Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and … · 2015-07-24 · Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable

Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced

food and nutritional security and a sustainable

productive resource base

A field Report

Prepared by

ASSET Research

Under contract from the

An initiative of the Development Bank of Southern Africa and the Department of Environment Affairs

Deliverable 4: Field report

January 2015

Prof. James Blignaut

[email protected]

This report was prepared by ASSET Research:

PO Box 144

Derdepark

Pretoria

0035

Please use the following reference when citing this report:

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.

iii

Table of Contents

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... vi

1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2

3 Methodology and approach ....................................................................................................... 3

4 Questionnaire data .................................................................................................................... 5

5 Synthesis of results .................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Vision and mission statements .......................................................................................... 7

5.2 Definition of “sustainable agriculture” ............................................................................ 11

5.3 Work undertaken............................................................................................................ 13

5.4 Research agenda and topics ............................................................................................ 17

5.5 Specialisation of organisations ........................................................................................ 17

5.6 Publications .................................................................................................................... 18

5.7 Suggested policy interventions ....................................................................................... 19

6 Discussion of results ................................................................................................................ 23

6.1 General discussion .......................................................................................................... 23

6.2 Discussion per sector ...................................................................................................... 25

7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 55

iv

List of Acronyms

ARC Agricultural Research Council

BAP Bad agriculture practises

BAASA Biodynamic Agricultural Association of South Africa

CA Conservation Agriculture

CAFIP Conservation Agriculture Farmers Innovation Programme (by GSA)

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management

CC Cover crops

CSA Conservation South Africa

CSA Climate Smart Agriculture

CV Conventional Farming practices (CF is used for Conservation Farming)

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

FFF Foundations for Farming

FGW Farming God’s Way

GM Genetically modified (includes Round-up Ready crops)

GMCC Green Manure Cover Crops

GSA Grain SA (South Africa)

HDG High Density Grazing

HEI High External Input

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IVIS Integrated Value Information System

KEL GNT KEL Growing Nations Trust

LEI Low External Input

NGO non-governmental organization

NT No till (or no-tillage)

OCA Organic Conservation Agriculture

OSSIC Organic Sector Strategy Implementation Committee

PES Payment for Ecosystems Services

PGS Participatory Guarantee Systems

RR Round-up ready (a genetically modified crop)

SAED Sustainable Agricultural Enterprise Development

SAOSA South African Organic Sector Organization

TC Traction Centre

UHDSG Ultra High Density Strip Grazing

UN FAO United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization

v

List of Figures

Figure 1 Visual overview of work load per category ...................................................................... 14

List of Tables

Table 1 Area covered where respondents work............................................................................. 5

Table 2 The spread of feedback per research sector and type of institution, based on 33

respondents ..................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3 Summary of keywords from 32 respondents regarding the vision statement .................... 9

Table 4 Summary of keywords from 28 respondents regarding the mission statement ............... 10

Table 5 Elements of "sustainable agriculture" as mentioned by 30 respondents.......................... 12

Table 6 Summary of works most mentioned by 31 respondents .................................................. 14

Table 7 Research topics regarding sustainable agriculture as mentioned by respondents ............ 15

Table 8 Entries under ‘work undertaken’ by institutions regarding (sustainable) agriculture ....... 16

Table 9 Summarised research agenda for the next 5–10 years as given by respondents .............. 17

Table 10 Summarised areas of specialisation ................................................................................ 18

Table 11 Summary of policy recommendations ............................................................................. 20

Table 12 Keyword entries under policy recommendations by institutions regarding (sustainable)

agriculture based on 28 respondents ............................................................................. 21

Table 13 SWOT analyses of the maize, citrus and beef sectors ...................................................... 27

Table A1a List of respondents for the questionnaire ....................................................................... 32

Table A1b Questionnaires sent (grouped per sector) ....................................................................... 34

Table A2 Description of vision statements ..................................................................................... 35

Table A3 Description of mission statements .................................................................................. 37

Table A4 Definition of “sustainable agriculture” ............................................................................ 39

Table A5 Work undertaken in the field of “sustainable agriculture” ............................................... 42

Table A6 Organisations’ research agenda for the next 5-10 years .................................................. 46

Table A7 Organisations’ fields of specialisation.............................................................................. 49

Table A8 Policy recommendations................................................................................................. 51

Table A9 Standard questionnaire used for this survey ................................................................... 55

vi

Executive summary

ASSET Research is contracted by the Green Fund through the Development Bank of Southern Africa to

consider sustainable farming practices as a viable option for food and nutritional security while still

being economically productive. As part of this investigation, this report provides an overview of

current activities, perceptions and lessons from the field. A questionnaire was distributed to 87

individuals and institutions actively involved in sustainable (or related) agricultural practices, focusing

largely on dryland maize, citrus and beef farming and production. From these, 33 responses were

received, that is an acceptable response rate of 38%. From the responses received it is evident that:

much is already happening with respect to sustainable farming practices within the country

and that a very large body of knowledge exists with respect to this topic;

the term “sustainable” or “sustainability” is used by a large number of the respondents within

either or both their vision and mission statements, but that the term remains vague,

ambiguous and is used to mean different things to different people. The definition or

interpretation thereof, however, has to do with care and prudent management for the

environment, but the extent, the means and the objectives vary substantially;

while there exists a large body of knowledge on the subject, practices are mostly driven by

individuals and individual institutions. There is no coherent action and/or general thrust

towards more sustainable farming practices. Activities are ad hoc and driven by individual and

varying motives. Given the successes, a farm and bottom-up policy-based approach is

recommended to develop a nation-wide thrust towards sustainable farming practices;

the transition from conventional to more sustainable practices, however, cannot happen

overnight – it requires a slow and progressive approach. Neither is it likely that an up-scaling

from small to medium sized activities to large-scale operations will happen overnight. Gradual

transition is more likely, to be aided with long-term support programmes. This has

implications for the type of policies to consider. Most respondents confirm the need for

practical, on-farm support policies. The recommendations refer to financial support,

increased knowledge (i.e. training, extension and mentorship), improved applied research and

dissemination of the effects of bad agriculture practises (BAP). Respondents also emphasised

the need for improved implementation of existing policies (compliance monitoring and follow-

through with non-compliance), streamlining of sustainable agricultural discourse and

regulations, and reviewing existing policies.

1

1 Background

The purpose of this field report is 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. This report serves as a tool for the different ASSET

Research students working on this project’s data, analysis and modelling efforts. It also serves as a

repository of practical information on current sustainable farming systems in the country.

Sustainable agriculture is a concept that is discussed both in the agricultural sector and beyond. South

Africa’s agricultural sector is very diverse, including many sub-sectors across divergent agro-ecological

systems. The relevant question, therefore, is what “sustainable” means in a practical sense in the

South African context. To attempt an answer to this question, Asset Research did a field study which

is reported on in this document. It details sustainable agricultural practices based on feedback and

opinions from South African field, research and policy experts. Furthermore, it contains information

from various stakeholders defining sustainable agriculture. The questions that have been addressed

include the following:

What are the 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?

This project is funded by the Greenfund1 which was established by the Department of Environmental

Affairs and is administrated by the Development Bank of Southern Africa. The Greenfund seeks to

stimulate research and operations in activities related to and in stimulation of the green economy.

This field report is a follow-up on earlier project deliverables, including preparatory documents, a

student colloquium report and a baseline report2. The final objective of this project is to draft policy

recommendations on how to support sustainable agriculture in South Africa.

1 For more information, visit www.sagreenfund.org.za.

2 Blignaut, J.N., De Wit, M.P., Knot, J., Midgley, S., Crookes, D.J., Drimie, S & Nkambule N.P. 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.

Prepared for the Development Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.

2

2 Introduction

“Sustainable” and “sustainability” are probably two of the most used words in recent agriculture,

economic and development discourse. But what does “sustainable agriculture” mean and how does

it look like in the South African context?

The baseline document of this project highlighted the different schools of thought on alternatives

ways of farming as compared to conventional ways. Also, when referring to “sustainable farming” or

“sustainable agriculture” numerous approaches, philosophies and management practices come to

mind. Examples thereof are no-till (NT), Conservation Agriculture (CA), organic farming, agro-ecology,

biodynamic agriculture, permaculture, nature farming (“natuurboerdery”), ecological agriculture,

holistic farming and precision farming. There are, however, more concepts such as Climate Smart

Agriculture.

It appears that the sustainability of agriculture practice is also linked to the level of inputs used.

Literature refers to high and low external input models (HEI, LEI). One of the respondents to the

questionnaires documented in this report, stated that current conventional farming is ‘polluted’ with

a “product driven approach”. In other words, those farming systems are high external input driven.

The question that then comes to mind is whether today’s farmers are product (i.e. seed, fertiliser,

diesel, pesticides and insecticides) dependent. The alternative question is whether South African crop

farmers can farm with only soil, seed and water. Does sustainable agriculture mean moving toward

zero input products?

This report is based on research conducted to document what South African institutions and farmers

are doing to promote agriculture (sustainable agriculture). 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 farmers (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. Therefore, three farming sectors

that represent many South African farmers were selected: dryland maize production, beef and citrus.

The report is structured as follows: The research method is discussed, followed by a discussion of the

data. A synthesis of the results is then provided and the report is concluded with a discussion of the

results. The individual responses are provided in annexures.

3

3 Methodology and approach

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 use of a questionnaire survey (see

Appendix 2). These organisations represented a cross-section of agricultural organisations, research

institutions, sector organisations, farmers, NGOs, UN and government working in citrus, beef and

dryland maize agriculture. Using existing networks as a start, the research team used a “snowballing

technique” to confirm key informants and build a broad platform of respondents. There was a limited

time frame for this deliverable (6 weeks) and the team decided not to send the questionnaire out to

a large audience due to limited time for follow-ups, interviews and data analysis. Each respondent

had the opportunity to cross-reference other role players and provide information regarding other

sustainable agricultural success stories, promotional work, or research that they are aware of. It is

interesting to note that most of these names and institutions were already included on the initial

mailing list. An additional seven organisations were referenced were subsequently approached early-

2015. The team is confident that the role players who were contacted adequately represents the

citrus, beef and dryland maize sectors.

An open-ended questionnaire (included in Appendix 2) was sent by email to 87 different people from

different organisations.

If any respondent’s feedback was unclear, the questionnaire was returned asking the respondent to

clarify if possible. Some respondents phoned to discuss the matter, and follow-up phone calls as well

as the follow-up meetings were very successful. These conversations gave the opportunity to discuss

some of the written responses and feedback data was added to the questionnaire, as a result. If the

respondent made comments that were not covered by questions on the questionnaire these were

then added as well. Whenever extra information was added to the questionnaire the respondent was

asked if she/he agreed. Some respondents, however, did not complete the entire form. Only the

completed replies were used in this report.

Five follow-up phone calls and seven follow-up meetings were conducted. As a result four forms (2,

24, 61, 68 – see Annexure 1) were completed by the author of this report and returned to the

respondents with the request to confirm. There was email correspondence with 22 respondents after

the initial questionnaire was sent. Email correspondence with nine of the 22 related to technical

clarity and a follow-up on the content. Email correspondence with the other 13 was administrative of

nature (re-sending the questionnaire, sending additional information on ASSET Research, and on one

occasion the baseline report was requested).

The results were then entered into an Excel database. All data provided on the questionnaire was

inserted resulting in the different tables (Appendix 1: Table A1–A8). The database was developed by

securing the key word(s) in the respondents’ replies. Matching keywords were grouped together. The

feedback from the respondents are summarised in the tables both in the text and in the appendices.

The data is presented in Section 5 based on keyword analysis. Each question was analysed on a

separate sheet in the Excel spreadsheet.

The synthesis of main messages were done. A mass of information were presented in shorter format

and some choices were made in the process. The questions on the questionnaire can be seen in

4

Appendix 2. Feedback received during follow-up phone calls, emails and visits is also included here.

The last question on the questionnaire (regarding policy suggestions) is presented in a table. The

respondents’ feedback can be seen in Appendix 1. The results were selected based on keywords in

the text. In order to present the respondents’ suggestions in a clear and practical way the authors

included the first and last columns (i.e. pressing issue and example). The authors’ intention is guiding

the reader with a complete overview of what policy suggestion addresses what pressing issue. The

example column reflects the work undertaken/examples from the respondents themselves.

5

4 Questionnaire data

This section provides a short overview of the data generated by the questionnaires.

Table 1 provides a summarised list of the 87 people and institutions that received the questionnaire

(see Appendix 1 for a detailed list). The number of completed questionnaires returned by email or

resulting from telephone conversations, interviews and follow-ups were 33 (38%). Tables 1 and 2

reflect the various areas (i.e. provinces) as well as sectors (e.g. farmer, researcher, and government)

represented by the respondents. Refer to the appendices for information on indicators such as %

spread across provinces, % spread across sectors and % spread across different types of institution.

Table 1 Area covered where respondents work

Percentage Frequency mentioned

Areas where the 33 respondents work*

2% 1 Limpopo

18% 8 WC

9% 4 EC

13% 6 KZN

2% 1 NW

18% 8 FS

9% 4 Gauteng

4% 2 NC

0% 0 Mpumalanga

9% 4 Country-wide

9% 4 Lesotho

2% 1 Swaziland

2% 1 Southern Africa (Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe)

2% 1 Africa

100% 45 TOTAL

Key: * – by estimation/author’s interpretation based on data from the questionnaires, but some have multiple

entries (for example respondent 31 is based in KZN, with country-wide members)

6

Table 2 The spread of feedback per research sector and type of institution, based on 33 respondents

Go

vern

men

t

Farm

ers

Co

nsu

ltan

ts

NG

Os

Scie

nce

& R

esea

rch

(in

cl.

Un

iver

sity

)

Co

op

erat

ion/

mem

ber

ship

as

soci

atio

n

Sect

or

gro

up

s

Pri

vate

fir

ms

Farm

er lo

bb

y gr

ou

p

Total

Maize

10.3%

2.6% 5.1% 7.7% 2.6% 2.6% 30.8%

Beef - 12.8% 7.7% 5.1% 0.0% 2.6% 28.2%

Citrus - - - - - - 2.6% - - 2.6%

General 2.6% 2.6% 7.7% 2.6% 5.1% 5.1% 7.7% 5.1% 38.5%

TOTAL 2.6%

25.6%

10.3%

17.9%

10.3% 5.1%

10.3% 7.7%

10.3% 100.0%

7

5 Synthesis of results

In total, 33 of 87 respondents returned completed questionnaires. The following is a break-down of

the number of respondents who completed the respective questionnaire sections:

Vision statement – 32

Mission statement – 28

Definition of sustainable agriculture – 30

Description of work done by the institution – 31

Research agenda for the next 5–10 years – 27

Specialisation of the institution – 31

Policy recommendations – 28

The question regarding publications was asked, but the data was not analysed. The details are

described under each sub-heading.

5.1 Vision and mission statements

Of the 33 completed questionnaires, 32 and 28 respondents completed the vision and mission

statement sections, respectively.

The vision is a reflection of what the organisation or institution stands for, but it is interesting to note

the choice of words used in the different vision and mission statements (see Tables 3 & 4). Of the

total number of respondents, 37.5% used the word “sustainable” in their vision statement, and 57.1%

mentioned the word “sustainable” in their mission statement. This implies that “sustainable” is a

laden concept in itself.

Other keywords used were benchmark, excellence, profitable, conserve, wellness, vibrant, united,

credible, valued, healing and restoration. The vision statements also reflect research, business,

networking, humane and stewardship values in line with the types of respondents.

Promotion and facilitation of knowledge, findings, and information was mentioned by 19% of the

respondents. This indicates the importance of networking and facilitation efforts of certain sector

groups and membership associations.

The aspects “transformation” and “life change” from a religious (Christian) point of view was

mentioned by five of the 33 (i.e. 15.1%) respondents. This is captured in vision statements from

farmers and NGOs such as: “Transformation through sustainable agriculture”, “improved wellness and

harmony for Creation”; “MCC envisions communities worldwide in right relationship with God, one

another and creation”; “...harmonious living of people in their natural social and economic

environments” and “Healing and restoration of the land, people and business that we are involved in”.

These respondents indicate that stewardship (and custodianship) of the natural resources is needed

based on Gods’ mandate to man to look after the earth.

8

The restoration of people is mentioned by 4 of 33 respondents (i.e. 12%) as part of their vision

statements. For example, “...Ubunthu principle”, “harmonious living of people”, “healthy sustainable

societies”, “restoration of people ,...” and “...life change...”. The vision and mission statements also

reflect a pro-poor attitude and a “keep the money for as long as possible within the communities”-

sentiment.

Sustainable agriculture, therefore, is more than crops, cattle and soil. A few respondents (5.6% and

3.1%, respectively) reflected that sustainability has several entry points (i.e. economic, social, and

environmental). This will be discussed below.

9

Table 3 Summary of keywords from 32 respondents regarding the vision statement

Key % score Frequency mentioned

Description of vision statement by respondent

R 2.8% 1 benchmark of success

R 2.8% 1 creating value

R 2.8% 1 improvement of grain crops

R 2.8% 1 excellence in research

R 5.6% 2 reference to 3 elements of sustainability

R 2.8% 1 Profitable

R 2.8% 1 conserve & biodiversity

R 5.6% 2 sustainable farming

R 5.6% 2 exchange forum/network

R 2.8% 1 UHGSG

R 5.6% 2 feeding nation (food security)

R 2.8% 1 convert to CA

R 2.8% 1 mechanisation

R 2.8% 1 climate smart

R 2.8% 1 capacity building

R 2.8% 1 organic

R 5.6% 2 directive support

R 2.8% 1 seed only agriculture

R 13.9% 5 transformation & life change

R 8.3% 3 people & environment

R 2.8% 1 CC

R 2.8% 1 wellness and creation

R 2.8% 1 agri-business

R 2.8% 1 healthy societies

R 2.8% 1 Promote biodynamic agriculture

SUM 100% 36 SUB TOTAL

S 18.8% 6 promotion and facilitation

S 15.6% 5 stewardship

S 12.5% 4 people care

S 15.6% 5 Christian-based

S 6.3% 2 small-scale farmer

S 37.5% 12 sustainable (in vision statement)

TOTALS

Key: R = response keyword by respondent; S = sum or clustering of related keywords by author based on

respondents keywords.

The main keywords from the mission statements are “conserve agricultural land” and “increased

community wellbeing” (mentioned by 9.2% of the respondents for both concepts). Promotion and

sector support, and training/development of human capital both constitute 6.2% of the responses.

10

Twenty five percent of the respondents’ summarised keywords put emphasis on agri-business

development and productivity.

Table 4 gives more detail on each of the responses to the question on mission statements.

Table 4 Summary of keywords from 28 respondents regarding the mission statement


Description of mission statement by respondents

R 1.5% 1 supply quality prim products

R 1.5% 1 optimise resources

R 3.1% 2 reference to 3 elements of sustainability

R 3.1% 2 premier science & research institution

R 6.2% 4 develops human capital (CBP)/training

R 4.6% 3 fosters innovation

R 6.2% 4 sector support and services/promote & facilitate the interest of agriculture

R 4.6% 3 production systems linked to healthy food (incl. food safety)

R 9.2% 6 conserve agric land/NRM/resilient landscapes

R 3.1% 2 UHDSG

R 1.5% 1 sustainable production through sustainable land-use

R 4.6% 3 to convert all rain-fed production to full CA practices

R 3.1% 2 low cost and low energy mechanisation

R 4.6% 3 organics

R 9.2% 6 community wellbeing (people care)/increased (social) resilience/pro-poor

R 1.5% 1 decision-making and policy support + measure policy impact

R 1.5% 1 sound economic development and agri-business

R 4.6% 3 networking (harnessing like-minded people)

R 3.1% 2 enhance productivity

R 3.1% 2 applied research

R 1.5% 1 provide HQ OPV seed

R 1.5% 1 CC (cover crops)

R 1.5% 1 holistic decision-making and management

R 1.5% 1 supply, handling, acquisition agricultural products

R 1.5% 1 profit and LEI

R 6.2% 4 GAP (good agricultural practices)

R 1.5% 1 compassion

R 1.5% 1

integrated

R 1.6% 1 bringing the Gospel

R 1.5% 1

increase the production and consumption of biodynamic produce

SUM 100% 65 SUB-TOTAL

S 10.7% 3 Christian paradigm

S 25.0% 7 agri-business development & productivity

S 57.1% 16

"sustainable" mentioned in mission statement

TOTALS



11

5.2 Definition of “sustainable agriculture”

Of the 33 completed questionnaires, 30 had responses to this question.

The keyword regarding the definition of “sustainable agriculture” that was mentioned most often is

“ensuring future production” (11.6%). Second to this (8.1%) was reference to the triple bottom-line of

agricultural sustainability involving social, economic and environmental aspects. In 7% of the

responses, the third most-mentioned keywords mentioned are increased productivity. This links with

the 25% of respondents that mentioned increased productivity under mission statement. Production

that is not destructive, and is without erosion, deterioration of environment or diminishing natural

capital was the fourth most-mentioned keywords (i.e. 5.8%).

Sustainable agriculture has elements of LEI farming (mentioned by 4.7% of the respondents) and

addresses present needs (mentioned by 4.7% of the respondents) without failing to address future

food production (mentioned by 11.6% of the respondents).

Some respondents (20%) used the term “sustainable” in their definition of sustainable agriculture.

However, this is less than the use of the term in the vision and mission statements (57% and 37.5%

respectively).

Five respondents (15%) made reference to the importance of natural systems. Two respondents made

apparent contradictory statements. One respondent views sustainable agriculture as a closed system

and the other views it as an open system. The three other respondents referred to ecosystems and

enhancing environmental processes.

A clear view of sustainability reflected that it is a process of learning and there is no blueprint available.

Also, there are no standard set of solutions for any given situation. What is evident is farmer-centred

solution seeking (as seen in the applied research partnerships of GrainSA, ARC and others).

Furthermore, sustainable agriculture is all about soil.

There was a concern noted on the mis-use of the term and people using “sustainability” glibly for their

own marketing and/or certification purposes.

As with the vision and mission statements, there is a deeper ‘call’ for addressing and defining

“sustainable agriculture”. It is “the responsibility of land owners and land-users” and there should be

a love for farming. “Sustainability is brought about by an intense love of the environment and soil

which drives a soul to commit to building a healthy and well-structured fertile soil. Driven by the heart

of the individual supported by the law, science, and research with dedication from an ‘enlightened

extension’ service team”.

Sustainable agriculture pleads for an ecotype-specific or selected-area approach. “Consequently,

what constitutes ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the South African context may be quite different to other

regions. This is because the ‘agricultural needs’ in some regions are potentially different to those in

other regions.”

In conclusion, all the definitions given had aspects related to conservation (at the very least not

diminishing social/natural capital); meeting the needs of the present without detracting from the

ability of future agriculturalists to meet their needs; and mimicking nature and natural processes.

While these are all true, sustainability further offer a call to take care of the South African farmers as

12

land-users. The respondents emphasised that farming should be financially profitable for the farmers

otherwise they go out of business which in turn means that there is no one to produce food and look

after the environment. The translation of this need into policy is captured under “recommended

policies” below.

Table 5 Elements of "sustainable agriculture" as mentioned by 30 respondents


Elements of "sustainable agriculture" as mentioned by respondents

R 1.2% 1

application of best technologies to open system principles (ecosystem process)/organic (enhancing env processes)

R 1.2% 1 subject technology to an operational open system

R 4.7% 4 LEI elements

R 1.2% 1 reduced complexity

R 5.8% 5

use NR for agricultural production without erosion or deterioration to the environment (low impact food production taking cost of food into consideration)

R 3.5% 3 CA is sustainable crop production

R 11.6% 10 ensuring future production (longevity)

R 1.2% 1 economically viable, produces optimal yields and has low environmental impact

R 1.2% 1 a process of learning and innovation with farmers

R 8.1% 7 3 elements of sustainability (social/econ/ecol)

R 3.5% 3 2 elements of sustainability (econ/ecol)

R 2.3% 2 improve the biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil

R 2.3% 2 increased nutrition/food quality

R 7.0% 6 increased production of crops (productivity/efficient(cy))

R 1.2% 1 improved pastures and animals

R 1.2% 1 vogue use of "sustainable"

R 2.3% 2 optimal production (with acceptable profit)

R 2.3% 2

foremost profitability for the farmer (i.e. beyond a hand-to-mouth existence)

R 3.5% 3

the ability of maintaining the health and vigour of soil and other resources

R 2.3% 2 it is a responsibility by land owners and land users

R 2.3% 2

TOTAL commitment to follow the principles and practices proved by research to create sustainability. Legislation only writes the rules it does not carry them out!

R

2.3% 2

diligent implementation of the principles and practices that will enable harvesting a successful crop. A successful crop can only happen when properly marketed (alternative markets?).

R 1.2% 1 love, commitment, dedication, custodian

R 1.2% 1 access to land secured (in order for farmers to invest in environment)

R 1.2% 1 restore agriculture to original potential

R 2.3% 2 food security

R 1.2% 1 tailoring solutions that are ecotype specific (per agro-ecological zone)

R 1.2% 1

farming practice that enables communities to exploit natural resources for economic growth and eking livelihoods

R 2.3% 2 climate smart agriculture addressing climate change and reducing GHG e

R 1.2% 1

it is a system that can be replicated by other farmers without massive capital investment

13


Elements of "sustainable agriculture" as mentioned by respondents

R 1.2% 1

the production of everything needed to sustain humans, animals, the earth and resources

R 4.7% 4 addressing present needs (current needs not sacrificed)

R 1.2% 1 promotion of GAP by industry, producers

R 1.2% 1 the will and policies of government

R 1.2% 1

a clear understanding of the impacts and advantages of different types of agricultural practices. It is the whole value chain, and it is constantly changing

R 1.2% 1 should suit social context (best fit between farmer and type of farm)

R 1.2% 1 a key to unlocking the Gospel

R 3.5% 3 (ecosystem process)/organic (enhancing env processes)

R 1.2% 1

this means striving towards a closed farming system where fertility and immunity come from within the farm.

SUM 100.0% 86 TOTAL

S 20.% 6 Usage of "sustainable" in definition (besides "sustainable agriculture" is... Or reference to "sustainable development")



5.3 Work undertaken

The different respondents provided information on the work undertaken by the respective

organization/institution (i.e. current assignments as well as recently - less than 5 years - completed).

Thirty one respondents replied to this question and most mentioned numerous works being

undertaken. This explains the 124 entries in this data sheet.

CA and NT research (36.3%) and capacity building (10.5%) reflected the highest scores. Within these

categories, research on GMCC scored the highest with 24.4% of the 45 research-related works and

8.9% of all 124 entries. Awareness-raising and networking could possibly be lumped together.

14

Table 6 Summary of works most mentioned by 31 respondents


Work undertaken by respondents in promoting (sustainable) agriculture; based on 124 clustered entries.

36.3% 45 research

8.9% 11 awareness/information

10.5% 13 training

5.6% 7 policy influencing, lobby, strategy

9.7% 12 networking

8.9% 11 grazing related

5.6% 7 markets

2.4% 3 LEI

4.0% 5 food security

8.1% 10 land care & conservation

100% 124 TOTAL

Figure 1 Visual overview of work load per category

Practical 68%Research 45.2%

Landcare/FS 12.1%

Training 10.5%

Markets

8%

Information dissemination and

networking 18.5%

Policy formulation, influencing

5.6%

15

Research was the most-mentioned aspect and in order to have a more clear insight into what

“research” entails, see Table 7.

Table 7 Research topics regarding sustainable agriculture as mentioned by respondents

% score Frequency mentioned

Research related topics mentioned. Nr of respondents: 30; 45 topics

2.2% 1 CA/NT research - plant cultivars

6.7% 3 CA/NT research - fertilizer related

15.6% 7 CA/NT research - general

2.2% 1 CA/NT research - insects/pest related

2.2% 1 CA/NT research - glyphosate related

6.7% 3 CA/NT research - weed management

8.9% 4 CA/NT research - soil related

13.3% 6 CA/NT research - tools and equipment related

6.7% 3 CA/NT research - GrainSA CAFIP

4.4% 2 Ley crops

24.4% 11 GMCC research

2.2% 1 Online bench-marking data collection and analysis programme

2.2% 1 climate change impact related

2.2% 1 impacts of agriculture on mining and vice versa

100.0% 45 TOTAL

Table 8 indicates all work undertaken by the respective organisations/institutions as mentioned by

the respondents. There are some specific work related topics.

16

Table 8 Entries under ‘work undertaken’ by institutions regarding (sustainable) agriculture


Work undertaken by respondents in promoting (sustainable) agriculture. Nr of respondents: 31

Key % score

Frequency mentioned

Work undertaken by respondents in promoting (sustainable) agriculture. Nr of respondents: 31

R 0.8% 1 energy management applied R 0.8% 1 climate change impact related

R 1.6% 2 conservation areas set aside (biodiversity) R 0.8% 1 impacts of agriculture on mining and vice versa

R 0.8% 1

social responsibility projects have been undertaken with the local communities

R 1.6% 2

LEI

R 0.8% 1 local markets have been created R 0.8% 1 fruit related

R 0.8% 1 CA/NT research - plant cultivars R 3.2% 4 promotion of CA

R 2.4% 3 CA/NT research - fertilizer related R 0.8% 1 to save and grow and enhance biodiversity

R 5.6% 7 CA/NT research - general R 0.8% 1 facilitating NT task force

R 0.8% 1 CA/NT research - insects/pest related R 0.8% 1 home gardening and nutrition

R 0.8% 1 CA/NT research - glyphosate related R 1.6% 2 sustainable land management

R 2.4% 3 CA/NT research - weed management R 0.8% 1 land cover change assessment

R 3.2% 4

CA/NT research - soil related R 1.6% 2

influencing people and change perceptions re sustainable production of food

R 4.8% 6 CA/NT research - tools and equipment related R 0.8% 1 SAED

R 2.4% 3 CA/NT research - GrainSA CAFIP R 0.8% 1 seed saving for organically certified seed

R 1.6% 2 LandCare projects R 1.6% 2 household food security

R 0.8% 1 rural development projects R 0.8% 1 sales of GMCC

R 6.5% 8

awareness and access to information (i.e. farmer days, conferences, popular CA publications, semi-scientific magazines)

R

1.6% 2

holistic livestock management

R 2.4% 3 education and training/ HR development R 1.6% 2 acquisition, marketing and processing of agricultural products

R 0.8% 1 attempt to influence CA policy R 1.6% 2 provide info to farmers

R 1.6% 2 ley crops R 0.8% 1 lobby, policy process participation and network

R 8.9% 11 GMCC research R 2.4% 3 eradication program of invader-/alien species

R 1.6% 2 grazing strategies R 0.8% 1 funding and HR support

R 1.6% 2 high density grazing strategies R 0.8% 1 natural meat initiative

R 0.8% 1 research: legume-based pastures R 0.8% 1 job creation program (agric based)

R 0.8% 1 online bench-marking data collection and analysis programme R 0.8% 1

grassland improvement/quality of grass

R 1.6% 2 mentorship programme R 2.4% 3 networking

R 4.8% 6 CA/NT related training R 1.6% 2 community farming

R 1.6% 2 organic standards/regulations R 0.8% 1 evangelism/discipleship through CA

R 1.6% 2 attempt to influence organic policies R 0.8% 1 organic farming, Biodynamic farming, agro-ecology, permaculture

R 0.8% 1 agro-ecology strategy S 53.3% 16* focusing on smallholder farmers

S 63.3% 19* focusing on commercial farmers

Key: R = response keyword by respondent; S = a compilation by author’s interpretation of respondents work area. * estimation (not 100% accurate, but education figure)

17

5.4 Research agenda and topics

Research constituted almost 9% of all work related to the promotion of sustainable agriculture as

mentioned in Section 6.3. It is therefore important to summarise the various research agendas for

the next 5 - 10 years as indicated by the respondents. The most-mentioned agenda point for the next

5 - 10 years is CA-related research followed by the need to synthesise best teaching and learning

methods. Also, the line integration of livestock into cash crop systems was mentioned five times. This

score is reflected under both CA research and rangeland improvement.

Table 9 Summarised research agenda for the next 5–10 years as given by respondents


Research agenda for the next 5–10 years as given by the respondents, based on all 61 entries from 27 questionnaires

26.2% 16 CA field research & improved CA farming systems

11.5% 7 economic and market research (value chain)/modelling

4.9% 3 network platforms/partnerships

14.8% 9 beef, rangeland related improvement

19.7% 12 best teaching, learning, adoption-related approaches

6.6% 4 input saving/alternative inputs

4.9% 3 effective strategies, mitigation

4.9% 3 appropriate small holder equipment

3.3% 2 economic/environmental payments tools


1.6% 1 Biodynamic production

100% 61 TOTAL

5.5 Specialisation of organisations

Thirty one respondents completes this section of the questionnaire mentioning 78 areas of expertise.

Table 10 reflects the summarised fields. There is a wide range of expertise available and most experts

(29.5%) are knowledgeable in agronomy, crop production and crop-related matters. This is followed

by experts in applied economics (12.8%), and cattle farming (11.5%). The social-agricultural/rural

development trainers, facilitators and community development specialists together contribute close

to 18% of the total. The respondents collectively have a wealth of knowledge.

18

Table 10 Summarised areas of specialisation


Areas of specialisation of institutions based on feedback from 31 respondents

29.5% 23 agronomy, crops, CA

9.0% 7 training and facilitation

6.4% 5 soil

11.5% 9 cattle farming


12.8% 10 applied economics

2.6% 2 information output

2.6% 2 mechanisation

3.8% 3 organic agriculture

9.0% 7 community development

3.8% 3 policy process facilitation

6.4% 5 other

100% 78 TOTAL

These experts (respondents) also have knowledge from a range of agro-ecological zones; a critical

aspect in the development of sustainable agriculture. The provinces (countries) where these experts

(respondents) work are reflected in Table A6 in the appendices.

5.6 Publications

Not all respondents publish as not all are from a research background. The research-related

organisations (i.e. the ARC, universities and even NGOs) have provided long lists of publications which

can be made available upon request.

A few of the respondents mentioned the importance of information networking and information

dissemination. This is already practiced by the CA facilitator (respondent 15), and the two NT

membership associations from KZN (respondent 31) and WC (respondent 39). The sector

organisations (e.g. 71) and membership organisations (e.g. 68) publish monthly and quarterly digital

newsletters and bulletins. Respondent 50 mentioned that there is a desire among stakeholders to

improve on and share more information and experiences on CA and related aspects. Respondent 71

disseminates information related to biodynamic agriculture.

19

5.7 Suggested policy interventions

Tables 11 and 12 as well as Table A8 in appendix mention policy recommendations made by 28 of the

respondents. While “sustainable agriculture” has been defined, work in this field has been

highlighted, research agendas and work expertise has been documented, there is still the question of

how to implement the best practices, good results and institutional efforts pertaining to sustainable

agriculture. The 28 respondents who completed this section of the questionnaire mentioned 113

suggestions. Table 11 provides a summary, while Table 12 reflects all the keywords/key phrases. The

full text of recommendations is captured in Table A8 in the appendix.

The policy recommendation mentioned the most was the need for financial support (17.7%). That

includes suggestions for environmental incentive schemes (PES), increased amounts available for

farmer-driven research, funding and insurance for farmers during the conversion period to

NT/sustainable farming, as well as assistance for converting farmers as they pay the “school fees”.

The other recommendations frequently mentioned were training/mentorship/agricultural extension

(15%), improved applied research (14.2%) and increased/improved dissemination of best (good)

agricultural practices (success stories and research findings) (13.3%).

Improved training suggestions include aspects such as farmer-centred learning sites (demos), return

of expert agricultural extension officers, improved agricultural institutions, change of agricultural

curricula including sustainable agriculture material, and mentor- and stewardship initiatives. This last

aspect has been emphasised by respondents as teaching a new technique is relatively simple, but the

social-cultural and worldview (including set of beliefs, values, norms and perceptions) of farmers need

to be addressed/changed.

There were 16 suggestions on how to improve applied research. This included suggestion on the form

(research coalitions/partnerships) (25%), the how (on-farm) (44%) and topics (31%). There was an

expressed need for applied, on-farm and farmer-driven research (i.e. GMCC, ley crops, improved

pastures and high density grazing). Also, three respondents (2.7% from total entries) pleaded for

government-private research initiatives. An example of this is GrainSA’s CAFIP as reported on by

respondent 18, and the ARC/GrainSA partnership.

There was also a plea for proper dissemination of best practices and publishing of research findings,

success stories and best agricultural practices. The other (summarised) policy suggestions are found

in Tables 11 and 12.

20

Table 11 Summary of policy recommendations

Percentage Frequency mentioned Summary of policy recommendations

5.3% 6 land reform

6.2% 7 improved implementation of existing policies (promoting/sanctions)

17.7% 20 financial support & incentive schemes

4.4% 5 mechanisation support

1.8% 2 assistance with markets

15.0% 17 training, mentorship, agric-extension, curriculum change

14.2% 16 improved applied research (initiatives)

13.3% 15 increased dissemination of GAP & effect of bad agricultural practices

4.4% 5 sustainable agriculture discourse and regulations

6.2% 7 CA-related policies (including seed policies)

2.7% 3 parallel approach (smallholder and commercial)

4.4% 5 alternative policy

3.5% 4 Organic standards/products (anti GMO)

0.9% 1 other

100% 113 TOTAL

Table 12 indicates policy recommendations made by the respondents.

21

Table 12 Keyword entries under policy recommendations by institutions regarding (sustainable) agriculture based on 28 respondents


Policy recommendations based on feedback from 28 respondents % score

Frequency mentioned

Policy recommendations based on feedback from 28 respondents

1.8% 2 resolve landownership by promotion of emergent farmers 0.9% 1 facilitate increased multi-stakeholder understanding of sustainability

1.8% 2 ensure access to overseas markets via government intervention/support 0.9% 1 advocacy on the loss of natural assets is essential so decision makers invest in those areas

1.8% 2 return of expert extension officers

0.9% 1 stop subsidising CF

2.7% 3 establish government-private coalition for farmer-driven research initiatives 0.9% 1

curriculum change (in schools)

2.7% 3 test "sustainable agriculture discourse" 0.9% 1 promote agriculture (agri-business) among youth

1.8% 2 proper seed policies

0.9% 1 strategic and proactive interventions in agribusiness that will support sustainable agriculture

1.8% 2

CA promoting policy

0.9% 1

strategically align climate change and green economy with sustainable agriculture objectives into coherent implementation programmes with political and government support

2.7% 3 safeguard funding and insurance opportunities for farmers converting to NT 0.9% 1

security of land tenure (linked to willingness to invest in green agriculture)

0.9% 1 GMCC promotion policy 0.9% 1 create knowledge dissemination channels

3.5% 4 environmental incentive schemes 0.9% 1 access to finance, financial training and financial discipline

3.5% 4 Farmer-centred training and education 0.9% 1 tenant farming

4.4% 5 on-farm research 1.8% 2 mentorship programs to ensure transfer of knowledge

3.5% 4 appropriate mechanisation support 0.9% 1 holistically developed policies

1.8% 2 access to seed varieties 0.9% 1 policies that will create learning sites all over SA

0.9% 1 alternative meat classification system 0.9% 1 effective M&E and dissemination of ME data

2.7% 3

parallel approach assisting small holder and commercial farmers

0.9% 1

make better use of commonage land (municipality owned land) for assisting black emerging farmers

1.8% 2 government needs to fund research as many NT pioneers are paying "school fees" 0.9% 1

the wheat sector (EFS) can be revived by increasing the import tariffs

1.8% 2 increase local info (research) about GMCC, ley crops and improved pastures 0.9% 1

fair price for producer support/policies

0.9% 1 support to build up marginal soils

0.9% 1 a “safety net” after disasters to assist farmers to stay in business. E.g. subsidised insurance

0.9% 1 advocacy by farmer membership organisations/sector groups

0.9% 1 utilising Green Box Grants e.g. subsidies/grants to farmers converting to sustainable agriculture

0.9% 1 assistance in obtain paradigm shift re sustainable agriculture 1.8% 2 promote stewardship/transformation (training/mentorship) models

0.9% 1 implement sanctions of mismanagement of land and veld 0.9% 1 promote land, people and profit approach

0.9% 1 large size research funded by a farmer-based payment schemes 0.9% 1 Incorporate proper high tech solutions to increase food security

0.9% 1

create tripartite research platform (i.e. farmer, researcher, business)

0.9% 1

gender-sensitive policies in agric

22


Policy recommendations based on feedback from 28 respondents % score

Frequency mentioned

Policy recommendations based on feedback from 28 respondents

0.9% 1 encourage practical (applied) research under supervision/coordination of a researcher/scientist 0.9% 1

increase funding directed to agricultural development

0.9% 1 create platforms for debate and feedback sessions 0.9% 1 promote mentorship farming opportunities

2.7% 3 promotion of success stories (best practices) 0.9% 1 strong regulation, compliance monitoring and follow through for non-compliance

0.9% 1 "care of soil" policies

0.9% 1 improved collaborative governance of resource management across departments, including streamlining of relevant environmental/water/agricultural legislation

0.9% 1 conduct unbiased and relevant research on UHD grazing levels 0.9% 1 integrated land use planning/spatial planning at the provincial and municipal scale

1.8% 2 ensure funds for relevant research

0.9% 1 regulatory compliance of Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 1983 (supporting the revision and implementation of this valuable act)

0.9% 1

change of undergraduate curriculum (incl sust agric)

0.9% 1

Protection and Development of Agricultural Land Facilitation Bill – supporting implementation using existing agricultural and environmental frameworks and regional/municipal fine scale plans (cooperative governance)

0.9% 1 establish the animal traction network in SA

0.9% 1 Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP); to focus on sustainable agriculture techniques, training and job creation.

2.7% 3 publish “success stories” & findings 0.9% 1 land reform support

0.9% 1 increased production of CA equipment 0.9% 1 awareness of GMO

0.9% 1 ensure implementation of CA (and other) policies 0.9% 1 animal cruelty

0.9% 1 get organic std approved 1.8% 2 Organic standards (PGS)

1.8% 2 knowledge dissemination and promotion of sustainable agriculture 0.9% 1 The support of the growth of organically grown grain for animal feed.

0.9% 1 improved agricultural institutions and political and economic support for the agricultural sector 100% 113

TOTAL

23

6 Discussion of results

The results are discussed in the following section in general as well as per sector. A SWOT analysis is

also done.

6.1 General discussion

The term “sustainable” is used in the respondents’ vision statements (37.5%), mission statements

(57.1%) and definitions of “sustainable agriculture” (20%). The use of the term indicates that

institutions incorporated ‘sustainability’ in their vision and mission strategies; however, the frequency

of its use might indicate an unthoughtful or quick use of the concept. The term should not be used

vaguely or glibly, or for the wrong reasons (e.g. a marketing strategy). To this point, three respondents

pleaded for proper testing or assessment of “sustainable agricultural discourse”.

The sector representation was higher for maize and beef than for citrus. The lower representation of

the citrus sector was expected as it only has 1900 producers. Quite a bit of work has been undertaken

across the sectors to move towards sustainable agriculture.

The previous deliverable (the baseline report) mentioned a wide use of concepts associated with

sustainable agriculture, such as permaculture, agro-ecology and biological farming. Not much of this

was mentioned by the respondents indicating that the name of the concept does not matter as much

as the results.

The organic farming and biodynamic farming sectors are in the process of defining and documenting

certain regulation and guidelines. This refers to the organic farming regulations for organic farming

and Demeter standards for biodynamic agriculture. Both concepts were mentioned but ranking very

low. ‘Organic’ was mentioned more often than biodynamic production/agriculture. Many respondents

indicated that NT and ‘full CA’ are the routes to sustainable agriculture.

It is important that NT and CA be defined as was done in the baseline report. Many respondents, as

mentioned above, indicated that NT and ‘full CA’ are the routes to sustainable agriculture. It was

indicated in the baseline report that OCA (organic CA) was the desired direction or ‘final destination’

of a crop production or farming system. Whether or not this is achievable was not a question in the

questionnaire. It was, however, asked on a few occasions during phone conversations and interviews.

The few respondents were doubtful whether a low external input OCA system would work but they

did not disagree with the term or thinking behind it.

One potential respondent (i.e. correspondence took place, but no was questionnaire returned)

indicated that NT is just one step better than CV. The baseline report mentioned that conventional

NT with high dependence on external inputs (i.e. fertilizer, GM crops, herbicides, pesticides) is not a

desired final production system. Rather, it is argued that a LEI should be promoted in line with the

organic sector respondents. GMCC are crucial in building NT gradually to CA. This was also confirmed

by the respondents. Only one respondent made reference to an increased awareness of the impact of

GMOs. This might suggest that among the majority of respondents, who are promoting NT/CA, there

is GMO tolerance. We suggest a wise use of GM crops and herbicide (especially glyphosate) is

recommended for a specific period of time, with the aim of phasing out these external inputs and

24

move towards OCA. Policies should be geared towards this goal with proper documentation on

farmers’ production methods, input-accounting and development of CA regulations (like SAOSO and

BDAASA). Follow-up research is needed to recommend applicable farmer-scale-based policies and

policy instruments (e.g. PES, incentives, sanctions), and implementation strategies. This could possibly

be outsourced to the recommended partnerships/coalitions or membership organisations as

mentioned previously.

The researchers on this project are convinced that sustainable agriculture needs to gradually grow

towards LEI and this needs a two-way approach. Therefore, the parallel approach of assisting small

holder and commercial farmers across the different sectors on the way to sustainable agriculture is

recommended. This approach was followed in Brazil (with a high uptake of NT cover cropping). By

analysing the work being undertaken by the respondents, it is estimated that they were already

targeting smallholders (55%) and commercial farmers (65%). Note that many respondents work with

both groups of farmers. Also, the data presented indicates that knowledge, expertise and

commitment is present within the divergent set of respondents.

Furthermore, alternative markets need to be explored accompanied by a full value chain analysis. The

expertise is available among the respondents to facilitate this process and it is recommended that

more research be done on this aspect.

A prominent aspect from the feedback was the desire for on-farm, applied and suitable practical

research as running long, current research and extension programs alone is not sufficient. It appears

that government-funded research programmes is slow in releasing funds, in turn hampering effective

research. A high percentage of respondents recommended a government–private partnership or

government–farmer–business coalition. In a positive trend, these alternative research approaches

are currently promoted on farms with farmer study groups, and in partnerships between farmers and

scientists. In addition, there was a significant call for making more information available to farmers

and assumingly the general public. The different sector- and membership organisations are doing

good work with farm tours, email-based information bulletins, conferences, etc. Farmers learn from

one another and ‘seeing is believing’ in this regard. There is a need for documented success stories in

both the commercial and smallholder sectors (as part of the parallel approach mentioned above).

Interestingly, through interaction with the respondents it is clear that there is a link to them between

sustainable agriculture and Christianity. Christian and faith-based organisations are booking success

in the adoption of sustainable agriculture because they address faith, belief systems, norms and

values. Promoting agricultural technology (like NT, precision farming, etc.) is part of the solution, but

it should be fully embedded in the social-cultural and religious settings. This aspect is mentioned by

4 of the 30 responses to the vision statement question.

Another recommendation is the intentional increase of relevant platforms where relevant parties and

stakeholders can meet and share not only successes but also progress made (measured ME). The

focus should be on reinforcing relationships and agreed topics. For example, both CA and organic

propagandist agree on the use of GMCC. This could be an excellent starting point in practical

discussions for farm level at different scales, recording feasible steps or milestones (organic agriculture

at large scale is not feasible overnight).

It is worth taking note of work already undertaken by the respondents to this questionnaire. Funds

are secured for these organisations and projects, and a coalition between a few of these can assist

25

South Africa and policy-makers with the effective transition to sustainable agriculture by providing

expertise in policy processes and formulation, economic modelling and PES.

6.2 Discussion per sector

6.2.1 Dryland maize production

The literature review3 in the previous baseline report suggested that sustainable agriculture is a step-

wise or gradual process. If dryland maize production was to be compared to a journey it starts at

conventional farming practices (i.e. allowing primary and secondary tillage) and ends at organic CA

(OCA). Intermediate steps on this journey would, for example, be reduced (minimum) tillage, strip

tillage, chemical based NT, NT cover cropping (HEI CA), LEI CA including CC/GMCC and ley crops4.

Respondents, however, doubted whether OCA can be achieved. “Perhaps” and “maybe” are words

that characterise the responses indicating that OCA might be attained with good agricultural practices

and responsible use of chemicals, over a (long) period of time, and with a correct mind-set. One

respondent rephrased OCA to be “biological LEI CA”.

The conventional farm situation, irrespective of where it is situated in South Africa, does not allow for

an overnight conversion from CV to OCA. Such a drastic shift will be economic suicide at commercial

level. Even at small-scale farm level it is almost impossible.

Under current CV it is found that the soil quality is low with nutrient imbalances, low in soil organic

matter, low in soil structure, and highly weed infested. These ‘imperfections’ need to be addressed

keeping in mind that expenditure should be limited and most farmers cannot permit a failure which

will knock them out of business. This has obvious and known effects on food production and national

food security.

Steps, however, are undertaken by organisations (e.g. ARC, GrainSA, the Maize Trust, NGOs) to

promote CC, GMCC and, to a far lesser extent, ley crops. The success of NT and CC are globally

contributed to the use of cover crops. Respondent 55 commented that “[c]over cropping is not a new

discipline which requires expensive research. It is an old agricultural technique which was documented

by the Chinese 1100 years BC. The fact that this technique is still around today is evidence that it still

works”.

GMCC incorporated in the NT/CA cash crop systems seem to work. Positive results of work done are

reported on by respondents 2, 4, 15, 24, 31, 38, 40, 41, 51, 53, 55, 68, 81 and 89. But more research

is needed in this regard. More research is also needed on developing sound crop rotations moving

away from <RR maize – RR soya> rotation under NT. The Highveld farmers (i.e. especially Eastern Free

State) produce far less wheat as a decade ago.

It is evident that NT/CA farmers struggle to build up adequate levels of soil cover. Non-grazed cash

crop residue does not seem to maintain an adequate soil cover. In South Africa, organic material

3 Blignaut, J.N., De Wit, M.P., Knot, J., Midgley, S., Crookes, D.J., Drimie, S. & Nkambule, N.P. 2014. Sustainable agriculture: A baseline report

in South Africa: An investigation. Prepared for the Development Bank Southern Africa. Pretoria: ASSET Research.

4 Ley crops refer to the effective incorporation of pastures (pure grass or legume-based) into cash crop rotations.

26

deteriorates at a high level. CC strategies to address lack of soil cover are inter-seeding: fall CC into

standing maize, winter CC directly after maize (or soya, sunflower) or summer CC (whether or not it is

followed by a winter CC) were cash crop is replaced by summer CC or ley crop. The CC research efforts

from the above-mentioned respondents include foreign species, but locally adapted crops prevail.

More research is needed on cash and cover crop seed varieties and cultivars (as mentioned by

respondents 4, 6, 24 and 31).

Converting high productive soils to perennial ley crops for 2–5 years requires a huge paradigm shift.

A few decades ago, marginal (risky farming) soils were converted to pastures (i.e. especially Eragrostis

Curvula). However, more research is needed on GMCC, CC and ley crops linked to cash crop and

livestock farming. The need for successful integration of livestock into CA was mentioned by

respondents 18, 24, 27, 38, 51, E2 and E4, and applies for most mixed-farming enterprises. Financial

figures together with large-scale examples are needed to demonstrate success for different eco-types

in South Africa. We recommend more research on UHDSG in extensive grazing and mixed-farming

enterprises.

Private organisations (cooperative business, input suppliers) are more neutral in their approach

especially when it comes to profit-making through sales of inputs. Cooperatives don’t prescribe

members on what production system to use. Their profit margins are correlated to increased

production and tons of produce.

6.2.2 Citrus production

It is necessary to follow-up with WWF-SA regarding the carbon calculator. The carbon calculator tool

is a pro-active step by the citrus sector to be ahead and in line with retailer requirements. With this

tool farmers can be ‘mapped’ and their ‘sustainability score’ known. It would be great to assess the

usefulness of this tool, for example, in the maize and beef sectors as well.

6.2.3 Beef

A few respondents (i.e. 24, 31, 36, 38 and 60) pleaded for alternative high density grazing strategies.

However, more research is needed on feedlots and potential alternative markets. A full value chain

analysis is also important. Respondents suggested alternative grazing strategies, other meat

classification methods with increased benefits for the farmers, and a parallel approach for

smallholders and commercial farmers.

27

Table 13 SWOT analyses of the maize, citrus and beef sectors

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 systems5

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 & associated build-up of weed resistance to glyphosate and GM crops (68). 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 build-up 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 (E2).

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 to many different set of standards (i.e. EU, UK, Middle east, Far East, Russia). The conventional citrus growing practices, moved to environmentally friendly production

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.

5 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” (31), “fully-fledged NT”, or when all three principles are applied it is referred to as “full CA”(38,39).

28

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

systems thanks to overseas retailer demands (especially EU, UK). “We are closer to sustainability than one might think...”.

Beef The Green Choice alliance (see p54, respondent E4) 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.

SA beef classification systems are developed by feedlots and specifically designed to penalise grass-fed 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 farmers).

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.).

General (agriculture-related)

Many respondents (8.1%) described sustainable agriculture related to economic, social and environmental aspects (an additional 3.5% linked environmental and economic aspects) Many good policies exist in SA.

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. 26/28 (93%) of the respondents (excluding organic related respondents: 44, 46, 53) did not mention “organic farming” at all in written or verbal feedback, which indicates that “organic” is not a well-used discourse.

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 (BAASA, SAOSA). Organic regulation denied due to legislative issues.

29

7 Conclusion

This field report captures efforts, ideas and achievements about sustainable agriculture from a

divergent set of respondents. 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 also represented strongly. The citrus sector was the least

represented mainly due to the limited number of growers in the sector as 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 for 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 key-words most used for the definition of “sustainable agriculture” were: ensuring future

production (11.6%); the triple bottom-line of agricultural sustainability involving social, economic and

environmental aspects (8.1%); and increased productivity (7%). Production without erosion, without

deterioration of environment/diminishing natural capital, or that is not destructive was mentioned by

5.8% of the respondents.

The respondents’ work/projects addresses almost the complete spectrum of agriculture as seen in

Figure 1. 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

(18.5%), exploring markets (value chain research, predictions and modelling) (8%) and policy

formulation and influencing (facilitating with regulations) (5.6%).

Also, 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

(11.5%), and driving increased awareness/publication of sustainable agricultural examples. Effective

strategies and mitigation (4.9%) and PES (3.3%) (which might be affiliated to policies) only add up to

8.2% of the respondents’ planned agendas. This implies that future policies should consider a bottom-

30

up approach rather than a top-down approach as the strength in the South African agricultural context

lies with its producers.

This thinking is confirmed by the policy recommendations made by the respondents. Those

recommendations most mentioned (totalling 60.2%) confirm the need for practical on-farm support

policies. The most recommendations refer to financial support (17.7%), increased knowledge (i.e.

training, extension, mentorship) (15%), improved applied research (14.2%) and dissemination of

good/best agricultural practices (13.3%).

Respondents emphasized the need for improved implementation of existing policies (compliance

monitoring and follow-through with non-compliance), streamlining of sustainable agricultural

discourse and regulations, and reviewing existing policies.

The following are key implications of this field report:

Work is being done across different categories (see Figure 1).

Research work done ranks high especially for 1) GMCC/ley crops; 2) CA general (i.e. various

comparative studies with CV, as well as comparative studies under CA by comparing row

width, cultivars, equipment, soil types); 3) tools and equipment; and 4) fertilizer effect and

weed control.

Networking is ongoing especially on NT/CA (e.g. WCNTA (39), KZN NT club (31), ACT (50),

private). To a lesser extent also with SAOSA (44) and BDAASA (71)

There is a need for market research and policy influencing/formulation.

Policy assistance for ongoing on-farm applied research through funding, effective

private/government partnerships (GrainSA (15), ARC (2, 4, 6)).

Land reform and poverty alleviation are not pertinently mentioned but there is a high report

on people care and to include the social dimension to the economic and increased

environmental awareness under sustainability. Respondents call for agricultural productivity

for both smallholder and commercial sector without endangering/jeopardising future

resources.

Work undertaken by respondents are already almost equally geared towards both smallholder

and commercial.

From keywords as mentioned in the preceding baseline report, only organic, agro-ecology and

permaculture are mentioned; holistic management is mentioned in feedback with “organic”

being the most tangible with other three as approaches to agriculture. Feedback related to

“organic” and “biodynamic” driven by mainly three and one from 33 respondents,

respectively, was lower than feedback to NT/CA. That may suggest that NT/CA is the most

prominent approach currently to achieve sustainability. The emphasis by respondents was on

full CA, reducing external inputs moving towards organic (exploring organic pesticides) rather

than HEI NT. This confirms the view stated in the baseline report that NT alone is not

sustainable, but that it is a step in the process to full CA.

31

What needs to be done going forward? The following are a few suggestions:

More research is required on citrus and beef. The citrus sector was represented by only one

respondent. The beef sector lacks input from sector organisations, intensive and extensive

system experts. Student follow-up research suggested.

Food health was under-reported on. A follow-up study is needed on the issue of food health

(nutrition)/policies from an economic value chain analysis (as recommended by respondents)

by exploring the use of GM crops and related chemical weed control programs. The suggestion

is that farmers using GM/chemicals should be registered (pressing issues are health and safety

of GM, weed resistance to glyphosate (development of ‘killer weeds’)).

Practical: green bookkeeping (analyse the citrus sector’s carbon calculator as an example for

multiple sector use) on levels of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and diesel on farm. How

practical is this? Can we learn from EU countries in this regard? Does this fit with a bottom-up

policy approach? Follow-up research is suggested by students on different production systems

(i.e. input costs, description of inputs use (frequency, quantity, rates)). We suggest in

additional follow-up modelling research taking the production-related input costs and detail

and link it to environmental, economic and social sustainability indicators.

A clear strategy of phasing out the external inputs should be mentioned. The suggestion is

that research be done to determine how practical this is and who will manage compliance

(research coalition perhaps as suggested as an actor by few respondents).

Only 6.5% of respondents advocated for a CA policy. If organic CA is the ultimate form of

sustainable agriculture then future research is needed to explore how this CA policy or merge

with organic policy could potentially look like. This policy might refer to other sustainable

agriculture concepts (i.e. agro-ecology, biodynamic, permaculture).

Respondents called for increased networking and creating platforms for discussion (including

awareness raising, sharing results, networking, and knowledge think tank). As a result of this

brief study a few respondents can already be linked/grouped and/or clustered. It is suggested

that sector organisations meet across sector boundaries and create a higher level ‘policy

pusher’ as well as pro-production strategies across parallel approach of assisting both small

holder and commercial farmers in SA to sustainable agriculture.

32

Appendix 1

Table A1a List of respondents for the questionnaire

Nr. # filled Respondents nr from data base

Name of Organisation

1 1 1 ZZ2

2 1 2 Agricultural Research Council (ARC)

3 ARC-IGKW

4 1 4 ARC-GCI (Potch)

5 ARC-SGI

6 1 6 ARC-ISCW

7 ARC-ISCW

8 ARC-PPRI

9 ARC-ISCW

10 ARC-ISCW

11 ARC-ISCW

12 Consultant (ARC)

13 ARC other

14 Maize Trust

15 1 15 Grain SA

16 Riemland study group

17 Vrede study group

18 1 18 Ottosdal NT club/ Ascent study group

19 Sandgrond-ontwikkelings-komitee (Kroonstad, Wesselsbron)

20 Sandgrond-ontwikkelings-komitee

21 Brandfort studie groep

22 Marquard studie groep

23 1 24 Clocolan NT farmers

24 “Tweespruit NT farmers”

25 “Ficksburg NT farmers”

26 1 27 “Ladybrand NT farmers”

27 “Senekal NT farmers”

28 “Zastron NT farmers”

29 Cedara Agricultural College Kwazulu Natal Government, Department of Agriculture

30 1 31 Kwazulu Natal NT club

31 KZN NT researcher

32 1 36 Karoo Grazing Experiment

33 University of Pta, Veterinary Faculty

34 1 38 Western Cape Government, Department of Agriculture

35 1 39 Western Cape No Till Association

36 1 40 University of Fort Hare, Faculty of Science and Agriculture

37 1 41 UFH – consultant

38 Bountiful Grains Trust

39 Foundations for Farming SA

40 Foundations for Farming Zimbabwe

41 1 43 Foundations for Farming Lesotho

42 1 44 SAOSA (South African Organic Sector Organization)

43 1 45 BFAP (Bureau for Agricultural Policy)

44 1 46 Agro Organics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Fort_Hare

33

45 Biological Farming Institute

46 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)

47 United Nations FAO Southern Africa Regional office

48 1 49b United Nations FAO Lesotho office

49 1 50 ACT (Africa Conservation Tillage Network)

50 1 51 KEL Growing Nations Trust

51 1 52 Kroon Technifarm

52 1 53 Mahlathini Organics

53 1 55 Southern African Cover Crop Solutions (SACCS)

54 Rooivleis Produsente Organisasie

55 Bonsmara genootskap

56 Senekal farmer

57 1 60 Lamprechts Educational Services

58 1 61 Citrus Grower’s association

59 University of Stellenbosch, Faculty of AgriSciences

60 Stellenbosch University Sustainability Institute

61 University of the Free State: Department of Sustainable Agriculture

62 University of Free State: Soil department

63 Nigel Farmer

64 University of Pretoria

65 University of Pretoria

66 1 68 OVK

67 SENWES

68 1 71 Biodynamic Agriculture Association of Southern Africa,

69 1 72 Free State Agriculture

70 Ecoport

71 WWF-SA - Sustainable Farming Programme

72 Confronting Climate Change project

73 Terra soil

74 Walt landgoed

75 1 81 Moolmanshoek

76 Grassland Society (of SA)

77 Dole

78 Soiltech Zululand

79 Soiltech Zululand

80 1 89 Mennonite Central Committee

81 Agri SA

82 Sparta Beef

83 1 E2 Agri Dwala Ltd Pty

84 1 E4 Conservation SA

85 Landmark Foundation

86 Permaculture Design SA

87 Elsenburg Training

- 33 - TOTALS

34

Table A1b Questionnaires sent (grouped per sector)

Government -

National

Farmers Consultants NGOs Science & Research

(incl Univ & college)

Co-operations/

membership

association

Sector groups Private firms Farmer (lobby) group

Maize 1.ZZ2

24-29 NT farmers

Eastern FS

59. Senekal Farmer

65. Nigel NT farmer

42.Bountiful Grain

Trust, Port Elizabeth

43.Foundations For

Farming SA/

Zimbabwe/ Lesotho

51.KEL Growing

Nations, Lesotho

2-13. ARC 14. Maize Trust

15. GrainSA

17-23. GrainSA farmer

groups

Beef

24,27-29 NT farmers

Eastern FS

59. Senekal farmer

65. Nigel NT farmer

60.Lampbrechts

Educational Services

37. Univ of Pretoria,

Veterinary Faculty

40. University of Fort

Hare (UFH), Animal

Traction systems

56. Rooivleis

Produsente

Organisasie

57.Bonsmara

genootskap

E1. Sparta Beef

Citrus 61.Citrus Grower’s

Association

86. Dole

General 48. DAFF 81. Moolmans-hoek

E2. Agri Dwala Trust

36. Karoo Grazing

41. Consultant

attached to UFH

49a,b UN FAO regional

and Lesotho offices

53. Mahlathini

Organics

74. WWF-SA

Sustainable Farming

Programme

75. Confronting

Climate Change

project

82. Grassland Society

of SA

89. Mennonite Central

Committee (MCC)

E3. Guba Swaziland

E4. Conservation SA

E5. Landmark

Foundation

E6. Permaculture

Design SA

30. Cedara

Agricultural College

38 & E7. Elsenburg

Agricultural Training

College

45. BFAP, (US & UP)

62. University of

Stellenbosch, Faculty

of AgriSciences

63. Stellenbosch

University

Sustainability Institute

64. University of Free

State, Department of

Sustainable

Agriculture & Soil

66-67.Department

Plant Production and

Soil Science, UP

68. OVK

70. SENWES

72. Free State

Agriculture

44. SA Organic Sector

Association

71. Biodynamic

Agriculture

Association of

Southern Africa

90. AgriSA

46. Agro Organics

47. Biological farming

Institute

52. Kroon Technifarm,

soil nutrient balancing

55. Southern Africa

Cover Crop Solutions

73. Ecoport,

78. Terra Soil

79. Walt Landgoed

87-88. Soiltech

Zululand

31-35. KZN NT club

39. Western Cape NT

Association

50. Africa

Conservation Tillage

Networking Group

(ACT)

35

Table A2 Description of vision statements

Description of vision statements as given by the respondents

To be a benchmark of success in agriculture

Creating sustainable value for all its stakeholders as a living open system

Improvement and cultivation of grain crops

Excellence in agric research and development

Strive for Environmental/ social/ economic sustainability

Keep farmers profitable and sustainable

Conserve soils and biodiversity

Sustainable farming

To create a forum for the exchange of knowledge and experiences in NT cultivation of a variety of crops

Assess the expertise of members and farmers requesting advise

To assist all farmers to understand and acquire the skills and motivation to adopt NT correctly

Disseminate new knowledge about NT

To initiate UHGSG all over the country

To ensure a sustainable production in feeding the nation

To convert all rain-fed production to full CA practices

Mechanization suited the needs of small scale farmers

CA, as part of Climate Smart Sustainable agriculture is a major thrust of the TC

Through research and training, provide small scale farmers with tools and skills required to produce crops competitively on a sustainable manner

A vibrant, sustainable, united, valued and credible organic sector providing quality products and services to local and international consumers and markets, respecting Ubuntu principle

To see BFAP’s influence base expand and to give positive support and provide clear, empirical information through our research to decision makers such as government, producers, firms as well as the region’s resource, nutritional and food systems custodians.

A handful of seed can get your garden g(r)o(w)ing. Any person with 50 square metres of soil and sufficient water can sustain a garden supplying vegetable to a household of 6 people.

“To be a premier network of excellence in promoting sustainable agriculture and ecosystem management for improved livelihoods and wealth creation in Africa”

We strive for a Lesotho free of hunger and malnutrition, where food and agriculture contribute to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically and socially sustainable manner

Transformation through sustainable agriculture

36

Description of vision statements as given by the respondents

Our vision is to support the harmonious living of people in their natural social and economic environments in a way that supports and strengthens both the people and their environment. Our vision is further to assist the rural poor to better their lives, to diversify their livelihoods and to face their challenges with resilience.

To make the concepts of cover cropping and green manuring a workable, practical reality for all producers.

Improved wellness and harmony for creation

OVK is a prosperity creating Agricultural business

To strengthen, promote and advance the practice of biodynamic agriculture in Southern Africa."

A dynamic, modern and directive organisation for agriculture in the Free State

Healing and restoration of the land, people and business that we are involved in.

MCC envisions communities worldwide in right relationship with God, one another and creation.

Living and farming in the Overberg to Gods glory

The vision for CSA’s sustainable agriculture programme is: ‘promotion, facilitation and implementation of healthy sustainable societies across South Africa’s agricultural landscapes and value chains.’

To bring transformation to Lesotho – starting with our local community.

37

Table A3 Description of mission statements

Description of mission statements as given by the respondents

Our system supplies high quality primary agricultural products to clients who seek value. Our practices optimize resources and are based on principles which are ethical, environmentally friendly and economically sustainable.

"The Agricultural Research Council is a premier science institution that conducts research with partners, develops human capital and fosters innovation to support and develop the Agricultural sector."

The ARC is a premier science institute that conducts research with partners, develops human capital and fosters innovation to support and develop the agricultural sector

Grain SA provides commodity strategic support and services to SA grain producers to support sustainability.

To develop long term sustainable production systems for the long term production of healthy food (i.e. high in minerals and no (low) in toxicity levels)

Conservation of Agriculture land

To actively promote and facilitate environmentally friendly, economically sustainable conservation farming for the benefit of all

To develop UHDSG as a excepted grazing management practice for stock farmers and mainstream agricultural scientists

Sustainable production through sustainable land-use

To convert all rain-fed production to full CA practices

Research low energy input, low cost, sustainable and productive farm mechanization equipment and methods. Train farmers, extension staff and students to effectively and efficiently utilize mechanization methods that enable timely and cost effective agricultural activities

SAOSO is to establish and develop organics as an emerging sector within the broader context of South African agriculture. Organics has to be at the forefront as agriculture moves to address the global concerns about environmental sustainability of food production systems, consumer health, community well being and food safety. SAOSO pursues the public interest solely and directly. Its activities are benevolent only.

BFAP aims to continue improving as a partner in strategic decision making, maintaining the role as an objective analytical source in the agro-industrial complex. Connecting primary, secondary and tertiary sectors with high level policy makers to sustain sound economic development. Supporting agri-businesses through analyses of past, present and future policies by measuring their impact on farm, firm and resource well-being. This three-way linkage is vital to role in supporting sustainable agriculture.

No wheel to be re-invented, harnessing like-minded persons understanding the paradigm of real organic agriculture into one sustainable, economically viable structure.

“To enhance agricultural productivity, sustainable land management and environmental conservation through promotion of conservation agriculture principles and practices in Africa.”

We support Basotho to increase their resilience through integrated sustainable agriculture and natural resources management

Bringing life change through training, farming and research

Our mission is twofold: Through our seed business, we aim to provide high quality organic, open-pollinated seeds of vegetable, flowers and herbs to gardeners and food producers throughout South Africa. Through our rural development programming, we aim to design and implement innovative projects which promote collaborative, pro-poor agricultural innovation.

To institute commercialised cover cropping programs, backed by formal research, into as many different facets of commercial and small scale agriculture as possible’

38

Description of mission statements as given by the respondents

Improving holistic decision-making and management in all spheres of society

OVK is an agricultural business that strives to create prosperity and sustainability through: supply of competitive inputs to agricultural producers Acquisition, marketing and processing of agricultural products supply of products and services to the broader public

The BDAASA uses Demeter Standards as a bench mark. Through our Apprenticeship Programme, Newsletters, visiting international experts, PGS, marketing, bringing people onto farms etc, we aim to increase the production and consumption of biodynamic produce.

To promote a safe and sustainable agricultural environment in the interest of agriculture in the Free State

To demonstrate the sustainability of our vision and transfer it to the next generation.

Sharing God’s love and compassion for all in the name of Christ by responding to basic human needs and working for peace and justice.

To run farming enterprise with a good profit and lower input cost through sustainable agriculture practices (e.g. minimum tillage, improved soil cover, precision application of Fertilizer en HDG at short intervals.

The mission for CSA’s sustainable agriculture programme is: ‘to enable and facilitate effective implementation of sustainable agricultural practices in South Africa’s biodiversity hotspots in order to ensure resilient landscapes and sustainable societies for South Africa into the future.’

Go into the community bringing the good news of the gospel and practical displays of God’s love – CA is a vehicle of this.

39

Table A4 Definition of “sustainable agriculture”

Definition of “sustainable agriculture” as given by the respondents

Sustainable agriculture is the application of best technologies in agriculture according to open system principles, in harmony and in symbiosis with nature. Open, living systems are adaptable and thus sustainable - they respond meaningfully to the environment. The solution to sustainable farming is that we subject technology to an operational open system. An open system is adaptable, forever changing, irreversible, focused on the future, seeks contact and interaction and processes are horizontally managed and regulated by interaction.

Probably a element of Low external input (LEI) farming? Try to reduce complexity in agriculture perhaps?

Sustainable agriculture is the sustainable use of natural resources for agricultural production, thus use without soil erosion or deterioration of the environment. In term of crop production it is the application of Conservation Agriculture namely minimal soil disturbance, crop rotation and soil cover with a mulch of crop residue.

Sustainable agriculture is an agricultural system that is economically viable, produces optimal yields and has a low environmental impact that will ensure future agricultural production.

Sustainable agriculture is not a package of solutions, but is rather a process of learning and innovation, especially with farmers in the center of the process. It should aim to achieve environmental, social and economic sustainability.

The production of food by using the natural resources on a sustainable manner as to improve the biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil to increase the nutrition and the production of the crops, pastures and animals on it in an economically sustainable way.

Sustainable agriculture is a gradual process moving towards biological, low external input, conservation agriculture

To keep farming in such a way that the it will be economical, financial and productive for now and future

Sustainability at present is a VOGUE expression, glibly used to lure and impress people, mostly the general public, and unfortunately by many well meaning persons and organisations. Beyond the accepted meaning of sustainability of maintaining the levels of all nutritional elements both chemical and physical structure, including available soil moisture in balance as required for soil health. In order for a soil or production unit of land to produce optimally and provide the living requirements of the land owner or land user while also ensuring an acceptable profit. Sustainability with the land owner and/or land user is the understanding and implementation of what is needed and the management required to create and maintain a healthy environment and soil. An ingredient of sustainability vital for landowner and/or land user is to make a profit from his farming initiative, not only to cover input expenses but a profit so as to achieve goals dreamed of achieving, beyond a hand to mouth existence. The economics can make or break the committed to building an agricultural enterprise. Sustainability means the ability of maintaining the health and vigour of soil and other resources which make up the environment such as water, fauna and flora including insects and microbes. Sustainability is not just a technical term for agriculturalists to use glibly, it is not a so called right but a responsibility of all land owners and/or land users. Sustainability can only be achieved by TOTAL commitment to follow the principles and practices proved by research to create sustainability. Legislation only writes the rules it does not carry them out! Sustainability will only be achieved and maintained in agriculture when the land owner and/or land user can, through diligent implementation of the principles and practices that will enable harvesting a successful crop. A successful crop can only happen when properly marketed. Sustainability is brought about by an intense love of the environment and soil which drives a soul to commit to building a healthy and well structured fertile soil. Driven by the heart of the individual supported by the law, science, and research with dedication from an “enlightened extension” service team. The assistance of government in securing and supporting ALL farmers land, in order for them to be able to commit to practices that will bring about the health of the land they are custodian of. This factor is very important to ensure that they put “their roots” down and remain settled in order to complete the task set for working towards sustainability for the prosperity of the entire country and its citizens.

To restore agricultural resources to its original potential and maintain it as such

The ability of the farming community to produce food in such a way that we can feed our people, ensure the health of the land we use and the longevity of the whole process

Provision of the world’s food and fibre requirements without degradation of the environment.

40


Agriculture without diminishing the natural Capital

Mimicking nature, no need for bio-technology (GM, Nano, et al), no synthetic chemicals. “Keep the money for as long as possible within the communities.” ----- Hans Klink

Drawing on the commonly accepted definition of sustainable development (as provided by the Bruntland Commission, 1987) as “development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, sustainable agriculture can likewise be defined as agricultural practices that meet present ‘agricultural needs’ (in particular, food security) without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own ‘agricultural needs’, both from an environmental and economic perspective. Consequently, what constitutes ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the South African context may be quite different to other regions. This is because the ‘agricultural needs’ in some regions are potentially different to those in other regions. In addition, there are perhaps many different ways of providing sufficient agricultural opportunities to future generations while achieving sufficient and sustainable food production for current generations. However, regardless of the specific mechanisms of sustainable agriculture in different regions, there must certainly be a consideration of each of the environmental, economic and social aspects when defining the term. Without going into too much detail, an initial consideration of the environmental, economic and social aspects of agriculture over time presumably lead to an understanding of sustainable agriculture which involves agricultural practices and products that are able to maintain or improve agricultural productivity in the long run, which are not environmentally destructive (or, even better, which enhance environmental processes—such as using organic farming methods to harness nature’s ability to replenish nutrients in the soil, or retaining/improving existent wetlands which purify water, etc) and which suit the social context of agriculture. By ‘social context’, we refer to the specific type of farming (commercial versus subsistence), the social/ cultural context (communal versus private) and the capabilities of the farmer concerned (for instance, large-scale, commercial farmers may be able to use large sophisticated technological systems and organic products to achieve efficient, low-impact food production, but other practices will be relevant to small-scale subsistence farmers). Lastly, the definition needs to be clear about what is meant by ‘agricultural needs’. In particular, the definition of food security needs to be properly addressed; including not only the quantity of food but also the cost and nutritional quality of food such that current and future generations are sufficiently well nourished.

A farming practice that enables communities to exploit natural resources for economic growth and eking livelihoods without degrading the resources or simultaneously conserving them for future generations

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA), as defined and presented by FAO at the Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in 2010, contributes to the achievement of sustainable development goals. It integrates the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) by jointly addressing food security and climate challenges. It is composed of three main pillars: 1. sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes; 2. adapting and building resilience to climate change; 3. reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases emissions, where possible.

It is agriculture that takes care of nature, specifically the soil. It is also a self-sustaining agricultural system that puts back what it takes from the land. It is a low external input agricultural model. It is a system that can be replicated by other farmers without massive capital investment.

The production of everything needed to sustain humans, animals, the earth and resources.

Support the harmonious living of people in their natural social and economic environments in a way that supports and strengthens both the people and their environment.

My personal view is that sustainable agriculture is that current agriculturalists have to meet the needs of the present, without detracting from the ability of future agriculturalists to meet their own needs in the future.

SA is about continuous improvement of the financial, social and ecological aspects of farms/communities working from regenerating the ecosystem processes.

Sustainable agriculture can be explained best when: all arable land is effectively used and planted to crops with the aim of producing more food (produce) the keyword is more productive food production

41


In the biodynamic world, this means striving towards a closed farming system where fertility and immunity come from within the farm.

Striving towards the balance between economic profitability, human wellness and environmental enhancement

That the land and people involved will not be sacrificed in order to make a profit over a specific period of time

Farming practices/techniques that produce good quality food, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment and allows future generations to enjoy the same benefits as that enjoyed by the current generation.

To farm in a way with less input(s) and still managed to maintain a good profit. The lower external inputs refer to reduced fuel consumption as a result of less tillage. The Fertilizer rates are reduced as a result of precision application of the correct rates at the correct places

While recognizing that there are many different approaches to sustainable agriculture, Conservation South Africa promotes a landscape approach that follows good environmental, social and economic principles, and incorporates the components of both eco-agriculture (agricultural production and biodiversity conservation at the rural landscape scale) and climate smart agriculture (adaptation, mitigation, and livelihood improvement). To us, sustainable agriculture on the ground means improved land use practices, improved livelihoods, and improved climate resilience. But it doesn’t stop there. It means responsible sourcing policies, consumer awareness and demand, development of alternative markets, sound scientific research to support best practice recommendations, personal ownership by farmers, producers and industry bodies to promote good practice, the will and policies of government, and a clear understanding of the impacts and advantages of different types of agricultural practices. It is the whole value chain, and it is constantly changing

A key to unlocking the gospel in rural communities. Combining 3 pillars6, based on biblical principles, it allows farmers to increase their yields beyond that of subsistence.

6 It refers to the 3 CA principles: minimum disturbance of the soil, soil cover, and sound crop rotations

42

Table A5 Work undertaken in the field of “sustainable agriculture”

Work undertaken in the field of “sustainable agriculture” as stated by the respondents

Energy management is proactively applied to all decision making with the purchase of tractors, vehicles, systems and infrastructure that consumes energy. Sustainable energy projects include measurement of the potential for hydropower generation, irrigation under gravity and the utilization of waste wood to heat water in our residential areas. Power generation by wind was also intensively investigated, but ZZ2 did not have suitable property available. Electricity savings and - awareness projects include variable speed drives for pumps, heat pumps instead of geysers at residential units, irrigation under gravity, pre-paid meters in homes (24% reduction), management of "Time of Use" and "Critical Peak Day Period" with ESKOM. Focus is placed on all facets of the supply (dam safety, borehole monitoring, pipelines, etc.) and utilization (proper irrigation design; pivots for onions, drip irrigation for tomatoes and micro sprayers for avocado and fruit) of irrigation water, as well as the redesign and planned layout of lands to better manage water run off, with the consequent preservation of water and soil. Conservation areas have been set aside to maintain the natural fauna and flora and also to create bio-diversity. A number of social responsibility projects have been undertaken with the local communities including nature conservation, mentorships on cattle and tomato farming. Regional markets have been created where small scale farmers can deliver their produce. This produce is sold on a pure commission basis. The farmer is paid within 3 days. These markets have also boosted the local economy as many entrepreneurs now buy on the markets and resale the produce at their stalls.

Current projects are: 1. Response of sunflower to conservation agriculture and nitrogen fertilisation 2. Evaluation of conservation agriculture principals on two soil types on the Highveld 3. Response of maize to variance in plant population under different tillage practices and row widths 4. Comparison of insect complexes in conservation agriculture and conventional tillage systems 5. Evaluation of conservation agriculture (CA) as an alternative to conventional production methods as applied by a selected group of land reform beneficiaries in the Dipaleseng municipality (Balfour, Mpumalanga) 6. Evaluation of the long-term effect of glyphosate use in maize 7. Evaluation of integrated weed management practices in conservation agriculture on the Highveld Two of our researcher also take part in the in the GrainSA Conservation Agriculture Farmers Innovation Programme.

There is several conservation agriculture projects, LandCare projects, or rural development projects, all based on various aspects of CA (reduced tillage, multi-cropping and soil cover), and also includes aspects like water harvesting, green manuring etc.

Implementation of the Conservation Agriculture Farmer Innovation Programme with the following key strategic objectives: Awareness and access to information – various farmers days and conferences; a range of CA publications in popular / semi-scientific magazines Education and Training Incentives – aiming to influence government policy on CA On-farm research – have established a number of on-farm, farmer centered research projects with commercial farmers (Ottosdal & SOK) and small holder farmers (Bergville & Matatiele).

We are looking at cover and ley crops to improve above mentioned biological and physical properties of the soil In terms of the chemical properties there is an extensive liming practice in place in the area

On farm cover crop specie testing Grazing strategies (12 month rest of veld/pasture and rotated by 12 month high impact grazing) High density grazing strategies Research on how to improve veld by introducing different legumes to grass (i.e. Sainfoin, etc.)

We do no till with our cultivated land for the last 10 years and still have to learn more about cover crops to improve on it.

Three years ago a 5 year trial on Soil borne disease in No-Till was conducted with the financial help from The Maize Trust and in co-operation with the ARC on Anthony Muirhead’s farm Gourtan in the Winterton district of KZN. At present The No-Till Club is in the process of exploring the possibility of introducing an “Online bench-marking data collection and analysis programme to assist farmers in monitoring their farms production performance regarding Input unit levels for the season

43


Input cost levels Yield results Soil health data Our annual conference is an ongoing activity taking considerable time to organise to ensure that the information disseminated at the conference will be meaningful as well as being helpful to all who attend wishing to spread the or implement the adoption of Conservation Agriculture. Two of our members are currently involved in a “mentorship programme” in the Loskop area of KZN where they are co-coordinating the activity in timing all important steps in the successful production of a crop during the season. The No-Till Club of KZN publishes three, 16 page newsletters per annum containing articles of a technical nature, motivational as well encouraging articles. These newsletters are distributed free of charge and posted to 1200 individual people. Other organisations such as machinery and input supply companies are used where we have their co-operation, to place these newsletters in a convenient place, so customers and clients can help themselves to a free copy should they choose. The Club has hosted many visits to member farms by persons and groups wanting to learn more about and/or wishing to adopt Conservation Agriculture.

Karoo Grazing experiment (UHDSG), thesis on HDG in 1999 and published numerous articles in the agricultural media

4 long-term conservation agriculture trials throughout the province Fertilizer application in conservation agriculture 2 long-term tillage trials looking at soil biology Cover crop development

Annual CA symposium in August Green tours – practical visits and lectures in the field during the season Brown tours – practical visits and lectures in the field in the off-season

Operation of a crop rotation - cover crop experimental and demonstration project. Economic and performance comparison of different hand operated and animal drawn CA equipment. Evaluate, demonstrate and train on available CA equipment suited for small scale agriculture. Develop a low draft power no-tillage planter coulter. Develop a simple hand operated herbicide roller and research suitable non-chemical weed control methods.

CA promotion, CA training, CA demonstrations, CA dissemination, CA workshops, etc. all during project life-cycle.

Organic Regulation denied due to legislative issues Organic Standard not finalised Act 36 0f 1947 – see Agro-Organics as only driver Organic Policy – not finished Agro-ecology Strategy – not finished

(2013) BFAP consulted a section of a research project (LTAS) for SANBI. Which modelled the impacts of climate change on some agricultural sectors over the next 30 years. (2015) Agriculture and Mining – What is the impacts of these sectors on each other, how can they co-exist and what are their negative externalities relating to each other.

5 ha garden with 8 crops running on cover crop partly for the second cycle, the rest first cycle. 40 ha Orange river vineyards; no fertilizer, no pesticide 40 ha Apple Vyeboom; over 200 t apple from trees as old as thirty years (region average 60 t; good 85 t)

Promoting the use of Conservation Agriculture (CA) – as defined by the 3 principles (i.e. soil cover, minimum disturbance of the soil and sound crop rotations) – to save and grow and enhance biodiversity. This is the core mandate of the organization

FAO Lesotho Resilience Programme supports the upscale of Conservation Agriculture in the entire territory of Lesotho jointly with the CA Task Force members. Upscale involves investment in capacity development of a diverse range of stakeholders including big and small size farmers, extension officers, leaders and schools. Home Gardening and Nutrition techniques are also promoted among a diverse range of actors including communities and Government staff. In 2014 FAO Lesotho has started a similar process on Sustainable Land Management.

44


During 2014/2015 a Land Cover Change assessment for the entire country will be undertaken in collaboration with Ministries using spatial data

Researching natural ways of weed control. How to improve soil fertility through cover crops. Researching a low external input model. Teaching farmers how to use what they have to become food secure and ultimately to sell food

Progro is the vehicle to influence people and change perceptions in production of food and fiber in such a way that natural resources will be sustained, economical viable, acceptable for mankind.

Intensified homestead food production and water management (training and implementation of gardening, RWH, soil conservation, nutrition and value adding….) Conservation Agriculture: GrainSA Smallholder farmer innovation programme SaveAct; Sustainable agricultural Enterprise development within a savings and credit group context. (Value chains, bulk buying, production support, local marketing initiatives and processes) Seed saving network for organically certified vegetable and multi-purpose seed. UNISA Household Food Security Programme; College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Regional coordinator for the learning programme- KZN. Wesbank; specialist trainer (Food security, sustainable farming) for FSLAP programme supporting 20 NGOs nationally (2011-ongoing)

Our organisation considers that we are one small tooth on one small gear in the full gear-box of inputs required to sustain agricultural production. As a result we are specialised in what we do. Since 2003 – I have been working closely with research organisations and farmers to formulate cost effective, multi targeted cover cropping and green manuring programs. As each farm and farmer has a different want and need we formulate specific planting programs and advise on precise management techniques to obtain maximum effectiveness from money invested in the program. We provide a planting and management solution to the grower. We work with multi-national companies down to small scale producers.

Participated in 4 year Holistic Land and Livestock management programme in Zimbabwe by focusing on curriculum development, training and support for communal farmers and related NGOs in southern Africa . Holistic Management Plan for Steinkopf Commonage

OVK is assisting agricultural producers with acquisition, marketing and processing of agricultural products. Farmers can have peace of mind that there produce is marketed at best interest for them as shareholders of the company OVK provides information to farmers OVK assists and financed cover crop/ comparative tillage/cultivar trials in Clocolan OVK doesn’t prescribe what is sustainable to a farmer. OVK acknowledges that farming is ecotype- and farm specific. It trades with agricultural produce irrespective cultivar, variety, (chemical) weed program, or production system used.

Biodynamic Apprenticeship Programme

Networking

Newsletters

Most of our members are involved in biodynamic, permaculture, agroecology, organic farming, community development,

small scale farmer training and more

Lobby, policy process participation and network for the interest of our members. Information dissemination to our members. Participation in the Slangbos (Stroebe Vulgaris / Seriphium plumosum) eradication project with NDA (also Satansbos, Inkberry, and other invader species) through local Land Care committees

There is a strong ongoing focus on conservation of natural resources and investment in human resources.

MCC partners with local NGOs in Lesotho and Swaziland that are promoting conservation agriculture and/or green manure cover crops . Support is provided through financial and human resources.

45


We are working on two activities. To minimize the till of our soil. For the last 10 years we are planting with a min till planter. But in the 2015 season we are going to experiment with a disc planter. Almost no till. The use of nitrogen in a more effective way in the crops to achieve better yields with lower nitrogen inputs.

Conservation South Africa’s (CSA) Meat Naturally Initiative works across all levels of the red meat supply chain to promote sustainable farming practices. CSA aims to create a positive enabling environment from government and industry; to facilitate awareness and skills development of good environmental practice amongst the country’s communal and private farmers; and to educate the retailer and the consumer on making choices that will promote healthy environments in their meat purchasing. The Meat Naturally Initiative pilots innovative ways to assist farmers with obstacles like predator conflict, unemployment, erosion, farm management, poor soil conditions and access to water, under the overarching banner of climate change and building resilience. Collaboratively, it was identified that one of the most effective farming techniques is still the tradition of shepherding – staying with your animals and managing where, what and how much they eat. In response, CSA initiated a job creation programme called the Ecoranger Programme: where traditional herding techniques are applied to support environmental management and monitoring. Namaqua Ecorangers use GPS technology to take stock of species and veld condition, minimise stock loss to predators and prevent overgrazing or trampling of sensitive areas like wetlands. Currently, 11 previously unemployed people have been placed on farms and live in the veld with the livestock, acting as a deterrent to predators. At the same time CSA captures data sent from the Ecorangers, recording information on poisonous plants, predator movements, state of water infrastructure, condition of grazing lands and much more. This information is analyzed by our scientists and fed back to farmers to implement any adaptive management plans that may be necessary. In the Eastern Cape, the Meat Naturally Initiative aims to improve the quality of the fodder availability and biodiversity composition of grasslands in an initial 18,000 ha of target communal rangelands, through clearing aliens as well as through transforming the grazing pattern from one of open access and annual burning to one of controlled seasonal rotation and reduced burning regime. The project has strong support from the community: as of 2014 planned grazing is being implemented in six villages with 48 Ecorangers. Communities have seen benefits beyond just job creation – rotational grazing has already proven to produce healthier cattle, allowing them to access formal markets to sell their animals. CSA is also working at industry level and with national government to embed environmental management into regulation and supply guidelines for red meat. In addition, CSA is the secretariat of the Green Choice Alliance: a communication network of Agriculture and Business Initiatives in South Africa we meet quarterly to share lessons, address collective issues, and further our implementation of sustainable agriculture in South Africa. For more information on these activities see www.southafrica.conservation.org

The work of this ministry is currently under review: The original structure consisted of 2 components: Work on the church land – a group of farmers are trained in CA while being paid to work on the church land – the idea of the church plot is for demonstration of CA techniques as well as earning money for the church. These farmers are also discipled through a daily bible study Community farming – This is managed by the farmers working on the church land – they work in groups of 10 taking it in turn to work on each other’s land – CA farming only The original structure is failing due to the number of different missions of the church plot – for this reason they are being separated: The church land will be run by the Maseru trust as a business – planning is underway – the current business model combines a poultry farming (layers) running alongside crop growth to supply feed demand. The aim is to generate capital for the running of the church. It will also model CA, but not as its primary aim. Future CA training will be done by volunteers who will work with the community farmers – there will be a larger focus on discipleship running alongside this.

http://www.southafrica.conservation.org/

46

Table A6 Organisations’ research agenda for the next 5-10 years

Description of research agendas for the next 5–10 years as indicated by the respondents

Refinement and improved technology for the above. Protected production techniques. Improved cultivars, grafting of tomato plants, salt tolerant avocado rootstocks, elimination of soil borne diseases with natural products.

The programme of strategic and need driven research involves cultivar evaluation, plant breeding, improvement of crop quality, weed control, conservation agriculture, plant nutrition, plant pathology, entomology and nematology.

To investigate soil organic matter and associated greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils. To also see if sustainable agriculture could be a possible mitigation effect on GHG emissions and improve carbon sequestration

To create Farmer-centered on-farm research platforms (projects) in key grain production agro-ecological regions in South Africa as basis to scale out CA to farmers.

Looking at ways to integrate livestock and cash crop farming further. Looking at no-till and reduced tillage practices.

Network with other farmers and research platforms to give us useful cover crop solutions for our area

We are experimenting on different types of cover crops i.e. barley, beans, etc. to built up the fertility of the soil

To develop UHDSG to benefit all stock farmers – mainstream and communal

Focusing on the full implementation of the cornerstones of conservation agriculture within the cereal crop production and pasture production areas of the province (i.e. By managing your animals in such a way that they are fed without removing all the material, quick feeding bursts and then they move on – something in the line of Alan Savory)

We don’t conduct research, but we stay abreast from the things happening in western Australia (i.e. no formal ties), The Australians can come and learn from us.

Participate as part of the multidisciplinary team in the Climate Smart Agriculture Research Niche at UFH. Develop a low draft power no-tillage planter coulter. Develop a simple hand operated herbicide roller and research suitable non-chemical weed control methods.

Ensure that “no-action” re: numerous research proposals and needs (i.e. identified at various meetings and covered in many minutes) are addressed.

Developing partnerships across Sub-Sahara Africa to build capacity in the fields of market analyses to understand the entire value chain – from resources utilised to products sold to the consumer dynamics and all of this in the context of sustainable agricultural development. BFAP has also recently launched the IVIS (Integrated Value Information System™) which aims to incorporate information and models BFAP has been developing over the past decade into a spatial platform. This new dimension will add significant value to our analyses.

Assessing approaches that focus action on research approaches to innovation. Focus on developing effective monitoring, documentation and learning systems within conservation agriculture projects and then using these in the evaluation of best practice. This can include various areas or aspects such as farmer organization for improved access to information, inputs and/or output markets, most effective extension methods, value addition, consumer awareness programmes, and market structure and demand analyses. Integral to the validation of approaches and methods is development and assessment of tools for monitoring the steps in the development and implementation of sustainable land management and CA platforms and a monitoring system for evaluation of outcomes.

FAO Lesotho is initiating the Land Cover Change assessment for Lesotho. This study will lead to additional application and research to be established. On CA we are assessing the impact of our Resilience Programme and identifying areas for improvement in the uptake of CA. On Social protection we are exploring complementarities of Social Cash Grants and agriculture.

Cover crops LEI systems Cattle/livestock integration Adoption and economics linked to sustainable agriculture

47


The improvement of products and services to be more applicable for Sustainable Agriculture (Coated fertilizers, growth enhancers and Progro)

To bring smallholder farming systems to the forefront of agricultural and scientific research including the following topics: Social and human level aspects: community needs/baseline assessments/, adaptation/livelihoods and methodologies/approaches and processes for effective empowerment within a Participatory Innovation Development or Innovation Systems framework Participatory learning and action research: including participatory development of learning processes and materials for smallholder farmers, Climate change adaptation: social, environmental and economic systems around CA/Agroecology, Incentive and Market Based Mechanisms, such as Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES): design of PES for CA and Agroecology that can be effective in a smallholder environment, Economy: value chains (including participatory market chain development processes), cost-benefit analysis, agricultural economic scenarios including environmental/ecological, socio- cultural criteria and appropriate credit and input supply and marketing mechanisms for smallholders, Crops / weeds: horticultural and agronomic aspects of dry land smallholder CA systems, farming systems’ perspectives and inclusion of livestock Soils: soil health and soil organic matter, water holding capacity, soil structure, soil fertility Integrated Pest & Disease Management: systems and protocols for different pests and diseases common in the smallholder systems, Small scale mechanisation: engineering assessments and fine tuning of design of appropriate tools for CA in smallholder systems. Water management: hydrological and agronomic aspects of CA in smallholder farming systems Impact assessments: appropriate tools and indicators – design and piloting

As a relatively small organisation we do not have budgets or staff for formal research we tend to work with the producer bodies such as Grain SA, The No-Till Club of South Africa, The South African Sugar Research Institute, The South African Macadamia Nut Producers Association, The ARC, Foundations for Farming and other similar bodies. Cover cropping is not a new discipline which requires expensive research. It is an old agricultural technique which was documented by the Chinese 1100 years BC. The fact that this technique is still around today is evidence that it still works

Not doing research currently, but would like to be involved in research related to: Improving the quality of learning and teaching of sustainable agriculture Holistic (financial, social, ecological) measurement of continuous improvement on farms/communities

OVK intends continuing with it vision, mission and core goal as to increase financial sustainability (effective marketing and information network) for its members producers OVK margins (profits made through sales of inputs to agricultural producers) are reducing and therefore OVK needs to manage its business with smaller margins. Secondly enlarge their working area (e.g. Eastern cape, Lesotho as a potential working area) in order to compensate for loss in margins in existing working areas. OVK is not prescribing the producers what tillage or production system to use. OVK stimulates the farmer to choose by making informed decisions. OVK found that its members are well-informed about latest technology and input markets. OVK stimulates productive tillage systems.

In conjunction with international biodynamic associations, to research biodynamic production

Don’t do Research May commission various studies to address pressing needs

To research future business opportunities compatible with the current model as foundation to further improve and build what is being done currently.

MCC supports partners that are engaged in disseminating knowledge derived from practical field experience.

We are also looking into the use of organic fungicides and pesticides on our grain crops in the next 5 years

We intend to address land degradation and declining food security (specifically food access) linked to both private and communal farming in South Africa. If rangeland health can be improved and if alternative markets are found that favour rangeland-fed (and possibly biodiversity-friendly) livestock farming, then the food security and climate adaptation of farmers will be improved. A major focus of our research will be to address land degradation and declining food security in two climatically different landscapes in South Africa, namely the hotter and drier Namaqualand, within the Succulent Karoo biodiversity hotspot, and the cooler and wetter Umzimvubu, within the Maputaland-Pondoland Albany biodiversity hotspot. A critical and innovative

48


aspect of our research will be that we address land degradation and declining food security by working across the value chain, from production to markets. In these projects, innovative production methods, predator management and marketing in livestock farming will be tested for their effects on desired outcomes (increased production, decreased land degradation, improved food security, climate adaptation). Production aspects include trade-offs between production and biodiversity in planned grazing systems, and the use of indigenous or indigenous cross-breeds of livestock that have potential to adapt to climate change. Predator management aspects include the use of herders and flocking animals to protect livestock from predators. All aspects are connected across the value chain via markets that include the large rural informal sector. Our outcomes will always address the research-implementation gap by developing tangible products (policy briefs, guidelines, training, technology transfer, and peer-reviewed publications) that are relevant to our work and to our target groups

Which are the highest yielding and stable cereals and vegetables to grow in the local environment? Which crops have the most sustainable market? Which livestock businesses are the most effective in symbiosis with climate reliable cereals? How do we most effectively bring sustainable transformation to a community? What is the best vehicle for promoting social capital? (Letsema7)

7 Letsema is working together in groups (especially in this context of planting, weeding, harvesting together)

49

Table A7 Organisations’ fields of specialisation

Description of specialisation (expertise) as stated by the respondents

Production of fresh produce including, tomatoes, onions, avocados, mangoes, garlic, apples and pears. Cattle farming

Cover crops, Soil restoration

Cultivar evaluation, Plant breeding, Weed control, Conservation Agriculture, Plant nutrition, Plant pathology, Entomology, Nematology.

Various areas, according to different institutes and different divisions or programmes in each institute. I am in the Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, and in the Programme Soil and Water Science. Our programme specializes in research on soil and water dynamics in agriculture, how various farming practices could influence soil health and agricultural productivity.

Grain production, including maize, soya bean, sunflower, groundnuts, sorghum, wheat, canola, barley.

Maize, soyabeans, sheep and cattle

Soya and other cash crops, pasture seed production. Dormer sheep and, NT/CA

Grain production and beef

Facilitation of technical transfer of information from specialist to farmers as well as from farmer to farmer. Champion, Conservation Agriculture adoption and the importance of this practice to the well being of agriculture throughout South Africa in terms of Environmental sustainability and maintenance Attention to detail in CA implementation for food security The enhancement of better farming practices and overall greater economic advancement on farms.

UHDSG

Cereal crops (rain-fed), pastures both rain-fed and irrigated

Information output (for e.g. in the form of monthly newsletters)

Small scale mechanization

Writing reports and assist with organic agriculture legislation as funded by the Department of Trade and Industry (e.g. report: Study to develop a value chain strategy for sustainable development and growth of organic agriculture)

Partial Equilibrium Modelling. Value Chain Analysis. Farm-level models and analyses in the agri-businesses sector. Spatial Economics

Agro-Organics: manufacture and market crop protection products allowed as per norm/standards/regulations regarding certified organic agriculture NewCo: seed replacing “fertilisers”

CA

FAO has a broad range of technical expertise. In the coming years we intend to focus on the areas referred above

We specialize in training farmers, young people and doing research. One of the key programs we run is a resident program where young people are being mentored to develop a love for agriculture and become better farmers.

Soil health, plant production, soil fertility growth enhancement

Food security, community based natural resources management, water and soil conservation, participatory learning and action, micro-finance, Conservation Agriculture, participatory research

50

Description of specialisation (expertise) as stated by the respondents

Crop rotations and Agronomy. Planning and implementation of planting strategies. Planting programs. Machinery advice and management of the crop. Supply of seed for planting.

Improving sustainability by improving decision-making and management

supply of competitive inputs to agricultural producers Acquisition, marketing and processing of agricultural products supply of products and services to the broader public

Training, Networking

Lobby, policy process participation and network for the interest of our members. Information dissemination to our members. Have the following committees: Land Affairs, Rural safety and security, Labour, Infrastructure, Local Government, Communications/media/corporate identity

Correct utilization of natural veldt and grass pastures through the Eco-tourism business being run on the farm. Conservation agriculture and water conservation/harvesting

Agriculture

Contributing to food security and land reform - Greening economic development - Building resilience to climate change

Sharing the Good News Medical Aid Agricultural training

51

Table A8 Policy recommendations

Description of policy recommendations as made by the respondents

Resolving land ownership issues. Promoting land ownership by emerging farmers. Ensuring access to overseas markets via government support and intervention. Return of properly trained and experienced extension officers.

In order to roll out sustainable agriculture a government-private research initiative. Current government and university research is driven by a conventional school of thought (= conventional agriculture knowledge) Sustainability discourse needs to be tested clean seed management systems in place obtain a good scientific overview of sustainability discourse (like Albrecht system, etc.) development of sustainable farming to develop the tripartite relationship between government/research and farmer

Conservation Agriculture should be promoted among crop farmers. However, on some soil it is just a matter of implementation, on others such as sandy soils more research is unfortunately needed to refine some principles for successful implementation. Applied research collaboration networks with farmers on their farms under auspices of scientist (i.e. responsible for reporting, quality control, plot layouts and data analysis) Safeguard funding and insurance opportunities for farmers converting to NT as current conventional banks, financial- and insurance organizations are declining converting NT/CA farmers’ applications (i.e. under the mask of ‘high risk’ applications)

Cover crops are a big challenge. If policy or relevant support could help farmers to obtain suitable cover crops for their area, either in the form of availability of seeds, or price cuts on cover crop seeds, or correct information help to promote the use of green manure/cover crops in a CA system, it could make a big difference.

Incentive schemes and mechanisms (e.g. for low carbon footprint) Appropriate education and training, in Farmer-centered Innovation Systems & processes and CA systems & technology On-farm, Farmer-centered Innovation Systems Research Support in appropriate mechanization Local seed production systems to increase diversity

Easier importation of new pasture varieties. For instance, allowing the importation of round-up ready Lucerne. Easier importation of specific inoculums for specific legumes. Opening export markets for our maize and soya beans especially China. A new meat classification system is needed to allow the producers to supply meat of pastures at a later age without being penalized. Also allowing us to supply heavier carcasses which in turn would make the cost of production less as the slaughter out percentage increases and the cost of production decreases as we currently slaughter animals as they start to produce at optimal gain.

Government needs to help farmers just as the parallel approach Brazilian government took in the 80’s/90’s for supporting both smallholder and commercial farmers with NT/CA, Government needs to assist with research trials so that answers can be found per agro-ecological zones Government needs to fund research as many NT pioneers are paying school fees/ learning fees. farmers don’t want hand-outs but useful LOCAL information about cover crops, ley crops and how to improve veld / pastures (remember marginal soils were converted to pastures) Assist farmers to build-up marginal soils which actually is the majority of land in the EFS. These refer to land that are not ideal for (risky) cash crop farming farmer representative organizations need to voice out strongly what farmers want (1-4)

Mind switch for neighbour farmers

Possibly more emphasis on the implementation and policing of mismanagement of ALL land and veld in South Africa by The Green Squad. Encourage large size research funded by a Farmer-based payment schemes (i.e. correlated or linked to production levels) to fund research like Dixon dairy levy model in New Zealand Create Tripartite research platform (i.e. farmer, researcher, business). Encourage practical (applied) research under supervision/ coordination of a researcher/ scientist Create platforms for debate and feedback sessions Document and measure success stories and strategies on how to get there (i.e. level of success (sustainable agriculture))

52


More research needed on cover crops and seed varieties Encourage (raise awareness) land users to take care of the soil, measure and manage, and develop the art of listening “what works for you on your farm”.

Contrary to the claim of mainstream agricultural research scientist of all grazing research so far was done at very low density grazing levels. It is therefore urgently necessary to conduct unbiased and relevant research on UHD grazing levels

National acceptance of conservation agriculture as only way of producing sustainable rain-fed crops Possible subsidizing of expensive equipment

Ensuring adequate levels of money for UFH TC to continue conducting relevant research. When funds are available the following is advised to be undertaken Our own training facility. Inclusion in the undergraduate curriculum. The Animal Traction Network of South Africa. Other training organisations. Farmer training/research plots. This is one of the proposals of the UFH Climate Smart Agriculture Niche, but will need funding Research publications in recognised journals. Publications in the farming press. Production of better conservation agriculture equipment through established manufacturers or new production facilities. The Traction Centre has been in negotiation with the Agricultural Engineering section of DAFF for some years to provide funding which will allow for the work to continue and provide for young people to be recruited to carry the project forward. We are awaiting the award of a three year contract. Without that funding the Traction Centre project will have to be wound up. Funding for the CSA research Niche as a whole is far short of what is required to attract and equip post graduate students to be competent practitioners of sustainable agriculture

Conservation Agriculture needs to get its own policy, however, focused on quality and implementation. Otherwise, many and good policies exist in RSA, but these are not implemented because of lack of capacity in the governmental structures

Get organic agricultural standards and regulations approved into legislation (ref: Act36 of 1947)

Research: Work needs to be done across the different agricultural commodities to identify best practices that tick all the boxes for sustainability (economic, environmental, social sustainability). There is potentially much to be learnt from the organic farming, traditional and Holistic Management (see the Savory Institute, listed below) approaches that are already being used in some cases. Also, best practices needs to be generated for both the large scale commercial farmer and the small scale subsistence and/ or communal farmer in order to address the two types of distinctive agricultural arenas in South Africa. In addition, these practices must be relevant to the various geographical regions in South Africa – which will likely contain profoundly different environmental, economic and social contexts. Knowledge dissemination and promotion of sustainable agriculture: It goes without saying that research findings need to be disseminated amongst farmers. Given that research is likely to gain much from collaborating with farmers in the first place to identify useful, context specific sustainable practices, the process of dissemination will ideally be an iterative one. However, in South Africa, particular effort will need to be put into disseminating this knowledge amongst poor, small-scale and subsistence agriculturalists as in many cases it was found that the necessary education regarding basic agricultural practices such as stocking rates, rotational cropping etc. have not been absorbed or applied. Clear evidence needs to be available to convince farmers that sustainable farming practices are not only good for future generations, but also for their own profitability. Where there are trade-offs between profitability and sustainability, there need to be incentives (for example: price premiums, tax deductions, Payment for Ecosystem Services, subsidies) and support structures (extension?) in place to encourage farmers to use practices that are in line with the public interest. Improved agricultural institutions and political and economic support for the agricultural sector: Since agriculture is vital to South Africa’s food security, and is also potentially a crucial sector in terms of job creation, value addition, forex, etc., there simply needs to be more support, both by policies and the entire economic arena – producers need an enabling environment to produce optimally and invest for future generations. This will become especially necessary if sustainable agriculture is to be implemented at an effective scale. However, since the sustainable agriculture concept stands to advance economic, environmental, and social concerns in South Africa, there is an opportunity to pool funding and political support across several government department to advance this cause. A prerequisite, however, will be the accumulation of sufficient evidence by researchers and the like to prove that sustainable agriculture will be beneficial to critical aspects the South African economy and society (in particular, poverty alleviation, job creation, and social equality).

For facilitating and kick-starting smallholder farmers’ access to CA equipment and technology For sharing risks associated with initial adoption of CA. While the benefits are primarily at community and watershed level, most of the costs are at farm level to be borne by individual farmers

53


A more multi stakeholder understanding of sustainability, Climate Change and resilience is needed so every actor plays its role. It is the concerted analysis and action that can bring a difference. Involvement of local level players Support in equipment and capacity development is still required. Advocacy on the loss of natural assets is essential so decision makers invest in those areas Evidence and data of changes in natural resources is critical to sustain decision making and advocacy.

Stop subsidizing conventional agriculture. Allow farmers to pay for the interventions on their land. Subsidies hide the true cost of farming. School curriculums need to change!!!! Young people need to learn the opportunities in farming.

Strategic and proactive interventions in agribusiness that will support sustainable agriculture including incentives, branding, government nad private support and funding. Strategically align climate change and green economy with sustainable agriculture objectives into coherent implementation programmes with political and government support.

Security of land tenure – (no-one will ever truly farm sustainably if there is a possibility of the land he is farming, be taken away from him – small scale as well as commercial) “Across boundary programs” – there are a number of skilled agriculturalists in both the small scale and large scale sectors who have no formal instruments to share and disseminate knowledge through. Access to finance, financial training and financial discipline. Tennant farming and Mentorship programs to ensure transfer of knowledge.

Policies that are developed holistically. Policies that will motivate/incentivise all farmers to regenerate ecosystem processes and Policies that will create learning sites all over SA on a variety of farms and variety of contexts (communal, commercial etc) Ability to measure continuous holistic (financial, social and ecological) Improvement on farms and use the information to improve policy

Assist emerging farmers towards commercial producers. Identify and focus on the right farmer/farm workers for this process. There is a lot of goodwill amongst OVK farmers to assist genuine farmer development. Eliminate wrong selection of business men that receive land/farms, which are unproductive and r4eceived farms as a result of nepotism or political reasons Make better use of commonage land (municipality owned land) for assisting black emerging farmers Revive the wheat sector. Wheat production in the province is under pressure. Wheat producers only receive approximately 13% for their product. The wheat sector can be revived by increasing the import tariffs. It is currently R200/ t but by increasing that to for example R1000/ t will give the farmer a 4-5% increase in price/ t whilst there is a marginal increase of bread (as a wheat product) (e.g. approximately with R0.35 per bread). Point 3 (fair price for producer) is relevant for all agricultural producers irrespective product (i.e. dairy, beef, grains, etc)

Awareness of GMO,

animal cruelty,

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS)

labelling,.

The support of the growth of organically grown grain for animal feed.

A “safety net” after disasters to assist farmers to stay in business. E.g. subsidized insurance Utilising the Green Box Grants afforded under the various world trade agreements for e.g. subsidies / grants to farmers converting to sustainable methods form unsustainable traditional methods, for installing drainage in irrigation schemes (to prevent eventual salinisation and waterlogging)

The current concept of farms (“baas en kneg”) must be replaced with a concept of ‘Production Units’ that are based on stewardship model focused on the use of individual gifts and skills. This will bring us to a place where management of the land, people and profit will become much more important than ownership of the land only. This will cause a bigger hunger to incorporate high tech solutions for food production that are available in the world today. Details about stewardship model:

54


If we want to obtain sustainability than we need to channel 70% of the training/ facilitation time to Biblical Truth and teaching about GOD as being the Light. For the non-believer this means to address soil degradation, loss of production as well as all other brokenness (jealousy, corruption, theft, sexual immorality, murder, slavery, etc) from a Biblical Transformation teaching point of view. The key is to understand what man as the steward of God’s creation ought to do. This view promotes a vision pr an attitude of giving rather than taking (robbing/ mining the soil). 2. 20% of the time should be directed to soil related issues. No soil no production. Still promoting a Biblical view towards soil as a living organism. Soil restoration is a key step towards long term cropping. Feeding the soil approach rather than feeding the plant. Healthy food, we all desire, comes from production systems on healthy soils 3. 10% of time should be directed towards the method. NT is for example a method or technique. The technique stand on its own and without the backing up of teachings in the other 2 circles it will not lead to sustainability. farmers have adopted NT, but if they fail to understand circle 1 and 2 than NT becomes a mere time wasting, but noble initiative. Other methods can be filled in under method i.e. Foundations for farming, organic farming and other management issues like IPM, precision farming, LEISA, etc TO CONCLUDE: SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IS WHEN ALL 3 CIRCLES ISSUESS ARE ADDRESSED. Much research, effort, funding, article writing etc is geared towards the bottom 30%. After so many years we can wonder why the uptake of NT/CA/FFF or organic agriculture for that matter is still so low, whilst depicted in publications and media as being so good? The bottom-line is to address farmers’ worldviews in order to achieve and describe sustainability as well as sustainable farming

In much of the developing world, farmers with two acres of land or less make up the majority of the workforce and produce most of the food. More than half are women. Working with these smallholder farmers to improve their livelihoods is an effective way to reduce poverty and hunger. Yet from 1980 until around 2007, the percentage of international aid directed to agriculture declined from about 18% to less than 4%. National and international governments need to make agriculture a priority in their development work and to target interventions to the most vulnerable, including women and smallholder farmers

The success of the trust model (i.e. two farmers and group of farm workers) explains that shareholding defines mentorship. The ownership of the mentor leads others to the next level of mentorship because they collectively take risks and share in profit/loss. This model contributes greatly as a success story of a newly formed farm enterprise and indicates how land restitution can be handled well I am very positive about the farm workers’ training as organized by DAFF WC and GrainSA. I see and experience that farm workers benefit from the trainings through improved farm management

Regulatory compliance

water resources, erosion, fire and alien plant management). Improve efficacy of legislator implementation through allocating funds to training, capacity building and adequate numbers of staff. Require strong regulation, compliance monitoring and follow through for non-compliance. Co-operative governance

environmental / water / agricultural legislation Landscape optimization planning

ovincial and municipal scale Incentives

Specific policies / areas of relevance:

- supporting the revision and implementation of this valuable act (regulatory compliance).

– supporting implementation using existing agricultural and environmental frameworks and regional / municipal fine scale plans (cooperative governance)

pport Programme (CASP) - shift to focus on sustainable agriculture techniques, training and job creation.

– farm planning, training and mapping for community beneficiaries.

Promotion of the gospel side of CA instead of merely the principles – this is the only way to bring real transformation.

55

Appendix 2

Table A9 Standard questionnaire used for this survey

Date: Name:

Organisation

Name:

Contact details:

Provide a brief background of your organization:

What is the vision and mission or your organisation regarding sustainable agriculture?

Sector:

Work areas [location(s)]:

Vision:

Mission:

Explain briefly what “sustainable agriculture” is:

What work has been done or is currently being carried out by your organisation regarding sustainable agriculture?

What is your research agenda for the next 5-10 years?

In which areas does the organisation specialise?

Kindly provide a list of (recent) publications of work undertaken by the organization:

What policy interventions are needed to promote sustainable agriculture in South Africa?

Kindly provide information about other sustainable agricultural success stories, promotional work, or research that you are aware of. We are looking for relevant names of people and institutions (and contact details) working in the various fields of promoting sustainable agriculture. Name of organisation Contact details

Documents

Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and … · 2015-07-24 · Sustainable farming as a viable option for enhanced food and nutritional security and a sustainable