During coming months, South African consumers will be educated about and encouraged to consume more locally manufactured sugar and sugar products.

This will be done through the Home Sweet Home campaign recently launched by the South African Cane Growers’ Association (SA Canegrowers), and forms part of the goals set out in the Sugarcane Value Chain Master Plan to 2030 (sugar master plan) that was signed into being in November 2020.

SA Canegrowers’ chairperson, Rex Talmage, explained that the campaign had the potential to help restore up to 300 000t of South African sugar to the domestic market annually, instead of having to be sold on the over-supplied and unprofitable world sugar market as it had been in recent years.

One of the key causes of the local sugar industry’s profitability woes in recent years was reportedly competition from sugar ‘dumped’ onto the South African market by countries such as Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.

“For every ton of imported sugar that floods our shores, our local South African industry loses R4 000. These cheap, low quality imports have caused the local industry to lose just over R2,2 billion in the last year alone. Conversely, [having to export our surplus sugar onto an] over-supplied world market at a significant loss […] has left local South African [sugar cane] growers with an eroded recoverable value price. Devastatingly, at times the revenue is lower than the cost of producing a crop,” Talmage said.

He added that unless there was a major turnaround in South Africa’s primary sugar value chain, the future of 21 000 small-scale growers, 65 000 farmworkers, and 270 000 indirect jobs, among others, remained in jeopardy.

The Home Sweet Home campaign was kicked off with a promotional billboard on the N3 highway in KwaZulu-Natal, and more were said to follow soon across the country, and would be combined with online advertising.

Talmage urged consumers to buy only sugar marked with the Proudly South African logo and/or with labelling indicating that it was 100% produced in South Africa.

Farmer’s Weekly previously reported that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Ebrahim Patel, said that the sugar master plan “aims to significantly diversify the [sugar cane] value chain away from [being] almost solely focussed on the production of raw and refined sugar, into one that […] produces a wide range of globally competitive sugar cane-based products”.

And while it is understandable that many people would rather forget the hardship and anguish that 2020 brought for many, the events of the past 12 months will demand to be remembered.

As individuals and societies, we have all experienced and learnt so much this year, but one of the realisations that stand out for me, and that give me hope for the future, is the swift and profound way in which we adapted to circumstances that were new and daunting to us.

Even if we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, next year will not be any easier for South Africans than this one.

READ Compulsory leases for communal land challenged in court

The country’s money troubles will manifest in greater failures by the state. We will still have millions of unemployed, food-insecure and poor people, with little left in state coffers to support them.

If we are to have any hope of turning things around before the country’s debt situation plunges us into failed state territory, some painful changes will have to be made. But I think this is possible.

The way in which South Africans, albeit grudgingly, accepted and complied with one of the longest and harshest lockdowns in the world, at great personal cost, and without even being able to buy something nice to drink, makes me think we still feel a greater sense of shared responsibility and camaraderie, as citizens of this country, than we might realise.

If we were able, almost overnight, to completely change the way we live, then I have to believe that we are still able to set aside our differences, jealousy and greed, and to look beyond our immediate wants, so that we can fix what needs to be fixed in order to build something better, fairer and safer.

READ Concern about high post-lockdown milk and meat prices

But we need stronger and more honest leaders. We need to bring integrity back. Our political leaders should take a step back and look at what South Africans are doing for themselves and be humbled by what they see.

A few weeks back, when more than 100 000ha of land were ravaged by fires in the Free State and North West, people from across South Africa responded with such an outpouring of goodwill that farmers and communities affected by these fires had to ask people to stop sending donations; there was just too much.

When we start looking, we can see examples all around us of how South Africans are working to find solutions that will make our country better.

SA Harvest, for instance, started out small in 2019, with a single truck and only three employees, but with a bold purpose to do something about the millions of tons of food that are going to waste while so many people go hungry.

Now, just a year later, they run an end-to-end food rescue solution that provides up to 200 000 meals per month to some of those who need it most (and their work expanded even more since the lockdown!)

I refuse to believe that a country with so much heart is doomed to fail because its government does not have its head on straight.

The signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between South Africa and China in December 2020, offers a major opportunity for South African fruit exports to China.

This was according to Justin Chadwick, chairperson of Fruit South Africa (Fruit SA), an umbrella body for the fruit industry.

The MOU was signed between the China Chamber of Commerce of Import and Export of Foodstuffs and Native Produce, and Fruit SA.

The Chinese chamber represented over 6 800 companies that comprised some of the largest agricultural companies in that country, as well a large number of SMEs, representing 44 commodities, Chadwick said.

He added that the agreement would contribute to promoting greater co-operation and statistical information exchange between the countries’ fresh fruit industries, including technology, information on statistics of fruit exports and imports, and changes in regulatory and customs procedures.

“We will also discuss long-outstanding issues such as market access. Many fruit industries in South Africa, such as avocados, stone fruit, blueberries, and apples are earnestly hoping for access to China. Citrus fruit that has potential [in this regard] are grapefruit and lemons.

“The [recent] concluding of the pear and lemon review protocol will create a way forward for other fruit commodities,” he added.

Chadwick explained that the pear and lemon protocol was adjusted in February and completed, but signing was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Thoko Didiza, from travelling to China.

Currently, due to a “cold protocol” that was unfavourable to lemons, virtually no South African lemons were exported to China, and “improving access for lemons to China will make a huge difference”, he said.

According to a statement release by Fruit SA in 2019, South Africa exported over 2,8 million tons of fresh fruit to overseas markets. However, only a small percentage of these exports went to China.

Progress in agriculture depends largely on implementing technology that can improve yield, reduce inputs and increase efficiency.

But while commercial farmers in South Africa are increasing their use of such technology, boosting their businesses further, those without the means to employ these solutions are falling behind.

Delegates and speakers at the Africa Agri Tech conference held earlier this year in Pretoria expressed their concern over the widening gap in production and profitability between those who could afford to implement modern solutions, and those who could not.

Lack of money
Speaking at the conference, Farmer’s Weekly editor Denene Erasmus said that developers of technology needed to change their mindset about how much disposable income African farmers had.

“Cost is a major impeding factor for technology adoption and mechanisation in Africa,” said Erasmus.

“The applicability of technology is also a problem because it can’t just be imported, with developers expecting to cut and paste solutions. It needs to be custom-made for the particular challenges faced by farmers in this region. Distances to ports and roads, for example, make it very difficult to implement technology. Some farmers are so far from any kind of road infrastructure that they would have to carry fertiliser for several kilometres from where it was delivered to their farms if they wanted to use it.”

Stehan Cloete, director at Agtech Africa, also notes the disconnect between technology developers and agriculture, and says that there is a lack of understanding in the technology development world when it comes to the real problems that farmers face.

“We tend to adopt technology that works in other industries, believing it should work in farming too, or any other industry for that matter,” says Cloete.

“That’s one of the main reasons we don’t see the traction we would like to see in technology uptake. We need to identify the problems with the farmer and then be creative about solving those problems.”

Dr Sifiso Ntombela, chief economist at the National Agricultural Marketing
Council, adds that if technologies are not planned for and implementable in the local situation, it won’t be implemented at all. It is important for South Africa to be on the developing, as well as the consuming, side of technology, “so that we can get solutions that are suited to our circumstances”.

Slow adoption
In terms of technology adoption, Cloete says that on a scale of one to 10, South African farmers are at a three.

“Very few, if any, farmers have the most recent solution ‘kit’ at any given moment, as it’s an ever-evolving and improving world. Furthermore, in South Africa, the majority of farmers are on a subsistence or small-scale level.”

Technology developers need to realise that they cannot develop tools without understanding the needs of their clients, adds Cloete.

He says government that support is an effective solution to make precision agriculture and technologies affordable.

“In the EU, for example, about 40% of its budget is ring-fenced to support farmers to access more technologies and become environmentally sustainable. In South Africa, less than 1,5% of the state budget is spent on agriculture.”

According to Ntombela, one of the most critical areas where investment is needed is in biological material.

This includes access to seeds and a change in production systems that would increase productivity and efficiency.

“We also require farm equipment suited to a small-scale farmer, such as tractors and planters of the right size, drones to better manage fields and orchards, and soil testing and seed preservation equipment.”

Financial technology
Cloete notes that when the focus switches to new entrants to commercial agriculture, financial technology (Fintech) solutions will come to the fore, as this segment is not yet mature.

“The Fintech solution in itself cannot change the narrative, but with initiatives such as comprehensive mentorship programmes and complete value chain digitisation, it’s now possible to attract supplier development funds from corporations, as it enables full transparency over the value chain for every stakeholder.

“The best example is the solution developed by IQ Logistica for their client, the South African Sustainable Cotton Cluster.

“This turned the entire South African cotton industry around and it has seen unbelievable growth over the past five years.

“This approach could be the enabler to access finance, as our legacy banks cannot invest unsecured and don’t really have the appetite for primary agriculture.”

When it comes to mechanisation, notes Cloete, both Fintech and Agtech solutions are necessary. The latter includes satellite imagery, growth degree day measurement, and weather, to enable a yield engine.

“This forecasts yield at any given time within the growing season,” explains Cloete. “That information, layered with the contracted pricing, enables farmers to make decisions on nutrient applications, for example.

“Such a data platform, where all the farm’s data is collected and third-party experts gain access to segments they are allowed to view, can assist the farmer to make informed decisions.”

On a farm of any size, this would help sustain profitability.

“This is only really possible if you view all agronomic data and measure data with financial data. From this point of understanding the farm on a precision level, you can now further optimise.”

Start with the basics
To increase yields and efficiency on a small-scale level, Ntombela advises that farmers start with understanding their soil health and water quality, as well as the quality of seedlings to be planted.

“Once these basics are in place, technologies such as drones and precision farming equipment become critical in terms of applying optimal fertilisers, field management, irrigation and other farm activities,” he says.

Ntombela cautions that collective buying might not be an ideal solution for small-scale farmers due to the significantly different needs of each farmer.

“This has been illustrated on many occasions on land reform farms where group dynamics have destroyed good projects.

“However, the world is moving towards virtual ownership of equipment, as we’ve witnessed with Uber and Taxify, where you don’t necessarily have to own the asset, but can easily access its service through cell phones.

“In Kenya, farmers use their cell phones to hire tractors and planting equipment on the Ubertractor app. I think this is the future for small-scale farmers in South Africa.”

Cloete concludes that, ultimately, technology should be an enabler and not a solution in itself.

“It mostly assists a farmer to become a precision farmer and to remain so consistently. The solution is therefore not in a single product, but in a comprehensive approach. There are too many elements in commercial farming that a new farmer needs to learn about to single out anything.

“This said, a farmer has around 40 summers to be successful, if he or she starts farming at a young age. Because not all farmers are 25 years old, we need to bridge the gaps that farmers face, so they can reduce mistakes and optimise profits.”

Email Dr Sifiso Ntombela at sifiso@namc.co.za, or Stehan Cloete at stehan@agtech-africa.com.

A small group of residents of traditional authority lands in KwaZulu-Natal, together with supporting non-governmental organisations, recently jointly submitted an application to the Pietermaritzburg High Court to challenge the Ingonyama Trust Board’s (ITB) decision to make all residents of these lands sign lease agreements.

Farmer’s Weekly previously reported that in 2017, the ITB, which holds and manages approximately 2,8 million hectares of land on behalf of Zulu monarch, King Goodwill Zwelithini, began requiring the land’s 5,2 million or so residents to begin converting their customary and often rent-free Permission to Occupy (PTO) status into long-term lease agreements that now demand rent payments from these residents.

READ How traditional leaders undermine women’s land rights

A recent joint statement by the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) said that residents of Ingonyama Trust lands were allegedly not informed that, by signing leases, they were “watering down their existing land rights” or that it “was possible to upgrade their PTOs to title deeds in terms of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act (ULTRA)”.

The LRC represented the seven individuals, CASAC and the Rural Women’s Movement who are jointly challenging the ITB.

On behalf of its clients in this matter, the LRC argued that the ITB’s conduct in “inducing rights-holders to enter such leases is unlawful”.

Reasons given for this by the LRC include that the ITB is variously undermining and breaching provisions of the Constitution, the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996, the Ingonyama Trust Act, and the ULTRA.

In their application to the Pietermaritzburg High Court, the LRC’s clients have sought to have existing and/or potential lease agreements between customary residents of Ingonyama Trust lands and the ITB declared unlawful and invalid.

They are also seeking to have the ITB ordered to refund all monies already paid by these customary residents in terms of the lease agreements.

The applicants have also submitted to the Pietermaritzburg High Court that Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform, Thoko Didiza, has failed in her various duties to ensure that the land rights of customary residents of Ingonyama Trust lands are protected and achieved.

They have requested the court to direct Didiza to effectively and timeously uphold and implement these rights.

“The people affected by the [ITB’s] decision to cancel PTOs and to conclude lease agreements include some of the poorest communities in South Africa. The [ITB’s] lease agreements require them to pay rent for land that their families have occupied for generations. A favourable judgment in this case will restore informal and customary ownership rights to land and ensure the security of tenure for people living on Ingonyama Trust land,” the LRC’s and CASAC’s joint statement said.

Farmer’s Weekly’s attempts to obtain comment from the ITB were unsuccessful by the time of publishing.

The joint statement said that the Pietermaritzburg High Court had reserved its judgement on the application to a later date.

Smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa are, on average, using fertilisers at well-below recommended rates in their crop production. This was according to the results of a study conducted by researchers from the University of Illinois (UoI) in the US, largely because these farmers perceived their locally available fertiliser products to be of sub-standard quality.

One of the researchers, Anna Fairbairn of the UoI’s College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES), found that many of the hundreds of fertiliser samples that she collected from sellers in eastern Tanzania’s Morogoro area were visually unappealing.

These particular samples often looked dirty or contained clumps of fertiliser, sticks and small amounts of other impurities. This was largely due to inadequate fertiliser handling processes in the local value chain.

However, according to Prof Hope Michelson of the UoI’s ACES college, laboratory analyses of these samples showed that “just a small percentage” were “marginally out of compliance with industry standards”, and that there was no evidence of widespread fraudulent adulteration of the fertilisers being sold to smallholder farmers in Tanzania and elsewhere.

“We found evidence that [Africa’s smallholder] farmers worry about the quality of the fertiliser in the marketplace, and [this] impacts their willingness to pay for it. This can affect the amount of fertiliser they’re buying, and whether or not they purchase fertiliser at all. These farmers are operating in contexts with weak regulatory systems and [they] may be broadly suspicious,” Michelson said.

The study found that largely due to this distrust, Tanzania’s and Kenya’s smallholder farmers were applying, on average, [just] 13kg of fertiliser per hectare compared to the average 165kg/ha to 175kg/ha applied by smallholder farmers in India and Brazil.

Tanzania’s and Kenya’s smallholder farmers were yielding an average of 1,2t/ha to 1,7t/ha of cereals compared to the average 4t/ha to 4,5t/ha of cereals being harvested by India’s and Brazil’s smallholders.

Michelson said that the distrust of their fertiliser quality by Africa’s smallholder farmers could be exacerbated by their difficulties in being able to observe the direct correlation between applied fertiliser volumes on final crop yields.

“[They] could be applying [fertilisers] at the wrong time, or not applying enough. Weather is also a factor driving crop yields. [They] can’t always tell if the fertiliser is doing anything because of the rainfall variability factor. Farmers could blame these things on the fertiliser not being good quality [whereas it actually is of good quality],” she said.

According to a statement by the AfricaFertilizer.org Initiative, lower than optimal fertiliser consumption by many of the continent’s farmers was one of the key impediments to ending food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition.

“More investments, improved knowledge and information, better availability of fertilisers and balanced plant nutrition, enhanced agronomic advice and co-operation with farmers, are [all] needed, as well as a holistic and joint intervention of the public and private sectors, to lead a cost-effective African Green Revolution,” the statement said.

Conflict between humans and Namibia’s growing elephant population can be described as a “problem of success”, says Colin Nott, a Namibian regenerative agricultural consultant.

Following a two-day workshop organised by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism in that country, Nott told Farmer’s Weekly that, at present, the Namibian elephant population was three times bigger than in 1990, as a result of the country’s “excellent wildlife conservation legislation”.

“Currently there is more wildlife outside our national parks than inside the parks. This means that game species such as elephant move into farming and communal areas. The problem is how to marry elephants and farming,” he said.

According to Thinus Pretorius, chairperson of the Namibian Livestock Producers’ Organisation (LPO), the influx of elephants into the commercial farming areas in the north-western parts of the country significantly intensified the effects of the drought.

He said elephants caused considerable damage to infrastructure by breaking fences, damaging dams and water tanks, and pushing over windmills.

“One elephant’s daily intake of food and water [also] equals that of 30 head of cattle,” said Pretorius.

It transpired from the workshop that the number of elephants increased from an estimated 7 680 in 1995 to about 23 660 by 2015.

The three Namibian agricultural unions, namely Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU), Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU) and the Namibia Emerging Commercial Farmers Union (NECFU), presented a joint draft position paper at the workshop, including national and regional actions to be taken.

According to Nott, the paper was still in draft form and the three unions were in the process of finalising a document on actions to be taken in an effort to mitigate the effects of human-elephant conflict in Namibia.

“Elephants are simply not compatible [with] commercial farming. However, the implementation of measures to mitigate the elephant problems is exceedingly expensive,” he added.

Mitigation expenses would require large-scale fundraising, and this was where real linkages with international role players came in. Nott said it was one thing for organisations to lobby for the protection and conservation of elephants, but it was another challenge to raise the high level of funds needed to manage the challenges for both elephants and humans.

Conflict between humans and Namibia’s growing elephant population can be described as a “problem of success”, says Colin Nott, a Namibian regenerative agricultural consultant.

Following a two-day workshop organised by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism in that country, Nott told Farmer’s Weekly that, at present, the Namibian elephant population was three times bigger than in 1990, as a result of the country’s “excellent wildlife conservation legislation”.

READ Why aardvark numbers are dwindling in the Kalahari

“Currently there is more wildlife outside our national parks than inside the parks. This means that game species such as elephant move into farming and communal areas. The problem is how to marry elephants and farming,” he said.

According to Thinus Pretorius, chairperson of the Namibian Livestock Producers’ Organisation (LPO), the influx of elephants into the commercial farming areas in the north-western parts of the country significantly intensified the effects of the drought.

He said elephants caused considerable damage to infrastructure by breaking fences, damaging dams and water tanks, and pushing over windmills.

“One elephant’s daily intake of food and water [also] equals that of 30 head of cattle,” said Pretorius.

It transpired from the workshop that the number of elephants increased from an estimated 7 680 in 1995 to about 23 660 by 2015.

The three Namibian agricultural unions, namely Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU), Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU) and the Namibia Emerging Commercial Farmers Union (NECFU), presented a joint draft position paper at the workshop, including national and regional actions to be taken.

According to Nott, the paper was still in draft form and the three unions were in the process of finalising a document on actions to be taken in an effort to mitigate the effects of human-elephant conflict in Namibia.

“Elephants are simply not compatible [with] commercial farming. However, the implementation of measures to mitigate the elephant problems is exceedingly expensive,” he added.

Mitigation expenses would require large-scale fundraising, and this was where real linkages with international role players came in. Nott said it was one thing for organisations to lobby for the protection and conservation of elephants, but it was another challenge to raise the high level of funds needed to manage the challenges for both elephants and humans.

Dutch authorities releasing two shipments of blueberries exported by Rossouw Boerdery Group’s subsidiary Ross Berries to the Netherlands, marks a victory for local farmers, according to a statement by the group.

The shipments were seized in the Port of Rotterdam in late October and early November, and followed a dispute between United Exports, a blueberry plant breeder and exporter, and the blueberry producer.

The shipments, amounting to 26t, were released on instruction of United Exports, after the company earlier alleged that Ross Berries had shipped and sold the blueberries without permission, a move that it said infringed upon its proprietary trademarks.

An investigation also unearthed that United Exports only held registered plant breeders’ rights (PBR) for two of the nine varieties that Ross Berries acquired from United Exports South Africa, the company said.

According to Chris Rossouw, director of Ross Berries, he had instructed the company’s legal team to institute a claim against United Exports for the royalties paid to date for all the varieties that the breeder-exporter claimed it had registered PBRs.

He said claims would also be instituted for the financial losses suffered as a result of the seizure of the fruit in the Netherlands. Ongoing investigations into United Export’s operating practices would further serve to strengthen the case for uncompetitive pricing in this sector, he added.

“We are free to market our fruit as we wish until the dispute pertaining to ownership of the plants is finally determined in March 2021. Marketing one’s products as one sees fit is the very foundation of a free-market system, which up until now, United Exports has circumvented,” said Rossouw.

United Exports called the claim of victory “patently false” and a misinterpretation of the legal and commercial consequences of violating its proprietary rights. The grower-exporter maintained in a statement that the shipments of its blueberry varietals represented a license breach on the part of Ross Berries and the Rossouw Farming Group.

In a subsequent statement, United Exports said that it had reached an agreement with the Rossouw Farming Group which entailed, firstly, that both Rosle Berries and Ross Berries of the Rossouw Farming Group have recognised the plant-based intellectual property rights, and United Exports’ rights over its OZblu proprietary varieties.

According to the statement, United Exports agreed to allow Ross Berries to sell the blueberries from the remaining few weeks of the 2020 season that it produces on its Western Cape farm “to avoid unnecessary food wastage”.

The sales, however, could not use or leverage any of United Exports’ trademarks, trade names, brands, varietals or any related denomination. Furthermore, the statement said, when the 2020 season was over, the Rossouw Farming Group’s right to continue to produce United Exports’ OZblu proprietary blueberries would have to be newly agreed with United Exports, failing which the Rossouw Farming Group’s right to continue to produce United Export’s OZblu proprietary blueberry would terminate.

Following the recent controversial deregulation of the agriculture industry in India, agri-tech entrepreneurs are flooding the market with apps to connect farmers to larger-scale buyers through the use of artificial intelligence (AI).

Historically, there have been some challenges with regard to the large volumes of grain, fruit and vegetables being lost along the supply chain in India, due to manual handling, poor inventory management, storage problems, and the slow movement of goods in that country.

The rate of wastage from dysfunctional supply chains had been estimated to be four to five times that of most large economies, some industry experts have suggested to Reuters.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government’s recent introduction of changes to the legislation had been called a watershed that would “remove middlemen and let farmers sell their produce directly to buyers,” according to a statement by the government.

The changes that were made in September, which were some of the most significant reforms to have been made to that country’s farming economy, now allowed farmers to sell to institutions and large retailers such as Walmart, and not just to regulated wholesale markets.

The legislative changes had, however, been met with a strong backlash, with farmers protesting across the country, which resulted in Modi losing a cabinet minister from breadbasket state Punjab, over concerns that the deregulation may endanger government-guaranteed minimum prices for produce.

Potato farmer, Rakesh Singh in Uttar Pradesh, told Reuters that he was keen to acquire computer-enhanced tools to help his business.

“Real-time prices available on live electronic trading platforms, and easy-to-use trading apps for mobile phones make the process of price discovery and selling goods a transparent and hassle-free experience for us,” he said.

Mark Kahn, managing partner of Omnivore Capital, a venture capital firm funding farm-tech companies, estimated that US$1 billion (about R15,5 billion) would flow into India’s agri-tech sector each year with start-ups growing 20% to 30% annually.

However, some farmers expressed concern about these new technologies and their impact on the sector.

“I don’t have 100% control over the quality of my crop, which will always be vulnerable to bad weather. And I know that agri-tech companies will reject my crop if it doesn’t meet their rigid quality standards,” Singh said.