Neolocalism, Craft Beer and Beer Tourism in South Africa By

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012). Title of the thesis or dissertation (Doctoral Thesis / Master’s Dissertation). Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/102000/0002 (Accessed: 22 August 2017). Neolocalism, Craft Beer and Beer Tourism in South Africa By

KEAGAN JAMES EDWARD COLLINS

A Dissertation Submitted In Fulfilment of the Requirements

For The Degree Of Masters In Tourism and Hospitality Management In the

The College of Business and Economics School of Tourism and Hospitality

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

SUPERVISOR PROF. C.M ROGERSON

DECEMBER 2018

. DECLARATION

I declare that the information presented in this thesis is my own original work, conducted under the supervision of Prof. C.M. Rogerson. It is submitted for the degree of Masters in Tourism and Hospitality Management in the College of Business and Economics at the University of Johannesburg. This work has not been submitted as part of a degree at another institution, but it has informed the production of three co-authored journal articles written by the same author.

I understand that plagiarism means presenting the ideas and words of someone else as my own without appropriate recognition of the source. Therefore I declare the following:

 The work that I submit for assessment is my own, except where I explicitly indicate otherwise (please see Acknowledgments).

 Where material written by other people has been used (either from a printed source or from the internet), this has been carefully acknowledged and referenced.

 I have used the Harvard method convention for citation and referencing. Every significant contribution to this research, as well as quotations in this thesis from the work of other people has been acknowledged through citation and reference.

 I am aware of the University’s policy, with regards to plagiarism as a serious offence punishable by a disciplinary committee.

 I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work.

 This thesis is my own work, and it has not been, partially or wholly, copied from another.

Student Name: K.J.E Collins

Student Number: 200900358

………………………………………………… Signature

Date…………………......

. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Great things are brought about and burdens are lightened through the efforts of many hands “anxiously engaged in a good cause.” Quote ― M. Russell Ballard

Hence I would like to extend a very heartfelt thank you to the following people:

 First and foremost, I would like to thank God Almighty for giving me the strength, knowledge, ability and opportunity to undertake this research and whose many blessings have made me who I am today. “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”— John 8: 31 - 32.

 Secondly I would like express my utmost appreciation and gratitude to Prof. Chris Rogerson, my Supervisor for this Dissertation. None of this could have been achieved without his valuable guidance, noble support and necessary inputs. A man who I will forever admire as a role-model and close friend. Thank you for your unparalleled devotion and incredible faith in me even at times when I may have pushed you towards insanity. I apologize deeply. From the bottom of my heart I thank you for everything you done for me and I pray that god blesses you and your family abundantly. I will truly miss your great sense of humour  .

 A special mention and thank you must be directed to towards Prof. Jayne Rogerson, Bella and Jono for their wonderful friendship during the duration of this Masters. Their moral support and valuable inputs were much appreciated.

 A special thank you to Teddy, Skye and Dawn Norfolk for their unconditional love and encouragement during the writing of this dissertation.

 I would also like to give much needed praise to my loving Aunty Lauryn, for coming to my aid at a time most needed. Your kindness and willing desire to help those in need does not go unnoticed. Thank you for being my guardian angel and most trusted advisor. Forever and Always!  [*Coldplay – “Fix You”]

 To Anton, Amber and Abigail – thank you for your most gracious hospitality and all-round support during the writing of this dissertation. Your helpful contributions to continuous encouragement are much appreciated.

 To Stephen, Josh, Bella, my adoring mother and most beautiful sister – I thank you for never giving up on me and always ensuring I never go with-out. Your love and support has always been infinite. From the depths of my soul I love you both very much!

 To my Oups, Nana, Taryn and the rest of the family, thank you for your never-ending spiritual guidance and unconditional love towards me.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 To Blade, Catherine, Troy and the rest of the Lane family, I thank you for your incredible love, support, belief and most importantly laughter during this chapter of my life. May our friendship and families always be blessed with gods beautiful light.

 To Meryl, Mark, Clint and many cousins as well as all the rest of my family members and close friends – I truly thank you for your constant patience, support and understanding.

 A special thank you to Wendy Job for preparing the maps.

 Finally, to all of the microbreweries entrepreneurs and beer-tourists who participated in this study, I thank you for not only sharing with me your valuable time, assistance and thoughts during the collection of data. In addition, thank you for providing me with a new found appreciation for such magnificent craft beer.

 To my “Honey” and the rest of the dog cartel – thank you for your unconditional love. You all truly define the statement “Man’s best friend”.

 To the University of Johannesburg, the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the School of Tourism and Hospitality – Thank you for your most generous funding and assistance in furthering my academic career.

Lastly it must be acknowledged that certain portions of this dissertation, specifically in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 draw extensively from three previous co-authored and published papers (Please see list below). In addition, I presented some of the material in this dissertation at the inaugural ‘International Geographical Union Conference in Moscow’, August 2016.

1. Rogerson, C.M. and Collins, K.J., (2015). Festival tourism in South Africa: Characteristics and motivations of attendees at craft beer festivals. African Journal for Physical Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 21 (Supplement 2), pp.76-87.

2. Rogerson, C.M. and Collins, K.J., (2015). Beer Tourism in South Africa. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 24 (3&4), pp.18-18.

3. Rogerson, C.M. and Collins, K.J.,(2016). Developing beer tourism in South Africa: international perspectives .African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure.4 (1), pp.1-15.

iii

ABSTRACT

One consequence of the advance of globalization is a trend towards homogeneity and the standardization of consumer products which are produced and marketed by large enterprises, often multinational corporations. Over the past two decades the rise and hegemony of this global monoculture has been challenged by a counter-movement which is styled as ‘neolocalism’. This term refers to attempts made to preserve or recreate the ‘local’, and the ‘unique’ in the promotion and consumption of alternative foods and other products that reject homogeneity and instead support local identity. Support for the growth of farmers markets, local food products, and local food sourcing represent examples of this counter-movement. The international growth of craft beer and of microbreweries is one further example of this expanding trend towards neolocalism. Essentially, it represents a reaction by consumers to the sameness of beers which are produced under the conditions of global or local dominance of beer markets by a handful of large enterprises. Over the past decade in South Africa there has been a remarkable surge in the industry of producing craft beers as an alternative product to the types of beers marketed by SABMiller and Brandhouse. The aim in this study is to examine through the theoretical lens of neolocalism the emergence, growth and organisation of craft beer production in South Africa and of the role of craft beer as a base for local tourism development. The study examines the time period 1983-2016. By 2016, there were a total of 187 craft breweries across all of South Africa’s nine provinces but with the major clusters in Western Cape and Gauteng. Using mixed methods and based upon a national audit of craft beer microbreweries as well as detailed interviews undertaken with craft beer entrepreneurs and craft beer festival attendees, this research investigates the rise of the craft beer industry in South Africa, assesses the extent to which it can be viewed as a manifestation of neolocalism and the potential of craft beer for growing beer tourism in South Africa.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION...... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Context of Study ...... 1 1.2 Importance of the Study ...... 3 1.3 Aims and Objectives of the Study ...... 4 1.4 Overview of the Study...... 5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 6 2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.2 The Homogenizing Nature of Globalization ...... 6 2.3 Interpreting Neolocalism ...... 7 2.3.1 Defining “Local’ ...... 10 2.3.1.1 The ‘Local’ As Non-Global ...... 11 2.3.1.2 The ‘Local’ As Transparent ...... 11 2.3.1.3 The ‘Local’ As Non-Corporate ...... 12 2.3.1.4 The ‘Local’ As Unique ...... 12 2.3.1.5 The ‘Local’ As Environmentally Responsible ...... 12 2.3.1.6 The ‘Local’ As Empowered And Self Sufficient ...... 13 2.3.1.7 The ‘Local’ As Community Building ...... 13 2.3.1.8 The ‘Local’ As Authentic ...... 13 2.4 Critiques of Neolocalism ...... 13 2.5 The Essential Attributes of Neolocalism ...... 14 2.5.1 The Expression of Neolocalism: The Rise of Alternative Food Networks ...... 14 2.5.1.1 Farmers Markets ...... 15 2.5.1.2 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA’s) ...... 15 2.5.1.3 Local Produce within Grocery Stores and Food Co-ops ...... 16 2.6 The International Rise Of Microbreweries ...... 18 2.7 International Review of Literature On Craft Beer and its Links to Neolocalism ...... 19 2.7.1 Idiosyncratic Names ...... 22

2.7.2 Historical Connection ...... 23 2.7.3 Interpretative Imagery and Distinctive Labeling ...... 23 2.7.4 Harvest Cycle ...... 23 2.7.5 The Environmental Influence ...... 24 2.8 Conclusion ...... 24 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 25 3.1 Introduction ...... 25 3.2 Data Collection Methods ...... 25 3.3 Data Analysis Procedures...... 27 3.4 Professional Honesty ...... 27 3.5 Informed Consent, Participation and Confidentiality ...... 27 3.6 Conclusion ...... 28 CHAPTER FOUR: NEOLOCALISM AND CRAFT BEER RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 29 4.1 Introduction ...... 29 4.2 Broad Historical Profile of Craft Beer In South Africa ...... 29 4.3 The Evolution and Geography of Craft Beer in South Africa ...... 32 4.4 Structural Aspects of the Craft Beer Industry in South Africa ...... 40 4.5 Profile of Craft Beer Entrepreneurs and Their Businesses ...... 48 4.6 Neolocalism and Craft Beer in South Africa ...... 61 4.7 Conclusion ...... 71 CHAPTER FIVE: BEER TOURISM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 72 5.1 Introduction ...... 72 5.2 International Research and Literature on Beer Tourism and Festivals ...... 74 5.3 Current Policy and Research Directions ...... 83 5.4 The Emergence of Beer Tourism in South Africa ...... 88 5.5 Profile of Contemporary Beer Tourism in South Africa ...... 91 5.5.1 Craft Beer festivals in South Africa ...... 92 5.5.2 Craft Beer Festival Attendees ...... 94 5.5.3 Craft Beer and Local Development ...... 97 5.6 Conclusion ...... 99 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ...... 100 6.1 Context ...... 100

6.2 Summary of Key Findings ...... 100 6.3 Future Research ...... 103 REFERENCES ...... 105 APPENDICES ...... 123

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Development and Growth of Microbreweries in South Africa 1983-2016 ...... 33 Figure 4.2: The Location of Craft Breweries in South Africa: Provincial Scale 2013 ...... 35 Figure 4.3: The Location of Craft Breweries in South Africa: Provincial Scale 2016 ...... 36 Figure 4.4: The Location of Craft Breweries in South Africa: Urban Scale 2016 ...... 38 Figure 4.5: Schematic View of the Different Segments within the Broader Structure of the Industry ...... 41 Figure 4.6: The Source of Capital Utilized by Entrepreneurs to Establish Businesses ...... 52 Figure 4.7: The Small Scale Production Capacity of “Porcupine Quill Brewing Co” ...... 53 Figure 4.8: The Large Scale Production Capacity of “Cape Brewing Company” ...... 54 Figure 4.9: Different Microbrewery Sales Techniques ...... 57 Figure 4.10: Example of Direct Sales at “Wagon Trail Brewery” Situated in the Cape Winelands...... 58 Figure 4.11: Local Bootleggers with a Large Variety of Craft Beer Stock on Sale ...... 58 Figure 4.12: The Number of Different Craft Beer Style Currently Produced By the Microbrewery Respondents ...... 62 Figure 4.13: Smack Republic Brewing Company, Distinct Naming and Beer Labels ...... 68 Figure 4.14: Amanzimtoti Brewery ...... 69 Figure 4.15: Devils Peak Brewery ...... 70 Figure 5.1: Location of Craft Beer Festivals in South Africa ...... 93 Figure 5.2: Seasonality of South African Craft Beer Festivals...... 94

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: A Categorization of Breweries Based upon their Involvement in Beer Tourism Activities ...... 85 Table 5.2: Demographic Profile of Festival Attendees (n=132) ...... 94 Table 5.3: Festival Attendance: Patterns and Motivations ...... 95

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition/Explanation

AB InBev Anheuser-Busch InBev

AFNs Alternative Food Networks

CAMRA Campaign For More Real Ale

CBC Cape Brewing Company

CBSA Craft Beer South Africa

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

NSB National Sorghum Breweries

SA South Africa

SAB South African Breweries Limited

UK United Kingdom

UNB United National Breweries

USA United States of America

WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context of Study

Due to the pervasive yet multi-faceted process of globalization, the concept of a “global village” has been widely discussed. One impact of globalization is this has resulted in the homogenization of products and services (Schnell, 2013). However, in recent years product standardization and the unification of consumer behavior trends through the process of globalization has triggered the development of a so-called “counter-movement” known as “neolocalism” (Schnell and Reese, 2003). According to Brain (2011: 9) neolocalism “represents a lens for discussing the ways in which individuals experience the impacts of globalization”. Cultural geographers such as Wes Flack (1997), Steven Schnell (2003, 2013) and Joseph Reese (2003) have laid the framework for looking at craft beer and microbreweries as potential ways that local communities have begun reclaiming self-identity and re-establishing connections with the local, the personal, and the unique.

Neolocalism can best be described as a conscious reaction against the various impacts of globalization on product differentiation by reiterating the notion of local uniqueness within the broad framework of numerous expressions (Shortridge, 1996: Schnell and Reese, 2003; Schnell, 2011). Globally, this is reflected variously in the development of alternative food networks, boutique wineries, agri-tourism and most notably, in the context of this study, the rise of microbreweries. Microbreweries represent a conscious attempt to construct new senses of place by establishing new types of sustainable connections with the places people live, as well as to potentially provide support towards locally-based economies by emphasizing local identity and distinctiveness (Schnell and Reese, 2003; Schnell, 2011, 2013, 2014). This conception is supported by Flack (1997) who provides an explanation for the rapid growth of the microbrewery sector in the United States by emphasizing the importance of “locality” and the uniqueness of different craft-beer products. It is argued that “one may explain the microbrewery proliferation as a response to changing tastes and a growing beer connoisseur subculture. These are significant elements, but just as important is the neolocal craving that is

being satisfied” (Flack, 1997: 37). In a parallel to the views of Flack, Schnell and Reese (2003: 66) extended upon these foundational ideas by articulating that “the explosive growth of microbreweries in the United States indicates a desire . . . to reconnect with the cities or the towns in which they [brewers and consumers] lived, to resurrect a feeling of community tied to a specific landscape”. The “local” aspect in this case may also be associated with that of the freshness and variety of the craft-beer products as well as to the subsequent growth of alternative food networks. More broadly, Everett and Aitchison (2008) mention in their study that food tourism can be a vehicle for local and regional development with opportunities to diversify local economies as well as strengthen local identities and traditions.

Since the introduction of craft beer in the early 1980s, the South African beer industry has in common with trends observed in USA, UK, Europe and Australia witnessed the appearance and growth of a craft beer sector of microbreweries (Corne and Reyneke 2013). It can be argued that following global trends and triggered by the enormous consolidation of SABMiller with its production of increasingly standardized lager and light beers, there has emerged a counter-movement in South Africa’s beer industry which took place over the past 30 years and closely resembles the distinct development patterns and noticeable trends which occurred in other countries. This reaction against consolidation and lack of variety offered to consumers essentially resulted in a revitalized interest by South African consumers in ‘older’ beer styles, such as pale ales, porter, brown cask ales, stout and bitters (Corne and Reyneke, 2013).

As the neolocalism counter-movement increases so does the potential interest in building upon local products, in this case the purchase of local beers from local markets and visits to local craft festivals (Schnell, 2013). In a significant observation Bell and Valentine (1997: 149) aver that as localities and regions “seek to market themselves while simultaneously protecting themselves from the homogenising forces of globalization, regional identity becomes enshrined in bottles of wine and hunks of cheese”. Arguably, therefore, local food and beverages of a region can assume a vital role in the culture of regions and can be one of the essential motivations for tourists to travel to certain areas (Plummer et al., 2005).

One particular theme of this research is to examine how a traditional product, often taken for granted, can be used to sustain and promote tourism in South Africa. Beer tourism is a growing dimension of culinary or food tourism. Although South Africa is traditionally associated with wine tourism the country is actively enjoying the development of beer tourism, in particular associated with the expansion of craft beer microbreweries. Beer tourism must be understood as a growing tourism segment and part of the expanding scholarship about culinary tourism. The emphasis on neolocalism has become an important asset for the development of culinary tourism “because of its symbolic ties to place and culture” (Spracklen et al., 2013: 307). Therefore this study will attempt to describe in detail the different aspects of beer tourism, from tourist attractions to festivals and beer trails and concludes by presenting key findings relating to opportunities for the tourism industry as well as developing a social and economic profile of festival attendees at beer festivals in South Africa.

1.2 Importance of the Study

Globalization is the process arising from the interchange of world views, globally standardized products, ideas, and other aspects of culture all of which are available in the same form and as a result generate further interdependence of economic and cultural activities. This research is informed by the theoretical notion of neolocalism as a counter- movement to globalization. Therefore it will explore the growth of the South African microbrewery industry and determine to what extent these microbreweries are reaffirming local identity. In a broader context of geographical scholarship this study addresses the knowledge gap which was observed by Maye (2012: 473) that “microbrewing is a form of business enterprise that has received limited attention in the economic geography literature”. In recent years Gatrell, Reid and Steiger (2018: 360) proclaim that “The craft beer industry is of increased interest to academics and geographers are beginning to not only chart a “geography of beer”; but also the local economic development implications of the industry”.

One critical aspect of local economic development is the importance and potential of craft beer as a basis for tourism. The international literature on beer-specific tourism contains a range of different works which examine the characteristics of beer tourists; the organization

of beer tourism through visits to breweries, beer museums and exhibits, and a range of special events and festivals, including beer festivals and trails; and, research around the impacts of beer tourism for particular destinations (see for example Lyons and Sharples 2008; Niester 2008; Pechlaner et al. 2009; Alonso 2011; Baginski and Bell 2011; Bujdos and Szucs 2012a, 2012b; Dillivan 2012; Howlett 2013; Jablonska et al. 2013; Spracklen et al. 2013; Dunn and Kregor 2014; Eberts 2014; Kraftchick et al. 2014; Minihan 2014; Murray and Kline 2015).

1.3 Aims and Objectives

The first objective of this research is to analyse the growth, geography of licensed microbreweries in South Africa since the introduction of craft beer in 1983. The study will explore the dynamics of the South African craft beer industry in relation to the concept of neolocalism. Craft beer provided the basis for the growth of beer tourism in South Africa. It is against the backcloth of the appearance of a dedicated beer-tourism literature that another objective in this research paper is to examine the growth and contemporary directions of beer tourism in South Africa, a destination which in terms of culinary tourism usually is associated with wine tourism (Ferreira and Muller, 2013). Within this research a sub-theme is to analyse the characteristics and motivations of festival attendees at beer festivals in South Africa.

The following three specific aims guided the research:

 To analyze the historical evolution and growth of microbreweries in South Africa since the 1980s to the present-day;

 To examine the emerging geographies of the microbrewing industry and to determine whether the operations of the craft microbrewers can be explained by the concept of neolocalism;

 To identify the current links which exist between beer and tourism in South Africa, and, in particular, to examine the extent to which craft beer contributes to the growth of beer tourism in South Africa.

1.4 Overview of structure

The material is organised into the following subsequent sections of discussion.  A literature review of international research and debates around neo localism and work on the craft micro-brewing sector;  The presentation of research design, methodology and issues of ethics;  Analysis of the growth and geography of craft beer production;.  Craft beer consumption as a potential catalyst for beer tourism in South Africa.  Concluding remarks in terms of key findings and contributions.  References and Appendix material.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The literature review is structured as follows. The first section locates the emergence of the concept of neolocalism within the broader debates around globalization. The next sections turn to discuss the contested debates around defining neolocalism as well as critiques of the concept. The following section turns to illustrate its expression through the material on Alternative Food Networks. The last major section of material focuses upon an international overview of existing work which has been conducted on microbreweries. Discussion of the detailed literature on beer tourism and the role of craft breweries is reserved for Chapter Five which examines beer tourism and craft beer consumption in South Africa.

2.2 The Homogenizing Nature of Globalization

The world is inexorably moving in the direction of becoming a global community. The term globalization has been referred to as “the massive flow of goods, people, information, and capital across huge areas of the earth’s surface” (Trouillot et al, 2001: 128). In terms of the process of globalization, society is observing its massive influence worldwide through the extensive distribution of several cultural phenomenon’, most specifically with regards to economics and international trade (Scholte, 2008). Reid and Gatrell (2017: 92) maintain that “one of the benefits of globalization has been the emergence of stable, familiar, and predictable landscapes, products, and quality that has been driven by homogenized economic processes and economies of scale”.

In a broader scope ‘globalization’, in many instances, can be viewed as hegemonic because of its control and dominance by powerful individuals, national governments and multinational corporations whose policies, plans, and actions threaten cultural diversity and instead promote the rise of a global mono-culturalism (Marsella, 2005). Certain negative impacts of globalization can be observed in terms of the relevant homogenization of consumption

through multinational brands, which have significantly changed how the majority of people currently individuals purchase different goods and services and from where (Scholte, 2008). Hence a resulting outcome from globalization is that the “distinctiveness of places and localities has inherently eroded across space and over time” (Reid and Gatrell, 2017: 92). By definition, “hegemonic” globalization minimally engages the participation and decisions of local populations. Advertising is unmistakably seen as the major driver of hegemonic globalization because it confuses consumer needs and wants as well as limits the range of offering variety (Marsella, 2005). As a consequence, consumers are constantly propelled to buy and prefer certain brands of beer, cigarettes, automobiles, clothes or foods. It is evident that people buy from the same “hegemonic” companies (most of which have a large number of factories throughout the world) and, in addition, the sale of products and services are in accordance with prices usually set by global market forces (Schnell, 2013). The satisfaction of society’s needs is now better understood through the buying and selling of commodities on the market, which, to a certain degree, is influenced by extensive advertising campaigns (Friedman, 1990)

In recent times product standardization and the unification of consumer behaviour trends through the process of globalization has resulted in the development of a so-called “counter- movement” known as neolocalism (Schnell and Reese, 2003). This movement has generated a form of resistance to globalization as an attempt to preserve incomparable and authentic ways of life. The term ‘neolocalism’ was first coined by James Shortridge (1996: 10) who described it as the "the deliberate seeking out of regional lore and local attachment by residents within a community”

2.3 Interpreting Neolocalism

In a globalized world, the emergence and prominence of local identity is a recent phenomenon, which has been highlighted in literature discussing the potential impacts of globalization (Renard, 1999). The resurgence of ‘local identity’ as a concept can be attributed to the work done by several authors (see for example Shortridge, 1996; Flack, 1997; Schnell and Reese, 2003, 2014; Schnell, 2011; Schnell, 2013; de Wit, 2013; Zelinsky,

2011; Eberts, 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2014; Cabras and Bamforth, 2016; Holtkamp et al.,

2016; Lamertz et al., 2016).

Many of these writers suggest that globalization is a homogenizing force whereby cultures and localities are becoming more similar. This is expressed through the continuous expansion of associated public support and the consolidation of multinational brands that have commonly been perceived as the only option for ‘quality’ aside from plain general consumption (Dillivan, 2012). However, local communities have begun to recognize how the essential parts that make their community unique and authentic, slowly disappear through the expansion of multinational brands such as ‘Walmart’ which is described as being the “poster child for destruction of local economies” (Schnell, 2013: 73). Accordingly, there has been considerable growth and support towards the development of an alternative counter- movement. This counter-movement is described as ‘neolocalism’, a notion which Flack (1997) essentially refers to the movement of people to rejuvenate and preserve the local, unique, quality, and personal aspects commonly associated with their respective communities. It is observed that throughout most of history people have practiced cultural norms and followed local traditions which were effectively achieved by living in ‘local communities’. Hence they were accustomed to eating locally produced foods only within close the vicinity of their residence (Schnell, 2013: 56). It was only through the various processes associated with globalization such as industrialism, improved communications and more sophisticated travel technologies that the ‘sense of place’ attached to certain localities began to progressively decline (Schnell and Reese, 2003). The theoretical notion of neolocalism must be distinguished from that of the old form of ‘localism’ by reiterating that it is fundamentally the outcome of free will and conscious choice, whereas the former was necessary and natural.

Neolocalism as a conscious manifestation of the old form of localism is also noticeably different in the context of being aware of the rest of the world, and thus open to interactions with it, whereas the old localism tended to minimize links with the peripheral in order to maintain strong closed boundaries (Bramanti, 1999: 18). To a certain degree neolocalism is best understood as a revived concept which embodies creativity, resourcefulness and ingenuity but simultaneously possesses a defensive nature. In one recent Australian case

study which explored the links between rural development and the evolving spatiality of the craft beer sector, the author generates the view from his findings that essentially neolocalism is a “strong form of social embeddedness, where notions of local commodity production, place marketing, authenticity and ‘wholesomeness’ are folded ‘together in support of local craft production” (Argent, 2018: 4).

In recent studies examining the various aspects of neolocalism, one of the most distinct themes reflected in this literature is the re-evaluation and association to ‘local’. Indeed, Schnell (2013) suggests that the foundation of neolocalism can be attributed to different ways in which the term ‘local’ is perceived as well as understood by participants through several interconnected neolocal movements. The trend towards individuals and communities becoming more engaged with this so-called counter-movement is viewed as predominantly because the term ‘local’ is essentially perceived;

“as a primary form of identity, and the promotion of people thinking of themselves not only in the sense of abstract symbols, but also in terms of what they buy, what they eat, whom they interact with, and identifying not only with their own places, but with the idea of place itself” (Schnell, 2013: 82).

Further, it is recognised that the term “local is always shifting its meanings, both in time and in context” (Schnell, 2013: 65). Rogerson (2016) highlights that neolocalism is thus a critical concept invoked to account for the international growth of the craft beer industry. Holtkamp et al. (2016: 66) view it “a conscious effort by businesses to foster a sense of place based on attributes of their community”. This reconnection occurs through processes wherein craft breweries concentrate efforts upon ‘the local’ by utilizing the naming and labeling of their beers to create a sense of place and strengthen ties with local communities (McLoughlin et al., 2014: 137). Indeed, Schnell and Reese (2003, 2014) state explicitly that neolocalism is evidenced in the active, conscious and maintenance of attachment to place. In addition, Eberts (2014: 176) points out that because brewers usually must draw their key raw ingredients, such as barley and especially hops, from a variety of non-local sources necessarily they rely on evoking localness primarily through “the art of brewing itself and the narratives of place they employ in their marketing”. Lastly, it should also be noted that the

term “local” is constantly being scrutinized, and instilled with a variety of connotations based on the current world affairs (Schnell, 2013: 65).

2.3.1 Defining ‘Local’

According to Feagan (2007) and Schnell (2013) the term ‘local’ is contested and its definition varies in different contexts. Literally, the term ‘local’ indicates a relationship to a particular place, or a particular geographic entity. Overall, there is no single definition of the term ‘local’ or ‘local food systems’ in terms of the geographic distance between production and consumption. But, defining ‘local’ based on marketing arrangements, such as farmers selling directly to consumers at local farmers markets is well-documented (see Trobe, 2001; Brain, 2012; DuPuis and Goodman, 2005). There are also a number of different definitions trying to understand the term local, many of which have been used or highlighted by researchers assessing local food systems (Feagan, 2007; Schnell, 2007, 2011). During 2007 the word “locavore” was added to the New Oxford American Dictionary as the word of the year. A locavore is defined as someone who attempts to eat food produced within a 100-mile/ 160 kilometre radius of their residence (Adams and Salois, 2010).

Schnell (2011) mentions that the perception of what makes up ‘local food’ tends to differ considerably by region which is due in large part to varying climates, soil types, and populations. Nevertheless, most researchers accept that eating locally means minimizing the distance between production and consumption, especially in relation to the modern mainstream food system. Arguably, when people purchase more of their food locally, more of the money spent by these respective consumers remains in the local community (Brain, 2012). Buying locally is therefore a way to make the local food industry more sustainable. Alonso and O’Neal (2010) show that local produce can enhance culinary experiences in the hospitality industry as well as benefit the region and businesses that promote it. Schnell (2011) notes, that local food system movements, practices, and writings pose increasingly visible structures of resistance and counter-pressure to conventional globalizing food systems. The place of food seems to be the centre of the discourses emerging from within these associated neolocal movements. Localism in the past was unintentionally carried out as an invisible movement. People were bound to a place due to spatial and economic restrictions

as a result of poor transportation and communication networks. Thus, it only made sense to make use of local resources and their respective communities because that was their only available option at the time. In a globalized world, it is the uniqueness of local experiences which essentially distinguishes one place from another and ultimately contributes to the interactive norms in which ‘local identity’ is created (Schnell 2013). Whether it is a restaurant, park, museum, or historic landmark, it is considered that community residents naturally develop emotional connections as well as a sense of pride.

In order to gain a stronger understanding of the cultural meaning associated with ‘local’ within a more modern contemporary context, Schnell (2013) identified and constructed criteria regarding some of the most prevailing themes best exemplified by neolocal followers. These specific themes are essentially what people within these neolocal networks are increasingly associating the term “local” with, and therefore more often than not usually encompass a variety of different yet fascinating types of places. Overall, in reviewing the debates about neolocalism, eight different views can be identified as to the ‘local’. These are as follows:

2.3.1.1 “The ‘local’ as non global”: This view basically refers to growing negative awareness of society regarding globalization, and its socially constructed constraints. Therefore, as a direct consequence of people’s mounting aversion towards globalization, it is perceived that globalization essentially has enabled the positive rise of neolocalism as an effective counter-movement which exhibits none of the attributes of the latter. Accordingly, “local then, conceptually becomes the opposite of everything that the global and is seen to be: personal instead of faceless, fair instead of exploitive, democratic instead of plutocratic, unique instead of homogenous” (Schnell, 2013: 66).

2.3.1.2 “The ‘local’ as transparent”: This view refers to a second emerging theme whereby the transparency of economic interactions at both national and global scales, systematically has become almost non-existent. The lack of transparency is essentially the outcome of extensive global supply chains which are so dominant and influential that consumers are increasingly incapable of deciphering how, where and under what

conditions the items they purchase are manufactured and produced. This can be highlighted through the exploitation of labour, appalling treatment of animals and lack of environmental awareness. By contrast “the rhetorical promise of localism is that transparency can be restored to the system” (Schnell, 2013: 66).

2.3.1.3 “The ‘local’ as non-corporate”: This theme is potentially one of biggest draw cards for neolocal advocates and most recently is manifested in alternative food networks, microbreweries and local socio-economic movements. In essence, this theme exposes the nature of corporate institutions as playing an influential role towards the progressive loss of identity and character for many localities, because their sole mandate revolves around profit and not social sustainability. By contrast, it is argued that “one of the biggest attractions of ‘local’ enterprises for many is the fact that they are not owned by faceless corporations (who have become the objects of much suspicion and mistrust among the local movement)” (Schnell, 2013: 66).

2.3.1.4 “The ‘local’ as unique”: This theme basically suggests how large-scale corporate globalization results in indistinct and homogenous landscapes, whereby there is lack of creativity and aesthetic appeal regarding new and old places. Schnell (2013: 67) asserts that “promoters of neolocal enterprises argue that we need to make (or re-make) the distinctive”. Hence, local residents of newly developed landscapes as well as old rejuvenated places should strive towards embedding some form of meaningful identity in their respective localities.

2.3.1.5 “The ‘local’ as environmentally responsible”: According to the theoretical notion of “neolocalism” it is viewed that locally owned businesses tend to be more environmental sensitive and resource accountable specifically in terms of processes such as manufacturing, production and transportation in comparison to their globalized counterparts. This issue is highlighted through the amount of fossil fuels or more commonly known as “food miles” utilized in these above mentioned processes. Therefore, “local enterprises are also often argued to be better environmental stewards than multinational firms” (Schnell, 2013: 68)

2.3.1.6 “The ‘local’ as empowered and self-sufficient”: This sixth theme is mostly synonymous with neolocal advocates actively lobbying towards retaining the long term financial wellbeing of their respective communities. It is considered that this can be accomplished by seizing power and control over local amenities from multinational corporations and instead promoting local community entrepreneurship, and therefore the surplus of money being re-invested back into the community (Schnell, 2013, p. 68).

2.3.1.7 “The ‘local’ as community-building”: This particular theme argues that worldwide societal changes have caused the rupture of communal life in local neighbourhoods. The answer is seen in community-building, which can be described as strengthening communities holistically, fostering participation and problem- solving, re-developing a ‘sense of place’ and promoting local co-operative schemes as well as engaging institutions to work as partners with residents and vice versa. Schnell (2013: 69) argues that “transactions are no longer just economic exchanges, but also interactions between neighbours and friends, based on mutual respect”. In essence there is a passionate yearning from neolocal advocates for a ‘sense of connectedness’.

2.3.1.8 “The ‘local’ as authentic”: Globalization is said to destroy the authenticity of local cultural products and human relations. Neolocalism argues that local communities should strive towards becoming self-sufficient, distinct, well-defined, and robust. By following this general direction, local residents can potentially create culturally-sustaining connections between geographical place and cultural experience, which ultimately strengthens the authenticity of their respective communities and the product they offer (Sims, 2009). By maintaining authenticity Schnell (2013: 69) asserts that “the implication is that local products are made by ‘‘real’’ people whom you know, rather than simply the result of elaborate marketing ruses fostered by multinational advertising firms and their corporate clients”.

2.4 Critiques of Neolocal

A number of academics have begun to investigate the potential negative critiques associated with alternative “neolocal movements” and some of the manifestations of these movements such as alternative food networks (AFNs). One such criticism is highlighted by Schnell (2011) that neolocal food movements tend to favour upper and middle-class white customers and to a certain degree may exhibit characteristics which promote further disparity and inequality amongst consumers of different incomes. In addition, a further criticism concerning neolocal food movements is that they often exhibit a defensive nature specifically towards global brands and large-scale companies; to an extent that outsiders from local communities are “deliberately demonized, local elites are exclusionary and political and social justice concerns are ignored” (Schnell, 2011: 283).

2.5 The Essential Attributes of Neolocalism

Neolocalism in many instances is portrayed as a relatively new social awareness movement and simultaneously regarded as an attempt to go back to original roots by rejuvenating local economic, social, and cultural practices as entrenched in past traditions and moral values (Dillivan, 2012). Today, neolocalism can be seen through the exceptional growth of local food networks such as community-supported agriculture, farmers markets and farm-to-school programmes. Other expressions of neolocalism include locally-based music festivals, support for locally-owned businesses, as well as enforcing restrictions on the amount of high-end transnational retail companies located within communities. It is argued that people long for something in their community to attach themselves in order to cultivate a local identity. Microbreweries provide one example of such an attachment, to an extent that Flack (1997) argues the microbrewing phenomenon is wedged upon a strong attachment between beer and localities. Shifts in consumer preferences toward additional flavour, additional options, and added local products have fuelled the development of these microbreweries and the expansiveness of craft beer in general (Barajas et al., 2017).

2.5.1 The Expression of Neo-Localism: The Rise of Alternative Food Networks

The rise of alternative food networks is one (and perhaps, the most) visible expression of neolocalism (Goodman, 2003; Goodman et al., 2011). The world agro-food system is

becoming increasingly globalized. As the majority of the world moves into cities, and as rural inhabitants who are connected to infrastructure adopt more urbanized lifestyles, food consumption is becoming both more varied and more similar around the world. Over the past half a century, global food production and distribution have experienced ever-increasing levels of corporate concentration (Greenberg, 2010). This was partially a consequence of key technological innovations such as canning and freezing and mobile refrigeration. DuPuis and Goodman (2005) describe the alternative food movement by accentuating its rejection of the global, industrial and environmentally degrading conventional food system. Goodman and Goodman (2009: 10) provide a concise definition of alternative food networks by describing them as “new and rapidly mainstreaming spaces in the food economy defined by among other things the explosion of organic, Fair Trade, and local, quality, and premium specialty foods”. Alternative food networks (AFNs), and their respective products are most notably differentiated from those typically supplied by mainstream food manufacturers and retailers. It is also contended that the production and consumption of food within these specialized networks is linked together spatially, economically and socially (Goodman and Goodman, 2009). According to Goodman and Goodman (2009) there are a number of interrelated processes which are rapidly transforming and diversifying modern food provisioning throughout much of the world. Processes have previously resulted in the creation of new and vibrant economic and cultural spaces, often associated with relevant niche markets.

Manifestations of AFN’s can be seen in the following examples:

2.5.1.1 Farmers’ Markets: Trobe (2001) indicates that farmers markets have been operating since pre-industrial times and have gained increased interest in the production, processing, and buying of local food. Local foods systems provide several advantages over conventional and global markets including socio-economic and environmental benefits (Brain, 2012). Buying locally strengthens regional economies, supports family farms, provides fresh foods for consumers, preserves the local landscape, and fosters a sense of community (Trobe, 2001).

2.5.1.2 Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs): A CSA is an alternative food distribution system that engages eaters as equal partners in the growing of food.

Consumers assume some of the risk involved regarding the farm by paying upfront for a share of the season’s produce grown by a local farmer or a group of farmers. The food is delivered direct to consumers or to nearby drop-off points on a weekly basis throughout the growing season (see Feagan, 2007: 27).

2.5.1.3 Local Food within Grocery Stores and Food Co-ops: Schnell (2011) notes that the majority of consumers find direct sales inconvenient and prefer to do all their shopping mostly in a single locality. Now there are a number of retail options. Some retailers are beginning to show an interest in locally grown foods, despite the fact that such foods represent a significant challenge to their centralized procurement and distribution systems.

With regards to the increasing popularity of neolocal movements and the rise of alternative food networks, it is said the emergence of two specific themes has initiated particular interest by researchers. These notions incorporate the newly invigorated conception of ‘quality’ as well as the idea of ‘embeddedness’ (Winter, 2003). The ‘turn to quality’ within the agro-food industry has been reconstructed around the renewed interest of consumers in terms of human health and food safety, the environmental consequences of globalized and industrialized agriculture, farm animal welfare and fair trade. Ultimately these concerns are seen as the key motivating factors in a move away from the homogenized products of the global agro-food industry. Therefore, at present, the term ‘quality’ in society is now more closely linked with ‘local’ and more ‘natural’ foods (see Murdoch et al., 2000; Winter, 2003). The differentiated products supplied by AFNs and their remarkable growth has reinforced perceptions that ‘quality’, in its various socially-constructed and material dimensions, rather than price is becoming the new basis of competition in food provisioning (Hinrichs, 2003). In modern day society food-place associations have become embedded in the popular imagination. Adema (2008) suggests that local food and place has, over time, become consistently interconnected, and can be attributed as an end result from the portrayal of several types of mediums such as film, literature, and advertising.

According to Follet (2009) alternative networks most commonly follow a recognized path. First, there is an emphasis on redistributing the wealth back to farmers and local communities

by selling products directly to consumers at a ‘fair’ market price. Second, by revealing transparency about their production practices they develop strong community relationships and instil a sense of trust with consumers. Finally, there is a tendency for alternative food networks, such as local farmers markets and community supported agriculture, to institute new space for new forms of political association and market governance by using unconventional distribution channels, which essentially challenge the conventional food system. Another distinguishing neolocal characteristic with regards to alternative food networks is that they provide consumers with an option in terms of the power to decide a food future (DuPuis and Goodman, 2005). It is argued “the food represents the glue that maintains relationships, a sense of place, and community values” (Follet, 2009: 43). Farmers who fall within the system of alternative food networks normally only sell to consumers within a modest distance of the farm, and thus the management of their respective farms resembles a ‘natural system’ rather than an industrial factory, and which in due course maximizes the positive environmental impacts of agricultural production (Follet, 2009).

As a manifestation of neolocalism, there is an important emphasis on farmers maintaining that close proximity with the relevant people purchasing and consuming their food. Therefore, alternative food networks tend to pride themselves upon building strong community ties, so that transparency, uniqueness, authenticity and trust can always be portrayed (Schnell, 2011). Neolocalism suggests that the deliberate creation and promotion of a new, as well as rejuvenated places. Distinguishing local foodscapes is one element of how communities or cities are trying to re-establish a sense of identity (Adema, 2008). Hence, by differentiating certain local places from other places, image makers intend not only to boost pride amongst locals but to also potentially to attract visitors and tourists. A neolocal movement thus demonstrates a way in which communities can generate both social and economical capital to their respective locale (Schnell, 2013).

“Creating a foodscape can be part of the specialization of place: designating a place as special in order to create spectacle where one previously did not exist. Place specialization is about differentiation of and among places, and is the foundation of each locality’s promotion of a food-centered identity” (Adema, 2008: 16)

On the other hand, it is important to highlight that even with the rapid growth of Alternative Food Network sales and the subsequent positive outcomes that potentially follow, there is also a downside. Alternative food networks recently have developed a tendency to target more affluent income groups, which in turn has attracted the attention of the large-scale retail supermarkets, which now provide shelf-space for AFN products, often under their own labels. Thus, AFN producers are now increasingly subject to the rigorous cost-price disciplines of supply chain management (Hinrichs, 2003).

2.6 The International Rise of Microbreweries

As argued above, craft microbreweries are part of the broader growth of neolocalism and alternative food networks. This said, beer has been a product for centuries. Archaeologists have found evidence that beer-like brews were made in Babylonia, China, Egypt and Iran in ancient times (as far back as 7000 BC). The art of making beer has been spread internationally through conquests, colonization, commercial ventures, and individual travel (Poelmans and Swinnen, 2011). According to Ascher (2012) beer has become globalized in the same sense as other familiar branded products which originate in one country and are later manufactured and consumed throughout the world. The pace of globalization for beer has greatly accelerated over the past century with the increased activity of multinational beer companies acquiring the majority of existing breweries and constructing new facilities in emerging markets, as well as licensing production of their brands outside their home countries. As incomes rise and living styles change in developing countries, demand for such products is growing.

During the earliest stages of the craft beer movement in the 1980s, the difference between the mainstream and craft beer industries was based on 1) a combination of the styles of beer produced; 2) the quantity of production; and 3) the level of distribution (Tremblay, Tremblay and Swinnen, 2011). However, the growing dominance of increasingly standardized lager and light beers produced by increasingly fewer mega-breweries has resulted in a “so-called” counter-movement in the past 25 years. This reaction against consolidation and lack of variety started in the USA during the 1980s because people began to show a renewed interest in ‘older’ European beer styles, such as porter, pale ales and brown cask ales, stout and bitters

(Dillivan, 2012). It was this counter-movement which evidently had a major impact on the microbrewing and craft beer industry (Tremblay et al., 2011).

In the late 1980s and 1990s, the United States beer industry entered a period known as the ‘Microbrew Revolution’. During this period, a multitude of small breweries emerged to meet the new demand for specialty beers among American beer drinkers (Baginski, 2008). It must be noted that the craft beer movement in the United States is not an isolated phenomenon, nor is it original. Britain experienced its own movement in the early 1970s out of reaction to the significant contraction in the number of breweries which occurred during the 1960s, a period during the closure or consolidation of forty percent of its breweries. Consumers reacted by formulating the Campaign For More Real Ale (CAMRA) movement that resulted in the growth of craft beer and diffusion of microbrewing throughout the country (see Thurnell- Read, 2016; Ragsdell and Jepson, 2014).

Craft breweries, or small, independent and traditional breweries, are rapidly increasing in the United Kingdom, USA, parts of Europe, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia. Schnell and Reese (2003) argue that one of the main reasons for this expansion, at least in the United States, is because consumers are breaking away from the smothering homogeneity of popular, national culture. Indeed, because the market for beer has become partitioned in recent years (Carroll and Swaminathan, 2000), with two global breweries (Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller) dominating in many markets, most craft breweries are locally-oriented rather than oriented towards global markets. Mega-brewers predominantly sell nationwide and differentiate their products primarily by advertising on television; and microbrewers, conventionally sell locally or regionally and differentiate their products primarily with use of local raw materials (Adams, 2006). While the dynamics of the international beer market have altered in recent years (Carroll and Swaminathan, 2000), with two global breweries (Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller) now controlling approximately 50% of the global market share, beer consumers in mature markets, appear to be turning away from mass produced beers. According to the Brewers Association, in 2011, the total retail sales of craft beer amounted to $8.7 billion or just over 9 percent of total beer sales (Ascher, 2012).

2.7 An International Review of Literature on Craft Beer and its Links to Neolocalism

The phenomenon of craft beer and the growth of microbreweries has been observed and researched in a number of countries and various issues have been explored on the expansion of microbreweries. Geographically most work has been undertaken to document aspects of the considerable expansion in craft brewing in the United States, which has experienced a counter-movement to what Choi and Stack (2005: 79) describe as the country’s “ preference for the homogenous, bland-tasting beer”. The origins of the American microbrewery movement are examined by Carrol and Swaminathan (2000). In a further study by Baginski and Bell (2011) it is argued that craft brewery expansion can be understood within the resource partitioning theory whereby firms that serve small niche markets challenge the monopolistic competition of the large enterprises that dominate the brewing industry in America. Another study in the USA draws attention to the fact that craft beer in the USA “has evolved out of a niche industry” and with its consolidation “ comes challenges for craft breweries to maintain the high quality that made them successful” (Lapoint, 2012: 11). Tremblay et al. (2005) examined the dynamics of industry concentration and argue that the homogenisation of the beer produced by large brewers alongside changes in local demand and a favourable regulatory environment generated profitable niches in many local markets across the USA for microbrewery beer. They indicate that entry into the microbrewing sector occurred at a rapid rate from 1977-1998. Indeed, according to Weiler (2000: 171) the period of the 1980s “witnessed a veritable explosion in craft brewing”. But, over-exuberance resulted in a shake-out in the sector as the number of microbreweries in the USA was reduced from 1998 onwards.

Issues relating to consumers brand loyalty for craft breweries have been examined in North Carolina by Murray (2012) who revealed that connections with the community was the most important factor influencing brand loyalty amongst local residents. One local niche market in which craft breweries have continued to expand is Alabama where regulatory changes have produced a craft beer sector which is potentially creating opportunities for the development of beer tourism in the state (Alonso, 2011) In the context of geographical research on craft beer the most instructive studies on the USA are those which have been conducted by Weiler, (2000), Baginski (2008) and Dillivan (2012). The location of breweries at a micro-scale was examined by Weiler (2000) who pointed out the influential role of craft breweries in the

regeneration of old industrial districts in economic decline, and illustrated this in the case of lower downtown Denver. The research by Baginski (2008) highlighted the uneven geography of craft breweries in the USA. By undertaking a state level analysis Baginski (2008) points to number of factors which influence the extent of craft brewing development. The presence of highly educated residents and the general quality of life were variables that exerted the greatest amount of predictive power over the amount of breweries. The highest number of breweries at a state level was found in the Pacific North West and California. Another important study was completed by Dillivan (2012) which analyzed the relationships between microbrewery development and the demographic and economic characteristics in several cities in the USA. This revealed the important findings that areas with a high percentage of the creative class, 25-34 year adults and a high rate of education attainment most strongly represented and supported microbreweries. Accordingly, the work by Dillivan (2012) makes linkages with the concept of neolocalism, for his interviews with microbrewery owners and patrons disclosed that the microbreweries foster a sense of community, have a high level of responsibility towards the community, and function as local, social and cultural anchors.

Outside of the United States, the amount of research is more limited. In an Australian study Watne et al. (2012) examine the business models of craft breweries in Victoria, Australia. They highlight in particular that craft beer entrepreneurs are driven by a form of what they describe as “entrepreneurial passion”. These entrepreneurs are passionate for seeking competitive advantage by creating experiences and product uniqueness that is a valuable service for consumers. They argue that craft brewing in Australia is “part of the trend of caring more about what and how we consume products” but at the same time “part of an anti- consumption movement” in terms of shifting away from mass produced generic products (Watne et al., 2012: 21). The most recent work on craft beer Australia is that of Argent (2018).

Finally, another country where empirical work is available is the United Kingdom. Here Fry et al. (2001) analyze the extent to which the internet can provide small microbreweries with opportunities to overcome market access disadvantage by bypassing the distribution channels which are controlled by the major breweries in international markets. In addition, Wyld et al. (2010) examined the importance of changes in the regulatory environment in the UK in terms

of affecting the rate of formation of microbreweries. Further research by Swann (2012) traces of what he coins the “historical fall and rise” of the local brews in England. His work highlights in particular the important role played by the consumer group CAMRA (The Campaign for Real Ale) formed 1971. The founders of this organization “were concerned with the decline of variety and the blandness of modern beer” in the UK and basically developed a campaign for the promotion of “Real Ale and the pleasures of regional diversity” (Swann, 2012: 3). The works of Swann (2012) and Maye (2011) illustrate since the foundation of CAMRA there has been an increased growth of new microbreweries and simultaneously “a rapidly increasing geographical dispersion of the microbreweries” (Swann, 2012: 1).

The worldwide expansion of microbreweries and the ever-increasing popularity of the craft beer industry are best described by Schnell and Reese (2003), as a conscious reaction against the impacts of globalization and the homogenization of culture. On that note there has also been considerable enthusiasm towards what Flack (1997) coined the so-called “neolocalism counter-movement”. According to Dillivan (2012) as the neolocalism movement strengthens so does the potential interest in purchasing local beers and of tourist visits to local microbreweries. In order for microbreweries to capture local markets they need to take into account a number of different marketing strategies to help them sell their product as well as keep their product geared towards a culture of neolocalism (Schnell, 2013).

Microbreweries use a variety of techniques to affirm their orientation towards the local population. The marketing of breweries, the naming of beers and breweries, use of local and national craft beer events and sponsorships all play a role in emphasizing a brewery’s local identity, and in turn sustaining its long term success (Dillivan, 2012).

2.7.1 Idiosyncratic Names

The selection of names for the various types of craft beer produced at a microbrewery is essential to establishing a defined target market for that specific craft beer as well as maintaining the long term of success of speciality or seasonal craft beers. Attaching a sense of “rootedness” to a product allows the market to associate with local culture and traditions

which the monopolistic multinational brands fail to recognize. This rootedness provides a firm foundation for consumers to associate with their beer. It is argued that “these names tend to reflect the places where they are brewed, and are derived from a wide array of sources: historical figures or events, local legends, landmarks, wildlife, or even climatic events” (Schnell and Reese, 2003). However, not all craft breweries follow a model of linking product names to the local community, but instead create a whole new identity of their own that still appeals to the local community’s interests.

2.7.2 Historical Connection

By providing historical significance to a beer, it allows a consumer to gain a broader perspective to how the specific area was depicted in the past and why that specific beer can be attached to that historical image. Cultural geographers show that place attachment strengthens through the heightened consciousness of local (Schnell and Reese, 2003). Craft brewery pride in local culture and history is clearly evident in both the physical appearance and decoration of the brewery’s restaurant and bar areas.

2.7.3 Interpretative Imagery and Distinctive Labelling

Microbreweries use images that help the consumer get a sense of the region. Microbreweries often have associated amenities such a brewpub located near (or attached to) the brewery and usually decorate it with pictures of local history, maps, and anything that connects with the local culture. The names and images of the products are not the only way a microbrewery can emphasize its local roots (Dillivan, 2012). Many microbrewery names are reflective of the area they are rooted within. The images foster a unique, local sense which has shown to create a response from beer drinkers. The beer names and labels which are conjuring local images and icons create a stronger attachment to the origin of neighbourhood, city, or region which the beer comes from (de Wit, 2013). The way in which a beer is marketed can tell a story. Attachment to place is strengthened by all forms of storytelling and a heightened consciousness of local history (Flack, 1997).

2.7.4 The Harvest Cycle

Brewing craft beers that interlink with the harvest cycles allow breweries to phase in and out specialty products that are genuinely compatible with the various seasons. This allows a regular consumer to become a connoisseur. The cycle of harvests throughout history has dictated which foods and beverages could be consumed and when. Microbreweries have re- established this culturally and geographically (Schnell and Reese, 2003).

2.7.5 The Environmental Influence

Relating beer to nature or even the surrounding infrastructure such as urban buildings or a natural waterfall allows a consumer to see where a brew originates from and the type of environment in which it was intended to be consumed. Schnell (2013) asserts that this is a reaction against cultural and commercial landscapes that has become increasingly homogenized by national and multinational corporations. Microbreweries represent an anti- modern trend and a specialized tool employed to creating and building a sense of loyalty and distinctiveness rooted in place.

2.8 Conclusion

The aim in this chapter was to provide the theoretical context for this investigation in terms of the concept of neolocalism and to offer a review of existing scholarship. It was argued that the development of neolocalism as a counter-movement to globalising tendencies has been stressed as critical in international research for understanding the emergence of craft breweries. Craft breweries seek to integrate their operations as part of the ‘local’ and in that manner their activities align with debates around alternative food movements and networks. The existing relevant work on micro-brewing in various parts of the world has been reviewed to provide the context for this empirical examination of the growth of the craft beer industry in South Africa and the rise of beer tourism. Attention turns in Chapter Three to issues of sources and research methodology.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

As stressed in Chapter One, the primary goals of this research are to examine and map the historical growth of microbrewing in South Africa, to analyze the current nature of development through the context of neolocalism, and explore the role of beer as a potential product for generating tourism. This study employs a mixed method design which is regarded be a suitable research method for this type of study. Mixed method research involves research which includes collecting, analyzing and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data in a single study.

3.2 Data Collection Methods

In terms of the study objectives as indicated in Chapter One, a number of different sources of material were used and research methods used. Documentary sources in terms of the industry press (especially the journal On Tap) along with internet search of websites was used to construct the national audit of craft breweries. Secondary data was collected from documents, reports, publications, brochures, and the “African Brew book” (Corne and Reyneke, 2013). Certain quantitative data was collected through internet footprinting of several domestic craft beer sites. The purpose of this work was to accurately quantify and develop an audit of all existing licensed and operational microbreweries in South Africa. Overall, this material taken together provided a strong platform to gain an in-depth understanding of how the microbrewing phenomenon began in South Africa in comparison to studies done abroad as well as permitting the uncovering of its current contemporary structure.

The researcher collected primary data on craft beer production from a combination of face-to- face interviews, an online survey and visits to craft breweries. The collection of data was divided into two phases. During the first phase, qualitative data was collected by means of interviews (See Appendix B for interview schedule). The interview method was guided by

semi-structured open and close ended questions and was implemented by interviewing the participants (microbrewery owners/managers) either face-to-face or telephonically. Initially, face-to-face and telephonic interviews was conducted, in which the researcher made use of an interview schedule to make written notes during the interviews. The face-to-face interviews were then supplemented with the creation of an online questionnaire survey which incorporated all the original themes and questions from the face-to-face and telephonic interview schedule. The online questionnaire survey was created to supplement microbreweries situated in provinces out of the researchers close vicinity such as Eastern Cape. The online questionnaire survey was developed through an interactive and user- friendly application made freely available through ‘google drive documents’. Essentially the distribution and accessibility of the online questionnaire survey was made possible through an email communication channel. Field visits for face-to-face interviews were conducted, however, with craft breweries in Gauteng, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. In total responses were obtained from 53 craft brewers which for 2016 represents nearly 28 % of all licensed microbreweries in South Africa.

Before the process of collecting data commenced, the interview questions were tested to determine the validity, accuracy and time needed to complete the face-to-face and telephonic interviews. Several interviews were conducted with non-licensed microbrewers (still essentially homebrewers). These interviews were achieved by attending one of the monthly ‘Wort hogs” meetings, a homebrewers club situated in Johannesburg. The designated length of time, initially allocated to be enough for an interview was 45 minutes. This was unfortunately not the case as some interviews due to the length of the interview schedule exceeded one hour. The pilot study was also supplemented by attendance at industry events including the monthly Worthogs meetings, craft beer festivals, tasting events, site visits to production facilities, inspection of company promotional materials and advertisements.

The research on craft beer and tourism involved a similar pattern of using documentary sources and internet search in order to track the patterns of craft beer festivals and the development of craft beer trails. Data was collected during 2014-2015 at four beer festivals to examine the profile of festival attendees. The four festivals were the Cape Town Festival of Beer, Sandton Craft Beer Fair (Johannesburg), SA on Tap (Johannesburg), and Clarens Craft

Beer Festival. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 132 attendees across these four festivals in order to provide a basis for understanding the role of craft beer as a driver for tourism.

3.3 Data Analysis Procedures

The responses received via the online survey were automatically exported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in conjunction with the responses received via the face-to-face and telephonic interviews in order to perform further analysis and determine the validity, depth and accuracy of responses. During the analysis the interview data was analyzed using thematic content analysis which involves a detailed and systematic examination of the subsequent themes covered in the interview schedule according to the participant (Microbrewery owners/managers) responses.

The researcher transcribed all written notes from the face-to-face and telephonic interviews into the relevant themes of the interview schedule. This allowed the researcher to draw conclusions based on the outcomes of the responses achieved through the face-to-face and telephonic interviews and online questionnaire survey. In the second phase of study on festival attendees data was analyzed using statistical procedures. Data was tabulated and appropriate graphs were drawn to establish the overall percentage of responses.

3.4 Professional Honesty

It is expected that researchers report the findings of the research study in a complete and honest manner, without misrepresenting or misleading others about the nature of the results. This research study endeavoured to do just that, but simultaneously gives credit where credit is due and therefore acknowledges at all times the ideas and words of respondents . In this research study, the researcher at specific times quoted participants (microbrewery owners/managers) responses and this helped the researcher to validate the accuracy of the results.

3.5 Informed Consent, Participation and Confidentiality

The researcher informed all participants of the purpose of the study, what it entails, why they should participate, confidentiality of information and the duration of interviews and the online survey. In the instance where microbrewery owners/managers refused to participate, their decision was respected and alternatively other potential participants were selected. Confidentiality refers to the researcher’s responsibility of protecting the individual or company from any harm or bad publicity when the research results are publically presented. All the research was conducted in alignment with ethical procedures that govern research at University of Johannesburg.

3.6 Conclusion

In this chapter issues of research design and of research methodology procedures which help to achieve the aims and objectives of the research study were discussed. The methods of data collection were presented in order to understand the procedures followed by the researcher. The next two chapters present the results and interpretation of the analysis of the study. Chapter Four is centred on the emergence, growth, organization and spatial patterns of the production of crat beer. Chapter Five turns to examine beer consumption and the growth of craft beer as a driver for beer tourism in South Africa in a manner that parallels similar developments in other parts of the world.

CHAPTER FOUR

CRAFT BEER PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICA

4.1 Introduction

The results of the empirical research are presented in this chapter. It is divided into several sets of discussion. First, as context a brief historical overview is given of the development of beer brewing in South Africa, mainly focused on the mass production of malt beer. Second, using both primary and secondary sources, the developments affecting the growth of the micro-brewing sector in South Africa are examined from 1983 to 2016. Included in this discussion is a geographical profile of the contemporary craft beer sector which is based upon the national audit (see Appendix A). Third, the structural organisation of the industry is unpacked. Four, analysis is done of the interview and survey material concerning the nature of the business entrepreneurs in the craft beer sector and the operations of their businesses are discussed. Finally, drawing upon a range of source material, the question of craft beer and neolocalism in South Africa is analysed.

4.2 Broad Historical Profile of Brewing in South Africa

The rich history associated with South Africa and brewing beer dates back to 1658, just six years after Jan Van Riebeeck arrived at the southern tip of Africa. Initially the first types of European beer brewed from South African barley were exported back to the Netherlands and Bavaria (Corne and Reyneke, 2013). The modern evolution of brewing beer in South Africa, specifically as an industrial activity is largely a result of the activities of three historically recognized companies: (1) Ohlsson’s Cape Brewing Limited (established in 1882); (2) Chandler’s brewing (established in 1884); and most importantly (3) South African Breweries Limited (established in 1889) (see Tucker, 1985).

The most significant milestones in South Africa with regards to the brewing industry over the past century came firstly as a result of the amalgamation of the three dominant brewing countries in 1956, which ultimately became known as South African Breweries Limited

(SAB) (Tucker, 1985). Another more recent watershed event was the merger in 2002 between SAB and the well-established American company Miller Brewing to form SABMiller (Mager, 2008, 2010). This enterprise is a global player in the production and marketing of a range of beers and now is currently one of the largest multinational brewing companies. During 2003 SABMiller continued its geographical expansion by pursuing Western European markets and followed this up by acquiring rising brands such Grolsch in the Netherlands and Peroni in Italy (Béres, 2016). Colombia’s Bavaria followed suit in 2005, when SABMiller acquired it as one of its Latin America market strategies, at a time when it was regarded as one of the largest breweries in the region (Béres, 2016). Based on a historical review Béres (2016: 10) elaborates that we can “conclude that SABMiller’s strategic choices have always been motivated by market-seeking growth factors, but its interest and view have shifted during the last few decades and the company has implemented a more forward-looking perspective”.

In its evolution the South African beer industry to a large extent has been shaped by the domestic environment in which SAB operated over so many years, and more recently, by global influences and opportunities (Mager, 2010). Past regulation and political considerations led to a beer market sector that was highly concentrated. This meant that only a small number of firms controlled the major share of the market (Tucker, 1985). Although it can be argued that certain global dynamics and economies of scale require concentration in beer production this is not the pattern which emerged in other parts of the world such as the United Kingdom and the United States. In these countries historically there existed a proliferation of local breweries alongside the growing dominance of a number of large brewing enterprises (on USA see Schnell and Reese, 2003, Tremblay et al. 2005 and Baginski, 2008; on UK see Maye 2012).

In the South African environment a single company emerged to control practically the entire beer market. Currently, SABMiller is the leading producer of (malt) beer in South Africa, holding an estimated 95% local market share and owning over 150 beer brands (A&T Consulting, 2005; Mager, 2010). Key beer brands produced and marketed in South Africa include Hansa Pilsener, Castle, Carling Black Label and Amstel (produced under license). SABMiller’s main rival is Brandhouse, which is a local joint venture between Namibian

Breweries, Heineken and the global beverage company, Diageo, and was launched in July 2004 (A&T Consulting, 2005). The formation of Brandhouse occurred due to the purchase of an effective 28.9% stake in Namibian Breweries by Diageo and Heineken. Although this venture provided a degree of competition to certain of SABMiller’s national beers, it poses little threat to the overall market dominance of SABMiller (A&T Consulting, 2005). For several years AB InBev had always maintained a strong global financial interest in SABMiller but due to lack capital investment and obvious location within the greater market share to do so before. Towards the end of 2015 it concluded via a £71bn takeover evaluation, that AB InBev finally made its long-desired move on one of its biggest competitors in the brewing industry - SABMiller (Financial Times, 2015; Hanefeld et al., 2016).

Aside from these well-recognized commercial brewing companies historically in South Africa there has been another significant influence with regards to beer production and consumption. Although often overlooked due to its informal nature, the sorghum beer and maize beer industry, which is more commonly referred to as “traditional African beer”, does possess commercial and cultural value due to its extensive heritage, numerous cultural attachments and most importantly its indigenous knowledge base. During the apartheid period this type of traditional beer assumed a controversial role with the revenues from state control on sorghum beer production and sales contributing to the funding of much needed services in the poor underdeveloped urban township areas (Rogerson, 1986). Today the formal sorghum beer industry is dominated by United National Breweries (SA). This is an Indian-owned company and is the successor to National Sorghum Breweries (NSB), taking management control of that company from 1996 (Mager, 2010). In 2000 UNB took over ‘Traditional Beer Investments’, which was the sorghum division of the former SA Breweries. United National Breweries currently controls an estimated 90% share of the local market for sorghum beer (A&T Consulting, 2005). This meant that SAB was no longer involved in the sector of sorghum beer in South Africa and focussed only on malt beer. Its dominance of that sector remains strong albeit it is now facing competition from the emergence of an economy of craft beer.

4.3 The Evolution and Geography of Craft Beer in South Africa

In common with trends observed in USA, UK and Australia, South Africa has witnessed the appearance and growth of a craft beer sector of microbreweries (see Corne and Reyneke, 2013, Van Zyl, 2014a). It can be argued that following global trends and triggered by the enormous consolidation of SABMiller and with its the production of increasingly standardized lager and light beers, there has emerged a counter movement in South Africa’s beer industry which took place in the past 30 years and closely resembles the trends which occurred in other countries. This reaction against consolidation and lack of variety offered to consumers essentially resulted in an interest by South African consumers in ‘older’ beer styles, such as pale ales, porter, brown cask ales, stout and bitters (Corne and Reyneke, 2013). In this respect the development and growth of the South African microbrewing and craft beer industry is not dissimilar to that experienced in countries such as the UK and the USA during the early 1970s and 1980s. Some noticeable differences though are that it initially occurred much later and on a much smaller scale than in USA or the UK and that until recently the rate of microbrewery formation was relatively gradual (Corne and Reyneke, 2013).

The documented beginning of microbrewing in South Africa is 1983 with the establishment of Mitchell’s Brewery in Knysna. Since 1983 a variety of structural changes and a new geography of craft beer production emerged as many local beer consumers (many of them Millennials) turned towards the more artisanal crafted beer product which is produced locally. This is in preference to the conventional mass-produced beer products offered by the multi-nationals such as SABMiller and Brandhouse. Hedley (2014) ascertains that the ambiguous and emerging nature of the South African craft beer industry justifies its total market share which is estimated to be about 1% of South Africa’s beer market. The trivial nature of this statistic may well be over-looked by many industry observers, yet it is of considerable appeal when drawing comparisons with North American beer market. Specifically in the case of the USA’s craft beer market which had market share that stood at a humble 2.6% in 1998. However, over a 15 year period gradually encroached towards a 7.8% market share of the total domestic beer market (Molla, 2014). Inevitably this sharp increase in growth within the broader market share of beer, Weissmann (2014) states that the USA’s

craft beer industry in the year 2014 as a combined group began to challenge the stereotypical notions that have forever encircled “Big Beer Companies”, which was typified when it outsold one of the USA’s largest beer brands ‘Budweiser’.

The Historical Growth of Microbreweries in South Africa (1983-2016) 200 187 190 180 Operational Microbreweries Microbreweries Closed 170 158 160

150 140 130 124 120

110 100 90 83 80 70 58 60 50 NUMBER OF MICROBREWERIES OF NUMBER 40 36 30 30 25 26 18 18 20 12 14 12 9 9 9 4 5 10 1 3 0 1983 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2003 YEAR

Figure 4.1: Development and Growth of Microbreweries in South Africa 1983-2016 (Source: Author).

An influential role in craft beer industry development in South Africa has been played by the presence of a long existing and fairly large homebrewing community and of a small amount of homebrewing clubs most of which are situated in the country’s major cities. The most notable are the Wort Hog Brewers in Gauteng, South Yeasters in Cape Town and East Coast

Brewers in KwaZulu-Natal and more recently the birth of others such Port Elizabeth Homebrewers Association, Sedibeng Home Brewers in Gauteng, Durban Homebrewers in KwaZulu-Natal and Bloemfontein Home Brewing Club (see Corne and Reyneke, 2013; Swanepoel, 2014b; Van Zyl, 2014: 149). The activities of these different homebrewing clubs have been described as the foundation for incubating several of the country’s more recently established craft microbreweries.

Figure 4.1 shows the result of the audit of craft micro-breweries in South Africa. It reveals a steady expansion to the point that the 2016 national audit revealed a total of 187 licensed microbrewers (see Appendix A for full list). Figure 4.1 shows that the tempo of growth has been uneven and it is evident that growth in microbreweries was slow during the 1980s. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s a small number of microbreweries began to establish themselves throughout the country; by 2003 there were nine microbreweries. In terms of spatial distribution, new developments in this period mainly were in and around Cape Town and KwaZulu-Natal rather than in Gauteng commonly associated with the major national market for beer consumption. The growth in the Cape Town area has been suggested as a ‘natural’ development following the appearance and proliferation of boutique wineries there from the 1990s. Figure 4.1 documents the emergence and growth of this industry and illustrates how ‘microbrewery numbers’ increased steadily from 1983-2003.

Since 2003 there has been a surge of new microbreweries established throughout all provinces within the country. By 2008 the number of breweries had more than doubled to 25 microbreweries in operation and articulated by strong industry growth rate of 64 percent. An even more rapid pace of expansion is observed in the following five year period from 2008 to 2013 when an additional 58 licensed microbreweries came into operation with an even higher growth rate of 70 percent. A more than tripling in the numbers of microbreweries during this period accounts for 44 percent of the existing population of microbreweries in the country in the 2016. It must be noted the cut-off date for inclusion in this national audit was the 31st October 2016. In terms of the analyzing Figure 4.1 it must be noted the peak period of growth within the South African microbrewery industry is evident between 2013 and 2016 when it is clearly observed that the greatest surge of new microbreweries entrants occurred with a 55 percent increase in market share.

As well as new craft brewery openings it is evident that there has been a churning of enterprises as a number of breweries have proven short-lived and have experienced closure. Figure 4.1 documents the number of microbreweries from 2010 which closed down as a result of several encompassing factors. The amount of microbreweries which closed in relation to the overall industry in 2016 reflected just under 10 percent. Some recognized examples of microbrewery closures which have been highlighted by many local public media sources includes that of the Bavarian-themed Paulaner Bräuhaus and microbrewery which had been situated at Cape Town V&A Waterfront for almost 10 years. Closure was speculated to be an outcome of an apparent leasing disagreement due to the high rental costs (Williams, 2012). Other breweries closed because of the more highly competitive environment and some because of poor quality of product.

Figure 4.2: The Location of Craft Breweries in South Africa: Provincial Scale 2013 (Source: Author)

Figure 4.3: The Location of Craft Breweries in South Africa: Provincial Scale 2016 (Source: Author)

The current spatial distribution of microbreweries at the provincial scale of analysis is shown on Figure 4.2 for 2013 and Figure 4.3 for 2016. At the provincial scale of analysis it is evident that the largest clusters of breweries are in the country’s most developed provinces (see Appendix A). Of the national total (2016) of 187 licensed microbreweries the greatest number are found in the Western Cape (85 in total) followed by Gauteng and Kwa-Zulu- Natal with a combined total of 55 licensed and operational microbreweries. Taken together these three metropolitan provinces account for a 140 or 75 percent of all the licensed breweries. Another important finding relates to the exceptional recent growth of craft brewing in the Eastern Cape. Smaller numbers of microbreweries are situated in parts of the North West, closely followed by the Free State and then Mpumalanga. Limpopo and the

Northern Cape have gradually followed suit and have only recently begun to be represented in terms of microbreweries.

The dominance of the Western Cape is attributable to a number of considerations. First, is its first mover status as the location of the growth of microbreweries built in the 1990s and early 2000s. Other potential factors are a heritage associated with boutique craft wineries, tourism, and hipster-driven, anti-mainstream trends which may reflect certain neolocal characteristics. KwaZulu-Natal has for a long time also played a significant role on the craft brewing scene with the presence of ‘Nottingham Road Brewery’ and ‘Zululand Brewing Company’ both been established relatively early in 1996 and 1997 respectively (Corne and Reyneke, 2013). In more recent times with a rapid surge of new players, the growth of microbreweries in KwaZulu-Natal has been encouraged by the establishment of a tourism beer-route as is discussed in Chapter 5. By contrast, Gauteng until recently has lagged behind these other two provinces in terms of microbreweries. Nevertheless, the province is rapidly catching up with a surge of new microbreweries within the province, most of which have only taken root in the past three to five years. This is supported by the fact that 24 or 69 percent out of the total number of 35 microbreweries in Gauteng were established in the two year period of 2014- 2016.

Figure 4.4: The Location of Craft Breweries in South Africa: Urban Scale 2016 (Source: Author)

Figure 4.4 shows at the urban scale on the existing location of all microbreweries in South Africa for 2016. It is evident that the greatest numbers of microbreweries are situated in the metropolitan areas and major market centres of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and more recently Port Elizabeth. These five centres together account for 66 microbreweries or 35 percent of the national total. Within Johannesburg and Cape Town a trend was observed at the micro-scale of location for the establishment of microbreweries in inner-city areas which are experiencing economic regeneration and transformation. In Johannesburg the case of Maboneng is a good example where one licensed brewer is operating and two other breweries have established operations. The entrepreneur who was interviewed and

established the Smack! Republic Brewery in Maboneng stated the reasons for selecting the location: “We were attracted to the urban rejuvenation taking place in the CBD (Maboneng), which seemed like a fitting backdrop to start Joburg’s only microbrewery in the city”. Beyond Johannesburg, Pretoria and the local surrounding areas such as Centurion also have seen strong growth since 2014 with six microbreweries establishing themselves within its hub. In Cape Town the areas of Woodstock and Salt River have seen a parallel growth of microbreweries in formerly ‘declining urban spaces’. By 2016 a total of eleven craft breweries were in operation in these two parts of Cape Town.

Outside of the major market offered by the leading cities there is a clear trend for microbreweries to have been established in tourism destinations. Examples include Stellenbosch, Knysna, Mossel Bay, Cullinan and the Kwazulu-Natal Midlands. The “recreational periphery” of Gauteng also extends into the Free State and includes Clarens, another vibrant hub for micro-brewing. In interviews with entrepreneurs the importance of tourism was emphasized by several interviewees as a factor in location choice. For example, the owner of the ‘Cockpit brewery’ stated: “I identified Cullinan as a fast developing tourist destination” (Interview, Cockpit Brewery). Likewise, the owner of the Oudtshoorn brewery highlighted its location on “a main tourism route with high percentage of Europeans that understand beer” (Interview, Karusa Premium Wines & Craft Brewery). This was further supported by the owner of ‘Bassett Breweries’ located in Pennington on the South Coast of Kwa-Zulu-Natal whereby he stated the following motivating factors for establishing a Microbrewery in the respective location ~“A number of things, firstly my love of beer but different beer, secondly the fact that I’ve lived in this part of the coast [Kwa-Zulu-Natal South Coast] for just over thirteen years and use to travel hundred kilometres to work every morning and hundred kilometres back home again because there is no real development taking place down this part of the coast. Industry here is very slow, so anything you going to do - has to be tied into other the sugar industry or tourism industry because that’s all we really got. So that’s why I decided to go into the beer brewing side, more from a tourism perspective than anything else” (Interview, Bassett Breweries). Additionally the entrepreneur of ‘Long Beach’ brewery stated the reasoning behind their location was “partly to do with the fact that it was close to home but also we knew there’s a good market of beer drinkers in our area and also an established market of people that are into craft related industries in the ‘Noordhoek’ area –

so we knew that the local residents would be quite supportive” (Interview, Long Beach Brewery). Porcupine Quill Brewery situated in Botha’s Hill, Kwa-Zulu-Natal is another microbrewery brewery whose current location is classified as tourism zone – ‘1000 Hills Tourism’ according to its founder.

The secondary city of Stellenbosch in the heart of the Cape Winelands also represents another expanding location for craft brewers. Its entrepreneurs again identified its value in attracting both local and international tourists. This is exemplified by the following interview responses from Stellenbosch craft beer entrepreneurs:

 *“Well one of the main reasons was we always wanted to have a restaurant where we focus purely on authentic South African cuisine and craft beers and this venue already had the space to facilitate that. Secondly there was a lot of outdoor space on the farm which we saw as a big opportunity to potentially host rock concerts and music festivals and being situated in Stellenbosch there is obviously a huge student community who are continuously looking to be entertained... and our location is within a 2km radius from one of the biggest student accommodation areas which is ‘Welgevonden’. Then thirdly from tourism perspective we are located on one of the busiest roads between Paarl and Stellenbosch and it gives us access to the very popular ‘Cape Spice Route’ which has begun attracting many tourists to the region.”(Interview, Sir Thomas Brewery).

 *“The original vision for operating the microbrewery out of Stellenbosch is because – well number one, it already has a big tourism market and we wanted to try draw upon some of the beer travellers which as you know globally - beer tourism is much bigger outside of South Africa... number two Stellenbosch has huge student market and students drink a lot of beer... number three the people who live here are very proud of the heritage and history of the town and that’s why all are beers are named after icons and legends etc... Lastly Stellenbosch has a big culinary following and association – I mean currently at the moment four out of the top ten restaurants in South Africa are found here and people love wining and dining which is great because it creates a trend and people become more open to new types of tastes, especially for example food and craft beer pairing.” (Interview, Stellenbrau Brewery).

Finally, in terms of appreciating the geographical distribution of microbreweries in 2016, it should be noted that the Figure 4.4 is reflection of only successful enterprises; it does not map out the geography of closures.

4.4. Structural Aspects of the Craft Beer Industry in South Africa

In this section the focus moves away from evolution and geography of craft micro-brewing in South Africa and instead turns to examine structural aspects which underpin the industry development. Included within this discussion is the critical issues of the shifting legislative environment which has impacted the emergence and growth of the craft beer industry in South Africa.

Based upon interviews and industry press reports it is evident that current industry dynamics are complex as the South African craft beer industry is comprised of different segments. Figure 4.5 represents an attempt to map out the key features of the existing structure of the industry.

• Informal Homebrewers 1

• Microbreweries (Licensed) = [187] 2 • Microbreweries (Unlicensed) = Estimated [25 - 35]

• Microbreweries which are directly linked with certain amenities. 2.1

• Microbreweries which manufacture craft beer for distrubution only (off- 2.2 sales).

• Microbreweries which do both of the above. 2.3

• Contract Brewers 2.4

Figure 4.5: Schematic View of the Different Segments within the Broader Structure of the Industry (Source: Author)

At least five different segments of enterprises can be differentiated within the South African craft beer industry. First, there are several groups of informal homebrewers who generally brew experimental craft beers for personal satisfaction and often operate from their home premises via a make-shift or so-called “garage brewery”. Homebrewing is essentially perceived as lifestyle choice or hobbyist pursuit; however, many homebrewers in South Africa strive to eventually one day establish a recognized microbrewery. Indeed, with that goal in mind, many of the country’s already well-established microbrewers evolved from homebrew clubs. One example of this trend is Andre de Beer current owner of ‘The Cockpit Brewhouse’ in Cullinan. This entrepreneurs is quoted as saying that “Without the Wort Hogs I wouldn’t have reached the point of brewing decent beer as quickly as I did” (Corne and Reyneke, 2013, p.160). Under current regulations in South Africa individuals are allowed to produce home brewed beers in unlimited quantities for personal use without any required permits or licenses. Such homebrews may be given to family and friends as gifts as, according to national legislation, the brewing of beer or the making of wine and producing distilled spirits at home is limited ‘for own use’ only. Therefore, products may not be sold, or used for commercial trading.

The second segment of the craft beer economy relates to the activities of unlicensed microbreweries, which in essence can be regarded as breweries that are still in the transition of obtaining their liquor licences and are on the verge of opening in the near distant future. This segment prominently markets their craft-beer products at local craft beer festivals. There is no approximate number in terms of how many such unlicensed brewers actually are in existence as this is essentially an “informal economy” of craft brewers. This said, from the audit that was undertaken and from interview sources, the best estimate is between 25-35 in total (2016) or in other words these are microbreweries potentially to be established as formal craft beer breweries in the next few years.

The third segment of the craft beer industry is the current licensed and operational microbreweries which as identified from the national audit as a total of 187 microbreweries. These microbreweries are well-established within the current market; many of them have been in existence for some time, while others have only recently entered the market. It should be noted that a large portion of the microbreweries that were interviewed 75 percent were

associated with amenities such as a restaurant, brewpub, tasting room and conference facilities. These amenities provide microbrewers with an alternative way to differentiate their business aside from the craft beers that they produce. By selling on their own premises they gain a vital business advantage by not having to invest a great deal into networks for distribution. This situation allows them to spend more of their money on overhead costs and brewing itself. These amenities also give microbrewers another advantage of creating an environment where consumers develop more of a “connected feel” to the craft brewery and essentially ‘puts a face on the product’.

One further sub-segment within the current structure of the licensed industry is contract brewing with total of 18 existing in 2016. This type of craft brewing refers to an arrangement whereby a microbrewery will produce its beer on another brewery’s equipment. This arrangement either involves them hiring the services of the contract brewery’s in-house brew master or alternatively brewing it themselves. This type of agreement usually is employed when newly developed microbreweries are incapable of fulfilling current demand or the launch of a new brand of beer without having a big enough equipment capacity or premises (Corne and Reyneke, 2013: 252). The contract brewing company usually handles marketing, sales, and distribution of its beer, while generally leaving the brewing and packaging to its producer-brewery. Some examples of contract brewing that exist include the mutual brewing relationships between ‘Boston Breweries’ to brew beer on behalf of smaller capacity microbreweries such ‘Darling’, ‘Jack Black’ and ‘Citizen Beer’.

Changing government legislation has been critical in influencing the current industry structure as well as industry development. In April 2004 the Government Gazette promulgated the core legislation pertaining to the South African liquor industry which refers to the Liquor Act, 2003 Act No 59 (Republic of South Africa, 2004). Other related legislations are the National Liquor Regulations, 2004, which relate to the procedures for registration of liquor entities and other related matters as required under the Liquor Act of 2003. In South Africa the application for granting of a licence for a micro-manufacture and sale of liquor for consumption both on and off the premises where the liquor is sold must be made at a Provincial Liquor Board. This would usually be required by a microbrewer or other manufacturer of alcohol. The responsibility for regulating the liquor industry rests jointly

with national and provincial governments. Each province will eventually have its own Provincial Liquor Act. The requirements and types of licenses differ from province to province. A “micro-manufacturer” means a person registered as such in terms of this Act to manufacture liquor at or below the prescribed threshold volume, and includes micro- manufacturing of craft beer, wine, African traditional beer and distilled spirits.

In the case of Gauteng liquor licenses are divided in two distinctive categories:

1. On-consumption liquor License which refers to liquor which is sold may only be consumed on the premises and may not be removed from the premises. With regards to this liquor license the brewer would be allowed to permit beer-tasting and/or consumption on a restaurant or built amenity such as a bar or tasting room that the brewer might have on the premises (Gauteng Province, 2011).

2. Off-Consumption Liquor License which refers to liquor that is sold but may not be consumed on the premises. This in addition allows for the incorporation of other licenses a) Distributors Liquor License or b) Wholesale Liquor License, which basically means liquor may only be sold to licensed entities such as Liquor Stores or Pubs (Gauteng Province, 2011).

The following types of licences are considered as micro-manufacturing licences and are indicated below, under the new ‘Liquor Act’, to which the volume of liquor manufactured in the preceding 12 months may not exceed the threshold limit prescribed in terms of the Liquor Act:

 Producer's Licence  Brewer's Licence  Wholesale Liquor Licence  Sorghum beer brewer's licence; and  Special liquor licence for off-consumption/ on-consumption, which refers to the right to micro-manufacture liquor.

According to the Liquor Act, it is stipulated that the following persons shall not be granted a liquor licence:  A person, who has, in the past 10 years been sentenced to imprisonment, without the option of a fine;  A person suffering from insolvency;  A minor;  The spouse of (1) or (2) above (Republic of South Africa, 2004).

Other important factors are legislated, most importantly relating to the zoning of the property and renewal of liquor licenses are also seen as prerequisites in trying to attain a liquor license. This usually requires the local ‘Municipality`s Planning Department’ or ‘Land Use Department’ to conduct an inspection and determine the suitability of a premises for an application for a specific liquor license. In Gauteng some of the zoning restrictions include for example the question of the proximity of licensed premises to public facilities such as not within a 500 metre radius of places of worship or of educational institutions (Gauteng Province, 2003). These regulations, however, as mentioned are variable across different provinces.

An important regulation is that all liquor licenses must be renewed every twelve months. Should a liquor license holder fail to renew, the liquor license will expire after a specific time frame. Once a liquor license has expired, a new liquor license application must then be lodged. According to Section 23 (3) of the Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003, if an application for a liquor license has been refused by the Board, it is stipulated that no new application may be resubmitted in respect of the same premises within one year from the original date of refusal, except by special leave granted at the discretion of the Board (Gauteng Province, 2003).

The question of the regulatory environment was an important focus in the interviews with craft beer entrepreneurs. From the responses of interviewees regarding the question ‘What regulations they had to comply with in running a microbrewery and whether they may have encountered any issues with liquor licensing and/or zoning restrictions’, the respondents raised a number of contrasting responses which included the following direct statements;

 *“Three liquor licenses were needed, and yes it was a massive effort needed to get brewing license, the rest were health inspections etc. for setting up of kitchen” (Interview, Chameleon Brewhouse).

 *“Yes, There is a massive problem in Gauteng with obtaining licences” (Interview, Aces Brew Worx).

 *“As we are on a farm, we had to rezone the buildings. This took 4 years. Had to get a number of reports drafted for various government organizations - Water Affairs, Environmental Affairs, Roads Management, etc. The provisional liquor license took 1 year to come through” (Interview, Honingklip Brewery, Bot River).

 *“Yeah our Liquor Licence was a long road we basically waited a year for it, so each province has its own Liquor Board but the Natal one I think is just a little backwards. Otherwise zoning not a problem” (Interview, That Brewing Company).

 *“Oh yeah, the liquor licence was the main thing that held us back – unfortunately our government is not the quickest when it comes to these types of applications and our experience was absolutely horrible and we basically waited a year and six months for ours to be finally processed” (Interview, Sir Thomas Brewery).

 *“Yes the KZN legislation at the moment is quite hectic for a new brewery to get going and actually very difficult because the process is tedious and bureaucracy is very slow...” (Interview, Shongweni Brewery).

 *“Oh Yes, it took us three years to get licensed – that’s regarding our manufacturing licence and by the time the licence arrived the laws had changed. So as it stands at the moment it’s impossible for us to be compliant because by the time the licence arrived we then had to apply for a conversion in accordance to the new ‘Liquor act’ as well as apply for a renewal which had to be completed 6 months before the old licence expires – And by the time we actually received our physical licence we had less than 6 months in which to do it. So in my opinion, it’s a very convoluted situation and I’ve spoken to the local licensing officers about it and what I’ve been told by them is there’s two sides to the liquor licensing from an enforcement point of view. You get a licence inspector and you get a licence enforcer, the inspector simply inspects according to terms of the law and writes up a report based on how compliant you are. The licence inspector then hands the report over to the licence enforcer, who will then take the appropriate action” (Interview, Bassett Brewery).

 *“No not at all, I was brewing already in Cape Town for over 10 years and have a relationship with customs and excise, and actually mentored most of the guys there. So in ten years of brewing at ‘Paulaner’ I had maybe only two Audits. In terms of zoning and getting ‘Cape Brewing Company’ set up, I think customs is very helpful and very knowledgeable and to be honest they are more on your side. I know a lot of other microbrewers say that they come across as suspicious and almost over bearing with their audits and inspections but they do know their acts and the business of microbrewing and

its important for them to make sure everyone if fully compliant”(Interview, Cape Brewing Company).

 *“No, our location for the microbrewery was originally zoned as an industrial area – and we planned accordingly prior to our launch so we never really encountered any major setbacks...” (Interview, Stellenbrau Brewery).

 *“For me there were no obstructions, but I do know of a number of brewers who have encountered serious problems, whereby it took some of them two years to receive their licence...” (Interview, Triggerfish Brewery).

Overall, these voices of craft beer entrepreneurs across South Africa show that government legislation exerts an important influence on the numbers and potentially also the geography of microbrewery operations in South Africa. The continued growth of the South African craft beer industry should be viewed with caution, as currently there appears to be considerable concerns with obtaining a liquor license throughout the various provinces. Green (2015: 5) mentions that a ‘High Court Judgment’ was made in towards the middle of 2014, which fundamentally called upon the public protector to investigate the “malfunctioning” issuing of liquor licences within South Africa’s nine provinces which has ultimately resulted in a substantial administration backlog. This may potentially explain why we see big spikes in the number of new microbrewery entrants, with many licenses perhaps being approved all at one time.

Craft breweries have in recent times gained valuable recognition as a sub-set of small and medium businesses which positively contribute to the local economy development in South Africa. For example, the Western Cape’s Department of Economic Development and Tourism affirmed in a strategic development plan that it would support “the development of independent breweries as small businesses to ensure the 13 diversification of the local beer market” (Department of Economic Development and Tourism of the Western Cape, 2004). The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) commissioned its own report and states that the diversification of the South African liquor industry, through increased presence of competitors will allow “the promotion of small, medium and micro enterprises” which are “central to the current economic policy” (Truen et al., 2011). Once more, this argument exemplifies the important role that craft breweries can play within the ‘Small Medium Enterprise Sector’.

An important structural support for the growth of the craft beer industry in South Africa has come through the establishment of industry associations. “Craft Beer South Africa” is one of few trade related South African craft beer associations which is in its infant stages of development. The association has established a steering committee which is comprised of key role players from within the craft beer industry itself and appears to have a lobbying agenda not dissimilar to that of already established in international craft beer markets such as the USA or the UK (Craft Beer South Africa Interim Steering Committee, 2014). In order to illustrate this, the current steering committee provided input and suggestions to the National Treasury of South Africa guiding excise tax on craft beer. The document explicitly states “craft brewers are small business owners” and hence should not be treated in the same light as multi-national producers such SAB Miller (CBSA Interim Steering Committee, 2014). The above mentioned submission estimates that the average volume of beer produced by craft breweries in South Africa is 188, 000 litres per annum. As per the National Liquor Act of 2003, this figure validates that craft breweries in South Africa are small business where as micro-manufacture licenses are only granted to those producing up to 100 million litres of beer per year (Liquor Act, No 59 of 2003, 2004).Arguably, the entire industry of South African craft brewers currently fall way below the required threshold and cluster on the very “micro” side of micro-manufacturing.

4.5 Profile of Craft Beer Entrepreneurs and Their Businesses

This section provides a descriptive overview of the key findings from the 53 interviews which were undertaken with microbrewery entrepreneurs. In total the sample of interviews represents nearly 28 % of all licensed microbreweries in South Africa in 2016. As shown in Appendix B the interview schedule sought to collect information on the entrepreneurs and the development of their businesses and a wide array of issues were investigated.

In terms of the beer entrepreneurs the results reveal a majority dominance of males who represented 92 percent of the sample. The age range of entrepreneurs operating microbreweries was between 26 and 73 years, but the largest group were in the range of 41 to 50 years. Overall, two-thirds of entrepreneurs in the sample were over forty years old with average age of the sample being 44.07 years. Another significant finding was the high level

of education of these craft beer entrepreneurs. Of those respondents who provided information 81 percent had obtained a university or technikon degree and almost 50 percent (n=26) had obtained a postgraduate degree. The group of interviewees was dominated by entrepreneurs for whom the production of craft beer represented full-time work. Of the sample 83 percent stated that the brewery was a full-time business. The remainder indicated that work on the brewery was supplemented by other income-earning opportunities including ‘consultancy work’ and in three particular cases the microbrewery was regarded as a sideline to running an existing winery. In particular, one of the respondents stated the following; “We were running an existing winery [Remhoogte Wine Estate] which is our primary business focus and we just started making beer for fun and then started selling a bit of it in our existing tasting room and it sort of snowballed from there on” (Interview, Wild Beast Brewery). Prior to establishing the microbrewery this group of well-educated entrepreneurs were engaged in a variety of different forms of occupations. These included as a professional chef, restaurateur, chemist, engineers, I.T., marketing, finance, advertising, education and farming. It must be noted that in several cases there was a direct previous link to the liquor industry. For example, one respondent was a former brand manager for SAB, while another was an established winemaker and a third formerly involved in the distribution of craft beer from other existing microbreweries. Herewith are some direct responses demonstrating these links:

 *“Was setting up ‘Paulaner Brauhaus Breweries’ around the world and then settled here in South Africa. But overall 16 years Master brewer at Paulaner Brauhaus” (Interview, Cape Brewing Company).

 *“I’m a Restaurateur and basically saw the hype surrounding craft beer” (Interview, That Brewing Company).

 *“I was employed as a winemaker” (Interview, Long Beach Brewery).

 *“I was running the chef school and still do but the microbrewery forms part of the chef school now” (Interview, Porcupine Quill Brewery).

 *“One of the partners worked and lived in San Francisco, and obviously being ‘Beer Central’ decided he wanted to start something when he returned to South Africa”... “One of the our other partners was already in winemaking and decided to come on board and give beer brewing a shot” (Interview, Devils Peak Brewery).

In terms of the establishment of the microbrewery industry, the overwhelming emphasis in the interviews was that entrepreneurs started off beer production as a hobbyist pursuit in terms of homebrewing, then subsequently growing from a hobby into the recognition of a business opportunity. This confirms the analysis given in the previous section of discussion. Two-thirds of the respondents made it clear that the microbrewery industry initially grew out of what was essentially a hobby; the remainder of the sample were cases of entrepreneurs entering into microbrewery industry directly because of a perceived business opportunity. The following interview responses typify the reasons for the establishment of microbreweries.

 *“Initially it was a hobby, then people really started enjoying our beer we were making and we saw a good business opportunity from that stage to make a craft brewery in the heart of Durban North where none exists” (Interview, Odyssey Craft Brewery).

 *“Was initially a lifetime hobby of my father, and he decided to make a business out of it’’ (Interview, Black Horse Brewery).

 *“A hobby which got out of hand a bit” (Interview, De Garve Brewery).

 *“It was presented to us by a good friend and I have seen it as a business opportunity - farming is very hard these days” (Interview, Brauhaus am Damm).

 *“It was a transition from a hobby – yeah, I homebrewed for four years before I decided to start the Microbrewery...” (Interview, Triggerfish Brewery).

 *“It was first hobby that turned into an obsession and now it’s a business...” (Interview, Sir Thomas Brewery).

 *“A hobby, completely – and I just decided to create a business out of a home brewing obsession which was about 5 years in the making” (Interview, Mogravity Brewery).

 *“I think initially it started as a hobby, but the scale that we are at now we never planned or thought it would get so big so quickly, but obviously capital is a limiting factor – so when we had enough capital to go bigger and to expand it we did it because we saw the demand and the growth in the sector” (Interview, Devils Peak Brewery).

 *“A transition from a hobby – it had nothing financial to do with it; it was purely for the love and passion for brewing excellent beer” (Interview, Cape Brewing Company).

 *“It was from a hobby, but it was not so much as me chasing it for a business opportunity – it was more me trying to get out of industry. You may have heard this story before but you go out and study after school, you pick a career or a profession and you go into that and after a few years you get a bit disillusioned by the whole thing. Its more paper work

and time consuming then it actually is thinking and designing stuff, so I wanted out. So I looked at other opportunities and I loved my beer brewing – so I thought oh well, let’s give it a shot and see if it works or not” (Interview, Basset Breweries).

In a manner similar to findings from Australian research about the ‘passionate’ nature of entrepreneurs about microbrewing the overwhelming response from the sample of interviewees was that craft beer production was a lifestyle choice that linked to entrepreneur’s passion for beer. In only a small number of cases was there a recorded response that indicated that the entrepreneur was purely opportunistic. The following qualitative responses from the interviewees emphasize the passion and lifestyle considerations that are directly linked to the production of craft beer in South Africa. Beyond simply lifestyle considerations many entrepreneurs recognized that their passion for producing craft beer could translate into a long- term business activity. This is illustrated in the following direct statement from the interviews.

 *“It’s a lifestyle and passion choice. It was also strongly driven by our drive to become entrepreneurs and independent” and “Passion for the industry, and determination to own our own business” (Interview, Red Sky Brew).

 *“To brew good beer it MUST be a passion! I am very passionate about brewing, it changed my whole life and I love every minute of it!!” (Interview, Brauhaus am Damm).

 *“Lifestyle choice!!! I wouldn’t change it for anything” (Interview, Odyssey Craft Brewery).

 *“Passion for beer and brewing. Wanting an alternative offering than mass commercial offerings for ourselves. Finding fans of our beers in friends and family alike also not wanting mass commercial beers” (Interview, Clarens Brewery).

 *“It seemed like something interesting to do! Why must we be forced to drink the same beer over and over again? I also don’t like the idea of working for others and much prefer to be my own boss and fortunately enough right now that is a reality” (Interview, Odyssey Craft Brewery).

 *“The Dog and Fig Brewery was established by a group of friends in 2008, as an expression of their passion for good company, good food and of course, great beer. The vision to establish a microbrewery with a difference started brewing as early as 2007. Already then, we realised the need to develop an exclusive market for unique beers which, like wine, can be savoured rather than quaffed. The target is to create custom-brewed couture beers and avoid the uniform taste of mass-produced products, hence the concept of extreme brewing. These beers are unfiltered, unpasteurised and made only with malted barley, hops and water. We also seek to educate people in the wide-ranging styles of beer,

and therefore complement the brewing activities with structured beer-tasting evenings and attendance at various festivals” (Interview, Dog and Fig Brewery).

 *“Love of beer and brewing, helping people see there is more to beer than just Castle Lite”. (Interview, Three Skulls Brew Works).

Source of "Start-Up" Capital

11% Own Savings 9% Family Inheritance 50% Bank Loan

19% External Investors Other:

11%

Figure 4.6: The Source of Capital Utilized by Entrepreneurs to Establish Businesses (Source: Interview Survey, See Appendix B).

In terms of start-up capital the results confirm once again the relationship of microbrewery operations to lifestyle considerations. In Figure 4.6 it was revealed that entrepreneurs’ own savings or capital from their family was the core foundation for initiating the development of these microbreweries. In only a relative small number of cases, was funding sourced from external investors or bank loans. The linkages to lifestyle considerations also reflected that majority of the microbreweries are not only small businesses but also fall into the category of family businesses. In total 64 percent of the respondents indicated that family members were involved in the running and operations of the microbrewery with the number of employees ranging from one to a maximum of 26; the average across the sample was 4.8 employees. It should be noted that in several microbreweries the only job created was for the business owner. In total 73.6 percent of the sample have five or less employees. The small scale nature of these microbrewery operations was further confirmed by the data collected on the

production size of these microbreweries. Among the sample of respondents it was shown that the smallest production capacity was ten thousand litres annually and the largest was just over five million litres annually. As a whole, half of the interview sample was operating microbreweries producing less than fifty thousand litres per annum. Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 provide a comparison in terms of the current variation in terms of production capacity between two microbreweries that were interviewed.

Figure 4.7: The Small Scale Production Capacity of “Porcupine Quill Brewing Co”. (Source: Author)

Figure 4.8: The Large Scale Production Capacity of “Cape Brewing Company”. (Source: Author)

The response from interviewees indicated that these microbrewery enterprises are expanding at a rapid rate due to market demands. Of the sample of interviewees the majority of

respondents assessed that the market for craft beer in South Africa was expanding at a “rapid pace”. Currently, few signs are evident at the national level regarding the saturation of the craft beer market in terms of numbers of producers. This said, it was observed that the Cape Town craft beer market was becoming crowded in terms of numbers of breweries especially in comparison to Gauteng and other developing provinces. All 53 interviewees confirmed that the trajectory of their businesses was one of upward momentum. The reasons given for the expansion of these microbreweries were various and linked to the importance of good branding, participation at craft beer festivals, the high quality and range of their product offerings. This is illustrated in the following select responses of the sample interviewees:

 *“Absolutely, I put my growth down to good marketing and national visibility by going to every festival around the country” (Interview, Three Skulls Brew Works).

 *“Yes it has indeed. I would say the main thing is that people want to try something new, they are tired of being forced to only drink SAB products as that is all that has been available. There is a massive interest in the brewing process and when the public comes to a microbrewery they get to speak to the brewer, speak in depth about the beer. It isn’t just one massive way to make beer; it’s almost as if craft beer has its own unique beer drinking culture. People want to try something new, something different, and in central Durban nothing has existed like this before” (Interview, Odyssey Craft Brewery).

 *“Yes, it has. Beer festivals are the main source of business. Festivals with food, like Taste of Joburg have been instrumental in making people aware of the craft beer market” (Interview, The Dog and Fig Brewery).

 *“Yes, people looking for more variety” (Interview, Nottingham Road Brewery).

 *“Yes its growing faster than we can keep up. Main influencing factor is the quality and flavour of our beer” (Interview, Aces Brew Worx).

 *“Yes, more people are becoming aware of the distinctiveness of the craft beer we make” (Interview, Honingklip Brewery).

 *“Yes, substantially to a point that we would like to further develop our current infrastructure – the main contributing factors is definitely the increased interest in boutique beers from people who would usually be considered as ‘SAB Loyalists’ their whole life but are now willing to pay a little extra for a much better tasting beer... Secondly, also focusing a lot of our marketing towards the local community of Stellenbosch and creating truly local beers which give recognition to the town and give us a good home-grown following” (Interview, Stellenbrau Brewery).

 “Yes, the main influencing factors would be the growth of craft beer in general as a whole – so basically this whole new/big phenomenon that people want something

different. They desire more flavour from their beer and they also don’t want the watered down commercially made beer anymore. I mean look everybody does still drink the stuff but I think people want something more - more options not just basic ‘Lagers’. I also think the growth of ‘CBC’ can be attributed to the fact that us and many others like us are ‘local’ and that speaks volumes to people, they feel more involved. Other factors would also include the willingness of restaurant owners, bar and pub owners and retail outlets to actually take the beer on – and this ties into the South African Slogan ‘Local is Lekker’. In terms of actual brewing capacity growth, CBC did 1.4 million litres the first year it ran and now we have the capacity to do 5 million litres. So within a year of being constructed and started brewing – it’s already doubled in size, capacity wise” (Interview, CBC Brewery).

 *“Yes, since its establishment – it has experienced a big growth and has almost tripled in terms of marketing and volume sold” (Interview, Shongweni Microbrewery).

 *“Well at the moment I would say we don’t have a problem selling – but we do have a problem producing enough craft beer. So the public demand is actually driving our production and our re-investment and expansion and so on. I would definitely say this is more on a regional basis in Cape Town and Stellenbosch but I have received inquiries from other Provinces and cities such as Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth about my beers but distribution will reach those areas in the near future” (Interview, Wild Clover Microbrewery).

Overall, it should be noted that seasons of variation were observed in the sales patterns for craft beer, with peaks noted for the summer months in general and the period of school holidays in particular. For those breweries situated in popular tourism areas, peaks in craft beer sales were closely linked to the tourism cycle (see Chapter Five).

The expansion of these microbrewery businesses is driven by internal processes for strategic marketing and selling of craft beer products. Of the interviewees a variety of different methods for selling their craft beer product was observed as illustrated in Figure 4.9. The most important methods of sale were direct sales at the brewery which was used by 81 percent of the sample; festivals 73 percent, pubs and restaurants 68 percent and retail outlets 62 percent. In addition almost half of the interviewees mentioned that further sales are obtained through online mail orders (49 percent); interestingly 18 or 33% of the sample admitted that bootleggers were used. Additionally, in nine of the 53 cases “other” means of revenue were generated through overseas export and local farmers markets. Overall, by far the most financially rewarding of the above mentioned sales techniques were direct sales to

customers from the microbrewery. This was cited by 59 percent of the sample (See Figure 4.9).

Microbrewery Sales Techniques 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 81% 68% 62% 33% 49% 73% 17% 0%

Figure 4.9: Different Microbrewery Sales Techniques. (Source: Interview Survey, See Appendix B)

The role of craft beer festivals was identified as important for marketing more so than direct sales. In total 83 percent of the sample rated craft beer festivals as “important” or “very important” for business development. Indeed, the interviews revealed that craft beer festivals were an important base for showcasing the craft beer products, for networking and provided a platform to interact with clients by allowing them to taste as well as to increase the awareness of the microbrewery in terms of its location and product offerings. When questioned as to how the microbrewery entrepreneurs market their beer, the role of craft beer festivals alongside that of social media was identified by 73.5 percent of the sample respondents. Equally of note was the significance of the internet and websites for marketing, which was used by more than two-thirds of the sample 64 percent. By contrast, traditional marketing channels of print magazines and newspapers were used by only 41 percent of the sample. Lastly, 20 of the respondents or 38 percent of the sample subsequently mentioned that they rely on ‘local word-of-mouth’ with regards to marketing their respective businesses.

Figure 4.10: Example of Direct Sales at “Wagon Trail Brewery” situated in the Cape Winelands (Source: Author).

Figure 4.11: Local Bootleggers with a Large Variety of Craft Beer Stock on Sale (Source: Author).

For small enterprises such as these microbreweries, of critical importance for business growth is the development of co-operative business relationships. It was made clear in the interviews that the majority of the microbreweries (85 percent of the sample) are engaged in a variety of relationships with other breweries in a manner that they co-operate together in order to increase their competitiveness. The most important forms of co-operation relate to knowledge transfer, sharing of brewing ideas and collaboration in terms of technical support. In addition, of vital importance was the development of co-operative relationships regarding bulk buying of raw materials which reduces costs. Further co-operation was also identified in terms of the distribution of products as well as co-operative marketing.

The most important individual business that the small microbreweries engage with is SABMiller. The relationship of craft brewers to SABMiller is one whereby both are involved in the growth of the national beer market as whole, albeit that the craft producers are competing with the mass-produced beers. The largest share of the interviews stated that their business relationship with SABMiller was “very good” and “positive”, but this was qualified by one interviewee who stated that the relationship was good “as long as we remain small” (Interview, Saggy Stone Brewing Company). The somewhat contradictory relationship of the microbreweries with SABMiller is indicated by the fact that the microbreweries are dependent on them for supplying some of the core raw materials needed for craft beer production. This includes the base malts and hops, ingredients of vital importance during craft beer brewing. Direct co-operation also occurs between the microbreweries and SABMiller in terms of working together to lobby government for legislative changes affecting the beer industry. This is illustrated in the following select responses of the sample interviewees:

 *“Well I know that SAB has started their own craft brewery now in Cape Town, and obviously they don’t want to get left behind and the fact that they now getting involved – I see that as significant and see it as a good thing. But it would be nice if they could drop the price of the malts for us microbrewers, but I’m not sure how feasible that is for them. As far as developing the craft beer industry and so on – I think we are fine on our own” (Interview, Amanzimtoti Brewery).

 *“Very much, I mean they essentially SAB have the option NOT to supply us but they do. They also have the option to buy out a lot of our resource routes apart from the generic beer ingredients in itself – I’m talking about things such as packaging, bottling, capping

and etc. – which they could force us to import instead of making it available locally. What I have found with SAB is if you stay off their turf, they’ll support you 100 percent but if you cross over that margin they’ll just squash you. They’ve done it before with the likes of Bavaria and Luyts Breweries - as soon as you go high volume/low cost beer and begin to go into competition with them, they squash you. I must mention as well, maybe not as a company so much but as individual employees within SAB, they are very supportive of the microbrewing industry – they probably see it as a lot more exciting than what they get to do every day, there’s a lot more diversity and it’s not just a production line. And we get a lot of outside resource from SAB employees in terms of lending their assistance, lending their knowledge and lending their experience simply because they’re enthusiastic about.” (Interview, Bassett Breweries).

 *“Yes, absolutely - I think more from a ‘Craft’ side and from a ‘Microbrewery side’ I’ve worked together with SAB for over twelve years and I think SAB besides having good brewers and open-minded customers – one reason why the craft beer sector took off so quickly is because they financed and supported numerous craft beer festivals and various homebrewing competitions. I think they have the same intention as us which is developing the beer market as a whole and they have actually helped craft to take off much easier by educating and introducing microbrewers like us to the hop farms and gave us opportunity to see the Malt factory in Caledon. So personally I think they’ve worked very hard to be part of the whole success of craft beer in South Africa” (Interview, CBC Brewery).

 *“Yes, this brewery has had a very good relationship with SAB over the years – I mean they’ve always offered us help with regards to technical brewing expertise and have also sponsored several of our “drunk driving campaigns”. So yeah I feel they’ve been very positive with regards to the growth of craft” (Interview, Shongweni Microbrewery).

 *“It’s a difficult one to answer – If you asked me this question a year ago I would say yes definitely... One of the SAB ambassadors from the Newlands brewery took myself and a few other craft brewers on their account on a tour to the hops farms in George and treated us and showed us the whole Newlands brewery as well as the rest of the malting plant in Caledon and the fact that I still buy some of my ingredients from them – yes I would say I have a good relationship with SAB. But then again what you’ve seen in the last couple of months is that SAB is now entering the craft beer market and they’ve also advertised how cheap they will be. So it’s now become a head-on competition with us – I mean they have all the resources at their disposal to put us all out business. So I do feel there are two sides to the coin in terms of SAB’s approach to the craft beer industry” (Interview, Wild Clover Microbrewery)

 *“Yes, I believe they do because we get our malt from them, we get our hops from them and we are good friends with them. I have many times phoned one of their brewers and chatted to them in conversation and they’ve given me tips, things to try, things to look at – so I think they are very supportive. They’ve also sponsored a few of the craft beer festivals that we’ve attended; they also host an annual craft beer competition – and it’s all in aid of craft”. In terms of them launching their own so called ‘craft brewery’ in Newlands it’s going to be a little harder now, but I still think at the end of the day it’s all about the education – if you can educate the consumer to make a conscientious decision

about what’s the difference about real craft beer and what SAB have now coined ‘crafty’ then that’s what we microbrewers need to strive towards” (Interview, Devils Peak Brewery).

Further, it should be noted that SAB Miller provides support for the development of the craft beer industry through its sponsorship of a number of craft beer festivals as well as annually hosting the prestigious South African craft beer championship.

4.6 Neo-Localism and Craft Beer in South Africa

As argued earlier, the South African craft beer industry emerged as a supplier of alternative products to those mass-produced and popular beers types available through SABMiller and Brandhouse. This counter-movement in beer manufacture in South Africa has brought a diverse range of new and niche beer products to the South African consumer. Among the long list of different styles of beer that microbrewery producers are making are the following, inter alia, English Bitter, Stout, American Blonde Ale, premium German style beer, Pumpkin Ale, Weissbier, American Red Ale, Golden Ale, Indian Pale Ale, Belgium Dubbel, Saison, Witbier, Light Lagers and what one interviewee described as a “Pilsner and a Porter all with a South African twist” (Interview, Nottingham Road Brewery). In a parallel to the emergence of craft beer production in other parts of the world, this counter movement in producing different forms of beer was an innovative reaction to the homogenous nature of mass beer products. One of the interviewees went so far to describe his beer style as “Left field, experimental and artisanal” (Interview, Three Skulls Brew Works). Flack (1997: 49) observes of the growth of microbreweries in the USA that much of the appeal of craft beer is that it is a rejection of national culture “in favour of something more local”. To support this finding, the sample of 53 microbrewers were asked to quantify the amount of different craft beer styles they currently produce. In Figure 4.12, we see that just under half of the sample or 42 percent currently offered four to five different styles of craft beers, additionally almost a third of the sample produced 10 or more different craft beer styles.

Number of Different Craft Beer Styles Currently Produced 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 19% 42% 11% 28% 0 1 Style 2 - 3 Styles 4 - 5 Styles 6 - 7 Styles 8 - 9 Styles 10 + Styles

Figure 4.12: The Number of Different Craft Beer Style Currently Produced By the Microbrewery Respondents (Source: Interview Survey, See Appendix B)

The connections of microbreweries to their local areas can be examined in a number of different ways. The first and most obvious relates to the location of their businesses. In several interviews a connection was made between where the entrepreneur regards as home and the location choice for the microbrewery. The local connectedness was most apparent in the case of small towns or rural microbreweries where the actual location of the microbrewery was on the farm. Two examples can be cited to support this, namely the cases of “Honingklip Brewery” and of “Saggy Stone Brewing Company”. Beyond the case of farm located microbreweries, there were a number of examples where the decision to establish the brewery was linked directly to where the entrepreneur was living or had been born. For example, the reason given for the locational choice of Darling Brewery was that the entrepreneur lives in Darling. In a similar case the decision to establish the “Clarens brewery” was as follows “Was seen as best tourist village in South Africa and was born in the neighbouring village” (Interviews, Honingklip Brewery; Saggy Stone Brewing Company; Darling Brew and Clarens Brewery). A further two examples of a locational choice linked to a particular home locality was Dieks' Bru (De Rust, Western Cape) for which the decision was explained as “Because my daughter lives here and I had planned a long time ago to establish a brewery on Route 62” (Interview, Dieks’ Bru). The owner of Long Beach

Brewery stated the following -“Well partly due to do with the fact that it was close to home but also we knew there’s a good market of beer drinkers in our area and also an established market of people that are into craft related industries in the ‘Noordhoek’ area – so we knew that the local residents would be quite supportive”.

In a few identified cases the selection of the craft brewery location was simply linked to the extension of an already existing business location. The following select responses were given by some of the craft brewery entrepreneurs:

 *“Well the farm initially had a winery – so the craft brewery simply became an extension... (Interview, Wild Clover Microbrewery)”

 *“Yeah well it’s a family farm [Winery] and we built a new cellar which was standing empty and we were looking for something to do there. And my brother worked for SAB for about three or four years and was part of the launch for Carlsberg and Corona and when he returned to the farm he started experimenting with beer brewing and then decided to turn that cellar into a microbrewery – so it was sort of an existing building that worked...” (Interview, Wild Beast Brewery)

 *“Well, the name ‘CBC’ refers to ‘Cape Brewing Company’ and is obviously synonymous with the fact that we are based in the Western Cape of South Africa and particularly in the ‘Cape Winelands’. We are also based on a farm that is almost 150 years old” (Interview, CBC Brewery)

Even in the case of microbreweries in large urban areas there are examples of locational decisions linked to the home locality. The clearest example was “Odyssey Craft Brewery” where the entrepreneur stated “I have lived in Durban for most of my life so I call it home and by default it seemed a good choice to start up for this reason. I also looked around... There are no craft breweries in Durban itself. Sure, there are a few in Shongweni and Hillcrest but nothing actually in Durban. I thought this was a good business opportunity” (Interview, Odyssey Craft Brewery). A further example in terms of locational choice regarding urban areas was stated by Devils Peak Brewery in Cape Town - “Yeah so we started out in Somerset West but it became a logistical hurdle that we had to overcome, but the idea was always to be centred in Cape Town and therefore being close to ‘Devils Peak’ now – we have

these whole genus loci that we follow and it creates a sense of place and hence all our beer labels are relevant to ‘Devils Peak’...” (Interview, Devil’s Peak Brewery).

Another important element of local embeddedness of businesses is the extent to which these businesses are dependent upon for sales upon local markets which in this analysis refers to a distance of up to 50 km from the location of the microbrewery. Overall, nearly 80 percent of the interviews provided an estimate of the proportion of sales accounted for by local markets and across the sample the average was that 75 percent of microbrewery sales are accounted for by the local area. For half of the sample interviewees, the local market represented as much as at least 80 percent of total craft beer sales and in no case was the local market share below 50 percent. In tourist areas of South Africa the share of the local in total sales was strengthened by the role of tourists who were in search of local flavours. In many respects these findings are not surprising but it can be argued that they do offer another signal of the importance of the “local” for craft beer producers. In several interviews further insight was given as to the relative or absolute importance of local markets. In the case of “Diek’s Bru” situated in De Rust it was made clear that “most of my beers are sold within 50 km”. In the context of Johannesburg the owner of the microbrewery in the inner city explained that: “The Arts on Main building in the Maboneng district has become synonymous for attracting people back into the inner city as well as tourists, so essentially it’s very important” (Interview, Smack! Republic Brewing Company). Finally, in the case of the Darling Brewery, one of the country’s more established microbreweries, the relative importance of the local market was still recognized, the brewery’s owner explained it as the follows “it is not big but crucial as it was started here” (Interview, Darling Brew).

Another dimension of ‘being local’ relates to the sources of inputs in terms of the actual craft beer production process. It was made clear earlier by the sample interviewees that a large part of the ingredients for the production of craft beer are sourced through SAB Miller. This includes the base and speciality malts, hops and barley. In terms of other ingredients, most breweries source speciality products outside South Africa. As is the case of craft beer production in certain parts of the world, only a small proportion of inputs are actually sourced locally, the most important being water. Overall, the results from the South African interviews revealed there was only limited evidence of locally produced inputs which were

used in beer production. As indicated the strongest link to the “local” in terms of the input side was indicated by the use of local fresh water from boreholes, streams or local lakes such as the case of Karusa Premium Wines & Craft Brewery and Copper Lake Breweries.

This limited pattern of distinctive local products as inputs in craft brewing is, however, in contrast to trends which have been observed in the craft beer sector of the United States where an observed trend is noted for breweries to input locally available ingredients into beer production (Baginski, 2008: 47). The relative weakness of use of distinctive local products in the South African craft beer industry is perhaps indicative of the newness of the craft beer industry in South Africa as compared to its relative maturity in the USA case. Further evidence of local linkages and embeddedness of many microbreweries was evidenced in the relationships with the wider community. In a number of cases microbreweries were sponsors of not only local beer festivals but of other local events such as trail runs and, in one case, of a local art show.

In the experience of the USA, one of the strongest manifestations of neo-localism was the efforts made by craft beer producers to link their products to the local area through naming, branding and imaging. In particular Schnell and Rees (2013: 48) highlight the importance of “imagery” as a means to promote local ties. In their work they examined the images on labels, beer names and promotional material and the extent to which it reflected neo-localism. Schnell (2013) stresses that a major attraction of breweries is the exclusive nature of their product as they are marketing local beers not found elsewhere and thus products that are tied to a unique place. These breweries are often proudly and self -consciously local. According to Schnell (2013) they actively promote their craft beers through use of idiosyncratic beer names and imagery. Overall, it is asserted that in many respects microbreweries are marketing “place” as much as they are marketing beer and that they “actively seek out distinctly local imagery, local landscapes and local stories to position themselves as intrinsically rooted in place” (Schnell, 2013: 57). The interviews with the South African microbreweries attempted to probe these issues in a parallel fashion to research in the USA. The entrepreneurs were asked to explain the reasons why the names of their microbreweries and names of their craft beers were chosen and whether there were any connections between these names and the local area where the microbrewery is located.

The findings revealed almost an equal split between a group of breweries in which the naming and imagery was not linked to the local area and on the other hand a group of microbreweries in which there was a deliberate strategy to sell the “local” connection. The lack of place attachment in a number of the names that was used for microbreweries and their brands include for example Odyssey Craft Brewery and their craft beers were in accordance to the following “The brewery is Odyssey Craft Brewery, and chose it because what is an odyssey? It is a journey, an adventure, an experience... We want to take people on a journey through beer”. The Cockpit Brewhouse located in Cullinan was named in connection with the entrepreneur’s passion beyond beer for aviation. In addition, the naming of Three Skulls Brew Works was named with the explanation “To push the boundaries of what people expect a beer to be called”. In at least one-third of breweries the naming of the microbrewery itself and or craft beers did reflect a strong place attachment. For example, “The Chameleon Brewhouse” in Hartbeespoort takes its name and that of its brews from that of the local Chameleon Craft Market in the locality where it is situated. In a similar fashion the microbrewery in Nieu Bethesda, namely the Sneeuberg microbrewery is named for the nearby mountain range. Another example of direct place attachment was the “Clarens Brewery” situated in the Clarens village square and producing Clarens Blonde ale which is a variation of the American blonde ale type of beer. The Nottingham Road Brewery is a further example of naming after place where the brewery is situated in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands. In the case of Karusa Premium Wines & Craft Brewery which is located just outside of Oudtshoorn it was explained that the name “Karusa is the original word that the Karoo was named by according to the Khoi San meaning "land with little water" or "thirstland". In addition, at Honingklip microbrewery in Botrivier the derivation of the microbrewery name was explained as the name of the farm and also of a well-known local landmark.

In several other instances, the names of craft beers and the respective microbreweries were explained in terms of stories and imagery which provide a local connectedness and emphasize a sense of local identity. For example, in terms of the Red Sky microbrewery at Gordon’s Bay the entrepreneur explained its naming as follows: “The name is derived from our Stellenbosch night skies... the Simonsberg turns a deep purple/red in the summer evenings, the best way to observe them... sitting on your veranda with an ice cold beer”

(Interview, Red Sky Brew). A more direct link was evident in the case of Copper Lake Breweries. In this case the name was explained as follows “Copper Lake represents the characteristics of the brewery’s location and appearance... I have a copper coloured lake on my property”. In a further example, Diek’s Bru a microbrewery situated at De Rust, the local connectivity is in relation to the featuring of local paintings on craft beer labels which are by his daughter a well-established Karoo artist (Corne and Reyneke, 2013). Two further examples which make connections to the ‘local’ are these of Saggy Stone brewery and Darling brew. In the case of Saggy Stone Brewery, established by a former geography teacher, the explanation for the name near Robertson where the brewery is situated is because there is a landmark feature which the entrepreneur’s daughter named. In more detail the entrepreneur explained it as follows “We had built a stone lapa but with very badly built gabions in our kloof, the baboons sat on the walls and they partially collapsed. Our young daughter (12 years) called it Saggy Stone and then when we started building the brewpub out of river boulders she commented that it was just like Saggy Stone lapa!”(Interview, Saggy Stone Brewery).

Another place attachment example is that of Darling Brew which is clearly connected to the small town of Darling in the Western Cape, albeit the actual brews themselves are named after endangered South African animals including the geometric tortoise (Slowbeer), the loggerhead turtle (Native ale) and the spotted hyena (Bone crusher). Finally, further evidence of neo-localism and place attachments is in the case of naming of the beers linked to the Smack Republic Brewery situated at Maboneng precinct in the inner city of Johannesburg. This brewery produces a range of different brands of craft beers, all of which reflect a deliberate attempt to make local connections. As stated by the entrepreneur “Well, we offer three types of craft beer... all of which are idiosyncratic of the famous areas within the inner city of Joburg. One beer is named the ‘Maboneng Maverick’....and this is because we are located in the Maboneng building, which is one of the oldest buildings in Johannesburg and has hundreds of years of history attached to it, therefore the urban setting and rich cultural history give us a bold but fresh appeal to our brewery and beers”. The naming of the other craft beers produced at Smack! Republic Brewing Company goes further in terms of selling the local and making historical local connections to the actual surrounding inner city. The

microbrewery’s other products include the “Braamfontein Brawler” and the “Bree Street Belle”. This can be seen in Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.13: Smack Republic Brewing Company, Distinct Naming and Beer Labels. (Source: Author)

Arguably, from the evidence gathered from the survey material that the development of the microbrewery industry in South Africa manifests clear elements of neolocalism. Local connectedness and embeddedness is reflected most strongly in the importance of local markets for these breweries and in the practices of naming and labelling of their craft beer

products and microbrewery names which has been shown to provide clear attempts at reflecting local uniqueness and local identity. Figures 4.14 and 4.15 provide examples of labelling of microbreweries and their craft beers in South Africa which indicate neolocalism.

Figure 4.14: Amanzimtoti Brewery, “Yes, well our location Amanzimtoti is exactly why we called our brewery ‘Toti Brewing Company’. We’ve tried to incorporate local features in our beer labels -‘Pulpit Pilsner’: Thiers a rock, that’s famous near one of the surfing spots on one of our local beaches called ‘Pulpit Rock’” (Interview, Amanzimtoti Brewery). (Source: Author)

Figure 4.15: Devils Peak Brewery, “The brewery name - ‘Devils Peak’ was chosen because it’s an Iconic landmark in Cape Town number one and number two it has that mythical element to it, the intriguing devil character – so a little bit on the naughty side”, so all our names are very entrenched in Cape Town and Devils Peak. Our Beer Names & Labels: ‘The Kings Blockhouse – Which is a historical fort on ‘Devils Peak’ and is observable from our location” (Interview, Devils Peak Brewery).

(Source: Author)

4.7 Conclusion

The aim in this chapter was to examine the emergence and organisation of craft beer production in South Africa from 1983 to 2016. The analysis shows the uneven pace of the development of the industry and the changing geography with its dominance in the Western Cape and Gauteng. The greater spatial spread of the industry outside of metropolitan areas was observed with the appearance of micro-brewery operations in a number of secondary centres and especially in small towns. The structural features of the industry show a number of different segments with the most important characteristic the transition from homebrewing to licensed craft brewery, a transition which is impacted by legislation. Driving industry development are ‘passionate’ entrepreneurs, many of whom are engaged in the craft beer industry for lifestyle considerations. The growing competition in the craft beer sector has been accompanied by the observed closure of several breweries in recent years. A critical finding is that the growth of craft beer production in South Africa can be explained as a counter-movement to the dominance of mass produced beers in particular by SAB Miller. To support the continued expansion of the craft brewery sector there are many attempts by the producers to show a close local place attachment. Arguably, in this regard the concept of neolocalism is important for understanding the emergence and expansion of craft beer production in South Africa. The next chapter shifts the focus from production of craft beer to issues of beer consumption and particularly to the extent to which craft beer can be a catalyst for the further growth of beer tourism in South Africa.

CHAPTER FIVE BEER TOURISM: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter moves the discussion away from the production of craft beer to the issues around beer consumption and the role of craft beer in tourism development as a component of culinary tourism. Within tourism scholarship the topic of culinary tourism is of growing interest and research momentum (Hjalager and Richards, 2002; Long, 2003; Brownlie et al., 2005; Hashimoto and Telfer, 2006; Hall and Sharples, 2008; Smith and Xiao, 2008; Henderson, 2009; Harrington and Ottenbacher, 2010; Murray and Kline, 2015). In many parts of the world the activity of culinary travel is expanding in popularity and progressively has emerged as an independent product on its own within tourism (Bujdoso and Szucs, 2012a). Culinary tourism can be recognised as applying a variety of alternate terms including food, gastronomic, cuisine or gourmet tourism (Hall et al., 2003). Both Robinson and Novelli (2005) and Kraftchick et al. (2014) designate culinary tourism as a form of niche tourism with people travelling to particular localities in order to experience the unique foods and beverages of a destination. Minihan (2014: 3) adopts the definition that it is a “tourist’s experience taking a trip outside their normal setting for either a primary or secondary intention to embrace the food spectrum and sample local cuisine”. Indeed, culinary tourism is delineated as the pursuit of unique and memorable eating and drinking experiences and seeks to lure tourists in search of authentic experiences with the consumption of local food and beverages considered as bringing tourists closer to the home culture (Plummer et al., 2005; Bujdoso and Szucs 2012a). Hall et al. (2003) demarcate the scope of culinary tourism as encompassing visits to primary and secondary food producers, food festivals, restaurants and special locations for food tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of specialist food production as the essential driver or motivation for travel.

The local food and beverages of a region can assume a significant part in the culture of regions and can be one of the essential motivations for tourists to travel to certain areas in order to experience that cultural aspect (Plummer et al. 2005; Hall and Sharples, 2008; Hall and Gossling 2014; Minihan, 2014;). Among others Hall et al. (2000) stress that the

relationships between cuisine, place and experience are critical matters for tourism development. In a significant observation Bell and Valentine (1997: 149) aver that as localities and regions “seek to market themselves while simultaneously protecting themselves from the homogenising forces of globalization, regional identity becomes enshrined in bottles of wine and hunks of cheese”. Arguably, therefore, local food and beverages of a region can assume a vital role in the culture of regions and can be one of the essential motivations for tourists to travel to certain areas (Plummer et al., 2005).

In South Africa the benchmark study by du Rand and Alberts (2003) underlines the potential for culinary tourism and that localities should not overlook the potential of what are sometimes considered as secondary attractions, such as local food and drinks. Food tourism can be a vehicle for local and regional development with opportunities to diversify local economies as well as strengthen local identities and traditions (Everett and Aitchison, 2008). As argued by Everett and Slocum (2013, 2014) many local governments acknowledge the capacity of food tourism to enhance the sustainability of tourism development and have initiated a critical policy oriented agenda that supports the nexus of tourism and food as well as furnishing an avenue to enhance tourism product offerings. The search for authentic local products has become therefore a vital trend within food and drink tourism (Hall & Gossling, 2014).

Researchers of culinary tourism have focussed much attention on the productive relationships between tourism, food and different kinds of beverages (Hall et al. 2000, 2003; Plummer et al. 2005; Hall and Sharples 2008). This said, most scholarship, specifically within the segment of beverage tourism, has been devoted to wine or viticultural tourism (Hall et al., 2000; Plummer et al., 2005). Beyond wine, other forms of beverages and their linkages with tourism also have come under academic scrutiny; examples are whisky and bourbon, tequila, coffee, tea, sake and, most recently, beer. As is stressed by Murray and Kline (2015) beer tourism is an extension of culinary tourism. Against the background of factors influencing the wider international growth of beer tourism, an analysis is presented in this chapter of the emergence, growth and changing directions of South African beer tourism.

5.2 International Research and Literature on Beer Tourism and Festivals

Beer tourism is a new and expanding field of scholarship in beverage tourism and in culinary tourism more broadly (Bujdoso and Szucs, 2012b; Howlett, 2013; Dunn and Kregor, 2014). The phenomenon of beer tourism is considered as “a young form of special interest tourism” (Howlett 2013: 32). It is defined as a type of tourism “of which participants are motivated by gastronomic experience of drinking different types of beer and typical atmosphere of brewing restaurants or knowing history and current technology of beer manufacture” (Jablonska et al., 2013: 67). Bujdoso and Szucs (2012b: 105) argue “beer tourism has become a new and popular form of alternative tourism” and “a growing industry as more and more companies offer tours to beer brewing regions”. Beer tourism is a growing dimension of culinary or food tourism. Although South Africa is traditionally associated with wine tourism the country is enjoying the development of beer tourism, in particular associated with the expanding network of craft beer micro-breweries as well as their associated organized beer festivals. Although festival tourism is a growing issue in South African tourism writings, most existing work examines music, arts, sports or food and drink festivals, especially wine festivals. The specific role of beer has largely been overlooked.

Therefore an international review of research on beer tourism and beer festivals provides the context for this empirical research of South African beer tourism. In the international scholarship there is a significant agenda for tourism researchers around the relationships between the burgeoning of craft beer and of incipient forms of craft beer tourism. This agenda includes the need to profile beer tourists, understand the participation of breweries in beer tourism, the importance of neo-localism for the craft beer industry in South Africa, and evaluate the impacts of beer tourism initiatives for local economic development. For the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) “beyond just being a beverage, beer tourism offers curious travellers an insight into national identity, and most importantly, is a way to develop local tourism” (WTTC, 2014). As observed by Bujdoso and Szucs (2012b: 105) the international experience is that “beer tourism has become a new and popular form of alternative tourism” and “a growing industry as more and more companies offer tours to beer brewing regions”. Recently, the WTTC (2014) accorded official acknowledgement of beer tourism as an emerging niche in the global tourism economy. In particular, it draws attention

to an increasing number of countries looking to “jump onto the craft beer bandwagon”. One emerging destination in global beer tourism is South Africa.

Notwithstanding the growth of beer tourism, academic research about beer tourism is described as immature (Niester 2008). The international corpus of beer-specific tourism scholarship lags far behind the volume of research that is, for example, devoted to wine tourism. Howlett (2013: 23) considers brewery based tourism to be “a small and relatively unknown form of tourism” (Howlett, 2013: 23). Likewise, Niester (2008: 1) avers “that there is a significant lack of previous research and associated theory” with regards to the topic of beer tourism. In pioneer Canadian research on beer tourism Plummer et al. (2005: 449) used the definition that it is “visitation to breweries, beer festivals and beer shows for which beer tasting and experiencing the attributes of beer region are the prime motivating factors for visitors”. An important attraction for beer tourists is brewery tours and tasting rooms which allow the visitor to experience new types of beer and interact with brewmasters (Plummer et al., 2005). Arguably, beer tourism is an innovative niche tourism product. In common with other beverages its opportunities for energising economic and social development are under scrutiny across both city and rural environments especially in North America and Western Europe (Niester, 2008; Dunn and Kregor, 2014; Fountain and Ryan, 2015).

The first academic forays in beer tourism were launched by Plummer et al.’s (2005, 2006) work on the Waterloo-Wellington Ale Trail in Canada. Since then, a number of other investigations have appeared. The existing literature on beer-specific tourism contains a range of different works which examine the characteristics of beer tourists; the organization of beer tourism through visits to breweries, beer museums and exhibits, and a range of special events and festivals, including beer festivals and trails; and, research around the impacts of beer tourism for particular destinations (see for example Lyons and Sharples 2008; Niester 2008; Pechlaner et al., 2009; Alonso, 2011; Baginski and Bell, 2011; Bujdos and Szucs 2012a, 2012b; Dillivan, 2012; Howlett, 2013; Jablonska et al., 2013; Spracklen et al., 2013; Dunn and Kregor, 2014; Eberts, 2014; Kraftchick et al., 2014; Minihan, 2014; Murray and Kline, 2015).

Bujdoso and Szucs (2012b: 105) draw a distinction between different kinds of beer tourism based upon the primary motivation of tourists. Firstly, beer as the primary motivator for travel with the core aims of tourists to consume the selected type(s) of beer in a chosen environment. Second, is a situation when places that may be connected with beer or beer consumption are the primary motivation for travel; the actual consumption of beer is of a secondary consideration. For the first form of tourism, the attractions can be beer tastings, specialised beer shops, beer themed meals, beer weekends and most importantly the beer trail or route. It is argued that an organised beer trail might be a tourism attraction as it can be a major motivator for beer tourists “to plan a weekend break or short holiday in the area to sample local beers, stay at pubs and visit one or two breweries” (Bujdoso and Szucs, 2012b: 106). Beer museums and pubs as industrial heritage attractions are considered the most significant basis for the second form of beer tourism, in which beer consumption may be a secondary motivator. Examples include many European local breweries which operate visitor centres and beer museums, including the Plzen Brewery museum in the Czech Republic and the Guinness Brewery Museum in Dublin. Among others Van Westering (1999), Henderson (2009), Dillivan (2010) and Spracklen et al. (2013) point out beer tourism is an integral part of tourists consuming local heritage and of experiencing local history and cultures as reflected in food and drink.

Neolocalism is a trend towards the active, conscious creation and maintenance of an attachment to a locality or place (Flack 1997). Craft breweries thus emerge as a culinary tourism attraction and exemplify one of the many ways that communities can reaffirm their local identity in the wake of the impacts of globalisation on homogenising tastes and products (Schnell and Reese 2003; Murray and Kline 2015). Indeed, in the USA, Dillivan (2012: 8) articulates the linkages of craft beer to local heritage and identity as follows: “When ordering a drink at a bar, pub or microbrewery, there is much more than simply the drink that is ordered: it is part of a tradition that has shaped our culture and our history”. By branding beers with local themes a unique and distinctive beverage culture can be fostered thereby enhancing the distinctive character of localities for tourism development (Schnell and Reese, 2003). Among others Eberts (2014: 196) contends that tourism has emerged as “an important component of the craft breweries business model and increases their connection to local communities”.

The growth of the slow-food movement and of foodie movements are considered in the context of the USA as affording a stimulus of market demand for beer tourism. Among its goals, the slow food movement seeks to preserve traditional and regional cuisines, objectives which are incorporated within beer tourism. Howlett (2013: 24) emphasizes that slow food members who visit craft breweries “can now understand who is producing their favourite brews”. Craft breweries with their select and unique offerings are in a strong position to capitalize on the desires of the foodie movement to strive to try new restaurants and food products (Howlett, 2013). Another shift which is favouring the expansion of craft beer tourism is the rise of experiential tourism and of the experience economy wherein consumers pay a premium for experience rather simply a product or service. Breweries engage in experiential tourism by allowing visitors to become part of the ‘creative’ process of beer production through for example applying labels or even selecting hops. Another stimulus and outcome of the enhanced interest in beer tourism is the collector activity of ‘breweriana’ which involves any articles or item that contains a brewery or brand name associated with beer and breweries. In the USA there are a growing number of beer tourists who “collect beer glasses, bottles and other paraphernalia from the many different breweries they visit” (Howlett, 2013: 28).

Nowadays beer tourism is a way for localities to attract niche tourists either as a supplement to other tourism assets or as the main attraction. In many parts of the global North “beer could thus be seen to occupy an important position in the hospitality and entertainment industries” (Niester, 2008: 18). In the USA case for some tourists the macrobreweries of the country’s six leading brewers exhibit “a negative connotation, being known as beer with little character or culture” (Howlett, 2013: 8). By contrast the country’s growing cohort of microbreweries and brew pubs have the ability to offer a culinary experience, not least through pairing of different foods with multiple beers. In addition, farmhouse breweries or farm breweries, which are micro-breweries based on or near to a farm, often are motivated to supply locally produced items that are manufactured ethically and without chemical preservatives (Howlett, 2013: 13). As a whole, the expansion of the craft beer industry and of micro-breweries has escalated the popularity of beer tourism in several countries, in particular in regions of the USA including Wisconsin, North Carolina, Colorado and Oregon

(Francioni, 2012; Kline et al., 2014; Kraftchick et al., 2014; Shears, 2014). The Southern states of USA are the most recent entrants to the business of beer tourism (Baginski and Bell, 2011). Alonso (2011) highlights the challenges facing the establishment of beer tourism in the new frontier of Alabama.

Among others Niester (2008: 19) points out the concept of route development “has been adapted by the beer brewing industry in several areas and is commonly referred to as a ‘beer trail’ or ‘ale trail’”. These are self-guided tours that link beer lovers with a range of destinations connected to the beer. It is observed that beer or ale trails “increasingly are taking their place alongside more-established wine trails to draw the connoisseur to areas with a clustering of microbreweries” (Schnell and Reese, 2014: 175). Beer trails represent a subset of what Timothy & Boyd (2014) refer to as “purposive cultural routes”. Of all the different forms of tourism trails, wine routes are the best documented in tourism scholarship with the benefits of wine trails seen as accruing both to participating producers as well as having wider economic and community impacts particularly for local development. The concept of beer routes or beer trails is of more recent origin. Timothy and Boyd (2014) document the existence and popularity of several beer trails in European destinations. In tourism scholarship greatest attention has been devoted to the Canadian experience and the record of the Waterloo-Wellington Ale Trail (Plummer et al., 2005, 2006). The potential local economic development benefits of successful beer trails can be to strengthen pride in local breweries, attract tourists into localities, develop cooperative and collaborative networks and partnerships for both tourism expansion and expand sales of beer (Plummer et al., 2005, 2006). In the USA the state of Pennsylvania offers a self-guided beer tour that incorporates also visits to state parks and New York markets the Finger Lakes Beer Trail which encompasses breweries, brewpubs and restaurants. Howlett (2013) maintains that the state of Oregon is at the forefront of beer tourism in the USA with the cities of Portland and Bend of special significance. Abernethy (2014) chronicles the transition of a former mill town to “Beer Town, USA”. The locality of Bend with a population of 82 000 witnessed the rise of beer tourism with at least 14 breweries and encourages tourists to participate in a beer trail involving walks to local breweries (Abernethy, 2014). This town has been described as “maybe the most successful example of an ale trail” (Howlett, 2013: 46). The locality’s beer trail can be undertaken “on foot, bicycle or by car if they have a responsible and non-drinking

driver” (Howlett, 2013: 46). The trail is organised with tourists having a beer passport and collecting stamps on visiting various breweries; on receiving 11 different stamps tourists can take their passport back to the local visitor centre and receive a special prize. A parallel state- wide beer passport programme exists in the State of Vermont.

In common with the Bend Ale Trail several similar initiatives have been innovated across other towns of Oregon with one linked to a bicycle trail such that adventure tourism merges and cross-cuts the activity of beer tourism. In California restaurants offer beer and food pairings to celebrate the bold flavours that the products of the state’s flourishing craft beer industry add to local meals. In California beer festivals are an important medium by which craft brewers seek to reach out to consumers (Dunn and Kregor, 2014). In particular, San Diego is promoted as a hub for beer tourism with the city’s expanding beer culture. Beer tourism in Colorado is stimulated by hosting a number of festivals, most notably the Great American Beer Fest featuring over 600 breweries from across the USA in competition for awards for their beers (Howlett, 2013). In Michigan the month of July is declared as Craft Beer Month to promote consumption. Across the USA Schnell and Reese (2014: 175) reflect that brewery tours “have now taken their place alongside winery tours as a de riguere part of tourist advertisement for most regions of the country, and are touted as a means of experiencing the ‘authentic’ nature of a place”.

As noted earlier Canada was the focus for pioneer beer tourism research which was conducted on the Waterloo-Wellington Ale Trail. This collaboration between six craft breweries was closed in 2003 (Plummer et al., 2006). Elsewhere in Canada, however, the linkage between beer and tourism has grown and strengthened. For example, Eberts (2014: 196) argues that tourism has emerged as “an important component of the craft breweries business model and increases their connection to local communities”. It is noted “most microbreweries offer tours, both for marketing, but also to create tangible links with their consumers, or enable consumers to feel a greater connection to them” (Eberts, 2014: 196).In particular, this business model is common in Ontario where the Ontario Craft Brewers has created the Ontario Beer Route which is subdivided into a series of five routes corresponding to craft beer regions across the province. The role of such routes is to offer both increased

sales to breweries and importantly, wider benefits to local communities as the brewery tour is a vehicle for local economic development (Eberts, 2014).

Outside of North America beer tourism is taking root and recognised by several other countries which we discuss below. In parts of Europe beer tourism is linked strongly to heritage tourism. It is argued that brewery tourism in Germany is an integral facet of understanding the culture and cuisines of locales as well as the long-established histories of brewing and of breweries. The growth of beer festivals represents an integral component of the expanding popularity of beer tourism (Bujdoso and Szucs, 2012a). For Lyons and Sharples (2008: 167) beer festivals are associated “with the intangibles of hedonism, celebration and ritual rooted in local community” and at such events, whilst international beer brands might feature, normally local craft brews predominate. Globally, the most well-known & largest European beer festival is the Munich Oktoberfest which attracts an estimated 6 million visitors over several days to experience Bavarian culture and cuisine. Pechlaner et al. (2009: 33) observe that beer “is a cultural asset in Bavaria” and that “Bavarian beer becomes a part of the adventure that is travelling to Bavaria”. Cooperation is therefore essential between tourism organizations and the local brewery industry. Within Europe Amsterdam linked to Heineken, Dublin linked to Guinness, and Copenhagen, the headquarters of Carlsberg, are also important destinations which are linked to beer tourism. Belgium is another established locus for beer tourism with its vintage beers a popular attraction for tourists (Plummer et al., 2005). In Amsterdam the rise of the city’s beer tourism economy has been spurred by the expansion observed in craft breweries in the Netherlands particularly over the past decade (Strydom, 2014). In the case of Ireland the Guinness Storehouse is the country’s most popular fee charging tourism attraction (Foley, 2009: 15).

The Czech Beer Festival in Prague attracts more than a million visitors and similar festivals are of growing significance for beer tourists to visit the Baltic states especially Estonia (Bujdoso and Szucs, 2012b). International research on beer festivals points to three positive impacts upon destinations: (1) contributions to local economic development; (2) image enhancement; and (3) potentially strengthen the competitiveness of the destination for business investment (Zong and Zhao, 2013). The opportunities for developing beer tourism in Slovakia are highlighted by Jablonska et al. (2013). In Slovakia the country’s cohort of

microbreweries assume a vital role in developing local tourism and creating employment opportunities in small towns and villages. This potential is further maximised through the establishment of beer routes or trails which are dedicated to cultivating tourism and help preserve the country’s brewing traditions. Promotion of beer tourism occurs also through a range of local festivals and beer celebrations which have markedly increased in recent years. At such events “visitors can taste a wide offer of different beer brands” as well as “try here various specialities of Slovak cuisine” (Jablonska et al., 2013: 71).

The United Kingdom is another popular destination for beer tourism and annually hosts around 200 beer festivals are organised by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA). These festivals – not typically large by German or US standards - are organised by CAMRA to showcase real ale and generate funds for the organisation; some festivals have been running for nearly 40 years (Niester, 2008). Real ale tourism, part of British working class male culture, is expanding particularly in the traditional heartland of northern England. Spracklen et al. (2013) link its resurgence as part of a search for authentic food and drink and that the real ale industry is an element in the revitalization of beer traditions and of particular identities in the wake of what they describe as a ‘lagerized’ commercial world. In the United Kingdom ‘real ale destinations’ are being packaged and promoted by the tourism sector. Support for beer tourism can be secured through a beer achieving the status of Protected Designation of Origin Product which legally confines the production of a particular product to within the boundaries of a local area such as ‘Yorkshire beer’ (Niester, 2008). Real ale is marketed as a premium product which reflects authenticity and real food which is something ‘uniquely northern English’ (Spracklen et al., 2013). The real ale tourists are those who choose to reject the lagerization of the mainstream beer industry and view real-ale as an expression of authenticity, real food, small-scale capitalism, locality and regional identity (Spracklen et al., 2013). In the UK real ale tourism is supported by organised pub walks in which small groups of real ale supporters take walks across the English countryside to support old-fashioned pubs that serve real ale (Spracklen et al., 2013). Other channels for promoting real ale destinations are through organised brewery visits, tastings in local pubs which are paired with food, and having themed shops and visitor centres. Caffyn (2010) asserts that the relationships between beer and tourism are “worth fostering”. Using the example of the United Kingdom it is argued that beer, a traditional and often taken for

granted product, can be used as a basis for sustainable tourism development. In particular the British pub and breweries are a significant component of national architectural, social and industrial heritage (Niester, 2008). The enhancement of the linkages between beer and tourism through different aspects of beer tourism, in the long term, can offer opportunities for the growth of the beer industry and of tourism (Caffyn, 2010).

As tourists search for new experiences, beer tourism in Europe is becoming increasingly diversified as beer is connected with local attractions to create a “beer package” which is viewed as “a specialist beer themed trip including trips to breweries, interesting pubs, festivals and beer tastings, perhaps linked to walking and other food related activities” (Bujdoso and Szucs, 2012b: 110). In addition, opportunities exist to link beer with other local food specialities particularly those which complement beer such as cheese, chocolate or sausages (Caffyn, 2010). Finally, within the domain of beer tourism in Europe might be included, according to Munar (2013), the phenomenon of ‘drunken tourism’, which is a characteristic of destinations such as Majorca, in the Balearic Islands. Munar (2013) tracks the case of Palma where the promotion of heavy alcohol consumption, mainly beer, is used as a means to revitalize stagnant tourist areas. Easy access to abundant and cheap alcohol is related often to excessive consumption which causes outrageous, immoderate and unethical tourist behaviour at such drinking destinations (Munar, 2013).

Beyond Europe and the USA there is also increasing evidence of beer tourism taking root. In Asia, Zong and Zhao (2013) highlight the importance of beer tourism to Qingdao, the home of the world famous Tsingtao Brewery. This particular craft brewery was founded in 1903 the earliest such brewery established in China and host to one of Asia’s largest beer festivals. It is argued that the Qingdao brewery is “a popular tourist attraction and is considered a part of the town’s cultural identity” (Howlett, 2013: 37). In New Zealand, the city of Dunedin with its attraction of ‘Speight’s’ brewery is another developing beer tourism destination. In research undertaken on two New Zealand beer festivals it was disclosed that most festival attendees were male and relatively young, and relatively well-educated. Reasons for visitation varied between different festivals with some focused on beer experiences and education and others more centred on generic social and entertainment motivations. It was argued by Fountain and Ryan (2015) that these differences reflect variations in the focus of particular beer festivals in

New Zealand. In Brazil beer tourism also has become an emerging tourism segment in certain parts of the country. In particular, Bizinelli et al. (2013) document the expansion of beer tourism in the surrounds of Curitiba. Here the authors’ analysis suggests a need to promote a quality experience for visitors around good service, ambience and especially the quality of the craft beer that is produced and marketed. The level and nature of organisation of beer festivals varies enormously with some highly organised with coordinated activities whereas others are described by Lyons and Sharples (2008: 168) as characterised by autonomous behaviour. Certain beer festivals are cultural foci for drinking, eating, and entertainment whereas others – smaller specialised festivals – are associated with competitions, and judging of beers. The seasonality of beer festivals is widely observed with long established events such as Oktober best being linked to harvests. Internationally, the largest number of beer festival events is noted as occurring in September-October to capitalise on the brand image of Munich Oktoberfest.

5.3 Current Policy and Research Directions

According to Howlett (2013: 29) the future growth of beer tourism “can learn a great deal from a similar industry, wine tourism”. One parallel is that of establishing tasting rooms. It is argued that the motivations for breweries to establish tasting rooms are a direct parallel to those found by Hall et al. (2000) with respect to wine tourism namely for purposes of growing retail sales, promotion and education (Dunn and Kregor, 2014). Arguably, the opportunity to expand retail sales is most welcome by brewers as the distribution of craft beer can be difficult and expensive and brewers make more profits on direct sales than through the channels of wholesalers. The function of education was viewed as aligned to promoting and developing product awareness as well as challenging the market dominance of large brewers. Importantly, also, Dunn and Kregor (2014: 192) aver that scholarship on wine tourism “clearly demonstrates that wine producers initially did not regard their businesses as tourist attractions” and further that they needed “encouragement to recognise the potential benefits of cooperating with tourism industries to form wine tourism regions”.

The experience of the Canadian Wellington-Waterloo Trail is instructive here as suspicions existed between brewers and tourism organizations to the extent that the successful ale trail

was closed and the trail eventually abandoned (Eberts, 2014). In this particular, case the brewers’ early enthusiasm for the beer trail dwindled. It was contended that the breweries viewed tourism in the guise of the Ale trail as a vehicle for enhancing brand awareness and that once this was achieved the need for tourism was reduced (Plummer et al., 2006). Overall, an important policy lesson is to reflect on the fact that the principal focus of many craft breweries is craft beer and that their business strategy often is to build direct links to consumers locally and beyond through fostering a craft beer culture which is supported further by beer tastings, festivals and social media. Arguably, following Dunn and Kregor (2014: 197), in policy terms there is a need for extended collaboration and cooperation which requires that brewers acknowledge their potential role as tourism attractions and embrace support and partnerships from tourism organisations.

It is contended that whilst wine tourism is now an established niche in gastronomic/food tourism “beer tourism can learn from wine tourism and be able to attract consumers with methods similar to wine tourism or develop its own to differentiate itself” (Howlett, 2013: 31). In particular the promotion of beer tourism can learn from the networking effects, successful (informal as well as formal) collaboration and clustering that has galvanised wine tourism in many parts of the world (Plummer et al. 2005).

Nevertheless, it is stressed by Dunn and Kregor (2014: 192) that minimal “empirical research has been conducted into the relationship between craft breweries and visitors”. Early work in Canada generated a profile of mainly male visitors, largely under 30 years, travelling with partners or in a group and with an increasing proportion of visitors from outside the local region. Plummer et al. (2005: 456) unpacked the purchasing behaviour of beer tourists and disclosed that the majority of visitors had sampled new beers and “planned to purchase that product in the near future”. The extent of consumer-based research on beer tourist motivations remains limited. However, in recent studies based in North Carolina, USA Francioni (2012) and Kraftchick et al. (2014) isolate four sets of main motivational factors for beer tourists. These relate to the craft brewery experience, enjoyment, and socializing and beer consumption. It is argued that the first and last factors, the craft brewery experience and beer consumption “illustrate the elements of a craft brewery that people enjoy and to which they are most attracted” (Kraftchick et al., 2014: 45). The existing limited research findings

on craft beer tourists suggest that typically they wish to visit regions where they can tour multiple breweries and taste multiple products (Howlett, 2013: 38). The majority of beer tourists learn about breweries either through word of mouth or from friends and family. This said the role of social media is also of rapidly growing importance for the marketing of new craft beers and breweries (Dunn & Kregor, 2014).

Drawing from the experience of Yorkshire in Northern England, Niester (2008: 99) cautions of considerations that can limit the development of beer tourism. At the outset it is made clear that beer tourism represents a small niche form of tourism and that beer tourism development “is constrained by the relatively small but passionate number of beer drinkers, who enjoy Real Ales” as well as the relatively small size of the region’s producers. Accordingly, in considering an entry into beer tourism breweries must be realistic about potential revenues, the size and scope of their business operations and of the specific goals that they wish to achieve. Indeed, it is demonstrated from Yorkshire that while adopting tourism promotion as a component of a brewery’s overall business plan can yield potential benefits it also may have certain costs. In particular, attention is drawn to the requirement for additional staff to run tasting rooms or tours and the capital costs of making a brewery ‘visitor friendly’ including in terms of local planning health and safety regulations. Niester (2008: 99) points out that in certain cases these added costs and time commitments for tourism may outweigh the limited benefits and thus “discourage a brewer from getting involved with tourism in the first place”.

Table 5.1: A Categorization of Breweries Based upon their Involvement in Beer Tourism Activities

Category Adoption of Beer Nature of Tourism Brewers Opinions Tourism Practices Brewery Tours Infrastructure on Using Tourism  Attraction Beer tours, festivals, Daily, year round Visitor centre, Very positive Breweries facilities for special brewery tours brewery bar or tap events offered to the room, restaurants, public. Pre-booked conference facilities visits accepted  Participant Tours, festivals and Tours must be Wide-ranging. Mixed attitudes and Breweries sometimes special advance pre- Sometimes visitor opinions which can event facilities booked and usually centre and usually a vary from very groups tap room positive to negative  Promotional Tours and festivals Tours available to No general patterns Mixed opinions Breweries customers, those in but usually a dependent on the

the trade or brewery tap is brewer who often specialist groups available views tours and festivals as strictly a business tool  Enterprising Offers tours or Infrequent tours Variable from Mixed opinions from Breweries participates in festivals only for pre- brewery tap to no highly positive to but not both arranged special facilities strongly negative groups.  Reclusive No tours, no None None Usually negative or Breweries participation in indifferent festivals

Source: Adapted after Niester (2008: 110).

In an important contribution to international scholarship on beer tourism, using UK experience, Niester (2008) furnishes a typology of breweries which is anchored upon their involvement in the practices of beer tourism. As summarised on the above Table several categories of enterprises can be differentiated. These are based upon a brewer’s overall involvement in brewery tours, beer festivals and special events, the structure of these activities, a brewer’s rationales for using tourism, and their attitudes and opinions on the importance and usefulness of brewery involvement in tourism and hospitality.

Based on Niester (2008) the first category of ‘attraction breweries’ apply beer tourism practices for their benefit with the brewery marketed as a tourism attraction and open daily, all year around for tours at regular, predictable times. Such attraction breweries are distinguished by a well- established tourism infrastructure and offering their guests the use of brewery facilities for special events, corporate functions or weddings. The second category is ‘participant breweries’. These are denoted by their strong use of beer tourism as a whole, offering of beer tours as well as their participation in beer festivals and occasional use of premises for special events. For such participant breweries tours are not undertaken on an everyday basis but can be done if pre-booked and usually for groups rather than individuals. The third category of ‘promotional breweries’ are defined as using “beer tourism practices such as tours, festivals and special events only if these practices may directly affect immediate or future beer sales”. Tours are restricted usually to special groups of tourists who are legally able to attend, (age wise) and only by appointment: the group of promotional breweries “do not allow onlookers, casual observers, passers-by, or those with an interest in

how beer is made to visit” (Niester, 2008: 105). The fourth group of “enterprising breweries” usually are small in size with many falling into the categorization of brewpubs. Most of these participate in forms of brewery tourism, albeit they have not made a firm commitment to tourism as part of their business model. Typically, such enterprises might engage in beer festivals but would not offer tours of their property. According to Niester (2008: 107) this group of breweries are “trying their best in a very limited and competitive market”. The last group of what are termed “reclusive breweries” have no engagement at all in beer tourism and do not participate in festivals, offer tours or provide any infrastructure for beer tourism. Such breweries eschew involvement in the activity of beer tourism often for reasons of lack of funds, lack of time, sometimes unsafe properties for visitors or simply absence of any interest in tourism as part of a business model.

Overall, it is argued that smaller craft microbreweries may use tourism for different reasons to those of more successful and large brewing enterprises. For Niester (2008: 108) there is a continuum across from the group of small and less profitable enterprises that participate in tourism for purposes of increasing revenue to the opposite extreme of a cohort of larger and more profitable enterprises that apply the practices of beer tourism (in the form of beer tours and participation in festivals) more for purposes of marketing, brand relationships and as a tool to further popularize their brands than for direct revenue generation. Yet other brewers will shun completely the activity of beer tourism and instead concentrate their efforts exclusively upon the production of craft beers (Niester, 2008). Interpreting this uneven landscape requires an appreciation that many ‘informal’ micro-brewers lack the capital, resources, skills and knowledge which are essential prerequisites for participation in beer tourism.

For the development of beer tourism much can be gleaned in terms of lessons informed from the experience of parallel forms of beverage tourism, such as wine tourism. This said, the differences between the often well-organised and better-developed wine tourism sector as opposed to the often loosely and informal mode of organisation of craft beer micro-breweries point to the value of generating an expanding beer-specific scholarship (Niester, 2008). With the recent birth of South Africa as a beer tourism destination there is an urgent need for (re)examining the relationship between tourism and the beer industry. The remainder of this

chapter is devoted to examining beer tourism South Africa and specifically of the importance of craft beer as a driver for such tourism, including through the hosting of local beer festivals.

5.4 The Emergence of Beer Tourism in South Africa

The historical development of the beer industry in South Africa mainly is oriented around the emergence of South African Breweries (SAB) as the country’s monopoly brewer for the national ‘clear’ beer market. Currently, SABMiller enjoys a 95 percent share of the South African beer market. The works of Tucker (1985) and Mager (2008) trace the growth and trajectory of SAB and of its achievement of monopoly brewer status for South Africa in 1956 following its takeover of Ohlsson’s Breweries in the Cape and Union Breweries in Natal. During the apartheid period an enormous expansion occurred in the South African brewing industry. In particular, the growth of the industry accelerated after the lifting in 1962 of the prohibition on the sale of “European” liquor to the country’s African or Black population (Mager, 2004). Mager (2008) documents successive international brewers and local entrepreneurs sought to benefit from increased demand in the 1970s but were unable to withstand the competition from SAB, whose position as monopoly producer went virtually unchallenged until the end of apartheid isolation and South Africa’s re-insertion into the global economy. At the time of democratic transition in 1994 the national beer industry essentially was bifurcated between the production of clear beers by SAB and of ‘traditional’ sorghum based beers marketed to the majority Black (African) population. Historically, under apartheid the sorghum beer industry was a state-run monopoly and represented a controversial key source of local state funding for township development (Rogerson, 1986).

Beer tourism in South Africa is a relatively young phenomenon. In a rich analysis Mager (2006, 2010) examines the nexus of heritage and beer tourism in the country and of the re- imaging of beer after democratic transition. It is argued that the “story of state-run beer halls and opposition to them was captured as heritage in the Kwa Muhle Museum in Durban” which depicts a discourse about power and powerlessness and the struggles of ordinary people for dignity” (Mager, 2010: 107). As a form of ‘dark tourism’ it is proclaimed the Kwa Muhle Museum enjoys “the unenviable reputation as once being one of the most hated

buildings in the city [Durban] when it was the former Department of Native Affairs, an authoritative body responsible for enforcing punitive apartheid legislation” (South African Tourism, 2015a). A completely different narrative in the meaning of ‘beer for the people’ is constructed by SAB, the country’s major producer of clear beer. Founded in 1895 the company used the opportunity of its centenary (which fell one year after South Africa’s democratic transition) “to establish a monument to bottled beer as the nation’s longest standing national popular drink and so claim a place close to the heart of the new nation” (Mager, 2010: 107). Two focal points for beer tourism were constructed as heritage landscapes with the goal of creating “something highly visible and long lasting that would encapsulate SAB heritage and carry it forward” (Mager, 2010: 107). The first was a visitor centre located at the cultural area of Newtown, Johannesburg, and the apex of an imagined post-apartheid future. The Centenary Centre – subsequently re-titled The SAB World of Beer - was addressed at its opened on 15 May 1995 by President Nelson Mandela. The museum seeks to explain the beer brewing process in detail and “to convey a message that combined production, branding and consumption” (Mager, 2010: 109). The museum’s location in inner- city Johannesburg was to be a part of urban renewal for the cultural district of Newtown and a focal point for leisure tourism in Johannesburg (Rogerson, 2002). However, as a consequence of its location in the perceived ‘unsafe’ environs of inner city Johannesburg visitor numbers and tourism growth initially was slow (Rogerson and Kaplan, 2005). Nevertheless, as inner-city renewal progressed, Johannesburg matured as an urban tourism destination in the post-apartheid era (Rogerson and Visser, 2007; Rogerson and Rogerson, 2014). Accordingly, “the World of Beer saw itself increasingly as a place of hospitality and began to attract substantial numbers of visitors” (Mager, 2010: 115).

In Cape Town Mager (2010) points out that the initial expansion of beer tourism was again somewhat hindered by geography. SAB had no historical connections to the city’s Victoria and Alfred Waterfront which is the major magnet for international leisure visitors to South Africa (Rogerson and Visser, 2006). SAB’s beer heritage development in Cape Town involved the expansion of its Newlands brewery plant. It was argued this would promote beer culture beyond branding as well provide an alternative tourism focus to the rapidly growing wine routes of Cape Town and its surrounds. The SAB Heritage centre in Cape Town is situated in a restored malt house which was originally built in 1821 and the site of a brewery

which was constructed in 1859. In 1995 the SAB Heritage Centre on the (former) Ohlssons’s Brewery site was opened and in the following year granted national heritage monument status. At this centre tours (and beer tastings) are offered which explain the growth of the beer industry in South Africa and emphasize in particular the special role assumed by SAB (Mager, 2010).

Another facet of the development of beer tourism in South Africa relates to the emergence of shebeens. The rise of the backyard shebeen as the focal point of an illicit liquor trade was a response to the municipal monopoly on the manufacture and sale of sorghum beer from which the local state derived a considerable amount of revenues for the administration of African urban townships during both the colonial and apartheid periods (Rogerson, 1986; Mager, 2005). The network of state run beer halls generated much hostility, resistance and angry opposition from both male drinkers about unpalatable brews and among African women who resented losing their right to brew traditional beer. However, as shown by Rogerson and Hart (1986) shebeens as drinking places emerged as vibrant elements in the fabric of the urban informal economy in South Africa. Despite many initiatives by national and local state to repress or destroy the shebeen trade, they persisted and survived into the post-apartheid era as spaces and places of informality, enterprise, drinking and sociability (Charman et al., 2014). The first organised shebeen tours emerged alongside the beginnings of township tours in South Africa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The shebeen thus became an element of ‘slum tourism’ a term which “describes organized tours to deprived areas” (Frenzel 2012: 49). The central feature of slum tourism is of “the touristic valorization of poverty-stricken urban areas of the metropolises in so-called developing or emerging nations which are visited primarily by tourists from the Global North” (Steinbrink et al., 2012: 1).

During the 1990s the potential market for such tours expanded greatly with democratic transition and South Africa’s re-entry into the international tourism economy. The rise of township tourism and of poverty or slum tours offered renewed opportunities for the expansion of shebeen tours separately or as part of the wider offering in a township tour (Rogerson 2008). Proposals were aired for establishing a Soweto shebeen route but suspicions among liquor retail entrepreneurs resulted in limited cooperation and minimal progress with this beer tourism project. Nevertheless, as Mager (2010: 121-122) points out,

whilst the imagined Soweto shebeen route struggled to materialise, in other parts of South Africa where shebeeners “were less encumbered by competing interests among liquor retailers” a number of shebeen tours were launched. Localities where this occurred included Mamelodi near Pretoria and KwaZakhele in Port Elizabeth. Arguably, as Mager (2010: 122) contends, many Soweto shebeeners “remained sceptical of subjecting themselves and their patrons to the tourist gaze”. This said, in several township tours, a shebeen visit was part of the itinerary and often this incorporated tastings of home-brewed sorghum beer. Currently, dedicated shebeen tours can be organised as a separate offering to the township tour and these are available in several townships including Soweto, KwaMashu and Inanda. The shebeen tours or ‘crawls’ are marketed in Durban particularly at youth tourists in the age group 20-35 years. One example is the “Shebeen scene tour” an activity with a bar-hopping experience described as “authentic, African, and an all round unforgettable experience” in which participants are advised to bring along with their hat and camera some beer goggles and party shoes (Street Scene, 2015).

Overall, for Mager (2010: 122) “beer tourism in the first decade after apartheid remained a discordant set of spaces”. In the second decade after apartheid the narrative of beer tourism shifts markedly to focus not only on the beer products of SAB or sorghum beer but increasingly upon an alternative array of new craft beers which were produced by a burgeoning number of craft breweries launched in South Africa since 2000. The new directions charted in beer tourism in South Africa exhibit parallels with the craft beer tours, trails and festivals on offer in North America and Western Europe. (See e.g. Alonso 2011; Baginski and Bell 2011; Bujdoso and Szucs 2012a, 2012b; Spracklen et al., 2013; Dunn and Kregor, 2014; Eberts, 2014; Kraftchick et al., 2014; Murray and Kline, 2015).

5.5 Profile of Contemporary Beer Tourism in South Africa

South Africa represents one example of the phenomenon of craft beer tourism in the global South thus adding a new element to the mainstream literature on beer tourism festivals which is dominated currently by research concerning beer tourists, tourism and beer festivals taking place in the global North. The results and discussion are organised in terms of the following

sets of results. First, is brief discussion on the geography and seasonality of craft beer festivals in South Africa based on data collected in 2014-2015. Second, is a review of the demographics of festival attendees and an analysis of motivations and patterns of attendance of beer festival patrons. Third, is discussion of craft beer as an impetus for local development.

5.5.1 Craft Beer festivals in South Africa

In Chapter Four an analysis was done of the evolving network of craft breweries which provides the anchor for a new vibrant form of beer tourism in South Africa. Indeed, their growth has been associated with the launch and popularity of many brew pubs and restaurants focussed on craft beer. In addition, several craft beer festivals, beer tours and routes have been initiated as further support for the expansion and new directions of South African beer tourism. A national audit conducted in 2014 revealed the existence of a total of 54 craft beer festivals occurring in South Africa (Van Zyl, 2014: 140-145; and Swanepoel, 2014). Figure 5.1 shows their location.

Figure 5.1: Location of Craft Beer Festivals in South Africa (Source: Author)

The geography of these festivals as shown on Figure 5.1 is significant. The largest number of craft festivals are in South Africa’s major cities with individually Cape Town (16), Johannesburg (7) and Durban (5) the most popular venues. The fourth most important location for craft festivals is Stellenbosch, which is the heart of the Cape Winelands, and a focal point for wine routes. Beyond these centres it is notable that beer festivals are organised now in a number of small South African towns such as Hermanus, Robertson, Clarens, and Knysna. As is shown on Figure 5.2, the occurrence of these festivals is throughout the year. Most festivals take place during South Africa’s winter and spring months (July-October) with a peak in October with festivals timed to coincide with Munich’s beer Oktoberfest.

Figure 5.2: Seasonality of South African Craft Beer Festivals (Source: Author)

5.5.2 Craft Beer Festival Attendees

Data was collected during 2014-2015 at four beer festivals to examine the profile of festival attendees. The four festivals were the Cape Town Festival of Beer, Sandton Craft Beer Fair (Johannesburg), SA on Tap (Johannesburg), and Clarens Craft Beer Festival. Interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 132 attendees across these four festivals. In terms of demographics the profile of beer festival attendees is given on Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Demographic Profile of Festival Attendees (n=132)

Characteristic Key Findings

Gender  65 % male; 35 % female. Age  Average age 35.9 years; 50% <35years; 32% between 36-45 years. Race  64% white; 17% black (African); 10% Coloured; 10% Asian. Marital status  69% single. Employment status  70% in full time employment; 21% students; 9% part-time employment. Estimated Household income (n=108)  Average R560k; 67 % over R500k. Highest level of Education  69% University graduates. Nationality and Residence  89 % South African citizens; 55 % are not

residents of community where festival is hosted. Source: (Author Survey Data, see appendix D)

It is revealed that with an average age overall of 35.9 years beer festival patrons are mainly Millennia’s (born after 1980), or in the age group 36-45 years. This finding corresponds with research on craft beer patronage in the USA as reported by Reid et al. (2014). Beer festival participants in South Africa are majority singles, mainly males from middle-income or high- income households, relatively well-educated and working in full-time employment. Indeed, of special note is the highly educated profile of local beer festival attendees with over two- thirds having bachelor degrees and 13 percent with postgraduate qualifications. The cohort of attendees includes not surprisingly a notable share of students. The racial profile of beer festival attendance discloses the dominance of Whites but with one-third of participants being Blacks, Asians or Coloureds. In addition 89 percent were South African citizens and 55 percent of the sample (n=132) were classified as non-residents of the community where festival was hosted.

Table 5.3: Festival Attendance: Patterns and Motivations

Characteristic Key Findings

Group  Average size 2.87 persons; only 11 % of participants are alone. Type of group  86 % with friends or relatives. Tourist or Day visitor  73 % day visitors; 27% are staying overnight for at least one night. Tourists stay  Average 1.54 nights (n=35) Type of accommodation  Bed and Breakfast 46%; Hotel 31%; With Friends or relatives 17 %; 6% at backpackers hostel. Awareness of festival  27 % social media; 20 % friends and relatives; 19 % word of mouth; 13 % radio or television. Attendance at other festivals  91 % have attended other local craft beer festivals within South Africa; Average number of festival attendance is 2.20 per annum; 17 % have attended at least 4 beer festivals

in calendar year; 73 % definitely plan to attend future events. Critical factors affecting decision to attend  82% entertainment on offer; 80% weather; 75% number and selection of breweries; 71% location of festival; 68% cost. Estimated expenditure at the festival  71 % stipulated over R400 Participation in Craft brewery tours  45 % have undertaken brewery tours Potential for South Africa to be a successful  82 % Yes and 18 % maybe beer tourism destination

Source: (Author Survey, see appendix D)

The major survey results concerning patterns of attendance and festival attendee motivations are captured on Table 5.2. Several points can be highlighted. First, is the sociability which is attached to craft beer festivals with the overwhelming majority of attendees being in groups 2-3 persons with friends or relatives; although 73 percent are day visitors as many as 55 percent are not residents of the locality where the festival is being hosted. The sociability of festivals is further emphasized by the importance attached to entertainment linked to such festivals. Core reasons for attending the festival are to experience new forms of beer, to make purchases of beer, socialize with friends and relatives, enjoying festival entertainment and consume new beer and food pairings (Table 5.2).

Second, beyond sociability there is also a considerable group of participants who are interested in tasting new craft beer products and enjoying the opportunities for experiencing new beer and food pairings. For these patrons the variety of craft beers on offer at festivals becomes a critical factor influencing the decision to attend. It is observed that information about local beer festivals is obtained from a range of different sources, most significantly social media platforms, and word-of-mouth and from friends and relatives. These issues around attendee motivations in respect of sociability of festivals and the desire of certain patrons to expand their knowledge and experience of craft beers find their parallels in the corpus of international work that has been undertaken on the motivations of beer festival goers in USA and New Zealand (see Kraftchick et al., 2014; Fountain and Ryan, 2015).

Third significant set of results surrounds the geography of festival goers. It is disclosed that most festival attendees are day visitors and drawn from the immediate location where the festival is held. Given the dominance of large cities in the hosting of beer festivals in South Africa this result is not surprising for the Cape Town and Johannesburg beer festivals. At the Clarens beer festival a major reason for attendance is that of ‘getting away for the weekend’ as most attendees were not from the local area and instead from cities in South Africa’s economic heartland around Johannesburg. In terms of festival attendees staying overnight at the locality where the festival occurs, across the four festivals only 27 percent are tourists in that definition. Of note is that 83 % of this group are in paid accommodation with the rest staying at friends or relatives accommodation. Furthermore, what is noteworthy is that in the case of the festival at Clarens 88 percent of patrons were non-locals. Moreover, 58 percent of attendees would be classed as domestic tourists as they were staying overnight, mostly in paid accommodation; the rest were non-Clarens residents but day visitors. Indeed, the findings from Clarens confirms that of other sources which indicate the importance of craft breweries as tourism assets for South African small towns and the potential of beer tourism as a basis for promoting local tourism development in small town South Africa (Corne and Reynecke, 2013). It is therefore evident that the hosting beer festivals to promote the niche of beer tourism can be a boost for local tourism economies and enhancing the local economic development potential in small towns, which is an issue of considerable relevance in the making of South Africa’s post-productivist countryside (Nel and Rogerson, 2007).

5.5.3 Craft Beer and Local Development

It is observed that many craft breweries situated in small towns are emerging now as local tourist attractions (Anon, 2014). Of the total sample of interviewees as many as 45 percent had actually undertaken a brewery tour. South Africa’s first beer tourism route was launched in October 2002 in the province of KwaZulu-Natal (News 24, 2002). The route, a product of private sector initiative, was coordinated by one of the craft micro-breweries’ organisers and marketed as offering “a highly specialised taste experience” to parallel that of wine tasting (News 24, 2002). The route incorporated visits to five micro-breweries and two larger commercial breweries. Beer tourists are enticed to traverse ‘the brewtiful country’ (Corne 2010). The route begins in Durban and travels through the scenic area of the Natal Midlands

with visits to breweries at Dundee and Eshowe, both part of the Battlefields heritage area (Van der Merwe, 2014). The pathway of the beer route overlaps also part of the Midlands Meander, one of South Africa’s most successful route tourism initiatives.

Over the years the mix of breweries that tourists are encouraged to visit on this tour of KwaZulu-Natal has changed, not least as a result of a churning of micro-brewery operations. However, the overall offering encourages tourists to sample the products of all segments of the national beer industry, namely clear beer produced by SAB, the sorghum brew products and the craft beers of several micro-breweries. Its promoters claim the Beer or Brew route, a recent addition to the tourist offering “promises something quite different for this province and the country as a whole” (SA-Venues.com, 2013). In particular, visits to the Khangela sorghum beer plant in Durban to taste utshwala (traditional wheat beer) are billed “as a real experience for foreigners” (SA-Venues.com, 2013). Another recent combination of breweries termed unofficially as the KwaZulu-Natal brew route is marketed as “akin to a treasure hunt as beer lovers meander across the province, from the Valley of a Thousand Hills through the Midlands, and northeast into Zululand, then to the seaside seeking to uncover the province’s finest beers” (South African Tourism, 2015b). The focus is exclusively on visiting craft breweries with tourists encourage to undertake a self-drive tour in search of “an epicurean adventure” on a beer tasting route “which isn’t a conventional signposted A-to-B route” (South African Tourism, 2015b).

Outside of the province of KwaZulu-Natal a number of other unofficial ale trails or brew routes exist in particular in Gauteng and the Western Cape. Around Johannesburg a number of tour operators now offer Jozi craft brewery beer tours. Most of the organised beer tours, however, occur in Cape Town and its surrounds, the area which contains the greatest cluster of craft micro-breweries in South Africa. The majority of these tours are targeted at international tourists visiting Cape Town and marketed as alternatives to the region’s wine routes. Of note is the appearance of a handful of beer tours in South Africa which are now organised and marketed by international tour companies. For example the British based Ker & Downey Africa, which is most well-known for organised safari tours in several African destinations, now offer a five day craft beer tour based around Cape Town. This luxury tour includes accommodation at a boutique hotel, a beer cruise aboard a trendy yacht as well as

visits to select local craft breweries. The costs and marketing of the package is reflective of the upmarket nature of this beer tourism offering. Built for those in search of fun and most importantly both ladies and gents who have a genuine love of craft beer. This is the perfect beer holiday for your friends to let loose in what is known as one of the best cities in the world. From food and draft tastings and the best of youth culture in Cape Town. This is the ultimate retreat for bachelors and bachelorettes alike to celebrate birthdays and any other occasion with friends (Ker & Downey Africa 2015).

5.6 Conclusion

For culinary tourism South Africa is most closely associated with the culture of wine and of wine tourism (Ferreira and Muller 2013). As compared to wine tourism at present the phenomenon of beer tourism is on a much smaller-scale in South Africa. The discussion in this chapter has traced the historical growth of beer tourism in South Africa which initially must be linked to clear beer and the products of SABMiller. It is shown though that the most recent growth is associated with craft beer, craft beer festivals and increasingly the organisation of craft beer routes or trails. In this respect the development of craft beer tourism in South Africa shows parallels with the international experience. An important finding is the potential role of craft beer tourism for local development especially in small towns through the organisation of beer festivals. Indeed, this chapter addresses an aspect of festival tourism so far unexplored in South Africa, namely beer festivals which are part of the growth of beer tourism as a niche product. Today in South Africa the major driver for organized beer festivals is the flourishing network of craft beer microbreweries. The chapter also unpacked the characteristics and motivations of beer festival attendees using data from four South African beer festivals. Arguably, its major findings in terms of the profile of festival goers relate to the dominance of festival attendees by Millennial’s, by day visitor’s at large city festivals, and by domestic tourists in festivals hosted in small towns.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

6.1 Context

The task in this concluding chapter is to provide a brief overview of key findings and the contributions of this study to international scholarship. At the outset it should be reiterated that the aims of this research study were threefold. First, was to analyse the growth and changing spatial distribution of licensed microbreweries in South Africa since the introduction of craft beer in 1983. The second objective was to determine whether the operations of the craft microbrewers in South Africa can be explained by the concept of neolocalism, which has attracted much academic attention in recent years. Finally, the third goal was to move the focus away from the production of craft beer to issues of beer consumption, investigating the extent to which craft beer is a lever for driving new tourism development. This last objective was pursued against the backcloth of the growth of a dedicated literature around beer tourism. The growth and contemporary directions of beer tourism were investigated in the setting of a destination which in terms of culinary tourism is associated usually with wine tourism (Ferreira and Muller, 2013).

6.2 Summary of Key Findings

This study was situated within the context of globalization processes which have produced homogenizing effects in terms of the standardization of a number of consumer products. These trends towards homogenization spawned what Schnell (2013, p. 55) describes as “a notable move in the opposite direction over the past 25 years”. It was argued that among the reflections of this counter-movement are the rise of alternative food networks, an interest in local foods, the growth of farmers markets, and an increased focus on the how and where of food sourcing. The study built upon the arguments developed in international craft beer scholarship in Europe, North America and Australia that another manifestation of this counter-movement is the growth (or revival) in many parts of the world of microbrewing and

100

of craft beer production as a reaction to the global dominance and homogenized product supplied by several large corporations in the beer industry. Microbrewing and craft breweries are therefore viewed as part of what is described as neolocalism or of becoming local in a global age (Schnell and Reese, 2013; Schnell, 2013). Aptly the use of the term neolocalism in relation to craft beer is captured by Flack (1997) who uses the phase “aleing for a sense of place”. Overall therefore, the broad trend to neolocalism essentially is about the resurgence or reconnection of consumers with ‘places’, which is a central theme for researchers in human geography and is of increased concern also for tourism scholars.

The research demonstrated that the South African beer industry provides a useful case study in which to examine the utilization of the concept of neolocalism. In addition, a parallel theme of this research has been to examine how a traditional product, often taken for granted, can be used to sustain and promote beer tourism in South Africa. According to the three set objectives of the study clearly stated in Chapter One, the focus was to analyze the historical evolution and growth of microbreweries in South Africa since the 1980s to the present-day; secondly examine the emerging geographies of the microbrewing industry and to determine whether the operations of the craft microbrewers can be explained by the concept of neolocalism; and lastly attempt to identify the current links which exist between beer and tourism in South Africa, and, in particular, to examine the extent to which craft beer contributes to the growth of beer tourism in South Africa. Within this research, a sub-theme is to analyse the characteristics and motivations of festival attendees at beer festivals in South Africa.

The findings reveal clearly that the emergence of craft beer in South Africa is, to a large extent, a reaction to the dominance of the country’s beer industry by one large enterprise. Since the 1960s the mass production of malt beer in South Africa has been under the control of one major corporation, namely SABMiller which subsequently expanded into a global player in international beer production. With its massive control of the South African beer market, the range of beer types available to consumers has been reduced over time. This is a parallel with international trends as observed in USA, UK, Australia and several other countries across the globe. This thesis presents strong finds that craft beer has emerged and strengthened as a reaction to this dominance and has resulted in the introduction of a range of

101

different products into the local market. Chapters One and Two in this thesis articulated the theoretical context for this investigation in terms of the concept of neolocalism by extensively reviewing existing scholarship. It was argued that the development of neolocalism as a counter-movement to globalising tendencies has been stressed as critical in international research for understanding the emergence of craft breweries

In Chapter Four the empirical findings were disclosed from a national audit of craft breweries and of a set of 53 interviews which were undertaken with brewery entrepreneurs. It was shown that the number of microbreweries in South Africa has surged particularly over the last five years. The findings within this research have shown that the size of the craft beer industry in South Africa is still currently small albeit is expanding rapidly. Major empirical findings of this study indicate that craft brewery entrepreneurs in South Africa tend to be middle-aged, mostly male, highly-educated, and driven by a passion for brewing. Lifestyle considerations were critical in driving many entrepreneurs to establish businesses in the craft beer sector of South Africa. Overall, however, in common with trends observed in other parts of the world, entrepreneurs in craft beer show a mix of lifestyle and business opportunity characteristics with what starts out as a passion (i.e. producing homebrew) turning later into a business opportunity. The product mix of beers on offer represents a search and opening of new markets for beer consumption. In unpacking the operations and drivers of brewery growth the research provided strong evidence that the evolution and continuing development of craft brewers in many respects are manifestations of neolocalism in South Africa. This was shown through the findings about the naming of breweries, naming of brands and in several ways that entrepreneurs sought to demonstrate a place attachment to the site of their operations.

The online survey and interviews with the 53 microbrewery entrepreneurs demonstrated that emphasis on a ‘sense place’ and ‘local authenticity’ is of vital importance to the origins and subsequent development of their business. Neolocalism as a feature of the craft beer industry was shown in terms of a number of efforts made by entrepreneurs towards linking the craft beer product to the ‘local’. In terms of the existing industry in South Africa the evidence for neolocalism is not as strong as in for example the US experience as documented by Flack (1997), Schnell and Reese (2003) and Schnell (2013). This said, signals of neolocalism

102

tendencies were observed in local market dependencies, linkages of breweries with local events and most importantly in the selling of local through imaging and branding of beers and breweries.

Spatially, the landscape of the craft beer industry is of interest with its initial growth occurring in the Western Cape and Kwa-Zulu-Natal before a major wave of expansion in Gauteng and more recently across the remaining six provinces in South Africa. Craft beer in South Africa was considered in Chapter Five as a product or asset for local tourism development. In a parallel with North America and Western Europe this new craft beer tradition in South Africa is laying the foundations for a changed direction in beer tourism which is currently the domain of mainly domestic tourists. The network of craft breweries are the base for diversifying the beer tourism offerings of South Africa beyond that of the ‘clear’ beers of SABMiller or the traditional sorghum beer products. The findings on beer tourism in Chapter Five disclose a strong link between the location of craft breweries and of growing tourism or recreation spaces, especially in small towns, but also in major cities. Through the development of local as well as regional beer trails craft beer is becoming an important aspect of the growing economy of beer tourism in South Africa. The study provides hints that craft beer can be a basis for reviving or at least diversifying the economy of certain localities, most especially for small towns.

6.3. Further Research

In final analysis, this research was the first in South Africa to use the theoretical construct of neolocalism. It is argued that with the continued advance of (contested) globalisation processes additional research is needed in South Africa to apply the construct of neolocalism to interpret other aspects of the building of ‘alternative geographies’.

Among a range of potential issues that can be investigated using the concept of neolocalism include the growth of different food networks, the rise of local food sourcing, farmers markets and the attempt to recognise local cuisines. Further, the concept of neolocalism can be extended to the appearance of other craft beverages that are being produced in several parts of South Africa. Craft cider, craft gin, craft vodkas are being made in several parts of

103

the country and can be investigated through the lens of neolocalism. This is a future research challenge and agenda both for geographers and tourism scholars of South Africa.

104

REFERENCES

A & T Consulting. (2005). The South African Liquor Industry. Unpublished report prepared for Department of Trade and Industry, Pretoria.

Abernathy, J. (2014). Bend Beer: A History of Brewing in Central Oregon. Charleston: The History Press.

Ab Karim, S. and Chi, C.G.Q. (2010). Culinary tourism as a destination attraction: An empirical examination of destinations' food image. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19 (6), pp. 531-555.

Adams, D. C. and Salois, M. J. (2010). Local versus organic: A turn in consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25 (4), pp. 331-341

Adams, W.J. (2006). Markets: Beer in Germany and the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (1), pp. 189-205.

Adema, P. (2008). Festive foodscapes: Iconizing food and the shaping of identity and place. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Alonso, A. D. (2011). Opportunities and challenges in the development of micro-brewing and beer tourism: A preliminary study from Alabama. Tourism Planning & Development, 8 (4), pp. 415-431.

Alonso, A. D. and O'Neill, M. (2010). Small hospitality enterprises and local produce: A case study. British Food Journal, 112 (11), pp. 1175-1189.

Anon. (2014). Local flavours: Craft breweries – half pint towns. South African Country Life, (January), pp. 104-107.

105

Argent, N. (2018). Heading down to the local? Australian rural development and the evolving spatiality of the craft beer sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 61, pp. 84-99.

Ascher, B. (2012). Global Beer: The Road to Monopoly. Washington DC: The American Anti- Trust Institute.

Baginski, J. D. (2008). On the trail of fine ale: The role of factor conditions in the location of craft breweries in the United States. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Baginski, J. and Bell, T. L. (2011). Under-tapped?: An analysis of craft brewing in the Southern United States. Southeastern Geographer, 51, pp. 165-185.

Barajas, J., Boeing, G. and Wartell, J. (2017). “Neighborhood change, one pint at a time: The impact of local characteristics on craft breweries”. In: Untapped: Exploring the Cultural Dimensions of Craft Beer. West Virginia University Press, 2017, pp. 155–176.

Bell, D. and Valentine, G. (1997). Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat. London: Routledge.

Béres, H. (2016). The Acquisition History of SABMiller. [ONLINE}] Available athttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Bilicz/publication/305764467_The_Acquisit ion_History_of_SABMiller/links/579f6ab108aec29aed2141f5.pdf (Accessed November 2016).

Bizinelli, C., Manosso F.C., Gandara, J. and Valduga, V. (2013). Beer tourism experiences in Curitiba, PR. Rosa dos Ventos, 5 (2), pp. 349-375.

Brain, R. (2012). The local food movement: Definitions, benefits, and resources. USU Extension Publication, pp. 1.

Brain, T. J. (2011). Examining the Portland music scene through neo-localism. Links, 2011, 01-01.

106

Bramanti, A. (1999). From space to territory: Relational development and territorial competitiveness. Revue d’Économie Régionale et Urbaine, 3, pp. 633-654.

Brownlie, D., Hewer, P. and Horne, S. (2005). Culinary tourism: an exploratory reading of contemporary representations of cooking. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 8, pp. 7-26.

Bruwer, J. (2015). Service performance and satisfaction in a South African festivalscape. Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 26 (3), pp. 434-446.

Bujdoso, Z. and Szucs, C. (2012a). A new way of gastronomic tourism: Beer tourism. Acta Turistica Nova, 6 (1), pp. 5-20.

Bujdoso, Z. and Szucs, C. (2012b). Beer tourism from theory to practice. Academica Turistica, 5 (1), pp. 103-111.

Cabras, I. and Bamforth, C. (2016). From reviving tradition to fostering innovation and changing marketing: the evolution of micro-brewing in the UK and US, 1980–2012. Business History, 58 (5), pp. 625-646.

Caffyn, A. (2010). Beer and tourism: A relationship worth fostering. Tourism Insights, February.

Carroll, G. R. and Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational dynamics of resource partitioning in the US brewing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106 (3), pp. 715-762.

Charman, A.J. E., Peterson, L.M. and Govender, T. (2014). Shebeens as spaces and places of informality, enterprise, drinking and sociability. South African Geographical Journal 96 (1), pp. 31-49.

Choi, D. Y. and Stack, M. H. (2005). The all-American beer: A case of inferior standard (taste) prevailing?. Business Horizons, 48 (1), pp. 79-86.

107

Corne, L. (2010). Along the ale trail. TNT Magazine, 26 April-2 May, Issue 1391.

Corne, L. and Reyneke, R. (2013). African Brew: Exploring the Craft of South African Beer. Cape Town: Struik.

Craft Beer South Africa Interim Steering Committee. (2014). Inputs and comments from Craft Beer South Africa (information) to National Treasury into the process of updating/reforming the current policy framework and benchmarks relating to the taxation of alcoholic beverages. July. [ONLINE] Available at http://craftbeersa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BEER-- ‐SOUTH--‐AFRICA_SUBMISSION--‐TO--‐NATIONAL--‐TREASURY_TAXATION-- ‐OF--‐ALCOHOL_30JULY2014_V21.pdf (accessed December 2014).

Department of Economic Development and Tourism of the Western Cape. (2004). Five- ‐Year Strategic and Performance Plan 2005--‐2010. [ONLINE] Available at https://www.westerncape.gov.za/text/2006/6/dept_of_economic_dev_and_tourism_%20an nual_performance_plan_2006.pdf (accessed June 2015) de Wit, C. W. (2013). Interviewing for sense of place. Journal of Cultural Geography, 30 (1), pp. 120-144.

Dillivan, M.K. (2012). Finding community at the bottom of a pint glass: An assessment of microbreweries’ impacts on local communities. Master’s thesis, Urban and Regional Planning, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Du Puis, E. M. and Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go “home” to eat?: Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 21 (3), pp. 359-371.

Du Rand, G.E., Heath, E. and Alberts, N. (2003). The role of local and regional food in destination marketing: A South African situational analysis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, (14), pp. 97-112.

108

Dunn, A.M. and Kregor, G.M. (2014). Making love in a canoe no longer? Tourism and the emergence of the craft beer movement in California. In CAUTHE 2014: Proceedings Tourism and hospitality in the contemporary world: trends, changes and complexity (pp. 190-198).Brisbane: CAUTHE.

Eberts, D. (2014). Neolocalism and the branding and marketing of place by Canadian microbreweries. In M. Patterson & N. Hoalst-Pullen (Eds.), The Geography of Beer (pp. 189-199). Dordrecht: Springer.

Everett, S. and Aitchison, C. (2008). The role of food tourism in sustaining regional identity: A case study of Cornwall, South-West England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16 (2), pp. 150-167.

Everett, S. and Slocum, S.L. (2013). Food and tourism: An effective partnership? – a UK-based review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21 (6), pp. 789-809.

Everett, S. and Slocum, S.L. (2014). Collaboration in food tourism: Developing cross-industry partnerships. In C.M. Hall and S. Gossling (eds.), Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local Foods, Innovation, Tourism and Hospitality. London: Routledge, pp. 205-222.

Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: Mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in Human Geography, 31 (1), pp. 23-42.

Ferreira, S. and Muller, R. (2013). Innovating the wine tourism product: Food-and-wine pairing in Stellenbosch wine routes. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 19 (2), pp. 72-85.

Financial Times (2015). AB InBev makes formal £71bn bid for SABMiller. [ONLINE] Available at https://next.ft.com/content/4020ef32-884f-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896/ (accessed August 2016)

109

Flack, W. (1997). American microbreweries and neolocalism: "Ale-ing" for a sense of place. Journal of Cultural Geography, 16 (2), pp. 37-53.

Foley, A. (2009). The Contribution of the Drinks Industry to Irish Tourism. Dublin: Dublin City University Business School.

Follett, J. R. (2009). Choosing a food future: Differentiating among alternative food options. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22 (1), pp. 31-51. Fountain, J. and Ryan, G. (2015). ‘It’s not all beer and skittles’: An exploratory analysis of the characteristics and motivations of beer festival visitors. In E. Wilson & M. Witsel (Eds.), CAUTHE 2015: Rising Tides and Sea Changes: Adaptation and Innovation in Tourism and Hospitality (pp. 471-474). Gold Coast Queensland: Southern Cross University.

Francioni, J.L. (2012). Beer tourism: A visitor and motivational profile for North Carolina Breweries, MSc. thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

Frenzel, F. (2012). Beyond ‘Othering’: The Political Roots of Slum Tourism. In: F. Frenzel, K. Koens and M. Steinbrink (eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics, pp. 49-65. London: Routledge.

Friedman, J. (1990). Being in the world: Globalization and localization. Theory, Culture and Society, 7 (2), pp. 311-328.

Fry, J., Pugh, G., Tyrrall, D., and Wyld, J. (2001). The use of the World Wide Web by UK independent breweries: Global reach or global invisibility?.

Gatrell, J., Reid, N. and Steiger, T.L. (2018). Branding spaces: Place, region, sustainability and the American craft beer industry. Applied Geography, (90), pp. 360-370.

Gauteng Province. (2003). Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003. Johannesburg: Gauteng Province.

Gauteng Province. (2011). Draft Gauteng Liquor Policy. Johannesburg: Gauteng Province.

110

Goodman, D (2003). The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, pp. 1-7.

Goodman, D. and Goodman, M. (2009). Alternative food networks. In: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Oxford: Elsevier.

Goodman, D., du Puis, M.E. and Goodman, M.K. (2011). Alternative Food Networks. New York: Routledge.

Green, L.G. (2015). Crafting a South African Brew: a study of South African craft breweries and their marketing strategies. (Unpublished minor dissertation, University of Cape Town). [ONLINE] Available at https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/13682 (accessed May 2016)

Greenberg, S., (2010). Contesting the food system in South Africa: issues and opportunities. Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, Bellville.

Hall, C.M. and Gossling, S. (Eds.), (2014). Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local Foods, Innovation, Tourism and Hospitality. London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. and Sharples, L. (Eds.), (2008). Food and Wine Festivals and Events around the World, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B., Macionis, N., Mitchell, R. and Johnson, G. (2000). Wine Tourism around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Mitchell, R., Macionis, N. and Cambourne, B. (2003). Food Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann.

111

Hanefeld, J., Hawkins, B., Knai, C., Hofman, K. and Petticrew, M. (2016). What the Inbev merger means for health in Africa. BMJ Global Health, 2016: 1:e000099

Harrington, R.J. and Ottenbacher, M.C. (2010). Culinary tourism – a case study of the gastronomic capital. Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 8 (1), pp. 14-32.

Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D. (2006). Selling Canadian culinary tourism: branding the global and the regional product. Tourism Geographies, 8, pp. 31–55.

Hedley, N. (2014). Burgeoning craft beer trend is good news for sector. Business Day Live. [ONLINE] Available at https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/retail-and- consumer/2014-03-18-burgeoning-craft-beer-trend-is-good-news-for-sector/ (accessed January 2015)

Henderson, J. (2009). Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal, 111 (4), pp. 317-326.

Hinrichs, C. C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (1), pp. 33-45.

Hjalager, A.M and Richards, G. (eds.), (2002). Tourism and Gastronomy. London: Routledge.

Holtkamp, C., Shelton, T., Daly, G., Hiner, C.C. and Hagelman III, R.R. (2016). Assessing neolocalism in microbreweries. Papers in Applied Geography, 2 (1), pp.66-78.

Howlett, S. (2013). Bureaus and beer: promoting brewery tourism in Colorado’, Master of Science in Hotel Administration/Business Administration Management Dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Jablonska, J., Pobis, T. and Timcak, G.M. (2013). Beer tourism in Slovakia. In KGHM Cuprum Ltd Research and Development Centre, Technical University of Kosice, University of Miskolc, Geotour and Irse 2013 Conference Proceedings 25-27 September: Strategies of Building Geotourist and Geoheritage Attractions, Wroclaw and Zloty Stok: KGHM

112

Cuprum Ltd Research and Development Centre, Technical University of Kosice, University of Miskolc, pp. 67-74.

Ker & Downey Africa. (2015). 5 Nights Craft beer tour Cape Town. Available at http://ker- downeyafrica.com/brewmance-craft-beer-tour-cape-town/ (Accessed 23 March 2015).

Kline, C., Hao, H., Alderman, D., Kleckley, J.W. and Gray, S. (2014). A spatial analysis of tourism, entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem in North Carolina, USA. Tourism Planning and Development, 11 (3), pp. 305-316.

Kraftchick, J.F., Byrd, E.T., Canziani, B. and Gladwell, N.J. (2014). Understanding beer tourist motivation. Tourism Management Perspectives, (21), pp. 41-47.

Lamertz, K., Foster, W.M., Coraiola, D.M. and Kroezen, J. (2016). New identities from remnants of the past: An examination of the history of beer brewing in Ontario and the recent emergence of craft breweries. Business History, 58 (5), pp.796-828.

Lapoint, K. (2012). Microbrewing in the US: An overview of the microbrewery industry and a business plan for future success. Unpublished Honors thesis No. 9, University of New Hampshire, Manchester.

Liquor Act, No. 59 of 2003. Regulation. (2004). Government Gazette. 8040 (26689). 17 August. Government Notice no. R980. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.gov.za/documents/download.php?f=201830 (accessed Decemeber 2014).

Long, L. (2003). Culinary Tourism. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press

Lyons, H. and Sharples, L. (2008). Beer festivals: A case study approach. In: C.M. Hall & L. Sharples (Eds.), Food and Wine Festivals and Events around the World, pp. 166-177. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

113

Mager, A. (2004). “White liquor hits black livers”: meanings of excessive liquor consumption in South Africa in the second half of the twentieth century. Social Science and Medicine, 59 (4), pp. 735–751.

Mager, A. (2005). ‘One beer, one goal, one nation, one soul’: South African Breweries, heritage, masculinity and nationalism 1960-1999. Past and Present, 188, pp. 163-194.

Mager, A. (2006). Trafficking in liquor, trafficking in heritage: Beer branding as heritage in post- apartheid South Africa. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12 (2), pp. 159-175.

Mager, A. (2008). Apartheid and business: competition, monopoly and the growth of the malted beer industry in South Africa. Business History 50 (3), pp. 272–290.

Mager, A. (2010). Beer, Sociability and Masculinity in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Marsella, A. J. (2005). “Hegemonic” globalization and cultural diversity: The risks of global monoculturalism. Australian Mosaic, 11, (13), pp. 15-19.

Maye, D. (2012). Real ale microbrewing and relations of trust: A commodity chain perspective. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 103 (4), pp. 473-486.

McLaughlin, R.B., Reid, N. and Moore, M.S. (2014). The ubiquity of good taste: A spatial analysis of the craft brewing industry in the United States. In M. Patterson and N. Hoalst-Pullen (Eds.), The Geography of Beer, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 131-154.

Minihan, C. (2014). Exploring the culinary tourism experience: An investigation of the supply sector for brewery and restaurant owners. PhD dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

114

Molla, R. (2014). Craft beer takes a bigger swig of the shrinking beer market. The Wall Street Journal. 2 July. [ONLINE] Available at https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/craft-beer-takes-a- bigger-swig-of-the-shrinking-beer-market-1502/ (accessed November 2014).

Munar, A. (2013). Sun, alcohol and sex: Enacting beer tourism, In J. Gammelgaard and C. Dorrenbacher (Eds.). The Global Brewery Industry, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 310- 334.

Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks—a new paradigm of rural development?. Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (4), pp. 407-419.

Murray, A. (2012). Factors influencing brand loyalty to two microbreweries in North Carolina. Unpublished Master’s thesis, East Carolina University.

Murray, A. and Kline, C. (2015). Rural tourism and the craft beer experience: Factors influencing brand loyalty in rural North Carolina, USA. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23 (8-9), pp. 1198-1216.

Nel, E. and Rogerson, C.M. (2007). Evolving local economic development policy and practice in South Africa with specific reference to smaller urban centres. Urban Forum, 18 (2), pp. 1- 11.

News 24. (2002). KZN launches beer route. [ONLINE] Available at www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/.KZN-launches-beer route- 20021002/ (Accessed 9 January 2015).

Niester, J.G.A. (2008). Beer, tourism and regional identity: relationships between beer and tourism in Yorkshire, England. Masters of Applied Environmental Sciences Thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Pechlaner, H., Raich, F. and Fischer, E. (2009). The role of tourism organizations in location management: The case of beer tourism in Bavaria. Tourism Review, 64 (2), pp. 28-40.

115

Plummer, R., Telfer, D. and Hashimoto, A. (2006). The rise and fall of the Waterloo-Wellington ale trail: A study of collaboration within the tourism industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 9 (3), pp. 191-205.

Plummer, R., Telfer, D., Hashimoto, A. and Summers, R. (2005). Beer tourism in Canada along the Waterloo-Wellington ale trail. Tourism Management, 26 (3), pp. 447-458.

Poelmans, E. and Swinnen, J. (2011). From Monasteries to Multinationals (and Back): A Historical Review of the Beer Economy. Leuven: Catholic University of Leuven.

Ragsdell, G. and Jepson, A. (2014). Knowledge sharing: insights from the campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) festival volunteers. International Journal of Event and Festival Management 5 (3), pp. 279-296.

Reid, N., McLaughlin, R.B. and Moore, M.S. (2014). From yellow fizz to big biz: American craft beer comes of age. Focus on Geography, 57 (3), pp. 114-125.

Reid, N. and Gatrell, J.D., (2017). Craft breweries and economic development: Local geographies of beer. Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Journal, 7 (2), pp.90-110.

Renard, M. C. (1999). The interstices of globalization: The example of fair coffee. Sociologia Ruralis, 39 (4), pp. 484-500.

Republic of South Africa (2004). Liquor Act 2003 No. 59. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Robinson, M. and Novelli, M. (2005). Niche tourism: An introduction. In M. Novelli (Ed.), Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 1-11.

Rogerson, C.M. (1986). A strange case of beer: The State and sorghum beer manufacture in South Africa, Area 18, pp. 15-24.

116

Rogerson, C.M. (2002). Urban tourism in the developing world: the case of Johannesburg. Development Southern Africa, 19, pp. 169-190.

Rogerson, C.M. (2014). Reframing place-based economic development in South Africa: The example of local economic development. Bulletin of Geography: Socio-Economic Series, (24), pp. 203-218.

Rogerson, C.M. (2015). Restructuring the geography of domestic tourism in South Africa. Bulletin of Geography: Socio-Economic Series, 29, pp. 119-135.

Rogerson, C.M. and Hart, D. (1986). The survival of the 'informal sector': the shebeens of Black Johannesburg. GeoJournal, 12, pp. 153-166

Rogerson, C.M. and Kaplan, L. (2005). Tourism promotion in ‘difficult areas’: the experience of Johannesburg inner city. Urban Forum, 16, pp. 214-243

Rogerson, C.M. and Rogerson, J.M. (2011). Tourism research within the Southern African Development Community: Production and consumption in academic journals, 2000-2010. Tourism Review International, 15 (1-2), pp. 213-222.

Rogerson, C.M. and Rogerson, J.M. (2014). Urban tourism destinations in South Africa: divergent trajectories 2001–2012. Urbani izziv 25 (Supplement), pp. 180-203.

Rogerson, C.M. and Visser, G. (2006). International tourist flows and urban tourism in South Africa. Urban Forum, 17, pp. 199-213.

Rogerson, C.M. and Visser, G. (eds.) (2007). Urban Tourism in the Developing World: The South African Experience. New Brunswick (NJ) and London: Transaction Press.

117

Rogerson, C.M. (2016). Craft beer, tourism and local development in South Africa. In C.M. Hall and S. Gossling (eds), Food tourism and regional development: Networks, products and trajectories, (pp. 227-241).

Rogerson, J.M. (2014). Hotel location in Africa’s world class city: The case of Johannesburg, South Africa. Bulletin of Geography: Socio-Economic Series 25, pp. 181-196.

SA Venues.com. (2013). The KZN beer Route. Blogpost 5 April. [ONLINE] Available at www.wttp://blog.sa-venues.com/provinces/kwazulu-natal/the-kzn- beer-route/ (Accessed January 2015).

Schnell, S. M. (2007). Food with a farmer's face: Community‐supported agriculture in the United States. Geographical Review, 97 (4), pp. 550-564.

Schnell, S. M. (2011). The local traveler: Farming, food, and place in state and provincial tourism guides, 1993–2008. Journal of Cultural Geography, 28 (2), pp. 281-309.

Schnell, S. M. (2013). Deliberate identities: Becoming local in America in a global age. Journal of Cultural Geography, 30 (1), pp. 55-89.

Schnell, S.M. and Reese, J.F. (2003). Microbreweries as tools of local identity. Journal of Cultural Geography, 21 (1), pp. 45-69.

Schnell, S.M. and Reese, J.F. (2014). Microbreweries, place and identity in the United States. In: M. Patterson and N. Hoalst-Pullen (Eds.), The Geography of Beer, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 167-187.

Scholte, J. A. (2008). Defining globalisation. The World Economy, 31 (11), pp. 1471-1502.

Shears, A., (2014). Local to national and back again: Beer, Wisconsin and scale. In: M. Patterson and N. Hoalst-Pullen (Eds.), The Geography of Beer, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 45-56.

118

Shortridge, J. R. (1996). Keeping tabs on Kansas: Reflections on regionally based field study. Journal of Cultural Geography, 16 (1), pp. 5-16.

Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17 (3), pp. 321-336.

Smith, S.L.J. and Xiao, H. (2008). Culinary tourism supply chains: a preliminary examination. Journal of Travel Research, 46, pp. 289-299.

South African Tourism. (2015a). The KwaMuhle Museum focuses on the diverse cultural history of Durban. [ONLINE] Available at www.southafrica.net./za/en/articles/entry/article- southafrica.net-the - kwamuhle-museum/ (Accessed January 2015).

South African Tourism. (2015b). On KwaZulu-Natal’s brew route, beer lovers can sip craft beers. [ONLINE] Available at www.southafrica.net./za/en/articles/entry/article-southafrica.net- kwazulu-natal-brew-route/ (Accessed January 2015).

Spracklen, K., Laurencic, J. and Kenyon, A. (2013). ‘Mine’s a pint of beer’: Performativity, gender, class and representations of authenticity in real ale tourism. Tourist Studies, 13 (3), pp. 304-321.

Steinbrink, M., Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (2012). Development and Globalization of a New Trend in Tourism. In: F. Frenzel, K. Koens and M. Steinbrink, M. (eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics, pp. 1-17. London, Routledge.

Street Scene. 2015. Shebeen scene tour. [ONLINE] Available at www.streetscene.co.za/tours/kwazulu-natal-and-durban/shebeen-tour/ (accessed January 2015). Strydom, N.T. (2014). The origins and development of the South African and Dutch craft beer industries. Unpublished Paper, University of Johannesburg.

119

Swann, G. M. (2012). The fall and rise of the local brew: Process innovation, horizontal product innovation and the geographic dispersion of breweries in England, 1900-2004. Unpublished paper, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham.

Swanepoel, J. (2014a). Breweries: South Africa. CraftBru. [ONLINE] Available at http://craftbru.com/brewery/south-•-africa/ (accessed December 2015).

Swanepoel, J. (2014b). Breweries: South Africa. CraftBru. [ONLINE] Available at https://craftbru.com/brewing/south-africa-homebrewing-clubs/ (accessed October 2016).

Thurnell-Read, T. (2016). ‘Real ale’enthusiasts, serious leisure and the costs of getting ‘too serious’ about beer. Leisure Sciences, 38 (1), pp. 68-84.

Timothy, D. and Boyd, S. (2014). Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues. Bristol: Channel View.

Tremblay, V. J., Iwasaki, N. and Tremblay, C. H. (2005). The dynamics of industry concentration for US micro and macro brewers. Review of Industrial Organization, 26 (3), pp. 307-324.

Tremblay, C.H., Tremblay, V.J. and Swinnen, J. (2011). Recent economic developments in the import and craft segments of the US brewing industry. In: The economics of beer, pp. 141- 60.

Trobe, H. L. (2001). Farmers' markets: Consuming local rural produce. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25 (3), pp. 181-192.

Trouillot, M., Hann, C., Krti, L. and Trouillot, M. (2001). The anthropology of the state in the age of globalization 1: Close encounters of the deceptive kind. Current Anthropology, 42 (1), 125-138.

120

Truen, S., Ramkolowan, Y., Corrigall, J. and Matzopoulos, R. (2011). Baseline study of the liquor industry: Including the impact of the National Liquor Act 59 of 2003. Johannesburg: DNA Economics.

Tucker, B.A. (1985). The growth and spatial evolution of a large business enterprise: The South African Breweries Ltd. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Van Zyl, J. (2014). Craft Beer – a guide to South African Craft Breweries and Brewers. Johannesburg: Mapstudio.

Van Westering, J. (1999). Heritage and gastronomy: The pursuits of the ‘new tourist’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 5 (2), 75-81.

Watne, T., Hakala, H. and Kautonen, T. (2012). Business from passion? An enquiry into the business models of craft breweries in Victoria, Australia. Proceedings accepted to the International council for small business world conference (ICSB), Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 10-13. June.

Weiler, S. (2000). Pioneers and settlers in Lo-Do Denver: Private risk and public benefits in urban redevelopment. Urban Studies, 37 (1), pp. 167-179.

Weissmann, J. (2014). Americans now drink more craft beer than Budweiser. Slate. 24 November. [ONLINE] Available at https://slate.com/business/2014/11/budweiser-sales-decline- americans-now-drink-more-craft-beer-than-bud.html (accessed January 2015).

Williams, M. (2012). Cape Argus. [ONLINE] Available at https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/braeuhaus-serves-its-last-pint-in-row-over-v-and-a-lease- 123918/ (accessed July 2016).

Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, (19), pp. 23-32.

121

WTTC. (2014). Brewing up a storm: The benefits of beer tourism. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.wttc.org/global-news/articles (accessed December 2014).

Wyld, J. Pugh, G. and Tyrrall, D. (2010). Evaluating the impact of progressive beer duty on small breweries: A case study of tax breaks to promote SMEs. Environment and Planning: Government & Policy, 28 (2), pp. 225-240.

Zelinsky, W. (2011). Not yet a placeless land: tracking an evolving American geography. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Zong, G. and Zhao, X-D. (2013). Comparison between the Munich Oktoberfest and the Qingdao international beer festival. Tourism Tribune, 28 (5), pp. 72-79.

122

APPENDIX A

SOUTH AFRICAN CRAFT BREWERY NATIONAL AUDIT

AUDIT AS OF OCTOBER 2016

Total = [n]

[187 - Operational Microbreweries]

[18 - Contract Breweries]

[18 – Closed Microbreweries]

OPEN

CLOSED CONTRACT

WESTERN CAPE

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Mitchell´s Brewery Knysna 1983 2. Birkenhead Brewery Stanford 1998 3. Boston Breweries Paarden Eiland 2000 4. Paulaner Brauhaus [CLOSED] V&A Waterfront 2001-2012 5. Jack Black Brewing Co. Diep River 2007 6. The Mystic Tin Microbrewery Montagu 2007 7. Napier Brewery [CLOSED] Overberg 2007 - 2014 8. Darling Brew Darling 2008 9. Misty Meadows Microbrewery George 2008 – 2016 [CLOSED] 10. Saggy Stone Brewery Nuy Valley, Robertson 2010 11. Triggerfish Brewing Somerset West 2010 12. Cape Brewing Company Paarl 2011 13. Devil’s Peak Brewing Company Salt River 2011 14. Dragon Brewing Co Salt River 2011 15. Valley Brewery [CLOSED] Kommetjie 2011-2013 16. Karusa Premium Wines & Craft Oudtshoorn 2011 Brewery

123

17. Constantia Brewery Constantia, Cape Town 2012 (Pastis Brasserie) The Merry Monk 18. Gallows Hill Brewing Company Woodstock 2012 19. Honingklip Brewery Bot Rivier 2012 20. Independent Beer and Spirits Porterville 2012 21. Roca Micro Brewery Franschoek 2012 22. Rock Kestrel Breweries Stellenbosch 2012 23. Savage Brewing (Formerly Known Killarney Gardens 2012 as Bad Dog) 24. South Cape Breweries Mossel Bay 2012 25. Stellenbrau Stellenbosh 2012 26. Wild Clover Brewery Stellenbosch 2012 27. Wild Beast Brewing Stellenbosch 2012 28. Citizen Beer (Contract Brewery) 2012 29. Dieks´Bru [CLOSED] De Rust 2012-2014 30. Apollo Brewing Company Stellenbosch 2013 31. Atlantic Storm Brewery Kommetjie 2013 32. Blouberg Craft Brewery Montague Gardens 2013 33. NieuwBrew (Formally, Ceder Cederberg 2013 Brew) 34. Fraser’s Folly Struisbaai 2013 35. Lakeside Beerworks Kommetjie 2013 36. Long Beach Brewery Noordhoek 2013 37. Plebs Breweries Mowbray 2013 38. Red Bridge Brewing Knysna, 2013 39. Red Sky Brewing Company Gordon’s Bay 2013 40. Robertson Brewery George 2013 41. Sir Thomas Brewing Company Stellenbosch 2013 42. Stellenbosch Brewing Company Stellenbosch 2013 43. Kings Craft Brewing Company (Contract Brewery) 2013 44. Dr Pinnamin´s (Contract Brewery) 2013 45. Ndlovu Brewery [CLOSED] Franschhoek 2013-2015 46. Badenhorst Family Brews Kalmoesfontein 2014 47. Garagista Beer Company Woodstock 2014 48. Lilypatrick Craft Brewery Stellenbosch 2014 49. Riot Factory Woodstock 2014

124

50. The Brew Cru Wellington 2014 51. The Sedgefield Craft Brewery Sedgefield 2014 52. Wagon Trail brewery Simonsberg 2014 53. Woodstock Brewery Woodstock 2014 54. ABRU Craft Brewery Somerset West 2014 55. Aegir Project Brewery Noordhoek 2014 56. Afro Caribbean Brewing Co. Kenilworth 2014 57. The Kennel Brewery Durbanville 2014 58. Beard & Barrel Brew Company Kenilworth 2014 59. The Italian Job Brewery Blackheath 2014 60. Mountain Brewing Co. Worcester 2014 61. Black Eagle Brewing Co LangeBaan 2014 62. Cederberg Brewery Cederburg 2014 63. FokofPolisiekar Craft Beer (Contract Brewery) 2014 64. Bings Bru (Contract Brewery) 2014 65. Striped Horse (Contract Brewery) 2014 66. Bar Di Bar (Contract Brewery) 2014 67. VonB Craft Brewery [CLOSED] Kommetjie 2014-2016 68. Brothers in Arms Brewery Somerset West 2014-2015 [CLOSED] 69. AWOL Brewhouse Stellenbosch 2015 70. Brewers Co-op Capetown 2015 71. Little Wolf Brewery Kommetjie 2015 72. The Berg River Brewery Paarl 2015 73. Urban Brewing Co. Hout Bay 2015 74. Bespoke Brews Woodstock 2015 75. The BeerFly Brewing Co. Brackenfell 2015 76. Stickman Brewery Stikland 2015 77. Harfield Beer Company Diep River 2015 78. Long Mountain Brewery Robertson 2015 79. Hoptown BMC Stellenbosch 2015 80. Hoghouse Brewery Co. Ndabeni 2015 81. Hermanus Brewery Hermanus 2015 82. Drifter Brewing Company Woodstock 2015 83. Breederiver Brewing Co. Rawsonville 2015 84. Stone Circle Brewery Cape Town 2015 85. Rebellion Craft (Contract Brewery) 2015

125

86. Ekaya Brewery (Contract Brewery) 2015 87. Pholas Brewery (Contract Brewery) 2015 88. Barking Dog Beer Cape Town 2016 89. The Makers Brew Barrydale 2016 90. Alpha Craft Salt River 2016 91. Rosebank Brewing Co. Rosebank 2016 92. Los Rios Brewing Company Cape Town 2016 93. Zebonkey Brewery Stellenbosch 2016 94. Tuk Tuk Microbrewery Franschhoek 2016 95. Spilhaus Brewery Cape Town 2016 96. Metal Lane Brewery Kloof, Cape Town 2016 97. Maskam Brewing Company Vredendal 2016 98. Karoo Craft Breweries Paarl 2016 99. Broers Brew Rawsonville 2016 100. Flashship Brew Riebeek-Kasteel 2016 101. Franschhoek Beer Co. Franschhoek 2016 102. Hoogeberg Brewing Co. Durbanville 2016 103. Old Potter's Country Inn & Brewpub Greyton 2016 104. Bycycle Brewing Co. (Contract Brewery) 2016 105. Jakkalsvlei (Contract Brewery) 2016 106. Dissident Brewing Company (Contract Brewery) 2016

GAUTENG

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Draymans Silverton, Pretoria 1997 2. De Garve Brewery Vanderbijlpark 2006 3. Gilroy´s Muldersdrift 2008 4. The Cockpit Brewhouse Cullinan 2010 5. Copper Lake Brewery Lanseria 2011 6. Black Horse Brewery Magaliesburg 2012 7. The Keghouse Brewery Randburg 2012 8. Three Skulls Brew Works Sandton 2012-2015 [CLOSED] 9. SMACK! Republic Brewing Maboneng Precinct 2013 Company (Johannesburg CBD 10. Oakes Brew House Modderfontein 2013

126

11. Backwards Bean Brewery Maboneng Precinct 2013 (Johannesburg CBD) 12. Brew Hogs Kyalami 2013 13. The 400 Brewing Company Maboneng Precinct 2013 (Johannesburg CBD) 14. Bosheavel Craft Beer Muldersdrift 2013 15. Aces Brew Worx (Contract Brewery) 2013 16. Humanbrew Loxton Larger (Contract Brewery) 2013 17. Swagga Breweries Alrode, Johannesburg 2014 South 18. Agar’s Brewery Kya North Park, Bernie 2014 Road, Johannesburg 19. Just Brewing Company Boksburg Industrial 2014 20. Ubuntu Kraal Brewery Soweto 2014 21. Mainstream Brewing Company Krugersdorp 2014 22. Two Okes Brewery Roodepoort 2014 23. Mad Giant Johannesburg CBD 2014 24. Three Stags Brewery Boksburg 2014 25. Dave Brew Craft Beer Brewing Co. Bedfordview 2014 26. Friars Habit Craft Brewery Pretoria 2014 27. Inmind Brewing Company Randburg 2014 28. Airport Craft Brewers (Contract Brewery) 2014 29. Hate City Brewing Company Kya Sands 2014-2016 30. Brickfields Brewing Co. Linbro Park 2014 -2016 31. Brothers Brewery SA Boksburg 2015 32. HEAD de'ville Craft Beer Vanderbijlpark 2015 33. Triple Desire Brewery Tembisa 2015 34. Stimela Brewing Co (Contract Brewery) 2015 35. Zeppelin Craft Brewery Pretoria 2016 36. The RedRock Brewing Company Linbro Park 2016 37. Legends Brewery Pretoria 2016 38. Bullcook Brewing Company Pretoria 2016 39. Leaky Tap Brewery Centurion 2016 40. Frontier Beer Co Pretoria 2016 41. OC Brewery Randburg 2016 42. Harper Brewing Company Johannesburg CBD 2016 43. Hazeldean Brewing Company (Contract Brewery) 2016

127

KWA-ZULU-NATAL

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Nottingham Road Brewing Natal Midlands 1996 Company 2. Zululand Brewing Company Eshowe 1997 3. Farmers Brauhaus [CLOSED] Hattingspruit 2005-2010 4. Shongweni Brewery Hillcrest 2006 5. Firkin’s Hop House Microbrewery Westville 2006-2009 [CLOSED] 6. Luyt Larger [CLOSED] Ballito 2009-2011 7. Porcupine Quill Microbrewery Botha’s Hill 2010 8. Old Main Brewery Hilton 2011 9. Odyssey Craft Breweries Durban North 2012 10. The Standeaven Brewery Hillcrest 2012 11. Bassett Brewery Pennington 2013 12. That Brewing Company Musgrave 2013 13. Clockwork Brewhouse Pietermaritzburg 2014 14. Doctrine Brewing Pietermaritzburg 2014 15. Mo Gravity Pietermaritzburg 2014 16. Lions River Brewery Lidgetton 2014 17. The Toti Brewing Company Amanzimtoti 2014 18. Durban Brewing Company Red Hill Durban 2014 19. Bardwell Brewery [CLOSED] Drakensberg 2014-2016 20. East Coast Brewing Company Umkomaas 2015 21. From The Zee Brewing Co. Durban 2015 22. Great Railroad Brewing Company Imbonini 2015 23. Poison City Brewing Umdloti 2015 24. Mtunzini Brewery[CLOSED] Mtunzini 2015-2016 25. Balgowan Brewery Natal Midlands 2016

EASTERN CAPE

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Sneeuberg Brewery Nieu Bethesda 2003

128

2. The Little Brewery on the River Port Alfred 2008 3. Bridge Street Brewery Port Elizabeth 2012 4. Emerald Vale Brewing Company Chintsa 2012 5. 78 Brewing Company [CLOSED] Port Elizabeth 2012-2014 6. 2 Rowdy Boxers Brewing Co. East London 2013 7. Dockside Brewery Port Elizabeth 2014 8. Tsitsikamma Micro Brewery Storms River 2014 9. St Francis Brewing Company St. Francis Bay 2014 10. Daxi’s Craft Brewery East London 2014 11. Bernie’s Brewery Rhodes 2014 12. Table 58 Brewing East London 2015 13. Kas Bier Port Elizabeth 2015 14. Kasi Craft Beer Port Elizabeth 2015 15. Richmond Hill Brewing Co. Port Elizabeth 2015 16. Featherstone Brewery Grahamstown 2015 17. Brewhaha JBay Microbrewery Jeffery’s Bay 2016 18. Brewery On the Beach Jeffery’s Bay 2016 19. Jeffreys Bay Craft Brewery Jeffery’s Bay 2016 20. GRT Brewery Graaff-Reinet 2016 21. Benn Koppen Craft Beer Port Elizabeth 2016

FREE STATE

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Clarens Brewery Clarens 2005 2. The Dog and Fig Brewery Parys 2008 3. Famous Brew & Still Bloemfontein 2013 (Previously Known as Kaya Breweries) 4. Appointment Craft Brewery Kroonstad 2015 5. Highland Brew Clarens 2015 6. Krüger Bräu Sasolburg 2015 7. Stellar Brewery Bloemfontein 2015 8. Kebenja Brewing Company Welkom 2016 9. De Jager Brouwerij Vreda 2016

NORTH WEST

129

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Mogallywood Brewery Maanhaarrand 2007 2. Ale House Broederstroom 2008 3. Brauhaus am Dam Rustenburg 2011 4. Chameleon Brewhouse Hartbeespoort 2013 5. Pilanesberg Craft Brewery Sun City, Rustenburg 2014 6. Rockland Brewery Magaliesburg 2014 7. Growler Brewing Company Hartbeespoort 2015 8. Jacobs Brewhouse Drosdy Village in 2015 Wolmaransstad 9. Lazy Lizard Brewhouse Broederstroom 2016

MPUMALANGA

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. Hops Hollow Brewery Lydenburg 2001 2. Anvil Ale House Dullstroom 2010 3. Brilou´s Brauhaus [CLOSED] Nelspruit 2012-2013 4. Sabie Brewing Company Sabie 2014 5. Malt n Metal Middleburg 2015 6. Lake Umuzi Brewery Secunda 2015 7. Owl & Hare Craft Brewery Wakkerstroom 2016

LIMPOPO

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment 1. L’abri Fountain Brewery Bela-Bela 2008 2. Dewside Restaurant & Brewery Thabazimbi 2013-2016 [CLOSED] 3. Zwakala Brewery Haenertsburg 2016

NORTHERN CAPE

Microbrewery Location Year of Establishment

130

1. Grootrivier Brouery Orania 2015 2. Kalahari Craft Beer Upington 2016 3. Bushman Brewing Co Kakamas 2016

131

APPENDIX B

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

APPENDIX C

SOUTH AFRICAN CRAFT BEER FESTIVAL NATIONAL AUDIT AUDIT AS OF DECEMBER 2014

Total = [n]

[54 - Craft Beer Festivals]

WESTERN CAPE

Festival Name Location Month 1. Annual Hops Harvest Festival Stellenbosch May 2. Bacon Fest @ Wembley Tap Wembley Square, Cape May Town 3. Banana Jam Massive Mini Beer Kenilworth, Cape Town August Festival 4. Bergvliet Beer Fest Bergvliet, Cape Town October 5. Bier Heir Beerfest Stellenbosch October 6. Blaauwklippen Oktoberfest Stellenbosch October 7. Blue Bird Garage Barrel and Brew Muizenburg, Capetown September Fest 8. Blue Rock Oktoberfest Somerset West October 9. Cape Town Bierfest Newlands November 10. Cape Town Festival of Beer Sea Point, Cape Town November 11. CBC Oktoberfest Stellenbosch October 12. Constantia Craft Beer Project False Bay March 13. Durbanville Beer Festival Durbanville December 14. Hermanus Craft Beer Festival Hermanus January 15. IPA Day - Cape Town Camps Bay August 16. Knysna Craft Beer Project Knysna July 17. Robertson Beer Festival Robertson September 18. Robertson Pot & Beer Fest Robertson April 19. South Cape Breweries Beer Fest Mossel Bay September 20. SouthYeasters Summer Festival Newlands, Cape Town March

143

21. Stanford Hills Craft Beer Festival Stanford June 22. The Cape Craft Beer Fest Cape Town December 23. The City Craft Beer Project Observatory March 24. We Love Real Beer Woodstock, Cape Town August 25. Windtown Beer Festival Langebaan October 26. Willowbridge Craft Beer Festival Bellville December

GAUTENG

Festival Name Location Month 1. Big House Craft Beer Fest Pretoria October 2. Beer Boot Camp Boksburg July 3. Capital Craft Beer Festival Pretoria July 4. Crafty Beer Crawl Olifantsfontein July 5. Hi-Flyerz Craft Beer Festival Boksburg October 6. IPA Day - Johanesburg Maboneng, Joburg CBD August 7. Johannesburg Bierfest Fourways October 8. Joburg Festival of Beer Parkhurst September 9. Jozi Craft Beer Festival Emmarentia May 10. Round Table Beer Festival Pretoria July 11. SA on Tap - Johannesburg Randburg March 12. Sandton Craft Beer Fair Sandton March 13. Soweto Beer Festival Soweto October 14. Spring Beer Festival Vereeniging August 15. The Craft Revolution Vanderbijlpark April

KWA-ZULU-NATAL

Festival Name Location Month 1. Beer & Boerie Fest Botha’s Hill September 2. Burnedale Craft Beer Festival Umhlali October 3. Consol Craft Revolution Suncoast March 4. Craft Republic Festival Umhlanga November 5. Pecanwood Oktoberfest Howick October 6. SA on Tap - Durban Stamford Hill, Durban August

144

EASTERN CAPE

Festival Name Location Month 1. Grapes & Grains Fest Port Elizabeth November 2. The Crafty Bru Beer Fest Richmond Hill, Port October Elizabeth 3. The Wharf Street Beer Fest Port Alfred October

NORTH WEST

Festival Name Location Month 10. Maftown Beer Festival Mahikeng August/September 11. Solstice Craft and Food Festival Broederstroom July

FREE STATE

Festival Name Location Month 10. Clarens Craft Beer Festival Clarens February 11. Kaya Volksblad Oktoberfest Bloemfontein September

MPUMALANGA

LIMPOPO

NORTHERN CAPE

145

APPENDIX D

BEER TOURIST SURVEY INSTRUMENT The College of Business and Economics School of Tourism and Hospitality

Keagan Collins: (Student Number: 20090035) Email: [email protected] Contact No: 076 820 5211

Supervisor: Prof. Chris Rogerson Email: [email protected] Contact No: 011 559 1167 STH Admin Building, Bunting Road Campus, Auckland Park Office Number 21

Instructions:

Please put a [X] in the box next to the answer of your choice or write in the space provided.

146

1. Are you a citizen of South Africa? (If No, please specify your Nationality)

Yes

2. What City/Town do you reside in?

3. Are you a resident of the community in which this festival is been hosted?

Yes

4. Will you be staying overnight?

Yes

4A. if yes, how many nights?

1 night

2 nights

3 nights 4 nights 5 nights 6 nights 7 nights More than 7 nights

147

4B. Where will you be staying during this trip? (Please Select One)

Not staying overnight With friends/relatives Hotel B&B

Backpackers Hostel

Have not booked accommodations yet Other:

5. Who are you attending the festival with: (Please choose one)

Alone Friends only Relatives only Relatives and friends

Spouse only

Business colleagues Other:

6. How many people (including yourself) are in your group and are 18 years of age or older?

3 4 5 6 7 8

10 More than 10

148

7. Not including this festival, how many other South African craft beer festivals have you attended in the past year?

None

2 3 4 5 6 7

9 10 More than 10

8. Do you plan to attend any other craft beer festivals this year?

Yes

Maybe

9. How did you hear about this particular festival? (Select no more than 3 options).

Friends/Relatives

Another beer festival

Social Media Newspapers Brochure/Pamphlets Magazine Radio/Television Internet/website

Word of Mouth

Other:

149

10. How important are each of the following motivating factors in making your decision to attend a craft beer festival?

Unimportant Of Little Moderately Important Very Importance Important Important The location of the beer festival. The number and selection of breweries attending. The price of admission, beers and merchandise. The length of the festival (e.g. more than 1 day). The variety of food catering outlets available. The entertainment on offer. The weather on the day.

150

11. Which of the following reasons best describe your decision to attend this craft beer festival? (Select no more than 3 options).

To purchase beer To get drunk

To purchase craft brewery merchandise

To socialize with friends/family To support the craft beer industry To sample new types of craft beer To get away for the weekend/day To increase my knowledge on craft beer To meet new people who share a similar interest with regards to craft beer

To enjoy the entertainment

To experience the different food and beer pairings To relax

12. Which category is closest to your total individual spend at this festival per day? (Including festival admission fee)

Less than R100

R100 - R199

R200 - R299 R300 - R399 R400 - R499 R500 - R599 R600 - R699 R700 - R799

R800 - R899

R900 - R999 R1000 or more

13. In the past year, have you taken part in any Craft Brewery beer tours?

Yes

151

14. Having attended this festival do you think South Africa has the potential to become a world class beer tourism destination?

Yes

15. What is your gender?

Male

Female

16. Please select your Age category?

18-25 years

26-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years 56-65 years Over 65 years

17. Please specify your ethnicity.

Black

White

Coloured Indian Asian Other

18. What is your marital status?

Single

Married

Divorced Widowed

152

19. What is your highest level of education you have attained? (Please choose one)

High School Certificate Technical Diploma or Equivalent Undergraduate Postgraduate Doctorate

20. What is your employment status?

Student (Full-time) Employed (Full-time) Employed (Part-time)

Unemployed

Retired

21. Which category is closest to your total family income per annum? (Please choose one)

Less than R49000

R50 000 – R99 999 R100 000 – R199 999 R200 000 – R299 999 R300 000 – R399 999 R400 000 – R499 999 R500 000 – R599 999

R600 000 – R699 999

R700 000 – R799 999 R800 000 – R899 999 R900 000 – R999 999 More than R1000 000

153