigation farming in arid zones using a system
dynamics model. South African Journal of Science, 109(11–12):1–8.
De Wit, M.P. & Midgley, S.J.E. 2012. Hunger and climate change: an analysis of key variables in southern Africa. Report
prepared for the Regional Climate Change Programme for southern Africa (RCCP), UK Department for International
Development (DFID). Cape Town: OneWorld Sustainable Investments.
DEA. 2013a. GHG Inventory for South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs.
DEA. 2013b. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios Flagship Research Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Climate change
implications for the agriculture and forestry sectors in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs.
Defra. 2012. Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. Produced by AEA for the
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra). London: AEA.
Department of Agriculture (Limpopo). 2010. Enterprise budget for beef cattle in Limpopo. Limpopo, Polokwane:
Department of Agriculture.
Department of Health. 2003. South Africa Demographic and Health Survey. Pretoria: Department of Health. Available
at: www.doh.gov.za/www.mrc.ac.za/bod/bod.htm (accessed on 9 September 2014).
Department of Health. 2013. Roadmap for Nutrition in South Africa, 2013–2017. Pretoria: Nutrition Directorate, National
Department of Health.
Derpsch, R.W., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. & Hongwen, L. 2010. Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world
and some of its main benefits. International Journal Agric & Biological Engineering, 3(1):1–25.
Djical, D., Saj, S., Rabary, B., Blanchart, E. & Villenave, C. 2012. Mulch type affects soil biological functioning and crop
yield of conservation agriculture systems in a long-term experiment in Madagascar. Soil and Tillage Research, 118:11–
21.
Drimie, S. & Ruysenaar, S. 2010. The integrated food security strategy of South Africa: an institutional analysis. Agrekon,
49(3):316–337.
Du Preez, C.C., Van Huyssteen, C.W. & Mnkeni, P.N.S. 2011. Land use and soil organic matter in South Africa 2: a review
on the influence of arable crop production. S Afr J Sci., 107(5/6), doi:10.4102/sajs.V107Í5/6.358.
Du Toit, A.P.N. & Mashao, S.J. 2010. Prospects for adoption of the Conservation Agriculture (CA) system by semicommercial grain farmers in South Africa. Potchefstroom: ARC-Grain Crops Institute.
Du Toit, G. 2007. Promoting Conservation Agriculture in South Africa: a case study among commercial grain producers
in the North West province. Pretoria: Bureau of Food and Agricultural Policy.
Dumanski, J., Peiretti, R., Benites, J.R., McGarry, D. & Pieri, C. 2006. The paradigm of conservation tillage. Proc of World
Association for Soil and Water Conservation, 7:58–64.
Engel, W. 2008. Determinants of consumer willingness to pay for organic food in South Africa. Submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirement for the degree MInst Agrar in the Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and
Rural Development, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Esler, K.E., Downsborough, L., Roux, D., Blignaut, J., Milton, S., Le Maitre, D. & de Wit, M.P. Interdisciplinary and multiinstitutional higher learning: reflecting on a South African case study investigating complex and dynamic
environmental challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainbility, submitted.
Esterhuizen, J., Groenewald, I.B., Strydom, P.E. & Hugo, A. 2008. The performance and meat quality of Bonsmara steers
raised in a feedlot, on conventional pastures or on organic pastures. South African Journal of Animal Science,
38(4):303–314.
Fanadzo, M. 2012. Revitalisation of smallholder irrigation schemes for poverty alleviation and household food security
in South Africa. A review. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7(13):1956–1969.
71
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
FAO. 2009. Scaling-up conservation agriculture in Africa: strategy and
http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/conservation.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
approaches.
Available
at:
Available
at:
FAO. 2012. Greening the Economy with Agriculture. Rome: FAO/Swiss Confederation.
FAO. 2013. The state of food and agriculture. Food systems for better
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3300e/i3300e.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
nutrition.
FAOSTAT. 2013. South Africa country overview. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 9 September 2014).
FAOSTAT. 2014. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed on 13 July 2014).
Fowler, R.M. 2004. Conservation Agriculture in South Africa. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Draft report for discussion
by the CA Project Team. Prepared in terms of FAO/NDA TCP 2902. Pietermaritzburg: ARC- grain Crops Institute.
Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the
heretics’ view. Field Crops Research, 114(1):23–34.
Goble, T.A., Dames, J.F., Hill, M.P. & Moore, S.D. 2010. The effects of farming system, habitat type and bait type on the
isolation of entomopathogenic fungi from citrus soils in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. BioControl, 55:399–
412.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D. & Paoletti, M.G. 2011. Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices:
conventional vs. organic agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30:95–124.
Hendriks, S. 2013. South Africa's national development plan and new growth path: reflections on policy contradictions
and implications for food security. Agrekon: Agricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in Southern Africa,
52(3):1–17.
Hittersay, P. 2004. South Africa: sleeping no-till giant? SA Farmers Weekly, July.
HLPE. 2012. Climate change and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
Hudson, B.D. 1994. Soil organic matter and available water capacity. Soil Sci. Soc. J. Soil Water Conserv., 49:189–194.
IAASTD.
2009.
Agriculture
at
a
crossroads
–
synthesis
report.
http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/Agriculture
at
a
crossroads
report2009Agriculture_at_Crossroads_Synthesis_Report.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
Available
at:
Synthesis
IAASTD.
2011.
Agriculture
at
a
crossroads:
Global
report.
Available
at:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf
(accessed on 8 September 2014).
INR. 2008. Study to develop a value chain strategy for sustainable development and growth of organic agriculture.
Compiled by the Institute of Natural Resources in association with GrolinkAB, Urban Econ, Phytotrade Africa, and
Zitholele Consulting, for the Trade and Industry Chamber, Fund for Research into Industrial Development (FRIDGE). INR
Investigation Report No. IR285.
IPCC. 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In Edenhofer, O., et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jensen, M.M., Jørgensen, H. & Lauridsen, C. 2013. Comparison between conventional and organic agriculture in terms
of nutritional quality of food – a critical review. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition
and Natural Resources, 8(045):1–13.
Jordaan, H., Grové, B. & Backeberg, G.R. 2014. Conceptual framework for value chain analysis for poverty alleviation
among smallholder farmers. Agrekon: Agricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in Southern Africa, 53:1–
25.
Jordan, N., Boody, G., Broussard, W., Glover, J.D., Keeney, D., McCown, B.H., McIsaac, G., Muller, M., Murray, H., Neal,
J., Pansing, C., Turner, R.E., Warner, K. & Wyse, D. 2007. Sustainable Development of the Agricultural Bio-Economy.
Science, 316(5831):1570–1571.
Kamsasa, N. 2015. Financial viability and environmental effects of conventional and organic citrus production systems.
Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research Colloquium, Pretoria, 20 May.
Kehinde, T. & Samways, M.J. 2012. Endemic pollinator response to organic vs. conventional farming and landscape
context in the Cape Floristic Region biodiversity hotspot. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 146:162–167.
72
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Kelly, C. & Metelerkamp, L. 2015. Smallholder farmers and organic agriculture in South Africa. A literature review
commissioned by the Southern Africa Food Lab and funded by GIZ. SI Projects, Sustainability Institute, Stellenbosch
University, Stellenbosch.
Kelly, R.H., Burke, I.C. & Lauenroth, W.K. 1996. Soil organic matter and nutrient availability responses to reduced plant
inputs in shortgrass steppe. Ecology,77(8):2516–2527.
Knot,
J.
2014.
Conservation
agriculture
and
commercial
in the Eastern Free State. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
farmers
Knot, J. 2015 . Sustainability of Maize Production in South Africa. Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research
Colloquium, Pretoria, 20 May.
Knot, J., De Wit, M.P., Blignaut, J.N., Midgley, S., Crookes, D.J., Drimie, S. & Nkambule N.P. 2014. Sustainable farming as
a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable productive resource base. An
investigation. Field report. Prepared for the Green Fund, Development Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
Knowler, D. & Bradshaw, B. 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent
research. Food Policy, 32:25–48.
Küstermann, B., Kainz, M. & Hülsbergen, K. 2008. Modeling carbon cycles and estimation of greenhouse gas emissions
from organic and conventional farming systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 23(1):38–52.
Labadarios, D., Mchiza, Z.J.R., Steyn, N.P., Gericke, G., Maunder, E.M.W., Davids, Y.D., et al. 2011. Food security in
South Africa: a review of national surveys. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89(12):891–899.
Lairon, D. & Huber, M. 2014. Food Quality and Possible Positive Health Effects of Organic Products. In Bellon, S. &
Penvern, S. (Eds). Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.
Lal, R. 2010. Enhancing eco-efficiency in agroecosystems through soil C sequestration. Crop Sci, 50:S120–S131.
Le Roux, J.J., Newby, T.S. & Summer, P.D. 2007. Monitoring soil erosion in South Africa at a regional scale: review and
recommendations. South African Journal of Science, 103:329–335.
London, L. 2003. Human rights, environmental justice, and the health of farm workers in South Africa. International
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 9(1):59–68.
Maia, J., Giordano, T., Kelder, N., Bardien, G., Bodibe, M., Du Plooy, P., et al. 2011. Green jobs: an estimate of the
direct employment potential of a greening South African economy. Johannesburg: Industrial Development
Corporation, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies.
Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. 2010. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal
products. Volume 1: Main Report. Available at: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report-48-WaterFootprintAnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
Middelberg, S.L. 2013. Sustainable agriculture: a review of challenges facing the South African agricultural sector. J.
Hum. Ecol., 42(2):163–169.
Midgley, S., Drimie, S., Von Loeper, W., Mudavanhu, S., Blignaut, J., Knot, J., Smith, H. & De Wit, M. 2015. Implications
for a Future Agrarian Structure in South Africa based on Conservation and Sustainable Agriculture: Alignment of a
Multi-Institutional and Multi-Policy Landscape. Green Economy Policy Brief Series. Research and Policy Development
to Advance a Green Economy in South Africa. Policy Brief #, July.
Midgley, S.J.E. & De Wit, M.P. 2013. Let them eat fruit. Farmers’ Weekly, 22 March.
Mills, A.J. & Fey, M.V. 2003. Declining soil quality in South Africa: effects of land use on soil organic matter and surface
crusting. South African Journal of Science, 99:429–436.
Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J. & Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2009. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts
between organic and conventional farming. British Food Journal, 111(10):1098–1119.
Morestin, F., Gauvin, F.P., Hogue, M.C. & Benoit, F. 2010. Method for synthesizing knowledge about public policies.
Montréal:
National
Collaborating
Centre
for
Healthy
Public
Policy.
Available
at
http://www.ncchpp.ca/172/Publications.ccnpps?id_article=536.
Moyer, J. 2011. Organic no-till farming. Advancing no-till agriculture – crops, soil equipment. Austin, TX: Acres.
Mudavanhu, S., Vink, N., Drimie, S. & Blignaut, J.N. 2015. The impact of economic policy and instruments on
Conservation Agriculture in South Africa. Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research Colloquium, Pretoria, 20
May.
73
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. Committee on
Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies.
Washington DC: National Academic Press.
National Treasury. 2013. Carbon tax policy paper: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and facilitating the transition
to a green economy. Available at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/public comments/Carbon Tax Policy Paper 2013.pdf
(accessed on 9 September 2014).
Naude, C. 2007. Fruit and vegetable consumption by South African children, age 12 to 18 months: a secondary
analysis of the National Food Consumption Survey data. Unpublished Master’s dissertation. Stellenbosch: University of
Stellenbosch.
Neto, M.S., Scopel, E., Corbeels, M., Cardoso, A.N., Douzet, J.M., Feller, C., et al. 2010. Soil carbon stocks under no-tillage
mulch-based cropping systems in the Brazilian Cerrado: an on-farm synchronic assessment. Soil and Tillage Research,
110:187–195.
NFCS-FB-I (National Food Consumption Survey Fortification Baseline). 2008. Executive summary of the national food
consumption survey fortification baseline South Africa, 2005. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
21(3)(Supplement 2):245–300.
Nkambule, N.P. 2015. Sustainable Agriculture Development and Food Security in South Africa: A System Dynamics
Approach. Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research Colloquium, Pretoria, 20 May.
Norman, R., Bradshaw, D., Schneider, M., Joubert, J., Groenewald, P., Lewin, S., et al. 2007. A comparative risk
assessment for South Africa in 2000: towards promoting health and preventing disease. South African Medical Journal,
97(8):637–641.
NPC. 2011. National Development Plan. Vision for 2030. Pretoria: National Planning Commission, Department of the
Presidency.
OECD. 2006. Chapter 2: policy evaluation. OECD review of agricultural policies South Africa. Available at:
http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d00456/4-OECD_review_agricultural_policies_SA.pdf
(accessed
on
8
September 2014).
Oelofse, S.H.H. & Nahman, A. 2012. Estimating the magnitude of food waste generated in South Africa. Available at:
http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/bitstream/10204/6097/1/Oelofse1_2012.pdf (accessed on 8 September
2014).
Oldeman, L. 1992. The global extent of soil degradation. In Greenland, D.A. (Ed.). Soil resilience and sustainable land
use. Proc. Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, 28 Sep–2 Oct. Wallingford: CAB International.
Ortmann, G.F. & King, R.P. 2010. Research on agri-food supply chains in Southern Africa involving small-scale farmers:
current status and future possibilities. Agrekon: Agricultural Economics Research, Policy and Practice in Southern
Africa, 49(4):397–417.
Pannella, D.J., Llewellynb, R.S. & Corbeels, M. 2013. The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resourcepoor farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187:52–64.
Paoletti, M.G., Gomiero, T. & Pimentel, D. 2011. Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant
Sciences, 30(2–5):2–4.
Pickover, M. 2005. Animal rights in South Africa. Cape Town: Double Storey.
Pielke, R.A. Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pretty, J. 2014. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., doi:
10.1098/rstb.2007.2163.
Quinn, L.P., De Vos, B.J., Fernandes-Whaley, M., Roos, C., Bouwman, H., Kylin, H., et al. 2011. Pesticide use in South Africa:
one
of
the
largest
importers
of
pesticides
in
Africa.
Available
at:
http://liu.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:477098/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
Ramaila, M., Mahlangu, S. & Du Toit, D. 2011. Agricultural productivity in South Africa: literature review. Pretoria:
Directorate
Economic
Services
Production
Economics
Unit.
Available
at:
http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/GenReports/AgricProductivity.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2014).
74
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Reddy, S.P., James, S., Sewpaul, R., Koopman, F., Funani, N.I., Sifunda, S., et al. 2010. Umthente Uhlaba Usamila – The
South African Youth Risk Behaviour Survey 2008. Cape Town: South African Medical Research Council. Available at:
http://www.mrc.ac.za/healthpromotion/healthpromotion.htm (accessed on 10 September 2014).
Reeves, D. 1997. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage
Research, 43:131–167.
Reicosky, D.C., Lindstrom, M.J., Schumacher, T.E., Lobb, D. & Malo, D.D. 2005. Tillage-induced CO2 loss across an
eroded landscape. Soil and Tillage Research, 81(2):183–194.
RPO & NERPO. 2014. Codes of Good Practice for Sustainable and Profitable Red Meat Production. Pretoria: RPO &
NERPO.
Ruehlmann, J. & Körschens, M. 2009. Calculating the effect of soil organic matter concentration on soil bulk density.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 73:876–885.
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Van Wijk, M.T., Rufino, M.C., Nyamangara, J. & Giller, K.E. 2011. A meta-analysis of
long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agronomy Sust
Developm, 31:657–673.
Saki, A. 2015. Sustainability of South African Beef Industry. Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research Colloquium,
Pretoria, 20 May.
Sautier, D., Vermeulen, H., Fok, M. & Biénabe, E. 2006. Case studies of agri-processing and contract agriculture in Africa.
Available at: http://www.sarpn.org/documents /d0002434/Agriculture_Africa_Nov2006.pdf (accessed on 8 September
2014).
Schönfeldt, H.C. 2013. UNSCN country policy analysis nutrition impact of food systems in South Africa, June,
unpublished draft.
Searchinger, T., Hanson, G., Ranganathan, J., Lipinski, B., Waite, R., Winterbottom, R., et al. 2013. The Great Balancing
Act. Working Paper, Installment 1 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Available at: http://www.worldresourcesreport.org (accessed on 8 September 2014).
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J.A. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature,
485:229–232.
Shange, N. 2014. Analysis of the challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmer value chain integration in the
Western Cape: A public and private sector organisation perspective. Research assignment presented in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration at Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch.
Shisana, O., et al. 2014. South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SANHANES-1) 2014 Edition.
Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Smith, H.J., Barnard, R.O., De Villiers, M.C., Beukes, D.J., Lange, D. & Putter, T. 2010. The establishment and
management of demonstration sites and synthesis of Conservation Agriculture (CA) in South Africa. Southern Africa.
Project OSRO/RAF/904/USA. Endorsed by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as National CA Task
Force (NCATF) chair. Pretoria.
Smith-Spangler, C., Brandeau, M.L., Hunter, G.E., Bavinger, J.C., Pearson, M., Eschbach, P.J., et al. 2012. Are organic
foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157:348–366.
Statistics South Africa. 2005. Natural resource accounts: energy accounts for South Africa, 1995–2001. Discussion
document
–
April
2005.
Pretoria:
Statistics
South
Africa.
Available
at:
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/DiscussEnergyAcc/DiscussEnergyAcc.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2014).
Steiner, K., Derpsch, R., Birbaumer, G. & Loos, H. 2001. Promotion of conservation farming by the German Development
Cooperation. In Garcia-Torres, L.B.-V. Conservation Agriculture: A Worldwide Challenge. Proceedings of the First World
Congress on Conservation Agriculture. Cordoba: XUL.
Strauss, A. & Juliet, C. 1994. Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. Handbook of
Qualitative Research. pp. 273–284.
Swissaid. 2012. Sustainable agriculture must become a cornerstone of the “green economy”. Available at:
http://www.swissaid.ch/en/ethrio20 accessed 30 July 2014 (accessed on 8 September 2014).
Ten Brink, P., Mazza L., Badura, T., Kettunen, M. & Withana, S. 2012. Nature and its role in the transition to a green
economy. Brussels: TEEB.
75
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Thiere, G. & Schultz, R. 2004. Runoff-related agricultural impact in relation to macroinvertebrate communities of the
Lourence River, South Africa. Water Research, 38:3092–3102.
Thierfelder, C., Chisui, J.L., Gama, M., Cheesman, S., Jere, Z.D., Bunderson, W.T., Eash, N.S. & Rusinamhodzi, L. 2012.
Maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Malawi: Long-term trends in productivity. Field Crops Research,
142:47–57.
Thierfelder, C., Mwila, M. & Rusinamhodzi, L. 2013. Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern provinces of
Zambia: long-term effects on soil quality and maize productivity. Soil & Tillage Research, 126:246–258.
Thornton, A. 2008. Beyond the metropolis: small town case studies of urban and periurban Agriculture in South Africa.
Urban Forum, 19:243–262.
Tubiello, F.N., Salvatore, M., Cóndor Golec, R.D., Ferrara, A., Rossi, S., Biancalani, R., Federici, S., Jacobs, H. & Flammini,
A. 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks, 1990–2011 Analysis. ESS
Working Paper No. 2, March 2014. Rome: Climate, Energy and Tenure Division, FAO.
Tonnito, C., David, M.B. & Drinkwater, L.E. 2006. Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping
systems: A meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112:58–72.
Tshuma, M.C. 2012. A review of the poverty and food security issues in South Africa: is agriculture the solution? Afr. J.
Agric. Res., 7(28):4010–4020.
Tuamisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D.W. 2012. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?
A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental Management, 112:309–320.
Tuck, S.L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnstrom, J., Turnbull, L.A. & Bengtsson, J. 2014. Land-use intensity and the effects of
organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51:746–755.
Uchino, H., Iwama, K., Jitsuyama, Y., Yudate, T. & Nakamura, S. 2009. Yield losses of soybean and maize by competition
with interseeded cover crops and weeds in organic-based cropping systems. Fields crops Research, 113:342–351.
Uematsu, H. & Mishra, A.K. 2012. Organic farmers or conventional farmers: where's the money? Ecological Economics,
78:55–62.
UNEP. 2011. Towards a green economy – pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication, a synthesis
for policy makers. Available at: www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf
(accessed on 8 September 2014).
UNEP.
2013.
Agriculture:
trends,
challenges
and
http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/GETReport/pdf/Chapitre
September 2014).
2
opportunities.
Agriculture.pdf
Available
(accessed
on
at:
8
UNEP/ILO. 2008. Green jobs: towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world. (Green Growth: Green UNEP/ILO
Green Jobs Report, 2008). Available at: http://www.enterprise-development.org/page/download?id=1724
(accessed on 9 September 2014).
Van der Heijden, T. & Vink, N. 2013. Good for whom? Supermarkets and small farmers in South Africa – a critical review
of current approached to increasing access to modern markets. Agrekon, 52(1):68–86.
Van der Merwe, F.P.J. 2008. Keynote paper 4: policy and institutional aspects affecting agricultural water use in South
Africa. Proc. 2nd SADC scientific symp. Land and water management in southern Africa: Towards better water use in
agriculture in semi-arid and arid areas, 68–81.
Venkat, K. 2012. Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
perspective. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36(6):620–649.
Vintila, I. 2011. Ecological Footprint and Carbon Footprint of Organic and Conventional Agrofoods Production,
Processing and Services. In Nokkoul, R. (Ed.). Research in Organic Farming. Rijeka: InTech.
Von Loeper, W.J., Midgley, S.J.E. & Drimie, S. 2015. Value chain challenges for Conservation Agriculture and
smallholder farmers. Presentation at the ASSET/Green Fund Research Colloquium, Pretoria, 20 May.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2014. The global food challenge explained in 13 graphics. Available at:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/12/global-food-challenge-explain ed-18-graphics (accessed on 31 July 2014).
WWF.
2010.
Agriculture:
facts
and
trends.
South
Africa.
Available
http://awsassets.wwf.org.za/downloads/facts_brochure_mockup_04_b.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2014).
at:
76
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Zentner, R.P., Selles, F., Campbell, C.A., Handford, K. & McConkey, B.G. 1992. Economics of nitrogen fertilizer
management for zero till continuous spring wheat in the Brown soil zone. Can. J. Plant Sci., 72:981–995.
Ziervogel, G. & Ericksen, P.J. 2010. Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. WIREs Climate Change,
1(July/August):525–540.
77
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
ANNEXURE
Appendix A SWOT analyses of the maize, citrus and beef sectors as based on surveys
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Maize
Membership
associations
(MA)
and
sector
organisations (i.e. GrainSA, KZN NT club, WC NT
association and FS agriculture, Africa Conservation
Tillage Network) established and effective.
MA actively assist farmers with regular agronomic
and technical updates, organising green and brown
tours, and organise farmer (practical) conferences
and stimulate applied research.
Applied research platforms created (i.e. farmer
study groups) under coordination of researchers.
Funds are available for farmer-based research via
the Maize Trust.
Increased networking and collaboration among
organisations (i.e. AgriSA, GrainSA, ARC, etc). This
could be seen in the many cross references that
were made by respondents to GrainSA, for example.
Encouraging number of farmers that developed their
initial (conventional) NT systems into cover-crop
based CA systems1
Sustainability is to a certain extend still linked to HEI or
“high product driven” production systems.
Lot of conventional (university) research is not
practical/farmer-friendly/applied enough.
NT (maize) associated with high levels of herbicide
and associated build-up of weed resistance to
glyphosate and GM crops.
Organic CA seems to be a bridge too far due to
difficulty of weed control (without tillage or
chemicals allowed), out of balance soils, slow buildup of soil quality (-fertility/-health), dependence of
crop residue as winter feed, limited (cash) crop
rotation options and (mindset) dependence on
external inputs (fertilizer, pesticides).
Increased number of farmer-driven cover crop
research happening at commercial level.
Extend information network, mailing lists and network
platforms.
Agri Dwala reflects a successful example in SA of a
partnership (i.e. in the form of a Trust) between
commercial farmers and farm workers. This model
offers hope for productive land restitution.
Farmers are looking into organic pesticides and
organic fungicides.
Government-funded research is slow in releasing
funds. As a result of that trial research inputs are often
late.
Reduced number of field experts (agronomy,
research, livestock, etc.) research institutes and
replaced by more managerial staff.
Disagreement and confusion about ‘controversial’
issues (i.e. safety of GM crops, safety of glyphosate,
Albrecht soil balancing approach, Savory grazing
strategies).
Citrus
Enormous wealth of experience and knowledge
among citrus growers.
High percentage of export growers are export driven
and acquainted with market regulations, standards
and procedures.
SA citrus growers high on water-use efficiency.
A levy-based production system in place which
enables the Citrus Growers Association to conduct
sector relevant research, implement quality control
and advise citrus growers on markets, regulations
and standards.
Primarily export market dependent. Economic
sustainability is crucial, but ‘regulations and
standards’ are set by export markets (large retailers).
There are a small number of organic citrus growers,
especially in the EC.
The proactive steps undertaken by the citrus sector
in collaboration with WWF-SA are encouraging. The
citrus sector, through the development of an
environmental assessment tool (carbon calculator)
intends to be pro-active and develop one guiding
set of production standards. This can potentially help
the sector as citrus growers currently try to apply too
many different sets of standards (i.e. EU, UK, Middle
east, Far East, Russia).
CBS (Citrus black spot) can only be controlled at this
stage by applying fungicides between 3-6 times,
which has an impact on environment. The organic
fungicide does not adequately control CBS.
1
Conservation Agriculture (CA) is based on implementing three principles simultaneously. The three principles are: (1) minimum disturbance of the soil, (2) permanent soil cover, and (3) sound crop rotations including legumes. CA is often
referred to as “correct NT”, “fully-fledged NT”, or when all three principles are applied it is referred to as “full CA”.
78
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Strengths
Weaknesses
Beef
The Green Choice alliance is a communication
network of Agriculture and Business in SA have
potential to further sustainable small holder beef
production, range land improvement and job
creation.
General
(agriculturerelated)
Many respondents (8.1%) described sustainable
agriculture related to economic, social and
environmental aspects (an additional 3.5% linked
environmental and economic aspects)
SA beef classification systems are developed by
feedlots and specifically designed to penalise grassfed back grounding by beef farmers. In that case
there is less competition for feedlots as well as a
higher supply of weaner calves. A new meat
classification system is needed to allow beef
producers to supply beef of pastures at a later
(st)age with heavier carcasses (i.e. implies reduced
production cost for (mostly grass-fed) beef farmers).
Too many schools of thought in the ‘sustainable
agriculture’ context.
Commercial farmers don’t see organic farming at
large scale an option.
Biodynamic agriculture relatively unknown.
Biodynamic and organic agriculture have ‘tight’ set
of standards.
Consumer relative
unaware
of agricultural
production issues & food quality.
93% of the respondents (excluding organic related
respondents) did not mention “organic farming” at
all in written or verbal feedback, which indicates that
“organic” is not a well-used discourse.
Many good policies exist in SA.
Opportunities
The conventional citrus growing practices, moved to
environmentally friendly production systems thanks
to overseas retailer demands (especially EU, UK):
“We are closer to sustainability than one might
think...”.
Increased awareness among respondents regarding
alternative grazing strategies (i.e. high and ultra-high
density (strip) grazing).
CA traction tools and equipment and planting
equipment available in SA (ox drawn NT planters,
rotary punch planters, etc.).
Threats
CA needs to get its own policy.
Explore the use of sewerage for fertilisation of farm
land.
Many respondents from the NGO sector provided
‘transformation-based’ extension and promotion
models addressing farmers’ perceptions, worldview,
set-of-beliefs, social-cultural mind-set issues. If this
component of the trainings, awareness sessions and
information dissemination can be 50-70% it might
speed up the uptake of sustainable agriculture.
The many good existing SA agriculture and
environmental policies are not implemented
because of lack of capacity in the governmental
structures.
The rift between the various different schools of
thought in the organic sector has never been wider.
Organic regulation denied due to legislative issues.
79
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
Annexure 2
Selected publications produced from this study
Blignaut et al. 2014. Sustainable agriculture: A viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a
sustainable productive resource base in South Africa: An investigation. Baseline Review. Pretoria: ASSET Research.
Blignaut et al. 2015. Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable
productive resource base. A field Report. Pretoria: Asset Research.
Midgley et al. 2015. Implications for a future agrarian structure in South Africa based on conservation and sustainable
agriculture: alignment of a multi-institutional and multi-policy landscape. Asset Research, booklet nr 1. Pretoria: ASSET
Research.
Blignaut et al. 2015. Promoting and advancing the uptake of sustainable, regenerative, conservation agricultural
practices in South Africa with a specific focus on dryland maize and extensive beef production. Asset research, booklet
nr 2. Pretoria: ASSET Research
Policy brief 2: Midgley et al. 2015. Implications for a future agrarian structure in South Africa based on conservation and
sustainable agriculture: Alignment of a multi-institutional and multi-polict landscape. Johannesburg: Development Bank
of Southern Africa.
Policy brief 3: Blignaut et al. 2015. Promoting and advancing the uptake of sustainable, regenerative, conservation
agriculture in the maize production sector. Johannesburg: Development Bank of Southern Africa.
Policy brief 4: Blignaut et al. 2015. An application of conservation agriculture to beef production. Johannesburg:
Development Bank of Southern Africa
80
SUSTAINABLE FARMING AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY
AND A SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE BASE
81