Critical analyses of the nature of agricultural practices on Land Reform projects

1. Critical analyses of the nature of agricultural practices on Land Reform projects Presentation by Francois Marais With recognition to Paul Hebinck

2. CONTENT • Introduction • Research methodology • Case study I: SiSonke Farmers • Case study II: Good Hope Farming Trust • The expert system • Discussion • Concluding remarks

3. INTRODUCTION (I) • Land redistribution • General Research question • Are business plans used as prescriptions in land redistribution to foster the experts’ preferred construction of land reform in South Africa as a script towards development? • Specific Research questions • What kind of agriculture do the experts envision, ascertained by interpreting their prescriptions in the business plans, through their use of land redistribution as a script towards development? • How do the beneficiaries implement the experts’ prescriptions in reality? • How and why are the experts’ plans and prescriptions changed when implemented by the beneficiaries? • What micro-projects do beneficiaries pursue and what do these micro-projects tell us about their own preferred script regarding development? • Why does re-interpretation or translation of the prescriptions take place when implemented by the beneficiaries? • Does the expert system aim to shape the future of the agricultural landscape by further entrenching the socio-technical regime?

4. INTRODUCTION (II) • Specific Research questions • How do the beneficiaries implement the experts’ prescriptions in reality? • Whatmicro-projects do beneficiaries pursue and what do these micro-projects tell us about their own preferred script regarding development? nature of agricultural practices

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY • Case study approach • (Detailed) ethnography • Purposive sampling • two land reform farms • Informal and unstructured interviews • to understand the context • Participant observation • Meetings, practices, etc. • Content analysis • business plans and other official regulations • Historical archives • particular business plan, policy documents and correspondence

7. Good Hope Farmers SiSonke Farmers

8. CASE STUDY:SiSONKE FARMERS • 43 ha, 26 beneficiaries • Vast differences in opinion regarding: • involvement, • enterprises, • agricultural practices

9. The SiSonke Farmers’ crop production areas

10. SiSONKE FARMERSMembers’ involvement • See Attachment A

11. SiSONKE FARMERSActual agricultural practices • Vegetable cultivation • Area cultivated communally • 0.3 hectare (patches of cabbage, onions and broccoli) • Areas cultivated for personal use and profit • 5 such gardens with sizes between 0.02 and 0.05ha • Vegetable condition and quality of individual gardens better than communal garden • Beef, pig and chicken production • Using low cost inputs • Harvesting wood and packaging to sell

12. SiSONKE FARMERS Practices rejected • Specialised forms of production • Mentor, agricultural experts prescriptions in business plan(s) • Production practices that requires (a lot of) capital • Production practices that requires high levels of input and skills • Contractual procedures and prescriptions

13. CASE STUDY:GOOD HOPE FARMERS TRUST • 31 ha, 32 beneficiaries • 8 “units” of 4 (family) members • 3,88 ha per unit • first LRAD group in area without having debt from financial institution

15. GOOD HOPE FARMERS TRUST Members’ involvement • See Attachment B

16. GOOD HOPE FARMERS TRUST Actual agricultural practices • Vegetable cultivation • 5 of the 8 units produce, but much less than suggested in business plan • Not using experts’ advice • e.g. not using micro-nutrients provided free

18. GOOD HOPE FARMERS TRUST Actual agricultural practices • Beef, pig, goat and chicken production • Using low cost inputs • Negotiating land use for grazing with neighbours • Interlocking • e.g. irrigation system, marketing, “bartering” skills • Harvesting wood and sell

19. GOOD HOPE FARMERS TRUST Practices rejected • Full-time farming • Not using some infrastructure provided • Selling it, bartering

20. Dept Land Affairs Policy doc. & 3 officials, 2 consultants Nat. Dept. of Agric. Policy doc. Prov. Dept. of Agric. Policy doc. & 12 officials, (PMT) Consultants: Agri-Afri Doc. & personal Landbank Policy doc. & 1 official Municipalities Policy doc. & 5 officials, 2 politicians (DAC) Agric. Unions (2) Policy doc. & 5 Board members Technical service Provider 4 officials THE EXPERT SYSTEM

21. THE EXPERT SYSTEM • Promotion of large scale, modern agriculture • projections based on large-scale commercial farming • assume farm operate as single entity • loan from financial institution promoted • “unpacking” the business plan discouraged through intensive planning, threat of sanctions

22. DISCUSSION • Not following the expert script, redesigning it • Practices and involvement that suites each individual actor • Mini-projects • Using previously acquired skills • Using second hand production inputs • Not full-time involved agric. activities • Tenants

23. Concluding remarks • Expert system’s version of development/modernity does not reflect needs & desires of beneficiaries • Beneficiaries deploy hybrid and situational responses • Not total rejection • Interlocking social spaces • Models of social change

24. Concluding remarks Thus flexible policy design and interpretation by officials, contextualise

25. THANK YOU