Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In October 1999 South Africa and the European Union (EU) signed a free trade agreement, the Trade Development and Co-operation Agreement (TDCA), which came into effect on 1 January 2000. The TDCA was developed to enhance bilateral trade, economic-, political- and social cooperation and consists of three components - the creation of a Free Trade Area between South-Africa and the EU, EU financial aid to South Africa through the European Programme for Reconstruction and Development (EPRD), and project aid. However, the EU, in an effort to secure the best possible deal for itself, often behave in its own interests (through the manipulation of the Wine and Spirits Agreement) during the negotiations for the TDCA. The goal of this study was to establish what exactly trademarks are, and what implications the EU's protection of intellectual property rights on wine and spirits trademarks will have on i) the South African wine industry, ii) whether South Africa could have exercised another option, iii) whether this action has created a precedent with which the EU can, in future, again force South Africa or any of its other developing trade partners to make concessions, and iv) who gains the most from the TDCA. The concludes that the EU, through the manipulation of the Wine and Spirits Agreement, left South Africa with no choice by to concede the use of the contested trademarks - something that has already taken its toll on the South African wine industry - in order to save the TDCA. This action created a precedent that the EU will, in future, again be in a position to threaten developing countries with the termination of an agreement should they fail to comply with its demands. Finally, the conclusion is made that even though the TDCA was created to assist South Africa with its reintegration into the world market, it will ultimately be the EU that benefits most from the agreement. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Suid-Afrika en die Europese Unie (EU) het in Oktober 1999 In vryehandelsooreenkoms, die Trade Development and Co-operation Agreement (TDCA) onderteken, wat op 1 Januarie 2000 in werking getree het. Die TDCA is ontwerp om bilaterale handel-, ekonomiese-, politieke- en sosiale samewerking te bevorder en bestaan uit drie komponente, naamlik die skep van 'n vryehandelgebied tussen die EU en Suid-Afrika; finansiele steun deur die EU aan Suid-Afrika onder die European Programme for Reconstruction and Development (EPRD) en projekhulp. Die EU het egter dikwels in eiebelang opgetree (deur middel van die manipulasie van die Wyn- en Spiritus Ooreenkoms) tydens die onderhandelingsproses in 'n poging om die beste moontlike ooreenkoms vir homself te beding. Die doel van hierdie studie was om te bepaal wat presies handelsmerke is, en watter implikasies die EU se beskerming van intellektuele eiendomsregte aangaande wyn- en spiritushandelsmerke op i) die Suid-Afrikaanse wynbedryf sal he, ii) of Suid-Afrika 'n ander opsie kon uitoefen, iii) of hierdie aksie In presedent geskep het waarmee die EU Suid-Afrika of enige van sy ander ontwikkelende handelsvennote in die toekoms weer sal kan dwing om toegewings te maak, en iv) wie die meeste baat vind by die TDCA. Die studie het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die EU deur die manipulasie van die Wyn- en Spiritus Ooreenkoms aan Suid-Afrika geen keuse gegee het nie as om die gebruik van die betwiste handelsmerke op te se - iets wat reeds die Suid-Afrikaanse wynbedryf geknou het - in 'n poging om die TDCA te behou. Hierdie optrede skep 'n presedent dat die EU voortaan in onderhandelings met ander ontwikkelende state weer kan dreig om die hele ooreenkoms te verongeluk indien daar nie aan sy eise voldoen word nie. In die laaste instansie is daar tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat, alhoewel die TDCA daarop gemik was om Suid-Afrika te help met sy herintegrasie tot die wereldmark, dit uiteindelik die EU is wat die meeste daarby gaan baat.

Most smallholder farmers in South Africa are characterized by poor resources such as land, labour and capital while they play an important role in poverty alleviation especially in poor rural areas. Smallholder farmers are increasingly recognized because of their contribution to household food security. The world markets are increasingly being integrated due to globalization and liberalization. As a result, smallholder farmers are facing increasing market competition, not only in international markets but in local markets as well. However, smallholder farmers often face a number of barriers to accessing these markets arising in part from the tightening of food safety and quality standards requiring compliance with phytosanitary and sanitary standards and growing power of supply chain integration. Furthermore, the viability of these smallholder producers is constrained by institutional obstacles which include lack of access to information, high marketing and transaction costs and low quality and lack of critical volume in the absence of bulking up arrangements, etc. These barriers have contributed to the exclusion of smallholder/small-scale farmers from formal markets. In order to address these obstacles and speed up the pace of agrarian reform many support schemes (farmer support programmes) are now being designed to specifically address market access and value chain issues through unique co-innovation arrangements to improve the farmer’s access to profitable international chains. A number of farmer support programmes (FSP) have been implemented in South Africa to reduce the risk of a lack of capacity and a lack of economic and/or financial experience in smallholder farms. Intervention measures have been instituted to these smallholder farmers to assist them to move out of poverty through agricultural production. The aim of this study was to understand the roles played by farmer support programmes in addressing income and welfare levels and sustainability of smallholder farmers in South Africa. Eighty nine (89) farmers were interviewed for this study and almost half (49%) of them received support from various organizations while 51% of the sampled farmers did not receive any support. The study was designed to compare the two groups between the treated and control group to assess the impact of these programmes.Using a Tobit and Propensity Score Matching technique, potential diffusion effects were eliminated between farmers supported by Farmer Support Programmes and farmers that did not belong to support services. The latter was selected from comparable communities with no agricultural support services. Findings from the Tobit regression and propensity score matching are consistent across the two methods, suggesting that being a member of any agricultural support programme has a significant positive impact on income and welfare of smallholder farmers.Farmer Support Programmes and collective marketing activities such as the collection and sale of members’ products appear to have a significant and positive impact on smallholder welfare of those farmers engaged in them. In the second analysis the study tested the types of arrangements that farmers would adopt to market their produce. From the results it was established that those farmers who were supported by institutional arrangements or FSP had better access to markets than those farmers who operated as individuals. Marginal effects are used to show the degree to which farmers chose a particular marketing channel or institutional arrangement that these farmers take when trying to access better paying markets. Then the final analysis is on factors that determine the extent to which collective action contribute to farmers’ income and market access. A number of variables (age, distance to the market, region the farmers are located) were evaluated using the multinomial regression model. Empirical results suggest that among South African cooperatives, those established in KwaZulu-Natal and partly in the Eastern Cape and upon the voluntary initiative of farmers are more sustainable and have access to better paying markets both locally and internationally than the other areas. The results also show that NGO-supported cooperatives have a longer life span than Government controlled cooperatives.