Breaking the chains of duality: Towards a truly inclusive South African agriculture

South African agriculture stands at a crossroads. The recently concluded Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA) once again illuminated a painful truth: the agricultural sector remains deeply divided, still shaped by the enduring legacy of colonial and apartheid structures.

At the heart of the debate was the uncomfortable but unavoidable issue of duality — the coexistence of two agricultures operating side by side but worlds apart. On one side lies a sophisticated, export-oriented, capital-intensive commercial agriculture that rivals the best in the world. On the other side, a vast and fragmented smallholder and subsistence sector, where millions of black farmers continue to face structural barriers to land, finance, markets, and technology.

During his keynote address, Mooketsa Ramasodi, the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, captured the urgency of the moment. He acknowledged the duality that continues to define the sector but lamented the scarcity of concrete policy advice and actionable solutions. “We have described the problem many times,” he said in essence, “but we are yet to chart the trajectory that leads us out of it.” He challenged agricultural economists to move beyond analysis and provide solutions that can drive transformation and inclusivity in practice — not just in theory.

Dr Sifiso Ntombela, the outgoing AEASA President, was even more forthright. He reminded delegates that the duality is a deliberate outcome of historical policies — designed to privilege a minority while excluding the majority. “We cannot achieve transformation and inclusivity using the same laws that created the duality,” he argued. His call for new legislation — a new policy architecture — resonated deeply across the conference halls.

The Persistence of Structural Inequality

Despite numerous initiatives and master plans, the fundamental structure of South African agriculture has changed little. The Agricultural and Agroprocessing Master Plan (AAMP), for instance, represents an important step forward in uniting government, business, and labour around shared growth targets. Yet, its implementation continues to grapple with a critical dilemma: how to ensure that growth is inclusive rather than extractive.

The Competition Commission’s recent Fresh Produce Market Inquiry provides a sobering illustration. It found that a handful of large agribusinesses dominate the nation’s fruit and vegetable value chains, controlling access to inputs, logistics, and markets. Smallholder producers, many of whom are black, remain locked out of mainstream markets due to stringent quality standards, high transaction costs, and exclusionary contract practices.

Similarly, in the seed sector, AEASA researchers presented evidence of significant market concentration, with multinational corporations holding dominant positions across major crops. While this concentration supports innovation and export competitiveness, it simultaneously marginalises small seed companies and local breeders, limiting the diversity of seed choices available to smallholder farmers. These examples reveal how structural duality is not merely a historical relic — it is being reproduced through contemporary market dynamics.

Land reform, too, continues to illustrate the paradox. Since 1994, only about 10% of agricultural land has been redistributed — far below the 30% target initially set by the government. Many transferred farms remain underutilised, often due to weak post-settlement support, lack of financing, and inadequate extension services. The result is a cycle where land is transferred without the accompanying ecosystem needed for sustained productivity and market participation.

Policy Paralysis and Institutional Inertia

South Africa’s agricultural policy landscape is dense with well-intentioned frameworks — from the National Policy on Comprehensive Producer Development Support (NPCPDS) to various commodity-specific transformation charters. Yet, progress remains sporadic and fragmented.

Part of the problem lies in institutional inertia. Policies continue to be designed and implemented within frameworks conceived during an era when large-scale, white-owned commercial agriculture was the norm. The support systems, subsidy structures, and extension models that sustain the commercial sector are not easily adaptable to the realities of emerging or communal farmers.

Transformation cannot occur through assimilation — by simply inviting smallholders into spaces designed for a few. It requires re-engineering the system itself to accommodate diversity, resilience, and equity.

From Diagnosis to Action: Building One Agriculture

If transformation is to move from rhetoric to reality, inclusivity must be engineered by design, not expected as a by-product of growth. Below are four critical levers for achieving that shift.

1 Legislative Reform for Equity and Access

We need new legislation that explicitly mandates inclusivity across all nodes of the agricultural value chain. A dedicated Transformation and Inclusivity Act for Agriculture could set measurable targets for ownership, procurement, enterprise development, and skills transfer — similar in spirit to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) framework but tailored to agriculture’s unique structure.

Such legislation should compel large agribusinesses to demonstrate how they are fostering inclusion — whether through joint ventures, contract farming, or preferential procurement from emerging producers.

2 Re-engineering Agricultural Finance

Finance remains the most persistent barrier to inclusivity. Emerging farmers are often considered “unbankable” due to a lack of collateral and irregular cash flows. Development finance institutions (DFIs) such as the Land Bank, IDC, and the newly formed Agricultural Development Agency (AGDA) must shift towards blended finance instruments — combining grants, low-interest loans, and private capital to derisk investment in smallholder agriculture.

Models such as revenue-based financing, cooperative credit unions, and patient capital funds could help unlock production potential without imposing unsustainable debt burdens. South Africa’s smallholder sector doesn’t need charity — it needs fit-for-purpose finance.

3 Value Chain Integration and Market Access

Inclusivity will not happen at the farm gate alone. Transformation must extend throughout value chains — from seed to shelf. Public–private partnerships can play a catalytic role in developing inclusive value chains that link emerging producers to formal retail, agroprocessing, and export markets.

The fresh produce sector offers immediate opportunities. Municipal markets can be restructured to create dedicated trading spaces and logistics platforms for small-scale producers, while large retailers should be incentivised — or required — to source a minimum share of produce from emerging suppliers.

4 Investing in Knowledge and Innovation Systems

Finally, transformation must be underpinned by a modernised, inclusive agricultural innovation system. Universities, research councils, and private sector actors must collaborate to produce technologies, seeds, and production methods that respond to the realities of smallholder and communal farmers.

This means reviving the extension system — not as a one-directional advisory service, but as a participatory innovation network that builds local capacity, facilitates co-learning, and integrates traditional and scientific knowledge systems.

A Call to Courage and Conviction

Dr Ntombela’s parting words at the AEASA conference were a moral call to the profession: meaningful transformation requires courage — the courage to dismantle privilege, to confront discomfort, and to imagine a different agricultural order. He cautioned against the temptation to “opt for the easy way out” — to describe problems endlessly without paying the price of change.

Ramasodi’s challenge complements that call for agricultural economists and policymakers must shift from analysis to agency, from diagnosing symptoms to crafting cures.

South Africa cannot afford another decade of half-measures and pilot projects. What is needed now is political will, institutional agility, and a unified vision for “One Agriculture” — a sector that draws on the strengths of both commercial and smallholder systems to drive food security, employment, and equitable growth.

Transformation is not a favour to the excluded; it is an investment in national stability and prosperity. Until the two agricultures become one, South Africa’s promise of inclusivity will remain just that — a promise deferred.

Dr Thulasizwe Mkhabela is an Honorary Research Fellow with the African Centre for Food Security and the University of KwaZulu-Natal (MkhabelaT1@ukzn.ac.za) and an independent agricultural researcher and policy analyst with extensive experience in South African and African agricultural & development issues. He is also a director and Senior Researcher at Outcome Mapping (thula@outcomemapping.co.za;  thulasizwe.mkhabela@gmail.com). Dr Mkhabela is also a Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) associate.

*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.

BUSINESS REPORT