FULL PAPER

Opportunities and Constraints Faced by SmallholderFarmers in the Vhembe District, Limpopo Provincein South Africa

P. Maponya1

Received: 22 December 2020 /Accepted: 9 March 2021/# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

AbstractThis paper highlighted the opportunities and constraints faced by smallholder farmers inthe Vhembe District Municipality (VDM) of Limpopo province. The VDM is well-knownfor agricultural opportunities as different agricultural commodities such as vegetables andfruits are produced in this district. The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) conducted anassessment in VDM in collaboration with the Department of Rural Development and LandReform (DRDLR) aimed at identifying opportunities and constraints faced by smallholderfarmers. A total of (52) horticultural projects with 1003 beneficiaries participated in thestudy and were from the following four local municipalities: Mutale, Thulamela,Makhadoand Musina. Quantitative and qualitative research designs were employed as copies ofstructured questionnaire written in English were developed to elicit information for thestudy. The study also included group discussion, stakeholder’s discussion, as well as fieldobservations. Purposive sampling technique was used in selecting fifty-two (52) projects,in order to cover the uniformity and homogenous characteristics such as infrastructurerequirements, skills availability, production challenges and agricultural training needs,among other factors. Data was coded, captured and analysed using Social Package forSocial Sciences (SPSS) and descriptive analysis was conducted. The results showed thatsome of the opportunities available in VDM is the high agricultural production in someparts of Vhembe, while market access, the use of traditional land and limited waterresources remain some of the constraints hindering the development of the agriculturesector in the area. The study recommends the establishment of fruits and vegetable marketsthrough possible links to AgriPark in the Vhembe local municipalities. This will ensureincreased production and consumption of fruit and vegetables, creating a complete andviable agro-value chain that will expand community-driven agricultural production andprocessing, and enhance the role of horticultural crops in addressing the immense malnu-trition problem of vulnerable groups in South Africa. Lastly, it is important to note thatestablishing fruits and vegetable markets (AgriPark) in the VDM will create job opportu-nities for local people and stimulate the local economy.

Circular Economy and Sustainabilityhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00028-x

* P. Maponyamaponyap@arc.agric.za

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Keywords Smallholder farmers .Agriculturalproduction .Opportunities .Constraints .Fruits andvegetables markets . VDM . South Africa

Introduction

The new growth path (NGP) released by the South African government in November 2010was as a response to the persistent unemployment problem faced by majority of SouthAfricans [1]. It is a well-written document that realizes that South Africa needs to raiseemployment and reduce poverty, especially among rural African people. According to [2],the NGP aims to create five million new jobs by 2020 and it also intends to create 300,000 ofthese new jobs through various initiatives including through the establishment of smallholderfarmer schemes [2]. On the other hand, the National Development Plan (NDP)–vision 2030,which builds on the NGP, proposes to create 11 million jobs by 2030, of which about 1 millionjobs are expected to be created through agricultural development [2]. According to [3, 4],different agricultural commodities such as vegetables and fruits are produced in this district. Itwas further highlighted by [3, 4] that vegetables and maize are regarded as importantagricultural commodities in the study area. According to [5], agricultural commodities thatare produced under irrigation schemes are of good quality and are sold as fresh produce tostreet vendors as was also highlighted by [2, 6]. The key rationale for the study was based onthe South African government focused on establishing agricultural markets in 44 districts inSouth Africa including Vhembe District Municipality (VDM). The President of South Africaallocated two billion rands to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform(DRDLR) during the 2015 state of the nation address for the establishment of agriculturalmarkets. The establishment of these markets will ensure increased production and consump-tion of fruit and vegetables, creating a complete and viable agro-value chain that will expandcommunity-driven agricultural production and processing [7, 8].

This will enhance the role of horticultural crops in addressing the immense malnutritionproblem of vulnerable groups in South Africa and to capacitate rural communities to reducewastage of produce, address food security and add value through small-scale agro-processingoperations, specifically in VDM. It is against this background that constraints and opportuni-ties in the Vhembe district should be identified and addressed if the Sustainable DevelopmentGoal (SDG) 2 that deals with Zero Hunger is to be addressed. The Agricultural ResearchCouncil (ARC) was involved in an agricultural project in the Vhembe district in Limpopoprovince where beneficiaries were trained and mentored to implement sustainable productionand develop markets. As part of the study, research was conducted with the overall aim ofidentifying opportunities and constraints faced by smallholder farmers. The major objectiveswere (1) to identify and describe the characteristics of selected agricultural projects in theVhembe district and (2) to determine factors that enable smallholder farmers to participate inagricultural markets in Vhembe district.

Theoretical Background

Agriculture in Vhembe district situated in the northern region is one of the main economicdrivers that contribute to the whole province and the nation at large. Various studies indicatedthat approximately 90% of rural communities found in the Vhembe district (South Africa)depend mainly on agriculture to sustain their livelihoods and also generate income [9]. There

Circular Economy and Sustainability

are two existing agricultural hubs in the district, Levubu and Nwanedi valleys, while the thirdhub, which is Nandoni hub, is still in a planning stage. Commodity groups and committeeshave been established for each commodity (citrus, avocado, macadamia, mango, etc.).Vhembe district is one of the high-potential agricultural areas of the province. Farmers in thisdistrict (including Tshakhuma, Rabali and Tshiombo areas) produce subtropical and tropicalcrops. In this district, agriculture is one of the key livelihood activities. In the Tshakhumaarea, for example, 70% of the farmers in the area planted perennial crops such asavocado, followed by banana producers (18%) and “others”, including groundnuts,maize and cowpea [3, 4]. In Limpopo province in areas such as Tshakhuma andLevubu, avocado and banana crops are usually grown in those areas favoured by goodclimatic and soil conditions [3, 4].

Levubu farmers, who are farming on the eastern side of Makhado, helpedTshakhuma farmers to access banana seedlings. Less than 8% of the farmers in theTshakhuma area produce cabbages, and another 4% of the farmers produce seasonalvegetables such as onion, carrots, lettuce and cabbage [3]. In the Tshiombo area, lessthan 10% of the farmers planted banana, avocado and cabbage, while 88% of therespondents planted “other” varieties of crops, such as sweet potatoes and tomatoes[3, 4]. During drought periods, these farmers should be able to have some productionfrom different crops; this forms part of crop diversification system, risk aversionstrategies and climate change adaptation. As stated by [3], farmers who diversifytheir cropping system have a better chance of having a good net profit even duringunfavourable weather/climatic conditions. According to [3], it was found that only 2%of the farmers in the Tshakhuma area used drought-resistant crops such as groundnutsand sorghum. The majority of farmers in the Tshakhuma area are horticultural cropproducers (these farmers produce crops such as avocado, banana, litchis, guavas) andanother 2% of the farmers use “new” crops, for example, Morgan and Pioneer seedcompanies. Some farmers in the Tshakhuma area plant these crops not only forconsumption but also for commercial purposes.

It was further highlighted by [3] that in the Rabali and Tshiombo areas, themajority of the farmers in both areas produce seasonal crops such as maize, ground-nuts and peas with a few producing avocados and cabbages. The majority of thefarmers (90%) interviewed in the Rabali area produce “other” crops including cowpea,sorghum and groundnuts [3]. Farmers in the Rabali area are farming in dryland area;therefore, poor rainfall distribution, high temperature and high evaporative demandthreatened the livelihoods of the majority of these farmers. The majority of thefarmers indicated that groundnuts and cowpea grow well in dryland areas becausethese crops require less water compared to some other crops such as avocado andbanana. Groundnuts and cowpea crops also conserve moisture by covering the soilsurface [3, 10]. According to [3, 11], agriculture in Limpopo province, including theVhembe district, is undertaken by both men and women. Women engage in agricul-tural production practices such as planting, weeding, harvesting, threshing and gar-dening, as well as collecting firewood, preparing food and rearing children [3, 12]. Itwas further highlighted by [3] that the majority of farmers in the Vhembe district areusing different types of seeds such as hybrid, early-matured varieties and recycledseeds. It is against this background that an opportunity exists in the Vhembe districtfor the establishment of the agricultural market. This point further strengthens researchfindings highlighted by several other researchers in the VDM.

Circular Economy and Sustainability

Methodology

Study Area

The location of the Vhembe district in the Limpopo province is situated in the far north of theSouth African borders, Vhembe district boarders, Zimbabwe in the north and Mozambique inthe east. According to [25], Vhembe district incorporates the two territories of the two formerhomelands, which is Venda and Gazankulu. The Venda homeland was created for the Venda-speaking people. Gazankulu was the territory allocated to the Tsonga-speaking people, alsoknown as the Shangaan. Culturally, the VhaVenda are closely associated with the Shonapeople of Zimbabwe, while the cultural roots of the Shangaan are in Mozambique [2, 4].

Study Design

Quantitative and qualitative research designs were employed as copies of structured question-naire written in English were developed to elicit information for the study. The study alsoincluded group discussion, stakeholder’s discussion, as well as field observations. As part ofstandard protocol for conducting the study, meetings were held with all stakeholders in theVhembe district, namely (1) local municipalities, (2) the Department of Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries (DAFF), (3) the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR),(4) local economic agencies and (5) local farmers. The aim of the meetings was to introduceand explain the aim of the study and DRDLR approved the study and all participants agreedvoluntarily to participate.

Sampling Procedure and Analytical Technique

Purposive sampling technique was used in selecting fifty-two (52) projects, in order to coverthe uniformity and homogenous characteristics such as infrastructure requirements, skillsavailability, production challenges and agricultural training needs, among other factors.Agricultural projects visited in the Vhembe district were prioritized based on the agriculturepotential of the area, namely project type, numbers of projects around an area, size of the land,chances of extending production, water availability, commitment of members to their projects,internal conflicts and working material and infrastructure. As indicated in Fig. 1, Vhembedistrict has four local municipalities, namely Mutale, Musina, Makhado and Thulamela [13].

Correlations Analysis Among Variables

Correlation is a bivariate analysis that measures the strengths of association between twovariables and the direction of the relationship. In terms of the strength of relationship, the valueof the correlation coefficient varies between +1 and −1. When the value of the correlationcoefficient lies around ±1, then it is said to be a perfect degree of association between the twovariables. As the correlation coefficient value goes towards 0, the relationship between the twovariables will be weaker. The direction of the relationship is simply + (indicating a positiverelationship between the variables) or − (indicating a negative relationship between thevariables) sign of the correlation. Usually, in statistics, four types of correlations are measured:Pearson correlation, Kendall rank correlation, Spearman correlation and the point-biserialcorrelation. In this example, Pearson and Spearman correlations were used and the following

Circular Economy and Sustainability

variables were found to be significant: type of market, size of land, agricultural training,implements used, extension services and gender.

Results and Discussion

As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, four local municipalities’ projects were visited: Mutale (59%),Musina (2%), Makhado (10%) and Thulamela (29%). Vhembe district’s projects visited had atotal of 1003 beneficiaries and spread across local municipalities as shown in Fig. 3: Mutale(81), Musina (129), Makhado (438) and Thulamela (355).

Fig. 1 Vhembe district map [4]

Mutale Musina Makhado Thulamela TotalProjects 31 1 5 15 52Percentages 59 2 10 29 100

31

1 515

5259

210

29

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fig. 2 Agricultural projects visited per local municipality

Circular Economy and Sustainability

From Fig. 2, results indicated that majority (59%) of the agricultural projects are practicedwithin Mutale Local Municipality; and they produce 3 different food and agro-commoditiesranging from high quality tomatoes to diverse kinds of vegetables. On the other hand, thisgroup of farmers also focuses on the production of different livestock such as beef, goats andchickens. As a matter of fact, Thulamela Local Municipality which is situated in a microcli-matic zone recorded the second highest number of projects. Therefore, several agriculturalcommodities are found in the municipality such as field crops, horticultural and pasture crops.The biggest constraints faced by farmers in the Thulamela Local Municipality are (a) storagefacilities, (b) transport to the markets, (c) high climatic variability and change, (d) lack of agro-processing factories, etc. The Makhado Local Municipality is the third largest local munici-pality with the total of 5 projects.

The majority of farmers in the Makhado Local Municipality are facing similar challengesthan the farmers in the Thulamela Local Municipality. The Makhado and Thulamela munic-ipalities shared similar boundaries. Only two projects have been allocated in the Musina LocalMunicipality. Several studies highlighted that Musina area is situated in a semi-arid area, withlow rainfall distribution and high evaporative demands compared to Thulamela and Makhadomunicipalities. The allocations of some of these projects were based on the market access, landsuitability, climatic suitability, resource available, etc. This explains why certain municipalityareas have more projects than others.

According to Fig. 3, the total number of beneficiaries recorded was 1003 across the fourlocal municipalities in the Vhembe district. Based on Fig. 3, the Makhado Local Municipalityhad a higher number of beneficiaries (44%) followed by Thulamela Local Municipality.Figure 3 further shows that Musina Local Municipality had 13% of the beneficiaries andMutale Local Municipality had the lowest number of beneficiaries (8%) compared to the otherthree local municipalities (Musina, Makhado and Thulamela). One of the reasons why MutaleLocal Municipality had the lowest number of beneficiaries is because the majority of farmersin Mutale Local Municipality are not relying on government support especially on inputs.Although the Limpopo Department of Agriculture provides extension services in Mutale LocalMunicipality, farmers in this area are operating at a commercial level.

81129

438

355

1003

Mutale

Musina

Makhado

Thulamela

Total

Fig. 3 Diagram showing number of beneficiaries per local municipality

Circular Economy and Sustainability

The age distribution of the respondents according to project indicated that majority (31%)fell within the age group of 18–35. This implies that seeing more youths who practiceagriculture is ideal and very encouraging. Furthermore, as indicated in Table 1, the rest ofthe age categories were 36–45, 46–50 and > 61 which had 21, 27 and 21%, respectively. InVhembe district, 10% had incomplete primary education, 8% had completed primary educa-tion, 19% had incomplete secondary education, 25% of project respondents had completedsecondary education and 35% had tertiary education completed while 3% had incompletetertiary education. The results in Table 1 indicated that the gender composition of females is at44% and males at 56%. All farmers (100%) were farming full time (Table 1) and are line withproject sampling criteria, which targeted full-time farmers. In areas such as Tshiombo, Rabaliand Tshakhuma, it was found that the majority of farmers in those areas were womencompared to men [3]. This was because the majority of men in those areas are involved onoff-farm activities. Some of the men have migrated to other provinces such as Gauteng,Mpumalanga and North West seeking for job opportunities; therefore, the issue of jobopportunities is not affecting only VDM or Limpopo province. It is global problemscompounded by poor economic growth and also other multi-stresses.

The results in Fig. 4 show respondents’ experience in farming. About 46% of respondentshad 1–5 years in farming, 23% had 6–10 years, 19% had 11–20 years, 10% had 21–49 yearsand 2% had >50 years. This indicated an opportunity, as farmers are well experienced toengage in agricultural production. The constraint that the agricultural sector is facing right nowis that younger generation or youth are not interested in farming [11]. It was highlightedseveral times that young people viewed agricultural career or farming as unattractive, dirtycareer compared to other careers [3, 11]. However, it is recommended that government needsto come up with good incentive targeting youth in order to encourage them to consideragriculture as business and as a career.

Table 1 Distribution of respondents according to their socio-economic characteristics

Respondents % Farmers’ socio-economic characteristics

GenderFemale 23 44Male 29 56Total 52 100

Age categories18–35 16 3136–45 11 2146–50 14 27>51 11 21Total 52 100

Level of educationPrimary education incomplete 5 10Primary education completed 4 8Secondary education incomplete 10 19Secondary education completed 13 25Tertiary education completed 18 35Tertiary education incomplete 2 3Total 52 100

Employment statusFull-time farmer 52 100Total 52 100

Circular Economy and Sustainability

The results on land acquisition (Fig. 5) indicated that the majority of projects operated onpermission to occupy (PTO) (44%) thus indicated the role traditional leaders is playing inallocating land to farmers, own finance (29%), land redistribution for agricultural development(4%), inheritance (19%) and bond (4%). The challenge with the PTO approach is thatwhenever the headman or local chief feels that he does not want that particular farmer, thelocal chief can take that piece of land anytime, and as result of this, the majority of farmers findit difficult to invest on infrastructure due to the fact that there no security on such land. Landownership is therefore a challenge. The other challenge is that farmers that are using the PTOsystem cannot invest on infrastructure such as irrigation equipment, security fence, etc. This isbecause these farmers do not own the land and they do not have tenure security, which is oneof the factors that is crippling the poor or smallholder farmers in the former homeland areas [3,14]. It must also be emphasized that no ownership also leads to inability to source fundingfrom banks. The majority of these farmers are operating in areas that are characterized by (1)

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 49 50> TotalFrequency 24 12 10 5 1 52Percentages 46 23 19 10 2 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fig. 4 Distribution of respondents according to their farming experience

Own Finance LRAD PTO Bond Inheritance TotalFrequency 15 2 23 2 10 52Percentages 29 4 44 4 19 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fig. 5 Distribution of respondents according to their land acquisition

Circular Economy and Sustainability

low production and productivity, (2) poor access to own land and (3) poor access to inputs andcredit [3, 14].

Vhembe district projects used different water sources for irrigation, with rivers being themost utilized (44%), followed by boreholes (36%) and dams (12%), while other water sourceswere also used as seen in Table 2. It was noted that water resource in Vhembe and some partsof Limpopo province remains a key constraint because of drought. This constraint was alsoemphasized by [15] that almost 97% of rural communities in Sekhakhane village and 71% ofChuene Maja village in Limpopo province acknowledged that water resource remains a keyproblem.

Table 3 indicated that most projects cultivated vegetables and grain (37%); grain, vegeta-bles, citrus and deciduous (37%); vegetables and deciduous (2%); and vegetables (24%).These results gave a broad picture of crops available in Vhembe and emphasized the need toestablish fruit and vegetable market, as there is the presence of fruit and vegetable farmers inthe district. As highlighted earlier in this paper, the study conducted by [3] in the Vhembedistrict showed that only 2% of the farmers in the Tshakhuma area used drought-resistant cropssuch as groundnuts and sorghum. The majority of farmers in the Tshakhuma area arehorticultural crop producers and another 2% of the farmers used “new” crops, for example,Morgan and Pioneer seed companies. Some farmers in the Tshakhuma area plant these cropsnot only for consumption but also for commercial purposes, even though these farmers do nothave market access.

Table 4 showed that projects in the Vhembe district used different types of agriculturalsupplies inputs. Results indicated that 59% of projects had access to seeds, kraal manure,fertilizer and pesticides; 23% had access to seeds, fertilizer and pesticides; and only fewprojects had access to a combination of inputs. The following inputs were distributed by ARC-DRDLR project: (1) sweet potatoes cuttings (103,500 cuttings) and (2) tropical and subtropicalfruit trees (700). The majority of these farmers rely on the Noord-Transvaal Kooperasie (NTK)company in Shayandima, Thohoyandou. This company supplies different agricultural inputsincluding fertilizer, seeds, herbicides, etc. According to [3, 4], results from the farmer’s focusgroup and surveys indicated that at least half of the farmers in the Tshakhuma, Rabali andTshiombo areas identified challenges such as high price of fertilizers, seeds and herbicides.During the focus group discussion, farmers further mentioned price of inputs, market, cost oftransport and irrigation as the major challenges in the Tshakhuma, Rabali and Tshiombo areas.The results from the focus group discussions and surveys are also remarkably similar to thestudy done in Mopani, Capricorn and Sekhukhune [12, 16].

Table 5 showed that 98% of the project beneficiaries had access to extension servicecompared to 2% that did not have access to the extension service. This result showed extensionas an opportunity in the Vhembe district. The results from Table 5 complement the results

Table 2 Distribution of respondents according to their source of water

Water source Farmers % of farmers’ water sources

Dam 6 12River 23 44Borehole 19 36Dam, river 3 6River, borehole 1 2Total 52 100

Circular Economy and Sustainability

reported by [3] in the Rabali, Tshiombo and Tshakhuma areas. It was further highlighted by[3] that in the Rabali and Tshiombo areas, at least 10% of the respondents interviewedinteracted with an extension officer twice a year, with the vast majority of the respondentsinteracting with an extension officers several times a year. These respondents in both sitesindicated that there was good interaction between extension officers and the farming commu-nity during the focus groups.

At least 8% of the respondents indicated that they had never interacted with the extensionofficers, and some of these farmers indicated that they had commitments elsewhere during thecourse of the week, so they relied on their colleagues for any advice related to agriculturalmatters [3, 4]. Table 5 also showed that at least 46% of the beneficiaries in the Vhembe districthad formal engagement with the extension officers. Universally, agricultural extension’s rolein smallholder development is educational. Extension officers are expected to provide ordisseminate information to farmers. Other services expected of extension officers, in their roleand responsibilities, include providing institutional support and facilitating farmers’ needs tosupport agricultural development.

Several models of extension presently exist in enabling extension services to be moreclient-oriented. In all of these models, government policy is considered important [17, 18].According to [19], extension workers must be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of theperformance of farmers in development projects. The feedback from the monitoring processallows extension personnel to detect areas of defects and provide corrective measures throughproper education. The reasons for failure of irrigation schemes in former homelands such asVenda, Transkei and Ciskei, for example, include a lack of clear understanding of extensionservices and proper utilization of the extension worker’s skills and competence [20].

Majority (69%) of the projects had access to 1–5 ha of land, while only 17, 10 and 2% ofprojects were 6–10, 11–20 and 21–49 ha in size, respectively (Fig. 6). Quite a few number ofprojects had land of >50 ha (2%). This is a clear indication of smallholder farmer’s dominancein the Vhembe district as compared to commercial farmers.

Table 3 Distribution of respondents according to their crops planted

Crops Farmers % of farmers’ crops planted

Vegetables 13 24Grain, vegetables 19 37Grain, vegetables and fruits 19 37Vegetables and fruits 1 2Total 52 100

Table 4 Distribution of respondents according to their crops planted

Inputs Farmers % of farmers’ inputs used

Seeds 4 8Kraal manure 2 4Kraal manure, fertilizer, pesticides 3 6Seeds, kraal manure, fertilizer, pesticidesSeedlings 31 59Seeds, fertilizer, pesticides 12 23Total 52 100

Circular Economy and Sustainability

Figure 7 indicated that majority (60%) of the projects engaged with trading in informalmarkets with 17% trading in both formal and informal markets while a quite number ofprojects engaged in formal market (23%). According to [18], lack of market access wasmentioned in the study conducted in the Vhembe district as one of the main problemsconstraining production [18]. It was further highlighted by [18] that market conditions affectboth access to inputs and the ability of farmers to sell their produce. Farmers indicated that,even if they were successful producers and if no formal market were available, they would stillrun at a loss because their products would perish in their storerooms; however, similarobservations were noted in the Eastern Cape and also in the Tshiombo and Rabali areas.During the focus group meeting at the Tshakhuma, Tshiombo and Rabali study sites, morethan 70% of the farmers complained about the lack of market access and the lack of marketinformation.

Although more than half of the producers in the study sites produced good quality products,the problem is that these farmers are resource-poor and struggle to get access to market andmarket information. If farmers fail to get market access, it is not easy for them to participate in

Table 5 Distribution of respondents according to their access to extension services

Extension services Farmers % of farmers’ extension services

Access to extension serviceYes 51 98No 1 2

Form of extension serviceFormal extension 24 46Farmer to farmer 2 4Municipal office 2 4Formal extension, farmer to Farmer 7 14Formal extension, family support 2 4Formal extension, farmer to farmerNeighbours and family support 8 15Formal extension, farmer to farmer, municipal office 1 2Formal extension, farmer to farmer and family support 6 12

Total 52 100

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 49 50> TotalFrequency 36 9 5 1 1 52Percentages 69 17 10 2 2 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fig. 6 Distribution of respondents according to their land sizes

Circular Economy and Sustainability

the formal market activities. The majority of farmers are also excluded from participatingin the market process, because they are less educated and unable to understand howformal market systems function. Very few small-scale farmers participate in themarkets. An added factor is that farmers are located some distance away from themarket and have poor access to infrastructure. Several studies including [12, 21–23]have referred to the need for structural reform if participation of black farmers in thecommercial agricultural sector is to be enhanced.

As indicated in Table 6, there is a positive correlation among type of market, size of land,agricultural training, implements used and extension services. It was not surprising to realize apositive association among extension services, training, selling and type of market as a well-trained and advised farmer is empowered to make informed decisions and to identify marketopportunities where they exist. Moreover, farmers with large land sizes and implements couldallocate their land for different enterprises giving them better position to participate in themarket. These results are in line with smallholder farmer surveys conducted by [24] in otherSouth African districts.

Formal Market Informal Market Formal & Informal TotalFrequency 12 31 9 52Percentages 23 60 17 100

12

31

9

52

23

60

17

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fig. 7 Distribution of respondents according to their market access

Table 6 Pearson correlation coefficients among variables

TYM1 SOL2 AGT3 IMP4 EXS5

TYM 1.00 0.051* 0.053* 0.039* 0.013**

SOL 0.051* 1.00 −0.45 0.420 −0.79AGT 0.053* −0.45 1.00 −0.008 0.177IMP 0.039* 0.420 −0.008 1.00 −0.06EXS 0.013** −0.79 0.177 −0.06 1.00

1 Type of market2 Size of land3 Agricultural training4 Implements used5 Extension services

*5% significant level; **1% significant level

Circular Economy and Sustainability

Conclusion and Recommendations

The main objective of this study was to identify the opportunities and constraints faced bysmallholder farmers. Descriptive analysis results identified opportunities and constraints in theVhembe district. Some of the opportunities available in Vhembe district is the high agriculturalproduction in some parts of Vhembe while market access, usage of chief land and waterresource remain some of the constraints. The study thus recommends the establishment offruits and vegetable markets (AgriPark) in the Vhembe districts. This will ensure increasedproduction and consumption of fruit and vegetables, creating a complete and viable agro-valuechain that will expand community-driven agricultural production and processing, and enhancethe role of horticultural crops in addressing the immense malnutrition problem of vulnerablegroups in South Africa. Although putting the agro-processing factory needs huge financialinvestment, it will assist the majority of the farmers to minimize post-harvest losses and it willincrease agricultural production in the district and encourage more farmers to start takingfarming as a business. It will also assist the South African government to demonstrate itscontribution towards Sustainable Development Goal 2. Moreover, it will also to capacitaterural communities to reduce wastage of produce, address food security and add value throughsmall-scale agro-processing operations. Lastly, it is important to note that establishing fruitsand vegetable markets (AgriPark) in the VDM will create job opportunities for local peopleand stimulate the local economy.

Author’s Contributions The author contributed to the study as a project manager and main author.

Funding Funding was allocated by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.

Declarations

Ethics Approval Ethical approval was received from the funder (DRDLR) and my employer (ARC).

Consent to Participate Consent to participate statement was included in the questionnaire for the respondentsto read and sign before the interviews.

Consent for Publication The author gives consent for publication.

Conflicts of Interest The author declares no competing interests.

References

1. Van Averbeke W (2014) Improving plot holder livelihood and scheme productivity on smallholder canalirrigation schemes in the Vhembe District of Limpopo Province. Water Research Commission Report No.TT566/13

2. Van Averbeke W (2013) Improving plot holder livelihood and scheme productivity on smallholder canalirrigation schemes in the Vhembe district municipality. Limpopo province

3. Mpandeli NS (2006) Coping with climate variability in Limpopo Province. Published PhD thesis,4. Mpandeli NS (2014) Evaluation of crop production practices by farmers in Tshakhuma, Tshiombo and

Rabali areas in Limpopo Province of South Africa. J Agric Sci 6:8 July 20145. Mohamed SS (2006) Livelihoods of plot holder homesteads at the Dzindi smallholder canal irrigation

scheme. D tech (Agric) thesis, Pretoria, Tshwane University of technology

Circular Economy and Sustainability

6. Manyelo KW (2011) Street trader livelihoods to smallholder farming at the Dzindi Canal scheme. M tech.(Agric) dissertation. Pretoria, Tshwane University of technology. Pp.206

7. Agri-Based Bioeconomy: Reintegrating Trans-disciplinary Research and Sustainable Development Goals(2021) Keswani, C., (Ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA 384 pages, ISBN- 9780367471002

8. Bioeconomy for Sustainable Development (2019) Keswani, C., (Ed.). Springer-Nature, Singapore. 392pages, ISBN- 978-981-13-9430-0

9. Vhembe District Municipality (VDM) (2014) The status of agriculture in Vhembe district, Limpopoprovince, Integrated Development Plan, www.vhembe.gov.za,

10. Annandale JG, Jovanovic NC, Tanner PD, Benade N, Du Plessis HM (2002) The sustainability of irrigationwith gypsiferous mine water and implications for the mining industry in South Africa. Mine Water Environ21:81–90

11. Maponya P, Mpandeli S (2012) Climate change and agricultural production in South Africa: impacts andadaptation options. J Agric Sci 4(10):48–60

12. Maponya P, Mpandeli NS (2015) Climate change status in Mutale local municipality: a case study ofsmallholder farmers in Vhembe district, Limpopo Province, South Africa. J Hum Ecol 52(1, 2):1–8 (2105)

13. StatsSA (Statistics South Africa) (2011) Community survey 2007, Statistics South Africa, Pretoria14. Makhura T M (2001) Overcoming transaction costs barriers to market participation of smallholder farmers

in the Northern Province of South Africa, 1–16, Published PhD thesis, Pretoria, University of Pretoria15. Rethman NFG, Annandale JG, Keen CS, Botha CC (2007) Water use efficiency of multi crop agroforestry

systems, with particular reference to small-scale farmers in semi-arid areas, WRC Report No. 1047/1/0716. Maponya P, Mpandeli NS (2015) Indigenous post-harvest systems: a case of Mamone Village in

Sekhukhune District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. J Hum Ecol 50(3):197–203 June 201517. Crookes D (2003) The contribution of livelihood activities in the Limpopo Province: A case study evidence

from Makua and Manganeng18. Van AverbekeWM,Marete CK, Igodan CO, Belete A (1998) An investigation into Food Plot Production at

Irrigation into Food Plot Production at Irrigation Schemes in Central Eastern Cape, Water ResearchCommission Report, No. 719/1/98

19. Igodan C O (1996) Survey of rural women in Oyo state Nigeria. Institute of African Studies, press report,University of Ibadan, Nigeria

20. Howel J (1985) Recurrent cost and agricultural development, The Russel Press Ltd. Nottingham, UK21. Kirsten JF, Sartorious von Bach, HJ, Van Zyl J (1993) Evaluation of the farmer support programme, sub

assignment III (Venda, Lebowa and Kangwane), Final report on agricultural economic analysis22. Kirsten JF (1994) Agricultural support programme in the developing areas of South Africa, Published PhD

thesis, Pretoria, University of Pretoria23. Van Rooyen CJ, Vink N, Christodoulou NT (1987) Access to the agricultural market for small farmers in

southern Africa: the farmer support programme. Dev South Afr 4(2):207–22324. Maponya P, Venter SL, Modise D, Van Den Heever E, Kekana V, Ngqandu P, Ntanjana N (2015) Pefile a

(2015) determinants of agricultural market participation in the Sarah Baartman District, eastern cape ofSouth Africa. J Hum Ecol 50(1):1–9

Affiliations

P. Maponya1

1 Agricultural Research Council, Vegetable and Ornamental Plant, Pretoria, Gauteng Province, South Africa

Circular Economy and Sustainability