THE PRESIDENCY PROGRAMME TO SUPPORT PRO-POOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT (PSPPD) A partnership between The Presidency, Republic of South Africa and the European Union
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD) 9th Floor HSRC Building, 134 Pretorius Street, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa. Private Bag X41, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. Tel: +27 12 302 2940, Fax: 0866 913682, Email:
[email protected] Web: www.psppd.org.za
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Contents Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................... iv Policy abstract ....................................................................................................................................... iv Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... v 1. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Objectives and programme ............................................................................................................ 1
1.3
This document ................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Input 1: Rural development policies and sectoral interventions since 1994 ............................ 2 2.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2
Farmer support and development .................................................................................................. 2
2.3
Land reform .................................................................................................................................... 2
2.4
Rural service delivery ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.5
Rural development ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.6
Rural development in South Africa post-1994 ............................................................................... 4
2.7
The second economy strategy ....................................................................................................... 4
2.8
The CRDP ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.9
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.10 Questions and comments on Input 1 ............................................................................................. 5 Clarifying the roles of development actors ......................................................................................... 5 Linkages between ISRDP and CRDP and budgeting for rural development ..................................... 6 Enforcement and delivery mechanisms, education for rural development ......................................... 6 Problems of departments not talking to one another .......................................................................... 6 3. Input 2: Food and nutrition security: Household gardens/food plots ....................................... 6 3.1
Elements of food and nutrition security .......................................................................................... 7
3.2
Falling food production in South Africa .......................................................................................... 7
3.3
Food insecurity: Hunger ................................................................................................................. 7
3.4
Household food and nutrition security ............................................................................................ 7
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
i
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
3.5
Subsistence farming ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.6
Home gardens and nutrition ........................................................................................................... 9
3.7
Home garden technologies ............................................................................................................ 9
3.8
Support services........................................................................................................................... 10
3.9
Support needs .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.10 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 10 4. Input 3: Development of evidence-based policy around small-scale farming ........................ 11 4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 11
4.2
Size and composition of the black farming sector........................................................................ 12
4.3
How are black commercial farmers doing? .................................................................................. 12
4.4
Trends in South African land reform ............................................................................................ 12
4.5
Relevant international experience ................................................................................................ 13
4.6
Farmer support programmes (1987–1993) .................................................................................. 13
4.7
Siyakhula/ Massive Food Programme (2003) .............................................................................. 13
4.8
Agriculture budgets ...................................................................................................................... 13
Distribution of funds and benefits ..................................................................................................... 14 4.9
Where should the emphasis of a small-scale farmer strategy lie? .............................................. 14
4.10 A proposed decentralised Small-Scale Farmer Support Programme .......................................... 15 4.11 Areas of focus .............................................................................................................................. 15 4.12 Proposed amendments in approach ............................................................................................ 15 4.13 Modifying complementary programmes ....................................................................................... 16 4.14 Monitoring & evaluation ................................................................................................................ 16 4.15 Summary of specific proposed interventions ............................................................................... 16 4.16 Adapt international best practice .................................................................................................. 18 5. Input 4: Performance monitoring and evaluation: The outcomes approach .......................... 18 5.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 18
5.2
The outcomes approach .............................................................................................................. 19
5.3
The 12 outcomes.......................................................................................................................... 20
5.4
Performance agreements ............................................................................................................. 20
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
ii
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
5.5
Performance agreement on rural development (current administration term) ............................. 21
Output 1: Sustainable agrarian reform ............................................................................................. 21 Output 2: Improved access to affordable and diverse food .............................................................. 21 Output 3: Improved rural services to support livelihoods ................................................................. 22 Output 4: Improved employment opportunities and promotion of economic livelihoods .................. 22 Output 5: Enabling institutional environment for sustainable and inclusive growth (joint target with COGTA) ............................................................................................................................................ 22 5.6
Delivery agreements .................................................................................................................... 23
Accountability for delivery agreements ............................................................................................. 23 5.7
Co-ordination arrangements ........................................................................................................ 23
Executive level .................................................................................................................................. 23 Administrative level ........................................................................................................................... 24 5.8
Programme of Action ................................................................................................................... 24
5.9
Links to strategic planning and budgeting .................................................................................... 26
6. Synthesis of issues arising during the workshop ..................................................................... 26 6.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 26
6.2
Background .................................................................................................................................. 26
6.3
Sustainable agrarian reform through small-scale farming ........................................................... 27
6.4
Agrarian reform – commercial agriculture .................................................................................... 27
6.5
Improved access to affordable and diverse food ......................................................................... 27
6.6
Improved rural services to support livelihoods ............................................................................. 28
6.7
Employment and economic livelihoods ........................................................................................ 28
6.8
An enabling institutional environment .......................................................................................... 28
6.9
Moving towards delivery ............................................................................................................... 28
7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
iii
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Acronyms and abbreviations ABP
Area-based plan
ARC
Agricultural Research Council
ASGISA
Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa
CASP
Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme
CBO
Community-based organisation
COGTA
Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
CPA
Communal property association
CRDP
Comprehensive Rural Development Programme
CSO
Civil society organisation
DAFF
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry
DG
Director-General
DPSA
Department of Public Service and Administration
DRDLR
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
ECD
Early childhood development
EPWP
Expanded Public Works Programme
FOSAD
Forum of South African Directors-General
GIA
Government Implementation Actions
HOD
Head of department
HSRC
Human Sciences Research Council
IDP
Integrated development plan
IGRFA
Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act
ISRDS
Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy
LARP
Land and Agrarian Reform Programme
LED
Local economic development
M&E
Monitoring and evaluation
MAFISA
Micro Agricultural Financial Institution Scheme of South Africa
MEC
Member of the Executive Council [provincial minister]
MINMEC
Minister and MECs for a specific function
MTSF
Medium Term Strategic Framework
NAMC
National Agricultural Marketing Council
NGO
Non-governmental organisation
PLAAS
Institute of Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape
PME
Performance Monitoring & Evaluation, The Presidency
POA
Programme of Action
PPPs
Public-private partnerships
PSPPD
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development
R&D
Research and development
RDP
Reconstruction and Development Programme
SIS
Settlement and Implementation Support Strategy for Land and Agrarian Reform
SSF
Small-scale farming
SSFs
Small-scale farmers
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
iv
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Policy abstract Abstract This report summarises the proceedings of a half day workshop for the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform; the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (both in the National Assembly); and the Select Committee on Environmental, Agriculture and Land Affairs th (National Council of Provinces). The proceedings held on the 26 May 2010 featured: •
an scene setting input on rural development policies and sectoral interventions since 1994;
•
an input on food security – evidence and policy recommendations;
•
an input on small-scale farming – evidence and policy recommendations;
•
an input on the outcomes approach of The Presidency.
Policy implications Rural development is multidimensional and too complex to be planned and managed by a single actor. Effective rural development initiatives require particular attention to intergovernmental relations, joint programming and monitoring. Performance agreements and performance management systems must require and reward collaboration between government and non government development actors if we are to break out of the silo driven service delivery to date. Nationally research indicates that 33% of people are at risk of hunger; one in five children are stunted, and many show vitamin and mineral deficiencies. While food security is a function of many elements which include production, markets, price and nutritional composition it is household income which remains the main determinant of nutritional status. Increased coverage of social grant ensure that the poor have access to cash to purchase food. However measures to increase household food security must also improve the affordability of food and promote supplementary strategies of household production and school gardens. Currently we only have one-third the number of extension staff required, and 80% of existing staff have not been adequately trained. Only one in twenty land reform beneficiaries is receiving support while 50% of the available budget is spent on only 13% of the farmers. New approaches are required to address this deficit and target available support and budget more effectively. These measures should include farmer-based extension models which serve groups of farmers in particular localities. There are strong arguments for a focus on the seven to twelve districts in the country where the majority of small scale farmers are concentrated. The emphasis needs to be on institutional support that enables economies of scale, access to business services and markets. Access to markets is critical, and remain a key challenge for small scale producers in South Africa. Real creativity is needed to open up markets with an emphasis on local production and supplying local outlets. At the same time water is needed for low-volume irrigation and sustainable production. While mechanisms for joint planning, joint programming and joint accountability are being put into place the key challenge remains how to ensure integrated delivery.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
iv
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Executive summary The purpose of this workshop was to provide strategic support to parliamentary committees for engagement with pro-poor policy development processes, implementation and oversight with an intention to support and enhance capacity for the relevant committees. The objectives of the workshop were to: •
developed a shared understanding of what rural development involves;
•
examine the nature of rural development policies and interventions developed since 1994;
•
discuss evidence on ways forward for small-scale farming and household production in South Africa and its contribution to the livelihoods of the poor households;
•
identify critical policy gaps and implications for the new policy development process.
The workshop featured four presentations: •
an input on rural development policies and sectoral interventions since 1994;
•
an input on food security – evidence and policy recommendations;
•
an input on small-scale farming – evidence and policy recommendations;
•
an input on the outcomes approach of The Presidency.
The workshop concluded with a synthesis of key issues identified in discussion. The workshop highlighted that rural development is very broad and cross-cutting. There is a real diversity of types of rural areas – commercial farming, ex-Bantustan, hinterland of towns. In practice rural development has been the poor relation in policy since 1994 and support has been fragmented. Several of the measures implemented are of questionable sustainability. Key trends include: •
a decline in investment in rural areas;
•
rural development and LED [local economic development] initiatives running in parallel with one another, often with their own set of projects;
•
a focus on the delivery of hard infrastructure in rural areas which has not been balanced by adequate investment in operations and maintenance;
•
intergovernmental co-ordination which has been identified as a key issue and focus of attention but in practice still remains weak.
Rural development is too large a task to be conceptualised, planned or implemented by a single actor. Effective partnerships have been few and far between. There is a need for collaboration across government, private sector and civil society, building on local knowledge, commitment and energy. Currently there is a disconnect between economic planning and what resettled people or small farmers want. Rural poverty is deep but international experience highlights that we can make a difference. Different areas have different needs. These must be assessed and be taken into account to avoid ‘one size fits all’ approaches to planning and development support. The 2005 National Food Consumption Survey indicated that 52% of people were hungry at some point (the current target is to reduce this to 30%); 33% of people are at risk of hunger; 1 in 5 children are stunted, and many show vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Food security is a function of many elements – production, markets, price, nutritional composition etc. Income remains the main determinant of nutritional status. Measures to increase household food security must improve the affordability of food on the one hand while promoting supplementary strategies of household production and school gardens on the other. The stimulation of small scale agriculture requires fresh extension and support approaches which recognise how small scale farms differ from larger commercial farms. We need new farmer-based extension models which serve groups of farmers in particular localities. Access to markets is critical, and it is a key challenge in South Africa. Real creativity is needed to open up markets with an Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
v
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
emphasis on local production and supplying local outlets. At the same time water is needed for lowvolume irrigation and sustainable production. There are strong arguments for a focus on seven to twelve districts where small scale farmers are concentrated and facilitating institutional support that enables economies of scale, access to business services and markets. Innovation and new models are needed – especially with respect to access to markets. We need to make increasing use of paraprofessionals and community-based service delivery. Currently we only have one-third the number of extension staff required, and 80% of existing staff have not been adequately trained. Only one in 20 land reform beneficiaries is receiving support – 50% of the available budget is spent on only 13% of the farmers. There is now a concerted attempt to improve co-ordination around the core outcome and outputs for rural development. DRDLR is the champion, supported in particular by DAFF and COGTA. Mechanisms for joint planning, joint programming and joint accountability are being put into action, but key challenge is how to get integrated delivery. Performance management systems must reward collaboration if we are to avoid continued delivery in silos.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
vi
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
1. Background 1.1
Introduction
The main elements of the programme were as follows: •
an input on rural development policies and sectoral interventions since 1994;
•
an input on food security – evidence and policy recommendations;
•
an input on small-scale farming – evidence and policy recommendations;
•
an input on the outcomes approach of The Presidency;
•
a synthesis of key issues identified in discussion, and how the PSPPD might respond.
1.2
Objectives and programme
The purpose of this workshop was to provide strategic support to parliamentary committees for engagement with pro-poor policy development processes, implementation and oversight with an intention to support and enhance capacity for the relevant committees. The objectives of the workshop were to: •
reflect on what rural development is;
•
examine the nature of rural development policies developed since 1994;
•
discuss evidence on ways forward for small-scale farming and household production in South Africa and its contribution to the livelihoods of the poor households;
•
identify critical policy gaps and implications for the new policy development process.
The half-day workshop was organised for the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform; the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (both in the National Assembly); and the Select Committee on Environmental, Agriculture and Land Affairs (National Council of Provinces). The workshop programme was introduced by Mr. Stone Sizani, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform. Rick de Satgé of Phuhlisani provided a scene-setting input to contextualise the discussion and track progress with respect to land reform, small farmer development, extension and rural development interventions since 1994. The introductory session highlighted key challenges to be addressed in the design and implementation of an effective rural development programme. Tim Hart from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) reviewed the evidence on food and nutrition security and made recommendations on how this could be improved through the promotion household food gardens. Dr Ruth Hall from the Institute of Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape reviewed the findings of a study which set out to examine how to support small-scale and larger commercial farmers and to make sure that they are productive and contribute effectively to the rural economy and to national food security. Dr Ian Goldman from the Presidency outlined the emerging approach to monitoring and evaluation of government performance. He introduced the 12 key outcomes which currently focus government programmes and development efforts and clarified the nature of performance agreements recently signed by Cabinet Ministers.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
1
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
The Director-General (DG) of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) examined Outcome 7 of the Presidency’s Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF), which focuses on the creation of vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities and food security for all. He also reviewed the five outputs associated with this Outcome. The workshop concluded with a synthesis by Dr Goldman of the key issues raised by the presenters and members of the combined parliamentary committees in the discussion.
1.3
This document
The remainder of this document is a summary of the main points emerging from the different inputs, together with a review of the main points arising out of the subsequent discussions.
2. Input 1: Rural development policies and sectoral interventions since 1994 Rick de Satgé, Phuhlisani
2.1
Introduction
This session highlighted the elastic nature of rural development and noted that rural development is fundamentally transversal and cross sectoral in nature. The key challenge remains the integration and alignment of various functions and development actors in space. The presentation reviewed the current fragmented and silo-driven approaches to planning and service delivery. This is frequently exacerbated by generic ‘one size fits all’ programme design which often fails to recognise the needs and priorities of people in particular development settings. The dispersed nature of information on projects and localities which is held by different departments and other stakeholders makes effective programme and project management exceptionally difficult as managers seldom have access to the big picture. A diverse range of rural initiatives has been launched since 1994 including: •
Farmer support and development;
•
Land reform;
•
Rural service delivery;
•
Rural development strategies;
•
Farmer support and development.
These initiatives are taking place within an ecological context characterised by water stress and biodiversity loss.
2.2
Farmer support and development
Various measures have been put in place to try to reorient extension services and retool them for small farmer support. Extension services remain understaffed and most current staff are inadequately trained. Extension officers must service large geographic areas and can only provide limited coverage. Other measures to support small farmers such as CASP [the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme] and MAFISA [Micro Agricultural Financial Institution Scheme of South Africa] have had limited reach.
2.3
Land reform
Until very recently the land reform programme has been driven by the attainment of quantitative targets. There has been an emphasis on transferring hectares – 30% of agricultural land through
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
2
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
different mechanisms – restitution, redistribution and proactive land acquisition. But the settlement and implementation support requirements of those acquiring land have not been met. A variety of detailed strategies and plans have been developed which largely remain unimplemented. These include the Settlement and Implementation Support Strategy for Land and Agrarian Reform (SIS), LARP [Land and Agrarian Reform Programme] and area based plans (ABPs) for land reform at district scale. These strategies, often developed at great cost, can be rendered entirely redundant by rapid changes of approach. The collapse of land administration systems in the former homelands is a key constraint. It contributes to tenure insecurity and hampers development planning. The land rights and entitlements of individuals who are members of communal property associations (CPAs) and trusts holding land acquired under the land reform programme remain weakly defined and poorly supported. For land and agrarian reform to be successful, it needs co-ordinated support from a range of government departments. But existing systems for managing intergovernmental relations are weak, so there is no shared interdepartmental accountability for the achievement of key performance indicators.
2.4
Rural service delivery
The character of rural areas varies enormously, so there are a number of fundamentally different development and livelihood settings. Rural areas are characterised by scattered settlements which makes it costly to provide the physical, economic and social infrastructure which is necessary for development to take place. Service delivery in rural areas has been critiqued for focusing on physical infrastructure, and for spending too little on maintenance and operation once the infrastructure has been put in place.
2.5
Rural development
Internationally rural development programmes have been designed so that they are: •
firmly led, planned and driven by the central state;
•
decentralised and localised to allow local government to take primary responsibility;
•
devolved to specialised rural development agencies;
•
driven by means of partnerships and coalitions which seek to unlock and harmonise different capacities.
The key question in the South African context is who is ultimately responsible for rural development planning and implementation, given that rural development involves multiple development actors. Linked to this are questions about: •
where to locate responsibility for planning, monitoring and implementation;
•
how to establish consensus on key policy and management issues;
•
how to achieve joint planning and budgeting and anchor these plans in space;
•
how to put in place institutional arrangements to enable the efficient management of joint government programmes which combine sectoral and cross-cutting mandates.
Should this be the responsibility of: •
A champion who has responsibility for managing a joint programme of the state and partnerships with other development actors – donors, the private sector, NGOs, social movements etc?
•
Local government?
•
A dedicated rural development agency?
•
Local development coalitions?
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
3
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Internationally there is broad recognition that sustainable rural development is an issue too large and too complex to be conceptualised, planned or implemented by a single actor.
2.6
Rural development in South Africa post-1994
Rural development, local economic development and integrated development planning have largely developed in parallel with one another since 1994. Rural development was an objective of the RDP [Reconstruction and Development Programme] and subsequently approaches were conceptualised in the 1997 framework document which originated in the RDP office and was taken over by the Department of Land Affairs. However this framework document was never formally adopted and rural development was displaced by a focus on land reform. The Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy (ISRDS) adopted in 2000 argued that government departments had delivered services to rural areas since 1994 but that the developmental impact of these interventions had been limited because of the fragmented and uncoordinated approach. The ISRDS was premised on co-ordination of sectoral departmental delivery at district municipal scale in order to achieve a “more integrated (and responsive) development”. The ISRDP was consciously designed with no budget to fund and implement projects. Projects were to be funded through the budgets of the relevant line departments, and aligned with the priorities of the relevant municipal IDP [integrated development plan]. Despite its emphasis on alignment and intergovernmental coordination, the ISRDP largely failed to achieve this goal. A total of 15 Ministers and Deputy Ministers were assigned responsibilities as political champions for the nodes to “manage the political processes between the spheres of government”. However an internal review found that: •
ministers of equivalent seniority would not account to someone on the same level;
•
mechanisms to enforce accountability for programme delivery were ineffective;
•
ministers did not work in an integrated way and rather focused on their sectoral responsibilities;
•
some municipalities did not see the programme as part of their work;
•
there were few dedicated personnel to support programme implementation;
•
indicators for monitoring and evaluation were not designed at the outset;
•
the programme lacked clear measurable objectives.
There was minimal if any involvement of the community in the design and implementation of such projects. Government departments did not actively partner with local government and continued to implement projects in sectors that they were responsible for in silos. Isolated interventions are unlikely to have any sustained impact.
2.7
The second economy strategy
The strategy which originated in the Presidency in 2009 identifies two clear cross-cutting priorities: •
investment in childhood nutrition and ECD [early childhood development];
•
provision of grants and access to basic services which have had the greatest impacts on poverty and inequality.
In rural settings the strategy argued that emphasis should be on “gaps in coverage, such as access to basic services in rural areas and informal settlements, and access to affordable public transport”. The strategy further argued that institutional support is required to develop a smallholder agricultural sector that enables economies of scale, and facilitates access to appropriate business services and markets. The strategy argues that clarification of tenure arrangements in the “coloured rural areas”
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
4
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
proclaimed in terms of Act 9 of 1987 and in the former homeland areas can assist in the increased utilisation of available land resources.
2.8
The CRDP
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has cautioned that its Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) can only succeed if the actions and commitments of relevant sector departments are co-ordinated across all the spheres of government. It proposes to achieve this by: •
joint planning, resource allocation and collaborative implementation of agreed rural initiatives;
•
partnership with local government and alignment with municipal IDPs;
•
increased public-private partnerships (PPPs) in support of rural development;
•
enhanced role of traditional leaders, NGOs and civil society in the implementation of the CRDP.
The key question is how practically to make joint planning and budgeting work and to enable effective partnerships. This has political and systems dimensions. Thus far reports from CRDP pilot projects note:
2.9
•
under utilisation and/or unsustainable use of natural resources;
•
inadequate access to socio-economic infrastructure and services, public amenities and government services;
•
inadequate water for both household and agricultural development;
•
low literacy, low skills levels and migratory labour practices;
•
decay of the social fabric evidenced by child/ woman-headed households, crime, family disputes and lack of ubuntu;
•
unresolved restitution and land tenure issues;
•
informal settlements with low levels of service provision and development;
•
dependence on social grants and other forms of social security;
•
unexploited opportunities in agriculture, tourism, mining and manufacturing.
Conclusions
The presentation provides an indication of the breadth and complexity of rural development. It emphasises the need for clear objectives, agreed indicators of success and the means to measure these. It points to the need for an increasing focus on hazards and risks in a context of climate change. It highlights stubborn institutional challenges of responsibility, performance management, alignment and co-ordination. An effective rural development programme has to overcome the resilience of sectorally-based silodriven planning and development approaches. It needs to involve rural people within place-based strategies supported by an overarching enabling framework which recognises what works already and which can identify and unlock constraints which limit utilisation of available assets.
2.10 Questions and comments on Input 1 Clarifying the roles of development actors A Portfolio Committee member observed that [it seems as if] every second year there is a new programme, but that these often fail to properly clarify the roles of government and the private sector. At the start of the ISRDP there seemed to be more clarity about roles; something which should be revisited in the CRDP.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
5
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Linkages between ISRDP and CRDP and budgeting for rural development The ISRDP was launched without any dedicated funding. The premise was that departmental spending needed to be better aligned in space via municipal IDPs. When the CRDP was launched, there was no money to fund it. Funding for the pilots was found through a reallocation of the existing departmental budgets. So the question which arises is how should budgeting for rural development be done? Is there a need for a rural development fund or should the approach be similar to the one adopted by the ISRDP? Is it possible to utilise the existing guidelines for joint programmes of government as the mechanism for departments to jointly plan and budget? These were gazetted for comment in terms of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act 13 of 2005 (IGRFA) to give effect to the constitutional requirement of co-operative governance. The guidelines were designed for programmes which are truly cross-sectoral like land reform and rural development. They proposed the appointment of a joint programme manager to oversee programme design and implementation and hold the different actors to their commitments. The advantage of this approach is that it is backed by a piece of legislation. Although IGRFA is not the strongest piece of legislation, it could be argued that it has advantages over other mechanisms such as forums and interdepartmental committees which are not based in law and operate on a goodwill basis. These approaches are not backed up by potential consequences for non-performing departments. The DG of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform commented that some of the issues relating to interdepartmental accountability would be addressed in Dr Ian Goldman’s presentation on performance agreements relating to the 12 outcomes of the MTSF. Enforcement and delivery mechanisms, education for rural development A member proposed that Parliament should draft an Act which will provide an enforcement mechanism [for intergovernmental co-ordination]. She noted that the presentation should have included reference to ASGISA [the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa]. The member further suggested that ways should be found to ensure the education system supports rural development. Problems of departments not talking to one another A portfolio committee member highlighted the problem of planning in silos and departments not taking to one another. He observed that underdevelopment in the rural areas was hastening urbanisation, and asked why government departments find it so hard to deliver on rural development or plan jointly, even though the necessary money is available. Oversight committees consistently find that delivery is inadequate and piecemeal – small interventions scattered across the country. The consequence of this failure is public service delivery demonstrations all over the country. Water is always very important and the question which arises is how many dams have been built since 1994. A key reason why government has been ineffective is that performance management systems do not value or require collaboration; something which further entrenches a sectoral approach to the work of various departments. Departmental representatives appear in Parliament to present their annual reports, and committees are evaluating their progress against their strategic plans and whether they have spent their budgets. The quality of what they are doing seldom comes into question. The Cabinet’s new emphasis on M&E [monitoring and evaluation] should prioritise interdepartmental collaboration and trans-sectoral relationships. So far, Cabinet ministers have been evaluated on their performance within their silos, rather than their ability to make connections between silos.
3. Input 2: Food and nutrition security: Household gardens/food plots Tim Hart, Centre for Poverty, Employment and Growth, HSRC This session clarified the distinctions between food and nutrition security, examined the extent of subsistence farming and its impact on household nutrition and identified measures for improving the outputs of household gardens for improved nutrition and health.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
6
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
3.1
Elements of food and nutrition security
National food security is not equal to individual or household food security. It depends on a wide range of factors. These include:
3.2
•
levels of food production;
•
functioning of food markets;
•
effectiveness of distribution systems;
•
the ability of poor households to access sufficient food by having money to buy it and own production;
•
affordability of a nutritional basket of food.
Falling food production in South Africa
South Africa is currently nationally food-secure in terms of staple cereal production but is a net importer of many other foods. The NAMC [National Agricultural Marketing Council] Food Cost Reviews of the last two years indicate that the country could become a net food importer in all foods partly due to climate change, soil degradation and expanded biofuel feedstock cultivation. Currently the main way of accessing food is by buying it, so income is therefore the main determinant of household food security. The contribution of food plots/gardens to household food availability, access and nutrition is small at present and is largely a supplementary coping strategy. It is important to recognise that household food security is not simply a rural question. A large proportion of hungry people live in metropolitan areas – Cape Town, Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni.
3.3
Food insecurity: Hunger
While the experience of hunger has decreased in recent years, 12% of South African children and 10% of adults still feel the desperation of hunger (Stats SA 2007 General Household Survey). This is a significant improvement since 2002 when 20% of children and 25% of adults reported going hungry (according to the 2005 National Food Consumption Survey). This improvement is largely explained by the expansion of social grants. However another 33% of households are at risk of going hungry, which means that food price inflation and the loss of income might push them into hunger. Figure 1: Proportion of hungry people per district
3.4
Household food and nutrition security
Among the poorest half of households whose monthly household income is less than R2 000), rural households spend about 15% less on food per capita than urban households. This might be explained by own food production but there is no reliable evidence available to show this. According to the NAMC, rural households pay 10%–20% more for a basket of basic foodstuffs than urban ones. South Africa is one of the top 20 countries with the highest burden of under-nutrition.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
7
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
This is a result of the lack of access to a nutritious diet (one which supplies sufficient energy, nutritional quality and safety). At the national level, stunting (inadequate growth in height) affects 1 out of 5 children and 1 in 10 children are underweight for their age. These two measures are the most severe indication of under-nutrition. On average, South Africans consume less than four of the nine food groups. Food-insecure households typically have a lower level of dietary diversity, which explains the low nutrition intake. Ensuring food security for all South Africans requires providing access to sufficient nutritious food which involves: •
eradicating hunger;
•
reducing under-nutrition, particularly in the most vulnerable populations (children and women, people living with HIV and Aids, the poor, and the very poor);
•
ensuring that nutritious food is available and affordable.
There are three interlinked options for improving food and nutrition security: •
increasing employment;
•
increasing the rollout of social grants and other forms of social protection; and
•
improving household food plot/garden production.
3.5
Subsistence farming
Approximately 2.5 million households (four million people) produce extra food for own consumption – primarily in the former homelands. •
Excluding farm-workers, 22% of all black households are involved in some kind of agricultural activity, mostly for own consumption.
•
Women make up 61% of all those involved in farming but exceed men by 65% in the case of subsistence farming.
•
The share of those who produce for an ‘extra source of food’ has increased at the expense of those who produced for a ‘main source of food’.
There is no available evidence about whether subsistence activities are practised in household food plots or fields. In the districts of Vhembe, Umkhanyakude, Alfred Nzo and OR Tambo, between 57% and 72% of households practise some form of agriculture. In another eight districts the share is between 43% and 56%. Figure 2: Share of black households per district who are engaged in agriculture
Source: Stats SA 2007 Labour Force Survey.
Comparing the statistics summarised in Figure 1 and 2, it seems that: •
household subsistence production is only moderately successful; and
•
the absence of household production may worsen people’s experience of hunger.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
8
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
There are significant transitions in and out of subsistence production, affected by such factors as risk, need, ability, and food production being only one of a number of household livelihood strategies. Too little is known about the drivers and barriers to household food production to reliably guide the optimal allocation of resources. There is a risk of allocating resources to food production activities when they might better be used in other ways.
3.6
Home gardens and nutrition
International evidence indicates that home gardens are a more successful way of improving nutritional status than other types of agricultural interventions. This is because they are easier to adopt under existing conditions and in spite of current constraints, e.g. poverty and environment. The primary purpose of home gardens is household consumption and therefore it is an effective way of improving food supply and dietary diversity. There are two distinct nutritional benefits connected with this method of production: •
produced food is for own consumption, mainly vegetables, thereby increasing micronutrient intake; and
•
producing food where income is limited permits expenditure on other more nutritious foods.
Without household production, the food security of the ultra-poor would be significantly reduced. Production interventions should be coupled with nutritional education. The Ndunakazi Project followed an integrated production and nutrition education approach, and the result was an improved intake of micronutrients. Traditional leafy vegetables are widely consumed. These are a good source of various nutrients and tend to grow well in semi-arid areas. The 1999 National Food Consumption Survey indicated that traditional leafy vegetables significantly contributed to the intake of calcium, iron and Vitamin A of children under 9 years. Small-scale livestock production (poultry and pigs) can reduce the risk of iron deficiency.
3.7
Home garden technologies
A wide range of small-scale and appropriate technologies are available, both internationally and locally, many of which take local climatic and environmental conditions into account. Examples include: •
water management and erosion control, e.g. rainwater harvesting and rainwater tanks; in-field furrows, ridges, planting pits, mulching, cover crops, micro irrigation and using grey water;
•
soil conservation – intercropping, ash, composting, manuring, mulching, planting pits, crop rotation, fallows and conservation tillage;
•
seed saving and plant propagation;
•
agro-ecology/ permaculture; keyhole and trench gardens; peace gardens; storey cropping etc.;
•
crop protection using solutions of soap, ash, chillies, garlic and also by means of border cropping;
•
indigenous technologies, which may involve elements of the abovementioned methods or further adaptations.
These technologies are often context-specific, small-scale and simple to apply, making it easy for households to scale out, based on resources and demands. Numerous pilot studies have been conducted on appropriate and small scale technologies, but there has been little roll-out beyond projects and a limited impact assessment of various technologies.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
9
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
3.8
Support services
Appropriate technologies are often implemented and supported by civil society organisations (CSOs), but there has there has been a lack of integration so far. Some pilot projects have been put in place by the public sector (e.g. the former Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). The tendency in both the public and private sector and some NGOs has been to transfer conventional and crossover technologies, often in a top down fashion with little regard for the local socio-economic and environmental context. The public sector has tended to focus on community gardens and starter packs, with the main strategy appearing to be the provision of infrastructure and conventional inputs for groups. However: •
infrastructure provision (boreholes) is not a scalable strategy due to the high initial cost, ongoing operating and maintenance costs, and theft;
•
because supplied inputs are often not renewable (seed saving and storage is a problem, access to conventional inputs is expensive and suppliers are scarce), meaning that, after the first season, the food security of households might go back to where it started;
•
technologies are tested in project sites where the conditions may be very different to those which apply to home gardens.
The scale and impact of these interventions is unclear. There has been a limited amount of M&E and no impact assessments. These interventions may be unsustainable without continued support. Farmers often obtain information from other households and new crops from visitors to their area.
3.9
Support needs
These vary from area to area and amongst producers, with the key areas being: •
regular supply of water for crops/livestock;
•
soil conservation knowledge and strategies;
•
horticultural and livestock skills;
•
specific and regular support; and
•
renewable inputs.
Extension and research personnel are in short supply, and the distribution is very uneven. In Botshabelo, there is 1 support person for every 150 000 people; in the Northern Cape the ratio is 1:20. Available personnel may lack knowledge of the local situation and may overlook the value of existing local farming practices. There is room for improvement in relations within and between the public sector, the private sector and CSOs. It is better to build on what people know rather than pursue the unfamiliar.
3.10 Recommendations There is some evidence that homestead food production makes a significant contribution to food security and incomes. Some of the issues that need to be addressed include: 1. Systematic research to find out what is happening, where, the types of technologies, institutional arrangements, impact and emerging lessons. This will help to develop and implement a widespread and coherent programme. 2. Support to homestead gardening. A wide range of CSOs are already supporting this kind of activity. A programme should be developed to support and fund a wide range of structures so Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
10
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
that homestead gardening can operate at scale. This may require a new cadre of extension personnel or provincial departments of agriculture to make money available to outsource this work. Current extension staff members have not been trained to provide the right kind of support and, even if they were, there are not enough of them to provide the necessary support to operate at scale. The departments of agriculture should retain oversight, standardisation of training and quality control of this process. 3. Develop modalities for upscaling household food production. •
Use a community-based modus operandi – using CSOs to train and support community-level people (experienced growers and innovators) to advise others. This kind of structure is already well-established in the health sector. There should be an emphasis on female gardeners and enhancing local knowledge and innovations. Further skills support could be provided by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), provincial departments of agriculture as well as CSOs.
•
Use the Community Work Programme or EPWP [Expanded Public Works Programme] to fund stipends for community-based workers.
•
Develop standardised accredited trainings for such community-based workers (e.g. in vegetable growing, community-based animal health, fruit trees and small-stock production) which can help them in their career development.
•
Provide access to water, including support for rainwater harvesting and use of grey water. This would be a good government investment. Support to maintain soil fertility and avoid erosion is also required, preferably using low external input methods.
•
Develop an upscaling or phased roll-out approach with an inception phase in a few urban centres and some rural areas (e.g. a total of one urban and one rural area per province), or selecting the districts and metros where potential homestead producers are concentrated and where the intervention will have the most impact.
•
Develop a community of practice and mechanism for learning and sharing of experiences.
•
Establish a proper monitoring and evaluation system, including ex-post impact assessment for the programme which can feed in to the learning process.
4. Input 3: Development of evidence-based policy around small-scale farming Dr Ruth Hall, PLAAS (presenting research by Ruth Hall and Michael Aliber)
4.1
Introduction
The intention of our evidence-based policy work was to describe how to support small-scale and larger commercial farmers, and to make sure that they are productive and contribute effectively to the rural economy and to national food security, including: •
supporting subsistence-oriented farmers to keep doing what they’re doing, but do it better;
•
supporting a certain proportion of subsistence-oriented farmers to become more commercially-oriented; and
•
supporting existing commercially-oriented farmers to prosper.
Policy issues are specific to land reform and to small-scale farming in communal areas, so we distinguished sets of questions: •
Land reform: How has (redistributive) land reform performed thus far in creating opportunities for farmers of various scales, and why?
•
Communal areas: What opportunities are there for existing farmers to improve their output and incomes, and what accounts for the vast amounts of under-utilised arable land?
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
11
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
4.2
Size and composition of the black farming sector
According to the Stats SA Labour Force Survey, there are between 4m and 4.5m black individuals over the age of 15 years in 2.5m households involved in agriculture at various scales. •
among ‘subsistence’ producers, 52% are from female-headed households;
•
among ‘commercial’ producers, 36% are from female-headed households. Figure 3: Size and composition of the black farming sector
4.3
How are black commercial farmers doing?
‘Black commercial farmers’ are defined as those who produce food as a extra source of income and those who produce for a main source of income, comprising 4%–8% of the total. Positive indicators from the National Department of Agriculture’s Crop Estimates Committee are that productivity is rising and that there are more black commercial farmers than there were 30 years ago; negative case study evidence is that black commercial farmers are struggling, and have problems with marketing, property rights and input costs. Figure 4: Farming trends Feb 2001–March 2007
4.4
Trends in South African land reform
Over time, more money has been concentrated among fewer beneficiaries – apparently due to perception that inadequate grants were responsible for poor project performance. Using DRDLR monitoring and evaluation data, the best available estimates (annualised averages) are that: •
3 900 households benefited per year during the period 2001/02–2005/06;
•
2 000 households benefited per year during the period 2006/07–2008/09, despite expenditure in excess of R1 billion.
Available studies indicate the following impact on livelihoods: •
few large commercial farmers have become established; where this has happened, the impact on livelihoods appears neutral (Livelihoods After Land Reform project study in Limpopo);
•
modest numbers of additional livelihoods can be created, more than compensating for lost farm worker jobs (e.g. a 2005 Elliot district study commissioned by the National Treasury).
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
12
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
4.5
Relevant international experience •
Kenya’s Million Acre Scheme of the 1960s enabled the conversion of 1.5 million ha of white Highland estates to comparatively prosperous ‘peasant’ agriculture in nine years (Leo, 1984; Cliffe, 2000)
•
The ‘repurchase-subdivision-resettlement’ (RSR) model was successfully employed in Kenya and Zimbabwe where large numbers of small farmers had been restricted to ‘reserves’/ tribal trust lands. Key benefits included the public provision of bulk infrastructure (e.g. dipping tanks and marketing depots), in contrast with the dispersed model of redistribution that has been used in South Africa.
•
Parallel ‘master farmer’ reforms in these countries transferred large tracts to individuals through subsidised purchases. This incurred substantial cost and there were high attrition rates due to debt, but some successes were achieved. Despite small numbers and starting off a low base, substantial growth of this sector was achieved.
4.6
Farmer support programmes (1987–1993)
This was the first co-ordinated attempt to support black smallholders. The initial focus was on commercial farmers, but this broadened over time to include support for subsistence production. This approach used farmers’ associations and participatory planning, and was able to reach 25 000 farmers via 35 programmes which included a range of support services, e.g. credit, extension, mechanisation and marketing. Although it had some successes, a mid-term review led to some changes to address such problems as a generic approach, low-quality extension services, high levels of indebtedness and co-ordination problems. One critique was that the programme was ‘inappropriate’; that it should just focus on marketing and land (Williams); another was that it could not be replicated because it was too expensive (Sender). Our view is that it is a good model overall, why not review, refine and refocus an improved version of this approach?
4.7
Siyakhula/ Massive Food Programme (2003)
The aim of this programme was to promote successful black commercial farmers via improving input supply (and use), mechanisation, and access to credit. The focus was on field crops, with farmers being typically required to identify a contiguous piece of land 50ha in extent or larger. State funds were for grants and loans which steadily declined over a four-year period. The grant in Year One was for 100% of input costs; 75% in Year Two; 50% in Year Three; and 25% in the final year. Achievements included increased maize yield among some farmers and schemes; problems included high indebtedness, high attrition, funding delays affecting input access, and under-tooled tractor contractors. Critiques were: •
that the programme was extremely top-down, and too cosy with the Monsanto corporation (Nilsson & Karlsson); and
•
that it foisted debt on poor people, with officials blaming farmers for ‘lack of understanding and commitment’ (Genetic Resources Action International – GRAIN).
We like the programme’s ambitious scope, the fact that it is area-based, and its attention to supply industries.
4.8
Agriculture budgets
The amount of money spent by government on the agricultural sector has grown impressively since the mid-1990s. Even after adjusting for inflation, between 1996/97 and 2008/09, expenditure nearly trebled. Public expenditure on agriculture now exceeds what it was prior to the advent of democracy: •
in 1985, budgets for agriculture were about R11bn, of which R2bn was for ‘black agriculture’ and R9bn for ‘white agriculture’ (World Bank 1994), expressed in 2008 rands;
•
the agriculture budget for 2009/10 was over R14bn, of which most went to ‘black agriculture’.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
13
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Figure 5: Overall budget trends: 1996/97–2011/12
Figure 6: Agriculture expenditure/ black farming household
Distribution of funds and benefits Three most significant forms of support to small-scale farmers are: •
CASP (an average of 61 000 beneficiaries per annum);
•
MAFISA (an average of 2 500 beneficiaries per annum);
•
extension services (reaching 11% of small-scale farmers according to the Stats SA Rural Survey of 1997 – we speculate that current reach is not very different).
What this means is that, in a given year, at most 13% of black farming households are deriving direct benefits from the 58% of the provincial spending made up from these three interventions. The biggest worry arguably is extension, in the sense that it already accounts for a large share of provincial expenditure (not less than 50%) yet reaches few people. How much larger would the extension service have to be to make an appreciable difference, i.e. to reach a significant number of black farmers?
4.9
Where should the emphasis of a small-scale farmer strategy lie?
In view of South Africa’s massive unemployment problem, and the very large numbers of South Africans already farming on a small scale, a strategy should aim to maximise the creation of livelihoods, largely (but not exclusively) of those already engaged in small-scale farming (SSF). The purpose of such a strategy must be to focus on the potential of this sector to contribute to labour absorption and poverty reduction, particularly in the economically depressed areas of the exBantustans where (self-) employment is most needed. Turning small-scale farmers (SSFs) into largescale commercial farmers is therefore counterproductive on the grounds of both equity and efficiency. Where land reform is taking place in the commercial farming areas, the priority is to make possible options for SSF, and to limit the emphasis on commercial success in order to reduce the incidence of project failure which brings few benefits to ‘beneficiaries’ and no return to this public investment in transformation. Therefore the strategy must be focused on livelihoods, and support the option of small-scale farming. Should this support strategy be sectorally-focused or generic? •
One option is to build on existing production and support the sectors in which SSFs are already involved. A basic limitation is the path-dependency of this approach – existing production is not necessarily optimal, and there are no intrinsic reasons why SSFs cannot branch out into other sectors.
•
A second option is to explore sectors in which SSFs could hypothetically succeed.
•
But we propose an alternative to a sectoral strategy. Instead of ‘picking winners’ (which we’ve tended to do badly), a SSF strategy could focus on provision of generic support and infrastructure in regions where these farmers are concentrated – overwhelmingly in a few districts of Limpopo, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal – to create generalised conditions for success, adaptation and diversification. Therefore we propose a (sectorally) generic but geographically-targeted strategy.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
14
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
A core choice must be made about whether: 1. To support many small-scale farmers to keep doing what they’re doing and produce a larger share of their household food requirements (i.e. ‘food security’ or ‘production without accumulation’); 2. To enable a smaller number of small-scale farmers to become fully commercial farmers and raise their output and incomes (i.e. ‘ladders-up’ or ‘accumulation for the few’); or 3. To support many small-scale farmers to keep doing what they’re doing, but to increase their productivity, scale up, diversify their products, and raise their incomes (i.e. ‘accumulation from below’). These three strategies can co-exist, and some combination is probably needed. Most past and existing policy initiatives have focused only on the first two – ‘food security’ for many poor households and ‘ladders-up’ for a few better-off farmers. We are proposing a strategy that, in order to achieve scale and impact, focuses on ‘accumulation from below’ for a substantial portion of the existing population of SSFs, and enables the growth of a ‘missing middle’ of successful small farmers.
4.10 A proposed decentralised Small-Scale Farmer Support Programme Such a programme should seek means of helping large numbers of existing black farmers to farm more effectively and profitably; this is not necessarily the same as ‘integrating them into the commercial farm sector’. The proposed approach in the short- to medium-term is: •
to replicate and adapt the best features of the Farmer Support Programmes and Massive Food Programme;
•
to modify existing complementary programmes, e.g. CASP
•
to implement the programme in selected district municipalities (12 districts initially).
4.11 Areas of focus The selection of areas of focus should take into account: •
•
national-level prioritisation: o
those districts with high numbers of black farmers, e.g. seven of the 46 district municipalities account for 44% of black farmers and 36% of ‘black commercial farmers’;
o
districts which have a high concentration of actual or anticipated land reform projects in them.
provincial-level prioritisation: o
those provinces which do not have districts selected strictly in terms of the above criteria should also participate in the programme.
4.12 Proposed amendments in approach Keep
Change
•
extension and training;
•
•
development of input supply networks;
•
•
promotion of mechanisation contractors; development of marketing skills and promotion of market linkages;
•
•
•
less emphasis on high-input production systems, e.g. genetically modified seed and agro-chemicals; less emphasis on yields, e.g. relative to bringing land out of fallow; do not impose or over-encourage credit uptake; do not impose ‘consolidation’ of fields.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
Add •
participatory approach;
•
promotion of land rental markets;
•
measures to limit livestock damage; more refined market linkage including incentive schemes to broaden supermarket access and other procurement practices;
•
15
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Keep •
•
Change
institutional and financial support to various kinds of farmers’ organisations, including marketing co-operatives; a group approach.
Add •
promotion of small-scale and decentralised private agroprocessing capacity;
•
capacity support to government institutions, especially provincial agriculture departments.
4.13 Modifying complementary programmes •
CASP: shift emphasis from on-farm infrastructure that benefits few, to off-farm infrastructure to benefit many;
•
MAFISA: align but don’t over-promote;
•
Extension: integrate somehow into the recovery plan, e.g. use as collective learning opportunity;
•
Land reform (especially redistribution): dovetail with emerging approach for strategic areabased planning and land acquisition, and with ‘categories approach’ – relook at rationing of resources.
4.14 Monitoring & evaluation Observations: •
There was very little good M&E data available for this paper; M&E in the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and DRDLR is weak despite dedicated capacity.
•
Farmer Support Programmes took M&E seriously, and this led to programme improvements. In other words, it can be done.
Potential pitfalls: •
Over-emphasising costly, long-lead-time, overly technical, insight-sparse survey-based quantitative analysis.
•
Reducing monitoring to ‘performance monitoring’. Rather use M&E as an input into a learning process to improve the strategy over time. An iterative learning process strengthens policy over time.
4.15 Summary of specific proposed interventions 1. Input supply and production support •
Subsidise the development of service industries both upstream and downstream, as determined by the needs and potentials of the areas in question.
•
Emphasise tractor services, basic processing and transport.
•
Emphasise chemical fertilizer and pesticide.
2. Land •
Promote land rentals and fencing of plots, informed by the experiments of Lyne and Thomson in KwaZulu-Natal.
•
Consider making use of procedures developed by Manona and Baiphethi; this will require specialised training and may require dedicated extension officers?
•
Embark on targeted acquisition for land redistribution in priority areas, enabling subdivision, and providing common infrastructure and services.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
16
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
3. Extension, training and research and development (R&D) •
Continue to expand and improve the corps of extension officers, with an emphasis on how to effectively meet the needs of smallholders.
•
Use farmer-to-farmer exchange and learning methods used elsewhere.
•
Promote the reorientation of the ARC towards SSF.
4. Credit •
No new credit mechanisms are necessary (see report).
5. Infrastructure •
Prioritise investment in marketing infrastructure (CASP could be used for this purpose).
•
The emphasis on fencing should be shifted for the common benefit of communal area farmers (as per the CRDP).
6. Water •
Revisit the approach to revival of irrigation schemes (the DAFF task team should visit Tshiombo and Makuleke).
•
Promote water-efficient production technologies and rainwater harvesting (See whether recent Water Research Commission-funded research on in-field rainwater harvesting etc. might be ready for roll-out, with the state subsidising initial land development costs).
•
New irrigation schemes are probably unrealistic, but there is a possibility of prioritising the acquisition of irrigated land via the land reform programme, especially where these parcels of land lend themselves subdivision.
7. Climate change •
Promote diversification of crop and livestock production (varieties and breeds), rather than monocropping.
•
Support ‘private adaptation’ to climate change by SSFs, e.g. maintaining seed varieties and planting different varieties of the same crop. (Farmers in the Sahel are responding to chaning rainfall patterns by planting long- and short-cycle millet to mitigate the risk of crop failure.)
•
Revisit R&D priorities to promote crop varieties and animal breeds tolerant to heat, water and low fertility stresses.
•
Train extension services in climate-adaptive farming practices.
8. Marketing •
Examine the scope for building on the spontaneous smallholder-friendly practices of some supermarkets.
•
Consider incentives and/ or regulation schemes for supermarkets and fresh produce markets; capitalise on soon-to-be-released policy in this regard.
9. Coordination and communication •
Fund producer associations that support SSFs.
•
Develop a communications strategy on the Decentralised Small-scale Farmer Support Strategy (both externally focused and internally, to facilitate coordination among state agencies).
10. Building local synergies •
Promote growth of local services (e.g. tractors), input supply and processing industries relevant to the SSF sector.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
17
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
•
Explore mechanisms to promote preferential procurement by public institutions (hospitals, schools, prisons) from local SSFs.
•
Reintroduce agriculture into curricula of rural schools.
4.16 Adapt international best practice Available research in South Africa does not provide all the answers. So a commission could be put in place to consider new approaches that can be adopted and adapted in South Africa, using innovative learning methodologies. 1. Extension services •
How can we substantially scale up extension services to reach most small-scale farmers, and at the same time improve its quality and appropriateness? Test and refine models that make better use of existing resources, such as farmer-based extension models.
2. Environmental services •
How can we realistically and cost-effectively undertake conservation measures which augment water availability while protecting the environment and do so in a way that is profitable for rural dwellers and therefore self-sustaining?
3. Regulation and incentives •
How can we ensure that companies along the value chain that are involved in agroprocessing and retail source from SSFs, and that government entities put SSF-friendly procurement policies in place?
5. Input 4: Performance monitoring and evaluation: The outcomes approach Dr Ian Goldman, Performance Monitoring & Evaluation (PME), The Presidency
5.1
Introduction Figure 7: Summary of the outcomes approach Development of high level outcomes, outputs, activities and metrics Ruling Party election Manifesto: 5 priority areas
Establish Implementation Forum
MTSF: 10 strategic priorities 12 strategic outcomes (based on consultation process)
Negotiate detailed inputs, activities, metrics and roles and responsibilities
We are here
Step 1 (Done) Delivery Agreements
Performance Agreements with Minister(s) •Based on outcomes •High level outputs, indicators, targets and activities per outcome •Request to work together in Implementation Forum to produce a Delivery Agreement per outcome
Develop and implement detailed inputs, outputs, activities, metrics and roles and responsibilities
Step 3 (July 2010)
Coordinate implementation
Monitor and evaluate Step 2 (Done)
Step 4 ongoing
Feed back loop to annual revisions of Delivery Agreements
3
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
18
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
The outcomes approach follows a four step process: 1. This step involved the adoption of a set of key strategic outcomes with measurable outputs and key activities. The starting point was the ruling party’s election manifesto, which identified five priority areas, namely decent work and sustainable livelihoods; education; health; rural development, food security and land reform; and the fight against crime and corruption. This was then developed into the Medium Term Strategic Framework, which identified 10 strategic priorities, which were then further developed into the 12 key outcomes which are listed in the documentation, together with draft high-level outputs, key activities and metrics. 2. The second step is performance agreements between the President and Ministers which outline high level outputs, metrics and key activities for each outcome. In some instances where departments do not contribute directly to the 12 outcomes, key outputs from the strategic plans of departments are included in performance agreements. 3. Step 3 is converting the high-level outputs and metrics into a detailed Delivery Agreement with the key partners that need to work together to achieve the outputs. The negotiated agreement will spell out who will do what, by when and with what resources. Step 3 is due to be completed by the July Cabinet Lekgotla. 4. The last step is the establishment of effective co-ordination structures that will allow the partners to the delivery agreement to work together for the next four years in co-ordinating implementation of the outcomes, reviewing progress and deciding on interventions when required. The co-ordinating structures will also carry out monitoring and evaluation of the degree to which the outcomes are being achieved, which will provide a feedback loop to annual reviews of the delivery agreements.
5.2
The outcomes approach
Over the past months, our focus has been on applying the outcomes approach to the MTSF, resulting in agreement on 12 key outcomes, to form the national strategic agenda for the current MTSF period; in another words, for the period of the current administration. There have been extensive consultations regarding key outputs, targets, indicators and activities for each outcome. Outcomes are deliberately limited in number because this enables increased strategic focus on critical issues. An outcomes focus on key areas requires improvement from a whole of government point of view. This does not mean that other government work not directly related to the outcomes should be neglected. Other work is captured in departments’ strategic plans and IDPs of municipalities. The aim is to improve service delivery by: •
Increasing the strategic focus of government.
•
Making more efficient and effective use of limited resources through introducing more systematic monitoring and evaluation: o
Identifying suitable indicators and regularly measuring or monitoring them;
o
Carrying out periodic evaluations of the impact of government’s work on society;
o
Analysing the results of monitoring and evaluation, and using this analysis to: inform government decisions; continuously improve government programmes; promote evidence-based policy making.
Since the January Lekgotla, the Presidency has been engaging with departments to reach agreement on high-level outputs, targets, indicators and activities for each outcome.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
19
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
5.3
The 12 outcomes 1. Quality basic education. 2. A long and healthy life for all South Africans. 3. All people in South Africa are, and feel, safe. 4. Decent employment through inclusive economic growth. 5. Skilled and capable workforce to support an inclusive growth path. 6. An efficient, competitive and responsive economic infrastructure network. 7. Vibrant, equitable, sustainable rural communities contributing towards food security for all. 8. Sustainable human settlements and improved quality of household life. 9. A responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system. 10. Protect and enhance our environmental assets and natural resources. 11. Create a better South Africa, a better Africa and a better world. 12. An efficient, effective and development oriented public service and an empowered, fair and inclusive citizenship. Figure 8: Example of an outcome
Outcome 1: Improve the Quality of Basic Education Outputs Grade 3 literacy and numeracy to a national average of 60% Grade 6 mathematics and language to a national average of 60% Grade 9 mathematics and language to a national average of 60% Indicators Key indicators to monitor: internationally benchmarked and independently moderated tests conducted amongst the total populations of learners in grades 3, 6, and 9 every year
M&E Feedback loop Key activities Teachers in class, on time, teaching 6.5 hours a day Monitor curriculum coverage by visiting each school at least once a year Inputs required Ensure detailed daily/ weekly lesson plans Deliver easy to use work books (grades 1-7) and text books (grades 10-12) in key subjects to schools in the bottom 4 quintiles 6
5.4
Performance agreements
The President will enter into performance agreements with all his Ministers. •
Whilst there is no legal framework for performance agreements between members of the executive, this does not prevent the President from exercising his prerogative and entering into performance agreements with his Ministers.
•
These PAs will be a management tool for the President to provide his Ministers with a clear indication of the priorities that he would like them to focus on, and his expectations of their performance in this regard.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
20
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
•
For Ministers who are largely concerned with one outcome (e.g. Basic Education and Health), the performance agreement will be based on the high-level outputs and metrics associated with that outcome.
•
For Ministers who contribute to a number of outcomes, the performance agreements will be based on the agreed high-level outputs and metrics for those outcomes.
•
For Ministers whose direct contribution to the 12 outcomes is limited, performance agreements will reflect key outcomes, outputs and metrics in their departments’ strategic plans.
•
The President will only enter performance agreements with those who report directly to him, that is with his Ministers, and not with Deputy Ministers, Premiers, MECs or Mayors. It may be unconstitutional for the President to enter into performance agreements with members of the executive in other spheres.
•
However, the Presidency will develop guidelines on a uniform system of executive performance agreements across government, including between Ministers and Deputy Ministers.
•
With regard to the relationship between the President and Premiers, the President will enter into intergovernmental protocols (in terms of IGFRA) with Premiers. These protocols will focus on the outcomes with major intergovernmental implications (such as Health, Basic Education, Human Settlements and Local Government), and will provide a basis for the work of the President’s Coordinating Council.
5.5
Performance agreement on rural development (current administration term)
This agreement is in terms of Outcome 7: Vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities and food security for all. The relevant outputs are: •
Output 1: Sustainable agrarian reform.
•
Output 2: Improved access to affordable and diverse food.
•
Output 3: Improved rural services to support livelihoods.
•
Output 4: Improved employment opportunities and promotion of economic livelihoods.
•
Output 5: An enabling institutional environment for sustainable and inclusive growth.
Output 1: Sustainable agrarian reform •
As a result of the continued success of commercial farming, the number of employees on commercial farms has risen from 780 000 to 800 000.
•
The number of smallholder farmers rises from 200 000 to 250 000 and those producing for sale rises from 4.07% to 10%.
•
The number of unprocessed land claims is reduced from 4 296 claims to 1 000.
•
In order to reduce water demand, irrigation agriculture’s use of water is reduced from 85% to 75%.
•
A total of 283 592ha of strategically located land is acquired and redistributed, and 152 653 repossessed properties are acquired from financial institutions and warehoused for land and agrarian reform purposes.
•
The 1 307 farms acquired under the land reform programme since 1994 and currently in distress have been recapitalised and the provision of agricultural infrastructure on identified farms in order to improve production has been facilitated.
Output 2: Improved access to affordable and diverse food •
The percentage of the total population that experiences hunger is reduced from 52% to 30% using national food consumption survey data as a measure.
•
The rate of under-nutrition of children has fallen from 9.3% to 5%.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
21
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
•
CPIX [consumer price inflation excluding interest of mortgage bonds] for poor people (which is heavily dependent on the price of food) does not rise more than the average level of inflation.
•
A total of 67 929 community, institutional and school gardens have been established to enable at least 30% of poor households to produce some of their food and improve their household incomes.
Output 3: Improved rural services to support livelihoods •
Paraprofessional and community-based models of service delivery have enabled agriculture, health, adult literacy and ECD services to be available in 80% of rural municipalities.
•
Key provincial departments including Health, Education, Agriculture, Social Development and COGTA [the national Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs] are promoting better-adapted service delivery models as a result of work with DRDLR on service models, including the use of information and communication technology to improve services.
•
65 E-Centres have been established in the CRDP sites.
•
Government services have been scaled up: o
the proportion of households with clean water has risen from 74% to 90%;
o
the proportion of households with access to improved sanitation has risen from 45% to 65%; and
o
the proportion of households with access to electricity has risen from 55% to 70%.
Output 4: Improved employment opportunities and promotion of economic livelihoods •
The percentage of unemployed people has fallen from 73.4% (in the current poverty nodes) to 60%.
•
Jobs in agri-processing have increased from 380 000 to 500 000, of which 60% are in rural areas, including small towns.
•
The percentage of small farmers producing for sale has risen from 4.07% to 10% (joint target with DAFF).
•
A total of 39 agri-parks have been established and 39 trade agreements linked to agriparks have been concluded.
•
The number of jobs created by the Community Works Programme and EPWP in rural areas has risen to 2m by 2014, and at least 50% of these jobs are providing value added services in rural areas ranging from road maintenance, farmer-to-farmer extension, home-based care etc., with people having had at least 10 days’ training to provide these services.
Output 5: Enabling institutional environment for sustainable and inclusive growth (joint target with COGTA) •
All rural local governments have the top four posts filled with suitably qualified persons by 2011 (COGTA target).
•
By 2012, 20% of rural local governments and by 2014 80% of rural local governments have established co-ordination structures (such as councils of stakeholders, or district development co-ordinating committees) involving key stakeholders in the area to contribute to development of the IDP, to co-ordinate and to monitor implementation.
•
By 2014, 50% of rural wards have developed participatory and community-based ward plans, and have been funded to take forward community action arising from those plans.
•
At least 30% of small farmers are organised in producer associations or marketing cooperatives to give collective power in negotiating for inputs and marketing.
•
Community structures to support social cohesion and development have been established –of 530 enterprises and 1 590 cooperatives.
•
Half (50%) of rural municipalities have systems for disaster management and mitigation to facilitate rapid response to rural disasters.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
22
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
•
5.6
Levels of alienation and anomie have fallen from 25% (figures from the rural nodes for 2008) to a maximum of 15%.
Delivery agreements
The President’s performance agreements with outcome-coordinating Ministers will request them to establish forums to develop detailed delivery agreements for each outcome. These delivery agreements will refine and provide more detail to outputs, targets, indicators and key activities, and identify required inputs and clarify roles and responsibilities. An initial guideline for drafting delivery agreements has been development. The delivery agreements should be completed for discussion at the July Cabinet Lekgotla, and will then influence the budgeting process for 2011/12 budget. One of the issues which has been identified as requiring more clarity is the legal status of the delivery agreements. We have obtained legal advice that, where delivery agreements are signed by Members of the Executive from more than one sphere of government, they will have the legal status of intergovernmental implementation protocols in terms of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act. Our legal advice also indicates that such agreements are consistent with the Constitution. Delivery agreements which only involve national departments (as may be the case for the outcome focusing on reducing crime), will not yet have any formal legal status. They will be merely interdepartmental agreements – in other words, a management tool for the departments to coordinate and integrate their activities related to the outcome. Some countries have “results acts” to provide a legal framework for this kind of process, and in time we will be studying such legislation to see if a similar kind of Act might be useful in the South African context. Delivery agreements should not be confused with performance agreements. A delivery agreement is a protocol or agreement with various institutions as signatories. It is not a performance agreement between the co-ordinating Minister or Ministers and other members of the executive. Effective delivery agreements will require reprioritisation of budgets, so it is expected that these will influence the 2011/12 budgeting process. Accountability for delivery agreements National Ministers will be accountable to the President in terms of their performance agreements, which will reflect contributions to the outcomes where relevant. At sub-national level, members of the executive that are signatories to a delivery agreement will be held accountable at various levels: •
Public accountability;
•
Political accountability;
•
Through reporting on their development plans (provincial growth and development strategies and IDPs).
The administrative performance management system will be used to hold DGs, HODs [heads of department] and municipal managers accountable for the implementation of their institutions’ delivery agreement commitments.
5.7
Co-ordination arrangements
Executive level The key proposed change at executive level is to introduce implementation forums. The five Cabinet Committees will remain in place and will continue with their current functions. On the request of the President, an Implementation Forum will facilitate the development of a Delivery Agreement for each outcome, and will then co-ordinate the implementation of the Delivery Agreement. Implementation
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
23
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Forums will include the relevant members of the executive as well as senior officials. They will be chaired or co-chaired by the co-ordinating Minister or Ministers for the outcome. For the seven outcomes which are intergovernmental in nature, MINMECs [the joint meeting of a national Minister and the provincial MECs for a specific function] or expanded MINMECs can serve as the Implementation Forums. For those outcomes which are national in nature, the Implementation Forum will include the Ministers and officials from the relevant FOSAD [Forum of South African Directors-General] cluster. The agenda of the Forum must focus on monitoring and evaluating progress against the Delivery Agreement, facilitating the ironing out of bottlenecks, and integration of the activities of the participants. It is proposed that the Forum meets bimonthly, and provides bimonthly progress reports against Delivery Agreements to the relevant Cabinet Committee. While Cabinet Committees focus on policy issues for Cabinet, consist only of national executive members, and have a broader agenda; Implementation Forums often include other spheres and senior officials, and focus on facilitating effective implementation and co-ordination of the outcomes. The institutions in the Implementation Forum will negotiate the detailed roles and responsibilities and timeframes for activities related to the outcomes, using the high-level outputs and metrics in the Performance Agreements with the President as the basis. Once the Delivery Agreement is signed, the Implementation Forum then focuses on monitoring and facilitating implementation of the Agreement. All participating members of the executive sign the agreement. Administrative level Technical work for the Implementation Forums will be carried out by administrative versions of the Implementation Forums, called Technical Implementation Forums. FOSAD and the FOSAD clusters will remain. Those outcomes which are national in nature will be coordinated by the relevant FOSAD Cluster (or by cluster sub-structures as proposed in the input from the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security cluster). In this case it is proposed that alternate FOSAD cluster meetings function as Technical Implementation Forums. Technical MINMECs or expanded technical MINMECs will serve as the Technical Implementation Forums for the other outcomes. Similarly, if technical MINMECs meet monthly, alternate technical MINMECs can serve as Technical Implementation Forums. The Presidency will play a support role in the Implementation Forums, through providing the deputy chair and secretariat support. This is to ensure that the agenda remains focused on the Delivery Agreement, to provide a centre to facilitate integration and links across the outcomes, to assist with unblocking blockages, and to assist with M&E. This work will be done by the team of outcome specialists which PME in The Presidency is in the process of recruiting. One of the reasons for using existing structures such as the FOSAD clusters and technical MINMECs, rather than creating new structures, is so as not to increase the number of meetings which DGs must attend. DGs have to attend technical MINMEC and FOSAD Cluster meetings anyway. The requirement will also be that the Technical Implementation Forums should be attended by the relevant officials concerned with the outcome, and not necessarily by DGs or HODs. It is proposed that these structures will meet bimonthly.
5.8
Programme of Action
Initially, the high level outputs, key activities and metrics in the President’s final letter to the outcome coordinating ministers will be compiled into the Government Implementation Actions or GIA, which will replace the Programme of Action (POA). In essence, it will be a POA with a more strategic focus. Once Delivery Agreements are in place, the GIA will be expanded to include details from the Delivery Agreements. As with the previous POA, the Presidency will prepare progress reports against the GIA, based on the progress reports of Implementation Forums.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
24
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010 Figure 9: Relationships between structures
Implementation of the 12 outcomes
Cross cutting matters, legislation and policy
Technical Implementation Forums (Headcom or FOSAD cluster or cluster substructures)
Administrative level
Departments Technical Clusters DGs (FOSAD Clusters) Ministerial Clusters (Mins/Dep Mins and DGs
Implementation Forums (Minmec or Ministerial Cluster) Executive level
Cabinet Committees Key:
Meets fortnightly
Cabinet
Meets monthly Meets bimonthly
21
Figure 10: Co-ordinating structures and outcomes
Coordinating Structure
Technical Implementation Forum
FOSAD Cluster
Level
Administrative
Administrative
Agenda
Agenda: implementation of outcome
Agenda: General coordination
1
Education
Headcom
Human Development
Executive and administrative Agenda: implementation of outcomes Minmec
2
Health
Headcom
Human Development
Minmec
Social Protection and HD
3
Security
JCPS Cluster / substructure
JCPS
JCPS
JCPS
4
Skills
Minmec
Employment
Economic
Economic
6
Infrastructure
Headcom Economic Cluster / substructure Infrastructure Cluster / substructure
Human Development
5
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Social / economic Economic Sectors and Infrastructure Development Economic Sectors and Infrastructure Development
Headcom
Implementation Forum
Social Protection / Economic
Expanded Minmec
Cabinet Committee Executive As before, with addition of outcome reports Social Protection and HD
7
Rural
8
H. Settlements Headcom
Social Protection
Expanded Minmec
Social Protection and HD
9
Local gov't
Expanded Minmec
ICTS
G&A Economic Sectors and Infrastructure Development ICTS
G&A
G&A
Headcom
10 Environment
Headcom
11 International
ICTS Cluster / substructure
G&A Economic / Infrastructure ICTS
12 Public service
G&A Cluster / substructure
G&A
Expanded Minmec
Social / economic
Key: Integration with MINMEC system Continuity with existing cluster system
22
Figure 11: Sequencing of meetings and flow of reports Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Meeting Technical Imp. Forum FOSAD Imp. Forum Cabinet Committee Cabinet
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
25
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
5.9
Links to strategic planning and budgeting
The Presidency, National Treasury, DPSA [Department of Public Service and Administration] and COGTA need to align strategic planning guidelines to the national outcomes. National Treasury is in process of reviewing Treasury Regulation 5 on strategic planning and related guidelines. This should be issued shortly, and will apply to national and provincial departments. PME in The Presidency has requested National Treasury to align the outcomes, strategic plans, and the budgeting process using standard results-based management language to avoid confusion. This will require departmental strategic plans to include commitments made in Delivery Agreements, where relevant. Departments should produce revised strategic plans next year, to reflect the revised Treasury Regulations and strategic planning guidelines. They will have to ensure that departmental strategic plans, including commitments made in Delivery Agreements, are key inputs in the annual budgeting process at national and provincial level. PME will engage with COGTA to align guidelines for IDPs. IDPs should include commitments made in Delivery Agreements, where relevant (in addition to all the other issues to be covered in IDPs), and bearing in mind the differentiated approach being pursued by COGTA, e.g. alignment of IDPs of those municipalities participating in the informal settlement upgrading outputs. PME is engaging with DPSA regarding inclusion of the outcomes in guidelines for administrative performance agreements.
6. Synthesis of issues arising during the workshop Dr Ian Goldman, Performance Monitoring & Evaluation (PME), The Presidency
6.1
Introduction
Rural poverty is deep but we can make a difference: •
In China they increased life expectancy from 38 years to 58 years between 1960 and 1965, primarily through use of barefoot (paraprofessional) doctors as well as increasing local production.
•
In Malawi they increased crop production threefold by not using conventional approaches.
•
Ethiopia is recruiting 60 000 extension officers and is achieving growth rates of 10%.
•
Growth in South East Asia has been based on land reform and developing a small farmer class.
We now have challenging targets which incorporate some of these elements, but these can only be implemented through new ways of working which break the silos, and which emphasise services at community level.
6.2
Background
Rural development is very broad and cross-cutting. There is a real diversity of types of rural areas – commercial farming, ex-Bantustan, hinterland of towns. In practice rural development has been the poor relation in policy since 1994 and support has been fragmented: •
there has been a decline in investment in rural areas;
•
rural development and LED [local economic development] initiatives have been running in parallel, often with their own set of projects;
•
the ISRDP’s emphasis was on co-ordination, with no additional funds, but in practice it was weak.
A complicating factor is the strong migration trend from rural to urban areas. In fast-growing economies, agriculture is not lagging; agricultural production is in fact leaping forward. South Africa’s present rural development plans are based on the five outputs for the rural development outcome described above. Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
26
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
6.3
Sustainable agrarian reform through small-scale farming •
SSFs are not mini-examples of commercial farms – they are very different. Small farms are often more efficient than large ones, maximising returns on land and labour.
•
There is a need to improve productivity for own consumption and sale, maximising impact on livelihoods – ‘accumulation from below’.
•
A diversity of crops and livestock should be promoted to make small-scale agriculture more resilient.
•
The target is to raise the numbers of smallholders from 200 000 to 250 000, and the number of SSFs producing for sale from 4% to 10%, with the main focus falling on those already engaged in small-scale production.
•
A key enabling factor is to facilitate institutional support that enables economies of scale, access to business services and markets. Access to markets is critical, and it is a key challenge in South Africa where the agro-industrial complex has tied up markets for itself. There is a need for real creativity to open up markets (akin to the broad-based black economic empowerment approach) with an emphasis on local production and supplying local outlets.
•
We only have one-third the number of extension staff required, and 80% of existing staff have not been adequately trained. Only one in 20 land reform beneficiaries is receiving support – 50% of the budget is spent on only 13% of the farmers. We need a new model, e.g. farmerbased extension to groups of farmers rather than the collective production model.
•
Supporting farmer organisations and co-operatives will require significant investment. Such formations are valuable networks for supplying inputs.
•
Land reform has its challenges, but the Elliot case shows land reform can generate livelihoods for people in rural areas. However, as the Kenyan experience shows, success requires services to be provided.
•
Water is needed for low-volume irrigation and sustainable production.
•
Credit is necessary, but it is important to manage it well. Mobilising local savings and loans is a good mechanism.
•
Education is important, e.g. agricultural schools.
•
Focusing on 7 to 12 districts is a good idea – concentrating on key geographic areas where lots of land reform is happening, and providing a focus for relevant services.
6.4
Agrarian reform – commercial agriculture •
Finalising outstanding land claims is important because the situation is blighting agricultural investment.
•
We must make sure that commercial agriculture is viable – the international market is challenging.
•
We must make sure more of the value goes to producers rather than intermediaries (for both SSFs and commercial farmers).
•
Ensuring support for farm workers is important (and it will help to grow employment and the skills base).
•
Reducing the use of water and the impact of agriculture on the environment is required to establish more sustainable production systems.
•
We should create better linkages with small farmers, including outgrower schemes.
6.5
Improved access to affordable and diverse food •
The 2005 National Food Consumption Survey indicated that 52% of people were hungry at some point (the current target is to reduce this to 30%); 33% of people are at risk of hunger; 1 in 5 children are stunted, and many show vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
•
Food security is a function of many elements – production, markets, price, nutritional composition etc.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
27
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
•
Income is the main determinant of nutritional, but this is not easy to address in urban or rural areas because it requires increased employment (with social grants playing an important role). The other approach is to improve affordability of food (hence the target of low food inflation for poor people).
•
Household production, school gardens etc. are a supplementary strategy, with some potential for income generation. Traditional vegetables can be more nutritious and show the highest returns, based on experience from Nigeria and Kenya. Local level extension systems and access to water are essential enabling factors.
•
Food banks are another possibility.
6.6
Improved rural services to support livelihoods
Different areas have different needs. The focus has been on delivery of hard infrastructure, less on operations and maintenance or services. The Chinese example quoted above shows we can transform lives if we transform services such as extension, ECD, water and schools. Rural areas need effective and appropriate models, using paraprofessionals and community-based approaches.
6.7
Employment and economic livelihoods •
Investment in childhood nutrition and ECD are essential determinants of what happens later in life.
•
Facilitate institutional support that enables economies of scale, access to business services and markets.
•
There is a need to focus on agriculture, agri-processing, tourism, mining, and value added activities.
6.8
6.9
An enabling institutional environment •
Rural development is too large a task to be conceptualised, planned or implemented by a single actor. Effective partnerships have been few and far between. There is a need for collaboration across government, private sector and civil society, building on local knowledge, commitment and energy.
•
There is a disconnect between economic planning and what resettled people or small farmers want. This kind of intervention must build on IDP process, and must be participatory.
•
Services must be integrated to effectively support rural people – e.g. land, extension, water at national, provincial and local levels – hence the target around co-ordination mentioned above.
•
There is a move away from the idea that government will provide to an enabling approach – building people’s capacity – hence the target around ward plans and ward action.
•
Who should champion rural development – local government, a rural development association, or local development coalitions?
Moving towards delivery
There is now co-ordination around the core outcome and outputs for rural development. DRDLR is the champion, supported in particular by DAFF and COGTA. Mechanisms for joint planning, joint programming and joint accountability are being put into action, but how do we get integrated delivery? Performance management systems must reward collaboration. It will be useful to focus on small farmers in seven districts with integrated services, with increased investment. Innovation and new models are needed – especially with respect to access to markets, use of paraprofessionals and community-based service delivery, and doing this in a way which strengthens community and farmer organisation to take rural development forward.
7. Conclusion Effective rural development and the promotion of household food security requires new ways of working which break the silos, and which emphasise services at community level. If we are to
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
28
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
overcome fragmented service delivery we need new approaches to performance management which promote and reward collaboration. We need to understand the particular support needs of small scale farmers. Small scale farmers should not be simply be seen as miniature commercial farmers. We need to identify where small farms can be more efficient than large ones and how small farmers best maximise returns on land and labour. Supporting small scale farmers requires new approaches to extension which enable ‘accumulation from below’ through improved productivity for own consumption and sale which will maximise impact on livelihoods. In order to ensure improved return on state investment there are strong arguments to concentrate services to small farmers in the seven to twelve districts in the country where they are concentrated. However household food security interventions need to be broadly implemented in both rural and urban areas. These need to combine access to social grants, measures to continue to ensure affordability and the nutritional status of essential foods as well as programmes to stimulate home production.
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
29
Report on a workshop on rural development and agrarian reform held on 26 May 2010
Programme to Support Pro-Poor Policy Development (PSPPD)
30
