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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:ufh/vital:11197 |
| Date | January 2013 |
| Creators | Mpuzu, Misery Sikelwa |
| Publisher | University of Fort Hare, Faculty of Science & Agriculture |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Doctoral, PhD (Agricultural Economics) |
| Format | 289 leaves; 30 cm, pdf |
| Rights | University of Fort Hare |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds