CAN IT BE ACHIEVED? PARTNERING TOWARDS IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS IN GANSPAN SETTLEMENT

Working Document Series 133 South Africa – 2008

CAN IT BE ACHIEVED? PARTNERING TOWARDS IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS IN GANSPAN SETTLEMENT

HasheWongiwe Theodora Mafuma Mazwi Sydney Mngomezulu Simphiwe Penelope Norris David Senyolo Mmapatla Precious Van Zyl Elizabeth Catharina

This report is a product of team work with equal contribution from the authors whose names are listed in alphabetical order above

International Centre for Northern Cape Department of Agricultural Research development oriented Agriculture, Land Reform, Council-Sustainable Research in Agriculture Environment and Rural Livelihoods (ICRA) Conservation (NC DALR) Division (ARC-SRL) PO Box 88 Private Bag X5018 PO Box 8783 6700AB Wageningen Kimberley 8300 Pretoria 0001 The Netherlands South Africa South Africa www.icra-edu.org www.agric.ncape.gov.za www.arc.agric.za

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted in the Ganspan Settlement near Jan Kempdorp in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa. The main objectives of the study were: • to identify the relative importance of income out of agricultural activities into the livelihood of households currently living in Ganspan; • to determine what should be the focus of future developmental efforts in the settlement with the aim of contributing towards improving the livelihoods of the community.

The Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) approach was used to determine the livelihood strategies of the people, current socio-economic dynamics and how they impact on livelihoods, vision for the future of the Ganspan Settlement and to develop an initial road map for achieving better livelihoods. Eighty out of 210 households were sampled to determine the livelihood typology of the settlement. Participatory rural appraisal tools were used to explore stakeholders’ perceptions on the current problems/opportunities and the possible solutions.

Only 3% households are solely dependent on agriculture whereas the majority (76%) derive livelihood from non-agricultural activities. The rest of the households derive their livelihoods from both agricultural and non-agricultural activities. Agriculture has a modest contribution to the households’ income compared to social grants and employment. Generally, the community is economically depressed.

Various factors such as lack of employment, lack of financial resources, the poor state of irrigation infrastructure, disharmony within the community, and lack of markets were mentioned as aspects that impede the community’s endeavors towards making a better living. A number of future scenarios were discussed by the stakeholders and it was agreed that a scenario in which people make a living through income from agricultural and non-agricultural activities is the best suitable and the one that is most likely to happen in Ganspan. Agriculture and non-agriculture stimulating strategies were identified, and activities related to these strategies were screened and prioritised. Pre-requisites for implementation of these strategies are: the issue of land title deeds, repair of the irrigation infrastructure, initiation of a more market oriented production within agriculture, and provision of some basic services.

Collaboration and joint action by various stakeholders is essential for a sustainable development of the settlement. The establishment of an innovation platform with representatives of all relevant stakeholders (including community-based organisations) is strongly recommended in order to jointly draft and implement integrated and inter-institutional development action plans for Ganspan.

i

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The South African 2008 Agricultural Research for Development team members (SA ARD core team) would like to express their sincere gratitude to the International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) for providing us with the opportunity to learn approaches in ARD. Furthermore, the Team also expresses its deepest thanks to ICRA staff (Jon, Juan, Colletah, Linda, Maria, Saskia and Ans) and all resource persons during the knowledge acquisition phase in Wageningen, Netherlands.

Our special gratitude goes to the Northern Cape Department of Agriculture and Land Reform (DALR) for hosting us and for providing us with the opportunity to undertake the study. Special vote of thanks goes to Roberta Burgess, Tinus Jonker, Jan Venter, Chris van Niekerk, Lesley Mashiloane, Justice Netshipale, Sam (Farm Manager), David Uchuzuba, Andre Swart and all staff members of the Vaalharts Research Station and the Northern Cape Provincial Department of Agriculture who contributed to the success of the study. Your tremendous support throughout the study is greatly appreciated

The team would also like to pass a special vote of thanks to staff members of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) especially Aartjan Verschoor, Thembi Ngcobo and Natasha Gabriels for their support and guidance from the actual study preparations till the end of the study. Your support is much appreciated.

We also appreciate the active involvement of the Ganspan Settlement farmer groups: Kgololosego, Majakathata, Ganspan Female Farmers, Retsweletse, Vukani Bafazi, and individual farmers such as Mr. Gemba, Mr. Letlapa and others not mentioned, and the Ganspan Community Members at large. This appreciation also go to all stakeholders who were fully involved in the study, Mr. Dodo Dipatshe from the Department of Social Services and Population Development, Mr. Morgan Motswana from the Phokwane Municipality, Mr. Japie Momberg from Vaalharts Water User Association, Mr. Neil Ferreira from the Department of Housing and Local Government, Lazarus Joseph from Farm Africa, Ben Visser from Olives South Africa, Mr. Alewyn Schiebusch from Olam and Mr. Karel Meiring from Senwes. Thank you so much for your cooperation.

The team also extends its vote of thanks to the following people who acted as the team’s key informants: Mr. George du Preez and Mr. George Gaobuse, and not forgetting the Community Development Officer Ms Seitibaleng Tlhokwe and the Community Councilor Ms Adams.

Special thanks go to the final editors of the report. Thank you so much for your positive contribution.

Finally the team extends its sincere and deepest gratefulness to the ICRA reviewer, Dr. Driek Enserink, for his mentorship and motivation throughout this study. His suggestions, guidance and positive criticisms were highly valuable.

iii

iv The South African 2008 ARD Team

Name & Particulars Postal Address Phone/Fax/Email

Hashe Wongiwe 8A Hutchisson Street Phone: +27 72 083 1672 Theodora Fort Beaufort

5720 Email: [email protected] Agronomist

Phone: +27 73 307 7493 Mafuma Mazwi Sydney PO Box 449 Kabokweni Fax2email: +27 86 537 6272 Agricultural Economist 1245 Email: [email protected]

Mngomezulu Simphiwe PO Box 1160 Phone: +27 76 409 3647 Penelope Mtubatuba

3935 Email: [email protected] Animal Scientist

University of Limpopo Phone: +27 15 268 2376 Norris David Department of Animal Science

Private Bag X1106 Fax: +27 15 268 2892

Sovenga Animal Scientist 0727 Email: [email protected]

Phone: +27 73 625 1166 Senyolo Mmapatla PO Box 2998 Precious Polokwane Email: [email protected]

0700 Agricultural Economist Email: [email protected]

De Eiken Phone: +27 73 284 9221 Van Zyl PO Box 133 Elizabeth Catharina Graafwater Fax: +27 27 422 1805

Western Cape Agricultural Economist 8120 Email: [email protected]

v LIST OF ACRONYMS

AgriBEE Agricultural Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment ARC Agricultural Research Council ARD Agricultural Research for Development BEE Black Economic Empowerment DALR Department of Agriculture and Land Reform DoA Department of Agriculture DST Department of Science and Technology DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry FNB First National Bank GFF Ganspan Female Farmers GWK Griekwaland-Wes Landbou Koöperasie ICRA International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture LRAD Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development MAFISA Micro Agricultural Finance Institute of South Africa NARDTT National Agricultural Research for Development Task Team NDA National Department of Agriculture NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NUFFIC Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in higher Educution PDAs Provincial Departments of Agriculture PM Phokwane Municipality PROLINNOVA Promoting Local Innovations SA South Africa SETAs Sector Education and Training Authorities SRL Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (division of the ARC) StatsSA Statistics South Africa ToR Terms of Reference UYF Umsobomvu Youth Funds WI Wageningen International WUR Wageningen University and Research Centre ZAR South African Rand (R)

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1. Context of the study ...... 1 1.2. Problem statement...... 2 1.3. Focus of the study ...... 2 1.4. Objectives of the study...... 3 2. BACKGROUND...... 5 2.1. South Africa...... 5 2.2. Northern Cape...... 6 2.3. Study area (Ganspan Settlement) ...... 7 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY...... 13 3.1. Approach ...... 13 3.2. Research process...... 15 3.3. Methods/ Tools...... 15 4. RESULTS...... 19 4.1. Current socio-economic dynamics...... 19 4.2. Stakeholder analysis...... 23 4.2.1. Stakeholder identification...... 23 4.2.2. Stakeholder linkages...... 30 4.3. Stakeholders’ perceptions on the current situation ...... 32 4.4. Future developmental scenarios, driving forces and strategies...... 40 4.4.1. Scenarios and driving forces ...... 40 4.4.2. Preconditions for agriculture stimulating strategies...... 41 4.4.3. Stimulating strategies and their related activities...... 42 4.4.4. Screening and justification of activities ...... 42 4.4.5. Prioritisation of activities ...... 46 5. WAY FORWARD...... 49 REFERENCES...... 51 ANNEX 1: Terms of reference ...... 55 ANNEX 2: RESEARCH PLAN ...... 63 ANNEX 3: WORK PLAN ...... 69 ANNEX 4: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 77

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Statistics on soil depths according to the portion of the area in Ganspan 08 Table 4.1: Different types of stakeholders in Ganspan Settlement 20 Table 4.2: Stakeholder linkage matrix 28 Table 4.3: Clustered stakeholder perception 33 Table 4.4: Estimated costs and profits on various crops and lucerne 34 Table 4.5: List of identified activities for agriculture and non-agriculture stimulating 40 strategies by various stakeholders

vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Map of South Africa 05 Figure 2.2: Map of the Northern Cape Province 06 Figure 2.3: Map of Ganspan Settlement 07 Figure 2.4: Depths of soil in Ganspan Settlement 09 Figure 3.1: ARD Approach 12 Figure 4.1: Typology of the Ganspan Settlement 16 Figure 4.2: Combined income sub-classes 17 Figure 4.3: Combined income; Agriculture-Social grants sub-class 18 Figure 4.4: Combined income; Agriculture-Employment sub-class 18 Figure 4.5: Off-farm income sub-classes 19 Figure 4.6: Off-farm income; Social grants-Employment sub-class 19 Figure 4.7: Perception of stakeholders on the current situation 31 Figure 4.8: Perception on the current problems by Ganspan community 32 Figure 4.9: Poorly managed cabbages in Ganspan 36 Figure 4.10: A lucerne field in Ganspan beyond the optimal harvesting stage 37

LIST OF BOXES Box 4.1: Community view of DALR support 21 Box 4.2: Vukani Bafazi 22 Box 4.3: Ganspan Female Farmers 22 Box 4.4 FARM-Africa’s view on Ganspan Female Farmers 24 Box 4.5 Irrigation infrastructure 29 Box 4.6 ‘Forced migration’ 35 Box 4.7 Watermelon produce 36 Box 4.8 Agriculture implements 42

viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and justification

The study was conducted in the Ganspan Settlement which lies within the Northern Cape Province, South Africa. The settlement was initially formed as a habitat for disabled and poor whites that were provided with free basic services, including production inputs for farming. During the post-apartheid regime the services were withdrawn, resulting in most of the white inhabitants leaving the area. As a result many black families moved into the settlement. The settlement is currently characterised by high unemployment and poverty levels.

The Northern Cape Department of Agriculture and Land Reform recognises the teething poverty problems experienced by the Ganspan community and found it prudent to seek ways of establishing a viable developmental structure for the settlement. Based on this, the study was conducted to realize the following outputs:

• Livelihood strategies for the people living in the settlement • Current socio-economic dynamics occurring in the settlement • Vision (‘better future’) of the future ‘agricultural’ development of the settlement • Initial road map to get from the ‘current’ to the identified ‘better situation’ jointly determined by stakeholders

Methodology

An Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) approach was used in this study. The approach focuses on people and not only on technological outputs because solutions to problems and sustainable benefits do not only arise from technological ingenuities but also from social, economic and political reforms. It recognises that development is a complex process of change and that it cannot be addressed by following rigid top-down or reductionist processes. The approach uses inter-disciplinary and inter-institutional participatory methods to integrate and analyse the interest or perspectives of different stakeholders to address complex problems, challenges and/or opportunities.

The research process comprised of a reconnaissance survey to increase the team’s understanding of the area. Primary data collection was done through both formal and informal techniques. An initial typology was developed by the team and key informants. Three different classes of households were initially identified, based on the criterion of income source. Three respondents were selected as representatives for each class to verify the livelihood typology. Thereafter, a random sample of 80 out of 210 households was sampled and visited by the team for semi-structured interviews, and the households were classified according to the selected criterion. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the data. Participatory rural appraisal tools such as key informant interviews and focus groups were further conducted to explore stakeholders’ perceptions on the current situation and the possible solutions. Different developmental strategies suggested by various stakeholders were screened and prioritised according to the developed criteria.

ix Key findings

Current socio-economic dynamics Three classes of households were identified in Ganspan, those that derive a living only from agricultural activities; those that derive a living from a combination of agriculture and non- agricultural activities, and those that depend entirely on off-farm activities. Only a small percentage of households (3%) earn a living from agriculture whereas the majority (76%) earn their living from off-farm activities. The combined income class (21%) was further sub-divided into sub-classes: a group that derives its income from agriculture and social grants, and one that derives its income from agriculture and employment. This was done to determine the contribution of each sub-class to the household income. Of the three income sources, agriculture contributes least to the household income.

The off-farm income class was further sub-divided into three sub-groups: income from full employment, income from social grants and employment, and income from social grants alone. A small percentage of the households (25%) in this class derives its livelihood from full employment whereas a large percentage (46%) depends fully on social grants which paints a gloomy picture of the low standards of living in the settlement. Twenty nine percent derives its income from social grants and employment. Ganspan households have access only to 0.6 ha of irrigated land and this small size could be one reason why agriculture does not contribute significantly to the household income. Various factors such as lack of land entitlement, lack of access to finances and inefficient machinery were among other factors mentioned as impeding improved livelihoods.

Stakeholder analysis Stakeholders that played a significant role and potential stakeholders who are currently not involved in Ganspan were identified. The Department of Agriculture and Land Reform and Phokwane Municipality were identified as key stakeholders, and the Ganspan community as primary stakeholders (beneficiaries). Secondary stakeholders are FARM-Africa and the Department of Social Services & Population Development. These stakeholders are currently involved in some projects in Ganspan. Current active stakeholders are Vaalharts Water Users Association, Senwes, GWK, Olam, and the Department of Housing & Local Government. There are currently poor linkages between various stakeholders which may have a negative impact on the livelihoods of the community. These linkages have to be established and improved.

Future developmental scenarios, driving forces and strategies Stakeholders identified three possible future scenarios for the Ganspan Settlement. These future scenarios are strongly related to political driving forces.

The first scenario is on revitalizing Ganspan into a fully agricultural development scheme to ensure that households will create sustainable livelihoods through income resulting from agricultural activities only. The second scenario would be to convert Ganspan into a residential area with the aim of providing houses to the wider community. This would lead to minimum income generated from agricultural activities. The third scenario would be the continuation of the settlement scheme In which people make a living through income derived from both agricultural and non-agricultural activities. This is likely to be driven by aspirations of the x community members. The aim of developmental efforts in agricultural and non-agricultural endeavours would be to increase total household income or the relative share of its components. The stakeholders are of the view that scenario three is the best suitable and most likely to happen.

Prioritisation of activities The strategies were divided into agricultural and non-agricultural stimulating strategies. Activities for these strategies were prioritised using criteria developed by various stakeholders in terms of time (short, medium and long-term), resources (financial, social, natural and physical), political targets (LRAD, Presidential node and food security), and local potential (existing knowledge and practices, training requirements).

As short-term agricultural stimulating strategies, the training of farmers to improve their managerial, technical and marketing skills, as well as training of extension officers to provide better mentoring to farmers were suggested. For the non-agricultural strategies, activities that can be achieved in the short-term are the formation of Labour Bureau and the accreditation of skills. These could contribute toward reducing high unemployment in the settlement.

Medium-term agricultural stimulating strategies suggested by various stakeholders are the choice of crops that are suitable and profitable for Ganspan, demarcation of grazing land as well as communal ownership of machinery and community owned machinery. A medium-term non-agricultural stimulating strategy that would be suitable is mentioned to be the development of local businesses.

Suggested long-term agriculture stimulating strategies include the following activities: hydroponics, greenhouses, high value crops, specialised animal production and organic farming were suggested. Promotion of agro-industries was suggested as a long-term activity for the non-agriculture stimulating strategy.

Way Forward

It is evident that income from agriculture plays only a supporting role in the livelihoods of in Ganspan. Other sources of income are more important. Development strategies should include both agricultural as well as non-agricultural stimulating activities.

Collaboration among various stakeholders should be enhanced to carry forward the process so that the ultimate goal of improving the livelihoods of the Ganspan community is achieved. The establishment of an innovation platform with representatives of relevant stakeholders (including community-based organisations) is strongly recommended, in order to jointly draft and implement integrated and inter-institutional development action plans for Ganspan.

Certain preconditions should be met before the agriculture stimulating strategy may have any positive impact. These preconditions include the issue of land title deeds, the repair of the irrigation infrastructure, and the initiation of a more market oriented production within agriculture.

xi Promising activities under the agricultural stimulating strategy include: • Short-term: training of framers and extension officers covering technical as well as marketing skills, and stimulation of home-garden vegetable production. • Medium-term: selection of suitable higher-value crops (taken into account the current economical, agronomical and social-cultural setting), better demarcation of grazing areas, facilitation of contract farming, ownership/access of machinery (either communal or through AgriBEE partnerships) and production cooperatives. • Long-term: engagement into hydroponics, greenhouses, high-value crops, specialised animal production, and organic farming.

Simultaneously, identified promising activities of the non-agriculture stimulating strategy should be pursued vigorously. These include: • Short-term: formation of a Labour Bureau and a system for accreditation of skills. • Medium-term: stimulation of local, small businesses. • Long-term: establishment of new agro-industries.

xii 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Context of the study

After the end of the apartheid era in South Africa, emphasis was placed on developing small- scale agriculture through land reform and Agricultural Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (AgriBEE) policies. However, educational staff and service providers in research and development have often lacked insight into complex livelihood systems and the motivations of the target populations. Poor social organisation of target populations has limited their inclusion in policymaking and design of interventions. Weak linkages with the Land Bank, National and Provincial Departments of Agriculture (NDA and PDAs) have hampered the creation of a holistic support service (ICRA: www.icra-edu.org).

Recognising these limitations, the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) created the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) Division in 2003. Based on a decade of cooperation with International Centre for developmental oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), SRL initiated the formation of the National Agriculture Research for Development (ARD) Task Team (NARDTT), with representatives of the ARC-SRL, five Provincial Departments of Agriculture (PDAs), five Universities (University of Kwa Zulu Natal, University of the Free State, University of the Limpopo, Fort Hare University, University of Venda), as well as two Colleges of Agricultural (Tompi Seleka and Madzivhandila) and the Departments of Agriculture (DoA) and of Science & Technology (DST), and an Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), Promoting Local Innovations (PROLINNOVA) .

The main objective of this partnership was to engage post-secondary education and training institutions in ARD capacity building efforts. In 2005, the ARC supported by the NARDTT, obtained support from the Netherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher Education (NUFFIC) to establish a formal collaboration regarding inter-institutional development-focused training and to integrate ARD in curricula of participating education institutions, thereby institutionalizing the ARD approach in South Africa. The technical support and capacity building services to this project are provided by ICRA in conjunction with Wageningen University and Research (WUR) and Wageningen International (WI).

The 2008, a SA-ARD core team comprising of 6 members from various disciplines (agricultural economics, agronomy and animal science) was arranged by ARC and ICRA management to undergo training in the Netherlands which gave the team a broader understanding of problem solving approaches within the ARD context. The second phase of the training involved actual field research. The Northern Cape Department of Agriculture and Land Reform (DALR) engaged the team to carry out a field study that was aimed at addressing a number of social and agricultural issues linked to the Ganspan Settlement near Jan-Kempdorp (Annex 1).

The study was conducted as an inter-institutional cooperation between the DALR, Vaalharts Research Station, ARC and ICRA. Other stakeholders included were the Phokwane

1 Municipality, Vaalharts Water Users Association, FARM-Africa, Department of Social Services & Population Development, Department of Housing & Local Government, Land Bank and cooperatives (Senwes and Olam).

Beneficiaries of the study are the policy makers (DALR, Phokwane Municipality and Ganspan households interested in agricultural activities). The study should assist in drawing the road map for sustainable development of Ganspan Settlement. It should be noted that development is a dynamic process and as such there should be continuous interaction between different stakeholders in order to achieve sustainable livelihoods of the Ganspan community.

1.2. Problem statement

The Ganspan Settlement is characterised by high unemployment and poverty levels. The settlement was formed in the early 1940’s as a place for disabled and poor whites. Social services such as health care and education were provided at no cost. Farming inputs were also provided at no charge. In 1995, after the advent of a new political dispensation, these benefits were withdrawn. This action coupled with other factors may have impacted negatively on the livelihoods of the Ganspan community.

The Northern Cape Department of Agriculture and Land Reform recognises the teething poverty problems experienced by the Ganspan community and found it prudent to seek ways of establishing a viable developmental structure for the settlement. It should be noted that this developmental framework can only be developed if consideration is given to all factors that influence the livelihoods of community. The socio-economic dynamics taking place in the settlement and the livelihood strategies of the community have to be considered as they form a basis for any developmental framework that can be developed. Currently, these factors are not known and therefore have to be investigated to enable determination of what should be the main focus for developmental efforts in Ganspan. This should result in the establishment of a sustainable developmental process for the settlement.

1.3. Focus of the study

The study intended to facilitate a process of interaction between various stakeholders involved in Ganspan Settlement to jointly identify the current socio-economic dynamics in the settlement and how these dynamics influence the livelihood strategies of the households. Additionally, the study engaged the stakeholders in identifying strategies for improving the livelihoods of the Ganspan community.

2 1.4. Objectives of the study

Goal Establishment of a viable developmental framework for Ganspan Settlement

Purpose Assist the DALR, the ARC and the Phokwane Municipality in determining the main focus of developmental efforts in the Ganspan Settlement.

Expected outputs • Livelihood strategies of the people living in the settlement • Current socio-economic dynamics occurring in the settlement • Vision (‘better future’) of the future ‘agricultural’ development of the settlement • Initial road map to get from the ‘current’ to the identified ‘better situation’, jointly determined by stakeholders.

3 4 2. BACKGROUND

2.1. South Africa

South Africa has 100.6 million ha of agricultural land, of which 16.7 million ha is suitable for arable farming. The remainder of agricultural land is used for extensive grazing, forestry and nature conservation. Of the arable land available only 7.8% is under irrigation and yielding at least a third of the total agricultural output (Vink & Kirsten, 2003).

The South African agriculture is characterised by a dualistic structure (commercial and subsistence sectors). The commercial sector is highly developed, consisting of about 50 000 mainly white commercial farmers occupying 86% of the agricultural land, while the remaining 14% is occupied by mainly black small scale and subsistence farmers (Ortmann & Machethe, 2003). The imbalance in the distribution of land has potential to cause social uprisings within the black subsistence farming community. The government recognises these imbalances and therefore has put into place policies intended to transfer 30% of the agricultural land to the disadvantaged communities by 2014. The government’s land redistribution programme aims to provide the wider majority of South Africans with access to land for residential and productive use in order to improve their livelihoods, with particular emphasis on the poor, labour tenants, farm workers, women and emergent farmers (Ortmann & Machethe, 2003). It should be noted that insufficient security of land tenure is considered to be largely responsible for lack of agricultural development in communal lands.

The government has devised a new strategic plan for the South African agriculture and this plan consists of three core strategies: a) enhance equitable access and participation in the agricultural sector b) improve competitiveness and c) ensure sustainable resource management The government recognises the need to integrate black emerging farmers into the main stream agriculture and has launched initiatives to achieve this goal (Vink & Kirsten, 2003).

The gross farming income (excluding other income) from commercial farming was ZAR 49 704 million for the financial year ending in 2007 (StatsSA, 2007). The agricultural direct share of GDP has declined from 7.1% in 1965 (Vink & Kirsten, 2003) to 2.3% in 2007 (StatsSA, 2008).

5

Figure 2.1 Map of South Africa Source: www.sa-venues.com, 2008

2.2. Northern Cape

The Northern Cape Province covers 30% of South Africa’s landmass but it is the most sparely populated province with 2% of the country’s population or 840 000 people which translates to approximately 2 persons/km². The province has an arid climate with an average annual rainfall of 450 to 500 mm in the east and 200 mm in the west (Bradstock, 2005). However the Orange and the Vaal Rivers provide the basis for a thriving agricultural sector that is based on irrigation.

6

Figure 2.2 Map of the Northern Cape Province Source: www.sa-venues.com, 2008

Agriculture is the second most important productive economic sector after mining and plays a crucial role in the livelihoods of the people in the Province. Due to low rainfall a large part (67%) of the Province is suitable for extensive livestock grazing and only 1.3% of the total area is suitable for dry land crop farming, while the rest of the area is cropping under irrigation which is the major driving force for agricultural production in the province. The main crops in the area include lucerne, cotton, maize, groundnuts and lately grapes, citrus and pecan nuts.Fruits such as apricots, watermelons, peaches and olives for the export market are on the increase (ICRA, 2004). The Northern Cape is enjoying tremendous growth in value-added activities, including game farming. Food production and processing (wine, olives and pecan nuts) for the local and export market is also growing significantly (South African Yearbook, 2006/07). The economy of a large part of the Northern Cape, the interior Karoo, depends on sheep farming while the Karakul pelt industry is important in the district of Upington.

2.3. Study area (Ganspan Settlement)

The Ganspan Settlement was developed in 1940 as a sanctuary for welfare cases (disabled and impoverished whites). It is State land that was run by the Department of Social Welfare.

7 Beneficiaries were given 0.85 ha plots comprising of a dwelling and 0.6 ha of cultivated land. Farming activities (tilling of the land, planting and harvesting) were done by the State for the beneficiaries. After marketing of the produce, the State deducted the production input costs and beneficiaries received the remaining income (Bornman, 1988). Other services such as health care and irrigation water were provided free by the State. The main objective of this set-up was to provide a means of making a living for the beneficiaries.

After 1994, the State withdrew the services and most of the white beneficiaries left the settlement without a proper arrangement for their succession. This led to ‘unauthorised’ influx of new people (mainly black people) to the Ganspan Settlement. Currently, the settlement resorts under Phokwane Municipality.

Figure 2.3 Map of Ganspan Settlement Source: Vaalharts Water Users Association, 2008

Physical conditions

Geographic location Ganspan Settlement is situated in the Phokwane Municipal area which is part of the Vaalharts region of the Northern Cape Province. The settlement is situated about 35 km from Warrenton.

8

Climate Temperatures range from 9.9 oC to 32.2 oC in summer and between -0.6 oC to 19.2 oC in winter. Night frosts occur during the months of June and July though daily temperatures can rise up to 38 oC during these months. The first occurrence of frost can be as early as mid April and some frosts do sometimes occur around mid September. The average rainfall for this area is estimated at 327 mm per annum, with most rain falling between October and April (Venter, 2007).

Soil type The dominant soil types are Plooysburg and Kimberley soil formations (Venter, 2007). Soils in the area have a low clay content which makes them vulnerable to wind erosion. About 88% of the area is prone to wind erosion and a further 11% of the area is prone to both water and wind erosion. The rest of the land (1%) is prone to water erosion. Hard carbonate banks underlie most of the area and this restricts plant root penetration (Badenhorst, 2001). A large percentage of the cultivated land (70%) has a mean soil depth of less than 1 m (Table 2.1 & Figure 2.4). A study on salt-affected soils (de Villiers et al. and Ellington, 2003) showed that many soils of the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme have serious salinity and/or sodicity problems.

Table 2.1: Statistics on soil depths in Ganspan

Depth (m) Percentage of area Minimum required soil depth for the cultivation of the following crops: 0-0.5 17.8 Potatoes; Green peas; Clover; Pastures; Onions; Citrus 0.5-1.0 51.4 Almonds; Apricots; Avocado’s; Beans; Cabbage; Wheat; Lucerne; Macadamia nuts; Vineyard; Olives; Banana; Tomatoes; Onions; Mangoes; 1-1.5 24.2 Pecan nuts 1.5-2.0 4.5 All above mentioned crops 2.0-2.5 1.6 All above mentioned crops 2.5-3.1 0.5 All above mentioned crops Total 100 Source: Badenhorst, 2001

9 Figure 2.4 Depths of soil in Ganspan Settlement Source: Badenhorst, 2001

10 Agricultural activities The total area of the settlement is 792 ha, of which 194 ha is irrigated area (made up of 210 plots of 0.6 ha each in residential area plus 68 ha outside the residential area) while the grazing land consists of 425 ha. The cropland under rain-fed irrigation has an estimated area of 44 ha (Badenhorst, 2001). The rest of the area is community land (church, school, business, cemetery etc).

Crop production constitutes the dominant form of land use. The main crops that are planted are wheat, lucerne, tomatoes, spinach, watermelons, cabbages, groundnuts, pumpkin and recently started with olives. Livestock production forms a small part of the agricultural activities. Livestock species in the area are mainly cattle, goats and sheep.

11 12 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Approach

Most agricultural research efforts have been unable to make significant improvements in the small-holder farming sector. This is particularly the case in developing countries. The research approach has largely failed to recognise the intricacies of production in small-holder farming systems and thus the outputs of these research approaches are rarely appropriate or relevant to the needs of these farming communities. The outputs have therefore not been adopted by the farmers resulting in stagnation of agricultural productivity. It should be noted that even in cases where some outputs (such as new crop varieties) have been adopted, there has been no significant improvement in productivity. This stems from the fact that rural livelihoods are complex and developmental efforts cannot be put in place without consideration of other factors that influence or impact rural livelihoods. In a nutshell, most research efforts are not geared towards development but solutions to predetermined research problems and this has resulted in failure to improve rural livelihoods.

Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) is research that has development as its primary aim. Its focus is on people and not only technological outputs because solutions to problems and sustainable benefits do not only arise from technological ingenuities but from other spheres such as social, economic and political reforms. It recognises that development is a complex process of change and cannot be addressed by following rigid top-down or reductionist processes. As stated earlier, development is an intricate and inter-related process and thus problems have to be addressed from their broader context for research to make impact. This therefore calls for a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach to problem solving because development cannot be achieved by individuals or institutions working in isolation. ARD therefore employs approaches that necessitate joint analysis, planning and action by all stakeholders.

ARD is dynamic and flexible and can therefore respond readily to changes in policies, markets and other changes. It is not a rigid, stepwise model or methodology that can be followed under all circumstances. Furthermore, it has reflective or iterative cycles as integral components. It allows review and adjustment of strategies to achieve desired outputs. Key to ARD is attitude change. As reflected above, participatory engagements require working in teams and respecting other peoples’ views and cultures. This is primarily why the focus is on people and not technology.

13 CHALLENGE (Opportunity/ Problem)

Stakeholder partnerships

Common understanding (vision)

External Jointly driving analyses & forces identification of scenarios

Jointly formulate strategies in an action plan

Implementing joint action plan

C h a n g e

• Institutional change • Policy change • Developmental efforts • Research projects

Target Beneficiaries Service Providers Professional Institution

Figure 3.1 ARD Approach

14 3.2. Research process

Preparatory phase

An inter-disciplinary team of 6 members attended a Knowledge Acquisition Phase in Wageningen, the Netherlands. This phase was divided into 2 sections. The first section focused on acquisition of knowledge on the ARD approach and how to apply it in the real world while the second phase focused on planning the field study. Based on the expected outputs of the Terms of Reference, ToR (Annex 1), a research plan (Annex 2) was developed to identify additional required information and methods/tools needed to do further analysis. The research plan led to the development of activities in a work plan (Annex 3), which helped the team to plan the field study phase.

Field study phase

Meeting with the task team The meeting was conducted between the 2008 SA-ARD core team and the Provincial Task team to discuss the ToR. A common understanding was reached on what is expected from the core team’s study.

Reconnaissance phase The team together with officials from the DALR went through a screening survey in January 2008 to get a general idea of what was happening in the settlement to enable preparations for the fieldwork. During this phase the community was informed about the interactive field study to be conducted in the area.

3.3. Methods/ Tools

Introductory workshop

Upon arrival in the Ganspan area, the team was formally introduced to the community representatives. A two-day workshop (32 attendees) was held to clarify the purpose of the study, to give a brief overview on ARD and reach a common understanding on the developmental approach needed for Ganspan Settlement. The workshop was also used to build trust between the team and the community representatives which enabled the team to do more in-depth research on the complex problem.

Community workshop

The focal point of this one-day workshop was to broaden the team’s view on Ganspan Settlement through identifying farming activities that take place, the resources available, current stakeholder linkages and problems/opportunities that exist.

15 Livelihoods & Rural Participatory Approaches workshop

This two-day capacity building workshop was attended by 12 officials from various sections within the DALR and by the 6 members of the 2008 SA-ARD core team. The training was on the selection of appropriate livelihood analysis and participatory approaches which can be used in the Ganspan Settlement study as well as in their own professional jobs.

Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders

Semi-structured interviews (SSI) were carried out with representatives of the following stakeholders from Northern Cape: DALR, Department of Social Service & Population Development, Department of Housing & Local Government, Phokwane Municipality, Vaalharts Water Users Association, Land Bank; Ganspan community, FARM-Africa, Senwes and Olam.

Stakeholder workshop 1

The primary objective of this one-and-half day workshop was to bring together relevant stakeholders to learn approaches in stakeholder analysis and jointly discuss the current situation in the settlement and further brainstorm on possible solutions to the challenges existing in the area. 19 participants from the DALR, Department of Social Service & Population Development, Phokwane Municipality and Agricultural Research Council took part in this workshop.

Targeting research

An initial livelihood typology was developed by the ARD core team & key informants for the Ganspan Settlement. Three different classes of households were initially identified based on the criterion of income source. Three respondents were selected as representatives for each class type to verify the livelihood typology. A random sample of 80 out of 210 households was taken and visited by the team to later classify the larger community according to the selected criterion. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the data.

Focus Group discussion

A group of individuals were selected to gain more in-depth information on the socio-economic dynamics in the settlement and how they impact on the livelihoods of the Ganspan community. The discussion was also used to verify information gathered during previous interactions with various stakeholders and to further fill in gaps in cases where there was some missing information. The participants were organised into two groups according to the developed livelihood typology: • Group A: Individuals deriving income from agriculture alone. • Group B: Individuals deriving income from agriculture in combination with non- agriculture sources. • Group C: Individuals deriving income from non-agricultural sources. Groups A and B were combined into one group.

16 Stakeholder workshop 2

The one-day workshop was attended by 24 participants from the DALR, Department of Social Service & Population Development, Department of Housing & Local Government, Vaalharts Water Users Association and the Ganspan community. The main objective of this workshop was to present the preliminary findings of the study and to identify and prioritise possible strategies, and plan a road map for the sustainable development of Ganspan.

Final workshop

The purpose of the workshop was to present the final findings of the study to the Provincial Task Team and get feed back from stakeholders. During the workshop, the way forward was also discussed.

17 18 4. RESULTS

4.1. Current socio-economic dynamics

Households differ in their access to resources. They have different preferences, objectives and expectations, and hence they engage in different activities, both agricultural and non- agricultural. In other words, they have different livelihood strategies. This also means that they differ in the way they perceive and react to problems and will thus react differently to any research product or developmental proposal (ICRA Notes: www.icra-edu.org).

Different recommendations (new technologies, new policies, new credit services, etc.) therefore need to be targeted to the different household types. Since households can be different from each other, the ideal situation would be to take into consideration the relationship of each individual household to the existing problem(s), with the eventual aim of developing a specific recommendation or developmental plan for each household. However, this is tedious and impractical and the solution is to group households into a manageable number of classes.

Based on the criterion “income source”, the households in Ganspan could be divided into several classes and subclasses with different livelihood strategies. As a sample of 80 households was randomly drawn from a list of 210 households, the results discussed below are representative for the Ganspan population at large. Figure 4.1 shows the different main classes.

80 76 (n=61) 70 60 50 40 30 21 (n=17) 20 Percentage (%) Percentage 10 3 (n=2) 0 Farm Income Combined Income Off-farm Income Classes

Figure 4.1 Typology of the Ganspan Settlement

19

As shows in Figure 4.1, a large percentage (76%) of households derives their livelihood from off-farm income sources. They do not pursue any agricultural activities. A fifth of the households derives their livelihood from agriculture and other sources such as formal employment, casual jobs and social grants. A very small number (3%) of households depend on farming as the only source of income, indicating that agriculture makes an insignificant contribution to livelihoods of the Ganspan community.

The combined income class was further broken down into subclasses to find the different sources of income that supplement farming (Figure 4.2). A large proportion (71%) of households derived their livelihoods from agriculture in combination with social grants, whereas only 29% of households were dependent on agriculture and some form of employment.

80 71 (n=12) 70 60 50 40 29 (n=5) 30

Percentage (%) 20 10 0 Agric&Social grants Agric&Employment Sub-classes of the combined income class

Figure 4.2 Combined income sub-classes

The proportion of income from different sources for the combined income sub-classes was further assessed (Figures 4.3 & 4.4). The contribution of agriculture to the households’ incomes was lower (38%) than the social grants contribution in Figure 4.3. This emerging scenario is worrying since social grants payouts are very small (approximately ZAR 800 for pension and ZAR 200 for child grant) and a lower contribution of agriculture as compared to social grants is an indication that actually very little income is derived from agricultural activities.

20 38% Agriculture Social grants 62%

Figure 4.3 Combined income; Agriculture-Social grants sub-class

The same picture is seen in Figure 4.4 that depicts the agriculture-employment sub-class. Agriculture contributes only 35% to the income compared to 65% contributed by employment outside agriculture.

35% Agriculture Employment 65%

Figure 4.4 Combined income; Agriculture-Employment sub-class

The off-farm income class was further divided into sub-classes: full employment, social grants & employment and social grants only (Figure 4.5). Only a quarter (25%) of the households in this class derived their livelihood from full employment. A large percentage (46%) was wholly dependent on social grants, whereas 29% depended on both social grants and some form of employment. This scenario further paints a gloomy picture about the low standards of living in

21 the settlement. It is evident that many people in the settlement are unemployed and depend largely on social grants for their livelihoods.

50 46 (n=28) 45 40 35 29 (n=18) 30 25 (n=15) 25 20 15

Percentage (%) Percentage 10 5 0 Social grants Social Full Employment grants&Employment Sub-Classes of the off-farm income class

Figure 4.5 Off-farm income sub-classes

The proportion of income from different sources for the off-farm social grants & employment sub-class was further assessed (Figure 4.6). Social grants contributed a larger proportion (55%) to the income as compared to employment (45%). This is an indication that the kind of employment is of menial nature and of low payment. This is a further reflection that the few that are employed are unskilled and therefore can only access low paying jobs.

45% Social grants Employment 55%

Figure 4.6 Off -farm income; Social grants-Employment sub-class

22

It is clear from the above illustrations that the Ganspan Settlement is an economically depressed community, since social grants are the dominant sources of making a living. It is also evident that most households have access to a very limited number of income sources.

Studies have shown that the smaller the farm area, the more important are non-farm sources of income (ICRA Notes: www.icra-edu.org). In Ganspa, households have access to only 0.6 ha of irrigated land and this small size could be one reason why agriculture does not contribute significantly to the household income.

Of all the households that derive their livelihood from off-farm sources of income, less than a third (28%) rent out their land for agricultural activities whereas the majority (72%) has their land lying idle. Most of the households with their land lying fallow are willing to rent out their land, but it seems not may people are interested in utilizing that land.

4.2. Stakeholder analysis

4.2.1. Stakeholder identification

Stakeholder analysis involves the process of identifying key, primary, secondary, and active stakeholders, and getting to know their involvement. Agricultural development efforts fail because collaboration between stakeholders is not given enough consideration, resulting in interests of different stakeholders not being taken into account and/or roles of such stakeholders not clearly defined (ICRA, 2004). For this field study, several stakeholders were identified and categorized according to their level of involvement as shown in the table below.

Table 4.1: Different types of stakeholders in Ganspan Settlement

Key stakeholders Reason for being key stakeholders DALR Formulation and implementation of developmental policies and offer technical advice on agriculture Phokwane Municipality Authority in Ganspan Settlement Primary stakeholder Reason for being primary stakeholder Ganspan Community Targeted group/area for developmental efforts Secondary stakeholders Reason for being secondary stakeholders FARM-Africa Development of projects, mentorship and financial support to Ganspan female farmers group Department of Social Services & Provide managerial and financial support to Vukani Population Development Bafazi farmer group Active stakeholders Reason for being active stakeholders Vaalharts Water Users Association Management and supply of irrigation water Senwes Provide technical, marketing support and inputs for grain production GWK Provide technical, marketing support and inputs for lucerne production

23 Olam Provide technical, marketing support and inputs for groundnuts production Department of Housing & Local Provide title deeds for land ownership Government Department of Labour* Advice on labour laws and regulations Land Bank* Provide financial assistance for agricultural production activities Commercial Banks* Provide financial assistance for agricultural production activities Umsobomvu Youth Fund* Provide financial assistance to young people for business development *Stakeholders currently not active but may be active in future

Key stakeholders Key stakeholders are those actors who are considered to have significant influence on the success of developmental efforts in Ganspan.

Department of Agriculture and Land Reform The DALR has been identified as a key stakeholder for this study as it deals with development of the agricultural sector in the Northern Cape Province. The mission of DALR is to improve livelihoods of people by ensuring equitable access to agricultural resources, improve global competitiveness of the agricultural industry and promote sustainable use of natural resources. The department achieves this by providing agricultural support services to farmers, in order to ensure sustainable utilization and management of agricultural resources. Agricultural extension officers from DALR are currently offering technical advice to farmers in Ganspan.

Farmer Support and Development is one of the Box 4.1: Community view of DALR DALR programmes that aims to provide extension support and training to farmers, with special emphasis on Community is dissatisfied with the emerging farmers’ implementation of agricultural support from DALR. Indicated that rural development projects and food security they used to have sufficient support but strategies. are currently not getting adequate support. Phokwane Municipality The municipality has been identified as a key stakeholder since its mandate is to provide services to the community in a sustainable manner through promotion of social and economic development. It is also obligatory for the municipality to provide basic services (water, energy, health and educational facilities) to all citizens within its service area.

Primary stakeholders Primary stakeholders are the intended beneficiaries of developmental efforts in Ganspan.

Ganspan Community The community members of Ganspan are regarded as primary stakeholders in the study since they are the targeted group for developmental endeavours. Most members of the community settled in Ganspan for housing and utilization of the available land. However, the know-how on

24 farming and other related aspects is limited and hence they rely on advisory services rendered by other stakeholders.

A number of farmer groups exist in the settlement and these were formed for various reasons, including generation of income from farming activities due to high unemployment in the area, and for getting support from government and other institutions, because in most cases support is given to organized groups and not to individuals. The idea of forming groups among small- holder farmers may be attractive as agricultural activities conducted by individual farmers may not yield maximum benefits due to insufficient access to and control over resources. It may therefore be advisable for farmers to organize themselves in groups to achieve higher objectives that are beyond the reach of individuals (ICRA Notes: www.icra-edu.org).

Some of the Ganspan farmer groups acquired land from Phokwane Municipality outside the scheduled area with irrigated plots. These arable plots have been developed on the grassland woodlands by the group members themselves. Unfortunately, these fields are less suitable for cropping , due to swallow soils and drainage and salinity problems. Box 4.2: Vukani Bafazi Vukani Bafazi Project The group has 2 tractors, combined harvester and other The group was formed in 2004 out farming implements for use on 18 ha of land. Is it of own initiative and consists of 10 economically wise? members. The group utilises 18 ha of land on which they grow various Currently, the 2 tractors are broken down and the group crops. The group received financial is renting tractors though they have funds that they can support (ZAR 650 000) from the use to fix the tractors. The group expects financial Department of Social Services & assistance from government to fix the tractors. The group Population Development. is also utilising paid labour even though they have enough members to carry out all the work required.

Ganspan Female Farmers The group started in 2006 Box 4.3: Ganspan Female Farmers with 19 female members “We do not have the time to look after the goats and have no but currently has only 5 money to buy feed for them and therefore we send the goats to a members. The project this neighbouring farm for a certain period of time. We pay the group is involved in was neighbouring farmer with some of the goats.” initiated by the NGO Farm Africa. The project The group members do not know how many goats they have. “We received 10 milking goats forgot to count them this morning because they are scattered all in 2006 and had about 45 over the place.” goats in 2007.

Kgololosego This group of young people has 12 members and has access to 12 ha of land outside the scheduled irrigated area. Currently, the group grows lucerne on a 6 ha piece of the land but is not utilizing the other 6 ha, due to lack of funds. The group was formed in 2005, prompted by lack of employment and has not received any form of support.

25 Majakathata The group was formed in November 2007 and consists of 10 young people. Its formation was prompted by lack of jobs and thus the members felt that they could derive a livelihood out of agricultural activities. The group has 8 ha of land outside the scheduled irrigated plots, on which they grow variety of vegetables. Members of the group do not have any other employment and are fully dependent on agriculture. Each member makes a monthly contribution of ZAR 50. The group does not receive any form of support except for the land donated by the Phokwane Municipality.

Itekeng Balemi The trust was established in 2002 by a group of 4 people but now has 7 members. The objective of this trust was to bring together people with the desire to do farming as a commercial activity. The cropping takes place on members’ scheduled irrigated plots. Members contributed ZAR 40 each to start the trust. Crops grown by the trust are lucerne, groundnuts and vegetables. The trust was formed to facilitate ease of securing credit.

Retsweletse Retsweletse started in 2007 and has 60 members; its main objective is to engage in livestock production (specifically Nguni cattle) though they intend to also cultivate crops. The group has not started any production yet, due a number of reasons such as lack of grazing land.

Most of the problems these groups mention have been presented in Figure 4.8, p. 34. Apart from these problems, it seems that the groups are experiencing internal conflicts that have adverse effects on the efficient functioning of the groups. It is also apparent that the agricultural knowledge base (both technical and managerial) of most group members is limited. This hampers the development of the groups’ projects. The groups do not seem to have set goals and objectives and hence is difficult for them to plan for development. It is prudent that the technical and managerial capacity of the groups be enhanced on: • Group facilitation skills to ensure effective communication amongst group members and better conflict management • Financial management and business plan development • Project planning • Technical skills A poorly organized group without a clear mission and vision is unlikely to secure credit from any financial institution.

Secondary stakeholders Secondary stakeholders are those actors that perform as intermediaries in developmental efforts in Ganspan.

FARM-Africa South Africa Box 4.4: Farm Africa’s view on This is a locally-registered Section 21 South African NGO Ganspan Female Farmers affiliated to FARM-Africa, which specialises in innovative Community not buying milk from the project because they agricultural development within poor communities in South feel the milk is not produced Africa. Its strategic objective is to promote achievement of under hygienic conditions. equitable land rights and sustainable livelihoods by small- Attempts are in place to use the milk for soap production.

26 scale farmers, farm dwellers and land reform beneficiaries (Festus & Joseph, 2007). Ganspan was treated as a unique case, since it does not fall under land reform but was seen as having potential for development. In 2006, FARM-Africa, in collaboration with DALR, initiated a milking goat project for women in Ganspan Settlement, and provided financial support and training on managerial aspects.

Department of Social Services & Population Development The department aims to enable people to become self-reliant within a caring and a cohesive society. One of the focus areas is strengthening social protection networks, empowering and developing families and those within vulnerable sectors of society. The department is considered to be a secondary stakeholder because of the support that they offer to one farmer group (Vukani Bafazi) in the settlement (www.northern-cape.gov.za).

Active stakeholders Active stakeholders are those actors who affect or determine a decision or action within developmental efforts in Ganspan.

Vaalharts Water Users Association Vaalharts Water Users Association is in the business of buying raw bulk water from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and selling it to farmers and the municipality. All farmers, including the emerging farmers, are charged the operational costs of running the system smoothly. The Association has a subsidy scheme for emerging farmers. There are no charges for the first year of farming. Farmers start paying 20% of the costs in the second year, with 20% yearly increments up to the sixth year, when they pay the full amount. The association is not responsible for the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure inside farmers’ properties (ICRA, 2004). The association delivers water to the boundary of the Ganspan Settlement only.

Cooperatives Senwes is one of the agricultural input suppliers on the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme that buys grain from farmers. It also provides technical advice on request to the farmers. Senwes is actively involved with some of the beneficiaries in Ganspan as it is the main buyer of their wheat (ICRA, 2004).

GWK is another input supplier in the Northern Cape Province with the nearest branch in Kimberley. Besides supplying inputs for agricultural production, this cooperative also provides credit to farmers for agricultural production. The cooperative buys lucerne from Ganspan farmers (ICRA, 2004).

Olam engages in seasonal production contracts on request from the farmers. The cooperative supplies groundnut seed to the contracted farmers and in return these farmers are obliged to sell their produce to the cooperative. Support services (production techniques and quality of the produce) are also provided to these farmers. Some farmer groups and individuals in Ganspan have contracts with Olam.

27 Department of Housing & Local Government The Department of Housing & Local Government is regarded as one of the active stakeholders as its vision is to improve the quality of life for all citizens through sustainable integrated development and housing delivery. The department promotes and monitors systems and structures geared at meeting socio-economic and service delivery needs of the citizens of the Northern Cape (www.northern-cape.gov.za). The department is in the process of issuing title deeds to the current inhabitants of the Ganspan Settlement.

Department of Labour The Department of Labour is perceived as an active stakeholder, though it is not currently engaged with the Ganspan community. Their proposed involvement is mainly attributed to their aim which is to reduce unemployment, poverty and inequality, through a set of policies and programmes that are developed in consultation with other social partners. The purpose of the joint ventures is to bring forth economic efficiency and productivity, skills development and employment creation. Furthermore, the ventures aim at improving labour relations through eliminating inequality and discrimination in the workplace. The department is also responsible for coordinating skills development and training through the various Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) (www.capegateway.gov).

Land Bank The Land Bank focuses on assisting individuals that are engaged in the agricultural sector. It offers various financial solutions such as long-term mortgage loans which are mainly for purchasing land, installation of machinery and equipment, and improvements of assets. Short- term to medium-term loans are also available with a repayment period that can last up to eight years. Nevertheless, these financial options require security such as mortgage bonds and insurance policies, etc. (www.landbank.co.za). Some members of the community have failed to secure loans from the bank because they could not meet the conditions set for successfully acquiring loans.

The government has recognised that most of the small-scale farmers fail to meet requirements for the above mentioned loans and has initiated other financial schemes, such as the Micro Agricultural Finance Institute of South Africa, MAFISA. The scheme was set up to drive and facilitate the development of financial services that can contribute to the development of very small and micro level farmers, farm workers, farm tenants, small landholder, landless, emerging farmers, processors and micro-entrepreneurs. People who qualify for MAFISA financial assistance must be active within the agricultural sector, with a gross-income of less than ZAR 20 000 per month. The payback period for a MAFISA loan is one year. Applicants must also be able to embark on self-help initiatives to improve their livelihoods, reduce poverty, develop viable businesses and show potential to graduate into larger commercial businesses. Members of the Ganspan community have not yet benefited from this scheme because they lack title deeds. Some are indicating the desire, though, to use the scheme to secure funding (www.agrinc.gov.za).

Commercial banks Standard Bank is one of the commercial banks that offer agricultural production loans to farmers on a short-term basis. The loan is specifically designed for purchasing of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, feed etc. The loan must be paid back in full at the end of each

28 season, at the latest a year after it was taken. The size of the loan depends on certain factors, such as the risk profile of the individual, which is directly linked to other payment responsibilities (www.standardbank.co.za).

First National Bank (FNB) acknowledges the importance of bringing emerging farmers into the main stream farming economy in South Africa. The bank has therefore initiated the development of a scheme that supports increased lending to black emerging farmers and agribusinesses. The bank offers agricultural short-term loans which are aimed at farmers or farming businesses that require capital for day-to-day expenditure and purchase of production inputs. Loans are re-paid after the harvesting season. Budgets and cash flow forecasts are requested during the application process, and an individual applicant can apply for to a ZAR 2 million loan. Long-term agricultural loans are also offered (www.fnb.co.za).

NedBank prides itself by having a team of agricultural specialists with an in-depth knowledge, expertise and understanding of the regions and industries in which its clients operate. It offers various lending solutions to the agricultural sector such as overdrafts, debtor finance, agricultural instalment sale, agricultural medium-term loan and agricultural production loan which insures the crop against any losses (www.nedbank.co.za).

ABSA has an Agribusiness team with sufficient expertise to assist beginners in the agricultural sector to effectively and efficiently manage their businesses. This team provides business advice and financial guidance on the range of ABSA products and solutions that will assist in running a business. These financial products and services allow individuals to obtain overdraft to develop or expand their businesses and also provides credit for production purposes (www.absa.co.za).

The Ganspan farmers are currently not utilizing any services from all the above commercial banks.

Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF) Umsobomvu Youth Fund was established in 2001 by the South African government to facilitate and promote the creation of jobs and for the development of skills for young South Africans (ages 18-35). It fulfils its mandate by making strategic investments that facilitate opportunities for young people to acquire skills, to access job opportunities and/or pursue meaningful self-employment opportunities through various enterprise initiatives.

The fund has two major programmes that form part of its skills development and transfer programme which are School to Work and Youth Service. The School to Work programme is designed to transfer high level technical skills and to facilitate work experience for unemployed grade 12 and tertiary graduates. It also aims to introduce black youth into previously inaccessible careers, such information technology and accounting. The Youth Service programme focuses on unemployed youth who have no tertiary education, enabling them to acquire skills, competencies and experience they require to achieve economic independence. This is done through a structured learning programme which is accredited through SETA. There is also a youth entrepreneurship programme which has three main projects, namely; Enterprise funding, Micro-finance, and Business development services

29 (www.youthportal.org.za). The youth in Ganspan have not utilised this scheme largely because they are not well informed about it.

4.2.2. Stakeholder linkages

Stakeholders are all those people who have a stake in a particular system (e.g. Ganspan Settlement). Stakeholder linkages show the interactions between organisations, institutions or even individuals which allow the exchange or transfer of information, resources or power (ICRA Notes: www.icra-edu.org). Such a linkage can be formal or informal. Each organisation or company is linked with the other, differently, depending on the different interests on the problem situation (ICRA, 2004). The improvement of the overall knowledge and information system depends on managing and improving these linkages between actors. When considering innovation, the management of these interactions or linkages is as important as the technology itself.

Linkages amongst various stakeholders in Ganspan are presented in Table 4.2. There are many linkages between stakeholders but these are not very strong. The DALR has linkages with a number of farmer groups and individuals, but these linkages are not as strong as they are supposed to be, and in some cases do not even have links with farmer groups. It is important to have linkages between DALR and bodies such as Phokwane Municipality, Department of Social Services & Population Development and FARM-Africa, but these are currently not existent. Social Services, for instance, are funding the Vukani Bafazi group but the DALR is unaware of this support. FARM-Africa is supporting the Ganspan Female Farmers and the DALR is supposed to be a joint supporter with FARM-Africa, but currently is not.

There is currently no linkage between Phokwane Municipality and the Vaalharts Water Users Association. The lack of linkage between these two entities is posing serious challenges to the sustainability of the irrigation infrastructure in Ganspan. The moderate and in some cases absence of linkages between the cooperatives and the farmers in Ganspan is of grave concern. These cooperatives should be the prime market for the Ganspan produce, but with weak or no linkages between these cooperatives and the farmers the success of the Ganspan farming community seems to be at risk.

30 Table 4.2: Stakeholder linkage matrix

Farm Vukani *Individual Stakeholders DALR PM VHWUA DSS Olam Senwes GWK Majakathata Kgololosego GFF Africa Bafazi farmers

DALR (-) NR (-) (-) NR NR NR (-) (-) (+) (+) (+)

PM (-) (-) (-) NR NR NR NR (-) (-) (-) (+) (-)

VHWUA NR (-) NR NR NR NR NR (+) (+) NR (+) (+)

DSS (-) (-) NR NR NR NR NR NR (+) NR (++) NR

Farm Africa (-) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR (++) NR NR

Olam NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR (+) (+)

Senwes NR NR NR NR NR NR NR (+) (-) NR (+) (+)

GWK NR NR NR NR NR NR NR (-) (-) (+) (-) (+)

Majakathata (-) (-) (+) NR NR NR (+) (-) (-) (-) (+) (-)

Kgololosego (-) (-) (+) (+) NR NR (-) (-) (-) (+) (+) (-)

GFF (+) (-) NR NR (++) NR NR (+) (-) (+) (+) (-)

Vukani (+) (+) (+) (++) NR (+) (+) (-) (+) (+) (+) (+) Bafazi * Individual (+) (-) (+) NR NR (+) (+) (+) (-) (-) (-) (+) farmers * Individual farmers include the Itekeng Balemi Farming Trust Notes: (+) moderate link; (++) strong link; (-) there is supposed to be link but is not there; (NR) not related. Abbreviations: (GFF) Ganspan Female Farmers; (DSS) Department of Social Services & Population Development; (PM) Phokwane Municipality; (VHWUA) Vaalharts Water Users Association; (DALR) Department of Agriculture & Land Reform

31 4.3. Stakeholders’ perceptions on the current situation

Agricultural development efforts or interventions often fail because the stakeholders do not share a common vision. Each stakeholder may have a different interest or perception on a situation and therefore it is important to bring together these different interests and views. In this way, a system can be better understood, existing patterns of interaction between stakeholders can be known, and potential conflicts between stakeholders can be predicted and resolved. The identification of trade-offs between different stakeholders’ objectives and the conflicts between them can result in improved project efficiency and effectiveness (ICRA Notes: www.icra-edu.org).

Figure 4.7 shows the perceptions of the current situation in Ganspan by the various stakeholders. The perceptions of the situation by the primary stakeholders (Ganspan community) are shown in Figure 4.8. The perceptions are further clustered into common ground, and diverse and conflicting views (Table 4.3). Most stakeholders highlight land ownership as the main problem that hampers development since, without land as collateral; one often is not able to access credit. Furthermore, without title deeds to the land it is risky to put high investments on land. It is interesting to note that though primary stakeholders see land ownership as important, they don’t see it as the key problem. They see lack of finance as one of the main problems but don’t seem to link it to the question of land ownership.

Other common perceptions relate largely to the irrigation scheme. The bad state of the irrigation infrastructure within the scheme and the poor water Box 4.5: Irrigation infrastructure distribution infrastructure are seen as challenges. There are two dams (soil and concrete However, there is a conflicting view on who is dams) which are in a bad state. There is an responsible for the maintenance of the internal approximate distance of 5km from the infrastructure for irrigation infrastructure. The dams to the entering point of the scheduled Vaalharts Water Users Association is of the view irrigation area. According to the Ganspan that Phokwane Municipality should be responsible farmers, this distance is too long since for the maintenance of the infrastructure of the people redirect water and damage the irrigation system within the settlement, whereas the infrastructure. This leads to water not municipality asserts that they are not responsible for reaching the correct plots. In general the irrigation water but merely for potable drinking infrastructure of the canals is in a bad state. There is poor control in the water water. According to the section on ‘Functional Areas distribution system as some plots do not of Concurrent Competence’ of the Constitution of receive any water. The system is based on South Africa (South African Constitution, Act 108 gravitation and thus it is a flood irrigation of 1996), the local government functions on water infrastructure. related issues are limited to potable water supply systems and domestic waste water, as well as sewage disposal system. Provision of irrigation water is not within the functions of the municipality. However, some believe that Phokwane Municipality is the responsible body for potable drinking water as well as irrigation water for Ganspan Settlement since they have current authority over the area.

This may mean that the water users in the settlement should be responsible for the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure and have control over the water distribution system. This will currently be too costly for the farmers in Ganspan, however, and thus the relevant stakeholders and farmers should urgently seek a solution to the problem. Any further delays in the

32 Agriculture • Can you make a living out of 0.6 Agriculture ha, assuming it’s the only source of Department of • Bad state of irrigation system income? Social Services • Water comes over long distance • Ganspan is not suitable for & Population Combination irrigation due to drainage problems Development • Majority of people old and shallow soils • High illiteracy rate DALR • Water comes over a long distance • Irrigation scheme is not use to full potential • Price-cost squeeze Agriculture • NGO puts projects in place, • Lack of financial resources without sharing objectives with • Uncontrolled immigration to the DALR & expect support from settlement DALR to farmer Non-Agriculture Phokwane Forced migration from commercial farms Municipality into settlement due to labour and land reform policies Agriculture Agriculture & Non-Agriculture • DALR agrees to offer • Lack of title deeds Farm support to farmers Africa (projects), but doesn’t come • Environmental implications due to (NGO) on board recent indiscriminate clearing of land • Political influence

Agriculture Cooperatives • Inappropriate choice Agriculture (Senwes & • Supply irrigation water only of crops Vaalharts Olam) • Is size of land large • Bad state of the internal canal system Water Users enough given number • Lack of control over water distribution of people utilizing it? Association • Knowledge on water demand management system is lacking Combination • Misunderstanding on the water use entitlement • Poor communication between Vaalharts Water Users Association and Phokwane Municipality.

Figure 4.7: Perceptions of stakeholders on the current situation

33 34

refurbishment of the irrigation infrastructure will have profound adverse effects on crop production. Already some plots are not receiving enough water and some households have reported collapse of their farming projects, due to unavailability of water.

Table 4.3: Clustered stakeholder perceptions

Current Situation Common Ground Securing land ownership o Vaalharts Water Users Association o Phokwane Municipality o Community Irrigation scheme o Vaalharts Water Users Association - Bad state of dam & internal canals o Phokwane Municipality - Scheme operating at maximum o Community capacity Immigration into the settlement o Phokwane Municipality o DALR o Community Agriculture should be a supplement o DALR household income and not the main income o Vaalharts Water Users Association source Diversity in views Main focus of development: Agriculture or DALR non-agriculture? (within the DALR, some were suggesting the focus should be on agriculture while some suggested focus on non-agriculture) The types of crops to be grown used in o DALR Ganspan. High value versus bulk crops? o Cooperatives Conflicting views Who is responsible for control and o Phokwane Municipality maintenance of irrigation infrastructure? o Vaalharts Water Users Association o Community Lack of consultation on initiation of projects o Department of Social Services & Population Development o FARM-Africa o DALR

The decreasing profit margins, the small size (0.6 ha) of irrigated farm plots, poor choice of crops, and limited physical and financial resources are seen as challenges by a number of stakeholders. It is reasonable to assume that 0.6 ha of irrigated farm land may not be enough to sustain a household. This is supported by the livelihood analysis that shows that farming contributes only a small proportion of income to households engaged in agriculture and other activities. Many households whose farm plots lie fallow, mention lack of financial capital as the reason for not utilizing the land. It is, however, difficult to see whether improved access to capital for utilizing the land would bring significant increases in benefits, given the fact that agriculture makes a very small contribution to the livelihood of those engaged in farming.

35

The ‘forced’ migration of farm workers from commercial farms into the settlement, coupled with voluntary migration into the settlement, is Box 4.6: ‘Forced migration’ perceived as a problem because it gives rise to Due to new laws regarding land claims, social conflicts and environmental degradation. commercial farmers do not prefer to have farm The impression that Ganspan has prime land for workers staying on their land as there is a risk farming is seen as fuelling voluntary migration of losing land (through land claims) to farm into the settlement. However, according to workers who may have stayed over a long studies made by DALR, Ganspan soils are not period on their farms. Some of the workers suitable for irrigated farming due to drainage from farms near Ganspan move into the and salinity. The land may therefore have been Ganspan Settlement. ‘over-rated’ as good for farming.

The co-operatives mentioned the limited quantities of produce from Ganspan farmers as one of the major problems for the farmers, since producing crops such as grain crops (wheat) in small quantities is not profitable. The quantity issue is becoming even more important because input costs are rapidly increasing. There is an indication that commercial farmers are struggling to survive on 50 ha of grain crop production. In Ganspan, grain crops are produced on 0.6 ha plots and it is almost certain that Ganspan farmers will incur losses from grain production. Even those producing as farmer groups have access to land areas less than 10 ha and thus are unlikely to make any significant profits. It becomes of paramount importance to carefully choose crops that can yield reasonable profits on the limited land available. However, due consideration should be given to the required knowledge base of farmers in order to make the management of such crops possible and profitable. Table 4.4 below shows estimated profits from various crops and fodder under different management systems according to the Ganspan community and standard commercial enterprise budgets (Senwes & DALR, 2008).

Under the Ganspan community, the estimated profit for lucerne after the first cutting is ZAR 500. The second and subsequent cuttings give an estimated profit of ZAR 2 800. The small profit after the first cutting is due to the initial costs of tilling and preparation of the land and purchase of the seeds. These costs are not considered in the second and subsequent cuttings. Assuming 7 cuttings during the growing season translates into a possible profit of ZAR 19 600 per annum or ZAR 1 600 per month from the hectare of land the farmers have access to. This may not be sufficient for a household depending solely on agriculture. Growing of lucerne would likely to be more profitable on a large piece of land than just the 0.6 ha that farmers in Ganspan are utilising.

Potential income from groundnuts on a hectare of land (community) is ZAR 9 650, compared to ZAR 13 000 under standard commercial production. The ZAR 9 650 translates into an estimated income of ZAR 1 608 per month over a 6 month growing period. This scenario is similar to lucerne production, as the income may also not be sufficient for a household relying entirely on agriculture for its livelihood. The disparity in the income realized by Ganspan farmers and income derived under commercial production is possibly due to lower yields in the small scale farms which is an indication of poor production skills existing among those producing groundnuts in the community, and to the difference in farm size (economics of scale).

36

Table 4.4: Estimated costs and profits (ZAR/ha) on various crops and lucerne

Community Standard budget info Watermelon Olives Revenue 130 000 Revenue 24 000 Production cost 4 540 Production cost 10 000 Profit 125 460 Profit 14 000 Profit after 10 years 30 000 Lucerne year 1 Lucerne year 1 1st cutting 1st cutting Revenue 3 500 Revenue 4 200 Production cost 3 000 Production cost 3 050 Profit 500 Profit 1 150

2nd and subsequent cuttings 3 500 2nd and subsequent cuttings 4 200 Revenue 700 Revenue 1 200 Production cost 2 800 Production cost 3 000 Profit Profit Groundnut Groundnut Revenue 15 000 Revenue 18 000 Production cost 5 350 Production Cost 5 000 Profit 9 650 Profit 13 000 Wheat Wheat Revenue 7 500 Revenue 16 200 Production cost 3 669 Production Cost 9 800 Profit 3 831 Profit 6 400

Cabbage Pecan nuts Revenue – 1st grade; 16 800 Revenue 14 000 (2nd grade) (8 000) Production cost 12 500 Production cost 10 220 Profit 1 500 Profit 6 580 Profit after 10 years 40 000 (-2 220)

Farmers in Ganspan usually grow grain crops such as wheat or maize after harvesting groundnuts. The potential profit for wheat over a 6-month growing period is ZAR 3 831. This is an estimated income of ZAR 640 per month. A farmer growing groundnuts followed by wheat will receive an average income of ZAR 1 123 per month, on an annual basis.

The income from cabbages is higher than revenue from previously discussed crops. However, this is highly dependent on the quality and size of the produce. Over a 3-month growing period, an estimated income of ZAR 2 193 per month can be obtained in Ganspan. As stated earlier, the quality of the produce is important. If the produce is classified as 2nd grade, losses of over ZAR 2 000 can be in incurred. Figure 4.9 shows cabbages that are poorly managed and are highly likely to result in losses. However, producing cabbages under improved management can be more profitable for Ganspan than producing wheat or even groundnuts.

37

Watermelon production shows the highest potential with an estimated income of ZAR 125 460. However, farmers in Ganspan are reluctant to grow watermelons because of heavy losses incurred in producing this crop (fruit). The losses are related to the highly competitive market for watermelons, Box 4.7: Watermelon produce high spoilage, and poor quality of produce. Given the low One farmer in the community had know-how in marketing skills among the Ganspan farmers, secured a market for producing it is not surprising that they would not be able to compete watermelons but he lost all his produce through vandalism and in the highly competitive watermelon market. Additionally, theft. heavy losses are incurred through theft and vandalism in the fields.

During the discussions with stakeholders, it was suggested that other crops such as olives and pecan nuts could be considered for production in Ganspan because of their potentially higher returns from a small area as compared to crops currently being produced in Ganspan. The average potential annual income from olives over a 10-year period is ZAR 14 000 per ha. This includes the first three years when there is no production and thus nil revenue. The potential income after 10 years is ZAR 30 000 per ha per annum (ZAR 2 500 per month). This is more than the income from crops discussed above. However, even with olives, production from a hectare of land does not bring significant increase in revenue and given the pressing financial needs of the Ganspan farmers, three years without any revenue may not be acceptable.

The potential income from pecan nuts after 10 years, when the trees are at full production, is ZAR 40 000 per annum (ZAR 3 300 per month). This is slightly higher than revenue from olives. However, when one considers the average profits from the first 10 years, a gloomy picture emerges. The estimated profit is only ZAR 1 500 per annum. Diverting to pecan nuts production is not attractive.

Figure 4.9 Poorly managed cabbages in Ganspan

38

Apart from the problems of limited financial resources that hamper investment in agricultural production, the primary stakeholders cited limited access to markets as one of the major challenges. This is especially the case with crops such as vegetables due to their perishability and the short marketing period. There is a market for grain and lucerne, however, though farmers complain of low prices, especially for lucerne. It should be noted that the low prices for lucerne are largely due to the marketed quality. Lucerne growers fail to harvest at the appropriate time due to lack of harvesting equipment and the delays in bringing in rented equipment. Figure 4.10 shows lucerne that has passed its harvesting stage and thus will most unlikely fetch a good price because of its low quality.

Figure 4.10 A lucerne field in Ganspan beyond the optimal harvesting stage

It is apparent that farmers are more production-oriented (supply driven) than market-oriented (demand driven). The farmers produce without initially securing markets and this leads to post- harvest losses when the produce is marketed at low prices or does not sell at all.

Poor coordination of projects by different stakeholders was cited as a challenge. Some institutions initiate projects without sharing the objectives with key stakeholders who are expected to support these projects. The Department of Social Services & Population Development, for instance, initiated a ZAR 650 000 project with one of the farming groups in Ganspan but the DALR, which should have been a key partner, mentioned they were never consulted by the Social Services. Though this assertion is disputed by Social Services, it is clear that there is poor communication and consultation among stakeholders. It may be important to improve linkages between different stakeholders to ensure efficient execution of projects. This may call for proper documentation of agreements and not just verbal contacts.

39

4.4. Future developmental scenarios, driving forces and strategies

4.4.1. Scenarios and driving forces

Stakeholders identified three possible future scenarios for the Ganspan settlement. These future scenarios are strongly related to driving forces heavily influenced by political decisions that may be taken in the near future. The three scenarios identified are: • Ganspan is revitalized as a fully agriculture development scheme. The aim is that households will be able to create a sustainable livelihood through income resulting from agricultural activities only. • Ganspan will be turned into a residential area. The aim of development efforts will be provision of housing to the wider community. Income generation from agricultural activities will be minimised. • Ganspan will continue to be a settlement scheme where people make a livelihood through income from agricultural and non-agricultural activities. The aim of development efforts in agricultural and non-agricultural endeavours will be to increase total household income or the relative share of its components.

The scenario with revitalised agriculture will be mainly driven by political decisions. Politicians may wish to develop this scenario as their vision, since they are still under the impression that Ganspan is a prime agricultural production area. However, the size of the current plots is too small to allow adequate generation of income even if heavy investments are made. The creation of more viable units will require the merging of several plots, which implies that some of the current residents will have to be moved. Given the current social dynamics, this will be a very difficult and painful process.

The scenario of conversion into residential area will also be driven by political considerations. It implies that current agricultural plots will be split into smaller units in order to create space for additional houses. Hence, income from agricultural activities cannot play an important role anymore. The Department of Housing & Local Government together with Phokwane Municipality may play the leading role in the development of this scenario.

The scenario with mixed livelihoods is mainly driven by the aspirations in the Ganspan community itself. The level of income from agricultural and non-agricultural activities within households will be influenced by the success of interventions by the various stakeholders involved.

These three scenarios have been extensively discussed in several stakeholder platforms and community meetings. The most probable future scenario in which development will take place was agreed upon as being the scenario with mixed livelihoods. It was discussed at great length that agriculture should rather supplement the income sources of the Ganspan community than being the main income source, given the small size of the available land. However one also has to consider whether the other sources of income are sufficient to sustain households. It was agreed that developmental efforts should be focussed on both agriculture and non-agricultural activities, and thus different courses of actions or strategies are required.

40

4.4.2. Preconditions for agriculture stimulating strategies

For the agricultural stimulating strategy, the Ganspan community and the stakeholder platforms believe that a number of issues have to be addressed beforehand, if the stimulating strategy is to be successful. These include:

Land ownership It is important to speed up the process of land ownership. The lack of title deeds has a bearing on the ability of farmers to secure loans from lending institutions and even from government financial schemes. Furthermore, clear ownership of land will curb the land related conflicts currently raging in the community. In addition, land ownership influences the choice of potential crops that can be grow – perennial crops versus annual crops. Even for the non-agricultural stimulating strategy, the resolution of property and land ownership is important as it has an influence on the ability to acquire funding.

Repair of irrigation infrastructure and proper control of water distribution as well as training of water control personnel Agricultural production in Ganspan hinges on irrigation and the disintegration of the irrigation infrastructure that is taking place in Ganspan will undoubtedly result in a significant decline in production. Apart from the deteriorating state of the irrigation infrastructure, there is uncertainty on the control of water distribution and lack of trained personnel responsible for the water control and distribution, resulting in ‘illegal’ diversion of water to plots not scheduled for irrigation. It is critically important to repair the irrigation infrastructure as matter of urgency.

There is currently a misunderstanding between the Vaalharts Water Users Association and the Phokwane Municipality as to who should be responsible for the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure in Ganspan. This misunderstanding has to be cleared as soon as possible, to prevent the irrigation scheme from total collapse. The role and responsibility of the Ganspan community in the maintenance, control, and distribution of irrigation water should be clearly defined.

Engage in market oriented (demand) production rather than supply driven production There is a tendency among the farming community members to start producing crops without planned marketing or securing of a market before production. This leads to post-harvest losses and low quality of crop produce, resulting in low income returns for households. It is important that the farmers engage in market oriented production. Feasibility studies and market research are therefore critical if the agricultural stimulating strategy is to be successful. This is also very important for the non-agricultural stimulating strategy to be successful and sustainable.

Provision of basic services (health, water, schools) The community indicated their desperate plight for basic services such as a health facility, drinking water supply, and schools. The lack of these services has a negative impact on their livelihoods.

41

4.4.3. Stimulating strategies and their related activities

Primary stakeholders need different research and development options because of their varying capabilities, access to resources, livelihood strategies, interests and vulnerabilities. The strategies are identified to achieve a desirable future situation. Stakeholders in Ganspan identified the following activities related to the agriculture and non-agriculture stimulating strategies:

Table 4.5: List of identified activities for agriculture and non-agriculture stimulating strategies by various stakeholders Agricultural stimulating activities Non-agricultural stimulating activities

Hands-on skills training for agricultural extension Business management and technical skills officers Provide farmer training (managerial, technical and Promote local businesses (candle making, marketing skills) sewing & knitting, wire netting, catering) Organic farming (pigs and poultry) & specialised Formation of Labour Bureau and accreditation animal production (piggery, poultry, small stock and of skills aquaculture) Production of high value crops(pecan nuts, strawberries, essential oils, olives, roses) Hydroponics and greenhouses to produce high-value crops Proper choice of crops Demarcate grazing area into proper grazing land Small-scale gardening Communal ownership of machinery Form community cooperatives and explore possibilities of BEE partnership Contract farming Promote Agro- industries: Abattoir; Orange Processing; Milling factory; Honey factory; Cheese making; Peanut butter factory; Bakery

4.4.4. Screening and justification of activities

Related to the agriculture stimulating strategy

The different activities have been screened according to the pros and cons and related implications.

Hands-on skills training for agricultural extension officers Enhanced know-how of extension officers is crucial for dissemination of knowledge and imparting of skills to farmers. There is a need therefore to capacitate these officers with technical and managerial skills. The DALR should consider facilitating such training and thus budget for it.

42

Provide farmer training (technical, managerial and marketing skills) There is an urgent need to improve the technical, managerial, and marketing skills of farmers so that they may effectively operate in the competitive agricultural market. Poor quality of some produce from Ganspan has been mentioned and observed. The farmers have also incurred considerable losses due to poor marketing of their produce.

Organic farming (pigs and poultry) & specialised animal production (piggery, poultry, small stock and aquaculture) Organic farming does not use chemicals such as artificial fertilizers and pesticides, which makes it environment-friendly. This type of farming is emerging as a potentially lucrative industry in South Africa on the back of a buoyant global demand for chemical free products (Bowker, 2008). The South African organic market grew by 300% from 2004 to 2005 and is expected to grow by over 30% a year over the next 5 years. The demand for organic products far outstrips the supply (Urban Sprout, 2007). Venturing into organic farming may be profitable for Ganspan farmers. However, the skills needed for such a venture should be given due consideration.

Given the small size of the land in Ganspan and the fact that bulk crop production does not seem profitable on very small plots, specialised intensive animal production may be attractive. As with organic farming, due consideration should be given to the skills of the farmers. It should be noted that that there are many factors that may influence the success of an enterprise such as aquaculture. Site selection is very important, and also location and climate, slope and topography of the site, soil type, quantity and quality of water available, and market research are extremely important and should be carefully considered (Aquaculture Association of South Africa, 2008). Aquaculture technologies are often advanced, thus effective training and funding is required.

Production of high value crops (olives, pecan nut, strawberries and essential oils) Olive production requires deep soils that should be ripped at least 5 m deep while the soils in the Ganspan Settlement have an average soil depth of less than 1 m (Visser, 2008). This makes the area unsuitable for olives production. Other experts state, however, that olives can grow on the soils of Ganspan, as long as water is applied properly. Deep and fertile soils may result in excessive vegetative growth of the olive tree at the expense of fruit production. Olives are a long- term crop which takes a period of approximately 10 years before reaching full production for substantial profits to be realized. It should be noted that in the first 3 years there are no returns for the producer. The production may therefore be unattractive to Ganspan farmers due to their pressing financial needs. It is important to note that land title deeds are a precondition for producing perennial crops.

Pecan nuts are not suitable in the area due to the shallow soils and the drainage problems. The crop is known for its sensitivity to alkaline soils which hamper production. Since this is a perennial crop that is established over a long period of time (ten years) before reaching full production, substantial profits may not be realised in short space of time.

Production of strawberries is suited to small-scale and part-time farming operations (Demchak, 2008). The strawberry plant has a shallow root system thus suited for Ganspan soils and the realisation of income is possible on the second year for some cultivars. However, the initial investment is high but mainly associated with the preparatory phase for planting and weeding practices. Furthermore, strawberries have special production requirements. Proper site and

43

cultivar selection, proper site preparation, a reliable irrigation infrastructure, diligence in carrying out cultural practices, and advanced planning and marketing are crucial (Barney et al, 1992). Strawberries are a highly perishable crop and hence a great deal of care in harvesting and handling as well as its marketing also requires to be organised carefully. Usually the fruit is picked in the early morning and sent to the market in the afternoon of the same day or is picked in the late afternoon, stored overnight in a cool place, and sent to market the following morning. Apart from the high initial costs, the skills and commitment required and the need for a reliable irrigation infrastructure, the production of strawberries may be suitable for Ganspan. The potential profits on a 0.6 ha plot should be assessed taking into account all handling and management costs.

Production of essential oils requires advanced skills which are not available in the settlement. High capital investment and market specifications may also hinder success of such production as these oils are mostly exported to specific countries.

Hydroponics and greenhouses Hydroponics and greenhouses are costly to establish and require highly specialised labour. However these have potential for high returns on a small piece of land and thus would be ideal for Ganspan if the costs of establishment and labour skills were not high. The types of crops suitable and profitable under this production system must be determined beforehand.

Choice of crops The crops that have potential to generate higher income in Ganspan should be carefully considered. The potential income from different crops has been discussed earlier. Further research must be done to determine crops that can be profitably produced in Ganspan.

Demarcate grazing area into proper grazing land This would contribute towards properly controlled grazing management. However, one has to bear in mind that the available grazing land is only 420 ha which allows for a carrying capacity of approximately 50 livestock units (Badenhorst, 2001). This size of land is not sufficient for a large livestock operation but can be utilised for small stock farming or a feedlot operation. However, a feedlot operation is complex, requiring advanced knowledge and skills in feeding and nutrition, disease control etc. The initial costs of developing the feedlot are also high.

Small-scale gardening This may contribute towards food security for households especially those not fully engaged in agriculture or citing lack of funds as a hindrance to full utilisation of the plots they have access to.

Communal ownership of machinery It is apparent that most community members that are Box 4.8: Agricultural implements engaged in agriculture do not have access to machinery Vukani Bafazi has agricultural which creates difficulties when it is time for planting and implements but, due to social harvesting. This contributes significantly to the poor disharmony in the community, most quality of the harvested produce as it often means a delay farmers are not willing to rent this in harvesting. A committee could be formed that would equipment. The farmers rather hire be tasked with the control and properly arranged usage of equipment from outside the settlement.

44

the equipment and machinery. This requires proper working relationship between farmers which unfortunately is currently not the case in the settlement. The question of how funding will be raised for such high capital investment needs to be addressed. It is worth noting that the Phokwane Municipality indicated that they are willing to assist organised emerging farmer groups with machinery such a tractor. However, the community assert that the municipality has failed them several times when they requested for tractor assistance.

Form community cooperatives and explore possibilities of BEE partnership Formation of cooperatives places the community in a better position to jointly tackle challenges within the sphere of agriculture. Furthermore, this collaboration would enable community members to take advantage of the economies of scales leading to greater returns. It should be borne in mind that cooperatives need to be built on trust, and currently socio-dynamics are not very conducive for such innovative organisational platforms

The possibilities of venturing into partnerships with established companies that need AgriBEE partners should be explored, as they may result in improved production and enhanced linkages with markets.

Contract farming Lack of machinery for planting and harvesting purposes is the dominant factor cited for causing a decline in the quality of produce. The arrangement of a contractor preparing land for individuals without farming implements and taking responsibility for all other processes up to marketing of the produce was suggested. The contractor would then deduct the costs incurred in the process of producing, harvesting and marketing the crop, and the remaining profit shared according to the agreement reached between the contractor and the individual farmer. It should be noted that one group, Vukani Bafazi has access to agricultural machinery which could service the whole of the agricultural land in Ganspan. Because of social disharmony in the community, most members of the community are not willing to contract this machinery though.

Related to the non-agriculture stimulating strategy

Promote agro-industries This was suggested mainly for addressing the problem of high unemployment in Ganspan. Generally, industries require high levels of skills that may not be currently available in the Ganspan Settlement. The development of industries is capital intensive which may raise questions on who will be the investors in the area and how they can be attracted to invest in Ganspan. It is also important to establish where the raw materials will be sourced. Apart from groundnuts, which are a raw material for production of peanut butter, the raw materials for the other mentioned products will have to be outsourced. Training and mentorship will be required and it is important to determine who have the skills to carryout the training, and how the training will be funded.

Promote local businesses A large percentage of the Ganspan community is not engaged in agriculture and it was suggested that promotion of non-agricultural related business be expeditiously explored. Businesses such as candle making, sewing, catering, wire netting etc were suggested. Such businesses also require proper training and capital investment. It is suggested that the Department of Labour should be

45

engaged to train members of the community through its various SETAs. The Department could also coordinate skills development in business management and technical skills.

Formation of Labour Bureau and accreditation of skills The labour bureau involves auditing skills of individuals and keeping a record of these individuals and their respective skills. The bureau advertises the individuals’ skills to prospective employers. The employment can range from part-time to full-time employment. Additionally, the bureau can arrange proper accreditation of these skills through the Department of Labour thus enhancing the chances of the individuals being employed.

4.4.5. Prioritisation of activities

From the discussions and from comments made by various stakeholders, the ARD-team prioritised the above activities in terms of time (short-, medium- and long-term), resources (financial, social, natural and physical), political targets (LRAD, Presidential node and food security) and local potential (existing knowledge and practices, training requirements).

Short-term promising activities

The following were identified as activities that require immediate attention.

Activities under the agriculture stimulating strategy

Training: Farming skills are limited among Ganspan farmers and it is therefore prudent to improve the managerial, technical and marketing skills of the farmers. Enhancement of farmer skills in these areas will lead to increased production, better marketing of produce and thus higher returns. Improved skills in non-agricultural activities should make it possible for community members to start small business operations.

Hands-on skills training for agricultural extension officers: As discussed above, enhancing the extension officers’ skills should translate into improved mentoring of farmers.

Small-scale gardening: Since the size of the land is not large enough to generate enough income, those not engaged in farming may be stimulated to utilise land to grow vegetables for household use, rather than leaving the plots fallow. This may help families reduce costs of buying foodstuff.

Activities under the non-agriculture stimulating strategy

Formation of Labour Bureau and Accreditation of skills: Given the dire unemployment situation, the formation of a labour bureau and the accreditation of skills may assist in securing employment for community members.

The above activities can be implemented within a short space of time and may carried out concurrently. These activities do not require large financial resources. The DALR indicated that it

46

can make available certain resources such as the use of Grootfontein Agricultural College for training. The Department of Labour can be roped in to train community members through their various SETAs. The community members can take advantage of the various government financial schemes aimed at promoting Small Medium Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) to start small businesses. The Vaalharts area under which Ganspan Settlement falls has been identified as a Presidential Nodal Area giving the area greater opportunities for economic growth and development.

Medium-term promising activities

Activities under the agriculture stimulating strategy

Choice of crops: production of crops that are suitable and profitable for Ganspan will improve the contribution of agriculture to the livelihoods of the Ganspan farming community. An appropriate choice of crops does not require advanced skills and capital investment. The training mentioned above can enable farmers to make proper decisions on which crops to produce.

Demarcation of grazing areas: Provision of fencing may not be too costly (though too costly for the low income farmers in Ganspan) given the small size of the land and this can be done within a short time if resources are readily available.

Contract farming, ownership of machinery and production cooperatives: Formation of production cooperatives though requiring minimal capital investment, needs a lot of human capital investment. The process of cooperative formation needs social facilitation which is not an easy task and requires qualified people who understand the requirements of the process well. Qualified personnel in the DALR can facilitate this process. For contract farming, the most important thing is for parties going into a contract to understand the implications of the contract and to abide by the contract.

Acquisition of machinery is expensive and the community has to devise ways of accessing funding. Management and control of the machinery will need to be carefully planned to ensure smooth and proper utilization of the machinery. Exploring possibilities of AgriBEE partnerships may also result in farmers getting access to machinery.

Activities under the non-agriculture stimulating strategy

Local small businesses: Agriculture makes a small contribution to the livelihoods of Ganspan community and thus venturing into other businesses could contribute to improving the livelihoods of the community.

Long-term promising activities

Activities under the agriculture stimulating strategy

Hydroponics, greenhouses, high value crops, specialised animal production and organic farming: These activities require a high level of skills and are capital intensive. Currently, there is limited local knowledge on these ventures. As they would be new practice in the area, intensive

47

training would be required. Funding of such ventures is likely to be a challenge, especially given the low knowledge base of the farmers and their poor financial status.

Activities under the non-agriculture stimulating strategy

Agro-industries: As mentioned earlier, industries require high levels of skills that are not currently available in Ganspan. The financial resources required are also high. Venturing into agro-industries is largely a long-term strategy. Proper planning must go into what kinds of industries are appropriate for Ganspan, and how investment into the area can be attracted.

48

5. WAY FORWARD

The study reveals that only a minority of the Ganspan community members is involved in agricultural activities. This is evident, as currently 80% of the scheduled irrigated plots are lying fallow. Most households in the community depend on non-agricultural income sources for their livelihoods. It is evident that the developmental efforts should focus on strategies that will stimulate both agricultural and non-agricultural economic activities. It should be recognised that households differ in their access to resources and have different objectives and expectations, and hence they have different livelihood strategies. The households thus react differently to developmental proposals.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that there are currently only minimal basic services in the Ganspan community. The lack of basic services such as a health facility, drinking water, roads and schools, has a detrimental effect on the livelihoods of the community and impedes their developmental efforts.

It should be recognised that development is a complex process of change and cannot be driven by individuals or institutions working in isolation. Collaboration and joint intervention of various stakeholders such as Phokwane Municipality (local economic development section), the Department of Social Services & Population Development, the Department of Labour, the Department of Housing & Local Government, Vaalharts Water Users Association, Cooperatives together with the DALR, is thus crucial. The differences in households’ livelihood strategies and the complexities of developmental efforts require joint analysis, planning and action by all stakeholders. The establishment of an innovation platform with representatives of relevant stakeholders (including community organisations) is recommended, in order to draft and implement well-focused integral and inter-institutional development plans for Ganspan.

The study also reveals, however, that for any agriculture stimulating strategy to be successful, certain preconditions should be fulfilled, dealing with specific issues on landownership, irrigation infrastructure, and type of crop production.

Without legal entitlement to resources such as land and property, applications to credit institutions for funding cannot be successful. Lack of funding will hamper most of the identified development strategies. In addition, if title deeds are not secure, farmers prefer to grow annual crops; the investment in the planting of perennial crops is considered to be risky and thus inappropriate. The process of securing land ownership should be hastened.

Agricultural production in Ganspan is dependent on irrigation but, unfortunately, the irrigation infrastructure is not properly maintained. Lack of attention to the poor state of the irrigation infrastructure will lead to a total collapse of the agricultural production in the Ganspan Settlement. The management of water control and distribution should also be addressed. Communication between the Vaalharts Water Users Association and the Phokwane Municipality over the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure should be improved. The role of the two organisations, as well as the emergent role and responsibility for the Ganspan community, should be urgently addressed and be clearly defined.

49

The success of the farming activities also depends on properly planned marketing strategies and it is deemed important that farmers practice market oriented (demand) production, rather than supply driven production. The analysis carried out on the potential profits that may be obtained from various crops shows that bulk crops such as wheat are not very suitable for Ganspan. There is a need for a thorough analysis (taking into account economical, agronomical and social- cultural considerations) on a wider range of higher-value crops that may be more suitable for production in Ganspan.

Once the preconditions for the agriculture stimulating strategy have been met, other identified promising activities can be put in place to increase the household income share from agricultural activities. Promising identified and prioritised short-term activities are training of farmers and extension officers, covering technical as well as marketing skills, and stimulation of home-garden vegetable production. Promising medium-term activities are selection of suitable higher-value crops (taken into account the current economical, agronomical and social-cultural setting), better demarcation of grazing areas, facilitation of contract farming, and ownership/access to machinery (either communal or through AgriBEE partnerships) and production cooperatives. Promising long-term activities are engagement into hydroponics, greenhouses, high-value crops, specialised animal production, and organic farming.

Simultaneously, other identified promising activities of the non-agriculture stimulating strategy should be pursued vigorously. A promising short-term activity is the formation of a Labour Bureau and accreditation of skills. Medium-term activities include the stimulation of local small businesses. Long-term activities include the establishment of new agro-industries.

As already mentioned earlier, development is an intricate, inter-related and continuous process of change. The process should therefore not end with the findings of this study but should be facilitated and moved forward to achieve the desirable future. It would be a tragedy if the process is not moved forward since the findings of the study alone cannot bring about the desired improvement in the livelihoods of the Ganspan community.

50

REFERENCES

ABSA. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.absa.co.za/. Access date: 10 May.

Annual Report. 2006/07. Department of Agriculture and Land Reform. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.agrinc.gov.za/. Access date: 6 May.

Aquaculture Association of South Africa. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.aasa-aqua.co.za/. Access date: 10 May

AquaStel. 2008. Aquaculture University of Stellenbosch. Available from the World Wide Web at http://admin.sun.ac.za/kie/unistel/aquaculture/aquastel/. Access date: 6 May.

Badenhorst, J.W. 2001. Soil Conservation Report on Ganspan Settlement. Department of Agriculture and Land Reform.

Barney, D.L. et al. 1992. Strawberry production: Overview. Alternative Agricultural Enterprises. University of Idaho, College of Agriculture. Moscow. CIS 931.

Bornman, H. 1988. Vaalharts. Sigma- Press Ltd. Pretoria. South Africa.

Bowker, R. 2008. Tradeinvestsa. Niche agriculture in SA – business is growing. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.tradeinvestsa.co.za/. Access date: 9 May.

Bradstock, A. 2005. Land Reform and its Impact on Livelihoods. Policy and Research Series No 4. FARM-Africa. South Africa.

Cape Gateway. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at. http://www.capegateway.gov/. Access date: 10 May.

Demchak, K. et al. 2007. Strawberry Production. Agricultural alternatives. Pennsylvania State, College of Agriculture Science. Agriculture Research and Cooperative Extension.

Department of Agriculture and Land Reform. 2008. Enterprise Budget on olives & pecan nuts.

Department of Agriculture and Land Reform. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.agrinc.gov.za/. Access date: 6 May.

Ellington, R.G., 2003. Quantification of the impact of irrigation on the aquifer underlying the Vaalharts irrigation scheme, MSc thesis, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Institute for Groundwater Studies, University of the Free State. South Africa.

51

Festus, H. and Joseph, L. 2007. Tracking the performance of livestock banks managed by land reform groups in the Northern Cape. FARM-Africa. Series No. 5.

First National Bank. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.fnb.co.za/. Access date: 8 May.

ICRA. 2004. The Development of a project framework for Land Reform at the Vaalharts irrigation scheme of the Northern Cape Province, South Africa. ARD Field Series No. 4.

ICRA. 2007. Towards finding options for sustainable natural resource management in the Sterkspruit area, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Working Document Series 132.

ICRA. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.icra-edu.org/. Access on 10 April.

Land Bank. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.landbank.co.za/. Access date: 10 May.

Nedbank. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at. http://www.nedbank.co.za/. Access date: 8 May.

Northern Cape Provincial Government. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at. http://www.northern-cape.gov.za/. Access date: 10 May.

Ortmann, G and Machethe, C. 2003. Problems and Opportunities in South African Agriculture. The Challenge of Change. University of Natal Press. South Africa

SA Venues. 2008. Map of Northern Cape. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.sa-venues.com/. Access date: 18 April.

SA Venues. 2008. Map of South Africa. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.sa- venues.com/. Access date: 18 April.

Senwes. 2008. Enterprise Budget on grain produced in Vaalharts.

South African Yearbook. 2006/07. Fourteenth Edition. Published by the Government Communications and Information System (GCIS). South Africa.

Standard Bank. 2008. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.standardbank.co.za/. Access date: 8 May.

Statistics South Africa. 2007. Survey of Large Scale Agriculture 2005. Statistical release P1101.1. Available from the World Wide Web at. http://www.statssa.gov.za/. Access date: 18 April.

52

Statistics South Africa. 2008. Gross Domestic Product. Fourth quarter. Statistical release P0441. Available from the World Wide Web at. http://www.statssa.gov.za/. Access date: 18 April.

Umsobomvu Youth Fund. 2003. Available from the World Wide Web at http://www.youthportal.org.za/. Access date: 10 May

Urban Sprout. 2008. Eating & shopping organic in Cape Town. Available from the World Wide Web at http:// www.urbansprout.co.za /. Access date: 10 May

Vaalharts Water Users Association. 2008. Map of Ganspan Settlement.

Venter, J. 2007. Vaalharts Agricultural Development Hub. Department of Agriculture and Land Reform. de Villiers M.C., J.P. Nell ,R.O. Barnard & A. Henning. Salt-affected soils. ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate and Water. South Africa

Vink, N and Kirsten, J. 2003. Agriculture in the National Economy. The Challenge of Change. University of Natal Press. South Africa.

Visser, B. 2008. Olives South Africa. Basic Information about Olive Farming.

-- Salt-affected soils: South Africa, by M.C. de Villiers, J.P. Nell ,R.O. Barnard & A. Henning, ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate and Water: A study on salt-affected soils showed that soils of the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme have salinity and/or sodicity problems

Ellington, R.G., 2003. Quantification of the impact of irrigation on the aquifer underlying the Vaalharts irrigation scheme, MSc thesis, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Institute for Groundwater Studies, University of the Free State.

53

54

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of reference for the 2008 DALR/ARC/PM/ICRA field study in the Northern Cape

1. Institutional Framework

The field study will be carried out as a joint activity between Department of Agriculture & Land Reform, Northern Cape (DALR), the Agricultural Research Council’s SRL division (ARC), the International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) and the Phokwane Municipality.

The recently drafted Black Economic Empowerment Framework for Agriculture (DoA, July 2004) and the Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture determine the socio-economic development framework guiding this field study:

- Facilitate comprehensive and structural transformation in the economy in order to achieve a united and prosperous agricultural sector in partnership with stakeholders. - Promotion of equality - Enhance equitable access and participation - Improve competitiveness and profitability and - Ensure sustainable resources management

The Black Economic Empowerment Framework for Agriculture recognises that:

- Under the previous dispensation, race and gender was used to control access to agricultural resource - The South African society today remains characterised by inequalities in the distribution of, and access to agricultural opportunities, which could have a detrimental effect on national security and stability of the country - The agricultural sector has a critical role to play in the socio-economic transformation of the South African society and continues to play a significant role in the South African economy

55

2. Study period The field study will be conducted from 25 March until 30 May 2008, a period of 10 weeks, including two weeks at the end of May for preparatory work towards the subsequent MSc studies.

3. Background

Ganspan Settlement is situated in the Phokwane Municipal area which is part of the Vaalharts Node. The Settlement was developed more than 50 years ago as a sanctuary for welfare cases. It is state land and was then run by the Department of Welfare in terms of production and mechanization support. Currently it resorts under the Phokwane Municipality and the land is being utilised by various mainly black inhabitants. The main problems encountered in the settlement are conflict within the community, lack of skills, lack of finance, lack of production means and poor production.

4. Geographical area and target population

Ganspan Settlement comprises of 792 ha of which irrigation (24.5%) and grazing (53.6%) are the main land use activities. The total water allocation is for 298 ha and this is supplied by the Vaalharts Water Users’ Association. Ganspan is linked to the nearest town, Jan Kempdorp, by a tarred road of 10 km. Grains, industrial and fodder crops are marketed through a number of cooperatives and private business. Fresh produce such as fruit and vegetables are marketed locally and at the fresh produce market in Kimberley (110 km from Ganspan).

5. Team composition

The composition of the ARD core team is as follows.

Name Gender University Disciplines Mazwi Sydney Mafuma Male Venda Agricultural economics Precious Senyolo Female Limpopo Agricultural economics Carine van Zyl Female Free State Agricultural economics and animal science Simphiwe Mngomezulu Female Fort Hare Animal science Wongiwe Hashe Female Free State Agronomy David Norris Male Limpopo Breeding and genetics

56

6. Objectives of the field study and expected outputs

The field study is expected to address a number of social and agricultural issues linked to the Ganspan Settlement.

The field study contributes to the following overall objective (goal): Establishment of a viable developmental framework for Ganspan Settlement

Specifically (specific objective or purpose) the field study will: Help the DALR/ARC/PM determine the main focus of their developments efforts in the Ganspan Settlement

The expected outputs of the field study are: • Livelihood strategies of the people living in the settlement (Typology showing the differences) • Current socio-economic dynamics occurring in the settlement (Analysis from different analytical perspectives) • Vision (“better situation”) of the future “agricultural’ development of the settlement (Analysis from the different stakeholders’ perspectives) • Initial road map to get from the ‘current’ to the identified ‘better situation’ jointly determined by stakeholders

57

Guiding questions Central questions Secondary questions??? Tertiary questions????? What are the livelihood strategies of the Who are the people and what are their interests? people living in the settlement? What criteria can be used to distinguish groups of (Typology showing the differences) people? Who has access to and control over resources (land, water, capital, markets, information, etc.)? Are any stakeholders excluded from access to these resources?

What are the current socio-economic Which is the most relevant analytical perspective dynamics occurring in the settlement? (entry point) to find solutions for the settlement? (Analysis from different analytical How do the objectives and livelihood strategies of perspectives) the key stakeholders affect the socio-economic dynamics? What is these stakeholders’ perception of the socio- economic dynamics and potential solutions How are stakeholders organised to use, manage and control the resources relevant to these dynamics? What are the wider factors that affect the socio- economic dynamics? What are the “driving forces”? What are the possible future scenarios for these driving forces?

What could be a “better situation” What different strategies can the (vision) of the future “agricultural’ prioritised/selected groups of stakeholders follow to development of the settlement? improve their situation? (Analysis from the different stakeholders’ perspectives) How could an Initial road map to get What are possible future scenarios, and what are from the ‘current’ to the identified the strategies that stakeholders can adopt to take ‘better situation’ (jointly determined by into account these scenarios? stakeholders) look like?

58

7. Form of the final report

Before leaving the study area, the team will produce and hand over a draft report to the management of DALR/ARC/MP of not more than 50 pages including figures and tables.

8. Other stakeholders

Institution Stake??? Ganspan Steering Committee

Department of Land Affairs and Land Claims Commission Phokwane Municipality

Department of Social Services & Population Development Department of Housing & Local Government Department of Health

Department of Forestry and Water Affairs & Vaalharts Water Users’ Association NGO’s

Land Bank

Organized agriculture

Producer organisations

9. Field study responsibility and provided means

Provincial liaison officer: Ms. R Burgess/Mr. T Jonker (053-8389110 / 053-4560084) Responsible officer: Mr. J Venter (053-4560084)

The provincial task team will interact regularly with the study team. The local counterpart, Mr. Gaobuse (Extension Officer) will be the Department’s contact person. Soon after arrival in the field the team will present its field study plan. An introductory meeting with stakeholders (communities) will be organised. The team will also separately meet with the provincial task team to map out logistics and organise the workshops (mid-term and final). Regular interaction will be maintained between the study team and the departmental task team. At a mid-term workshop involving stakeholders, the team reviewer, representatives of the regional and provincial administration and other interested parties, the team will present a brief status report of

59

its findings including the methodology it has used. In addition, separate workshops will be held with farmers at the settlement to fully involve the community throughout the field study.

The field phase will include two capacity building workshops for the team and staff from stakeholder organisations: one on livelihoods and participatory approaches (week 2 of the field phase), the other one on stakeholder interaction (week 4 of the field phase).

The results of the field study will be presented in the form of a draft final report. This will be discussed at a final workshop involving a larger audience of stakeholders. This workshop will be held approximately 5days before the end of the field study to allow incorporation of useful comments into the final version of the report before the team leaves the province. A reviewer appointed by ARC/ICRA will support the team in three occasions, for approximately 4 days on each occasion. This reviewer will also form part of the field study preparation phase in Pretoria and Ganspan. The visits will roughly be at the beginning of the field phase, halfway through the field study, and at the end to assist the team in the final workshop and report writing, late in the field study.

The team is collectively responsible to the provincial department, the ARC & ICRA for respecting the terms of reference and for the means provided for implementation of the field study. Internal Management of the team is the team’s own responsibility. Within the limits specified in the terms of reference and in the budget, the team is free to decide its own approach, methodology, tools and work programme, as well as the use it makes of the means provided for the field study.

11. Collection and presentation of secondary data material

Secondary material that can contribute towards the preparation for the field study will be provided by Mr Venter and the Phokwane Municipality. This material will be made available to the team before the beginning of the knowledge acquisition phase in the Netherlands.

12. Provincial Task Team

The suggested structure for the NC provincial task team is as follows: • Chairperson: Mr J Venter (Assistant Director: Frances Baard, DALR) • Mr M Motswane (Phokwane Municipality) • Mr G Gaobuse (Farmer Support, DALR) • Mr C van Niekerk (Soil Conservation, DALR) • Ms R Burgess (Research, DALR) • Mr K Bapela (Project Management, DALR) • Ms N Gabriels (Provincial Coordinator, ARC) • Mr A Messelaar (NAFU) • Mr W v/d Merwe or Mr T Duvenhage (Agri NC) • Ms M Gill (WARD) • Mr J Momberg (Vaalharts Water Users’ Association)

60

13. Accommodation, transport and logistical support

The Provincial Department will provide administrative support as needed to conduct fieldwork in the province. Logistical support and staff will be made available. Accommodation for the 10 week period will be provided and will include 7 bedrooms (1 person per room), a kitchen, a dining/meeting room and bathroom facilities. The province will also provide the team with appropriate transport for the duration of the field study. Accommodation will also be provided to the reviewer during his/her three visits of approximately 4 days each. The Provincial Department will also make available conference facilities for the team’s workshops, and distribute copies of the final report to stakeholders.

61

62

ANNEX 2: RESEARCH PLAN

RQ1: What are the livelihood strategies of the people living in the settlement?

Information needs Expected analytical Research questions Potential answers Research tools & methods and/or sources output

SQ1.1: Who are the people and what are their interests? What activities are people More people derive income Level of contribution of Semi-structured interviews Identify the initial engaged in to make a living? from combined activities each activity to the total typology (farm & employment) household income from Ganspan community Are these people really People are interested in Willingness and attempt o Transact walks Is the community interested in Agriculture? agriculture but resources are of people to do o Semi-structured interested in agriculture not available agricultural activities interviews with or not community members How many people are currently Few people depend fully on Occupation of people Semi-structured interviews What’s the exact fully dependent on agriculture? agricultural activities number of people depending on agriculture Do they ‘own’ land, rent out Most people own about 0.6 Number of plots rented Semi-structured interviews Land utilization by the land, or rent land? ha of land Number of plots rented community out SQ1.2: What criteria can be used to distinguish groups of people? Which criteria can be used to o The criteria to be used: Information on the o Key informants Verify the initial best classify people into Farming income; Non- different income o Case studies typology different income source groups farming income & activities that people are o Semi-structured combined (farming & practising interviews non-farming) income.

63

SQ1.3: Who has the most access and control over resources and are any stakeholders excluded from access to these resources? Who is in control & responsible o Water Users Association Vaalharts Water User Semi-structured interviews Responsible bodies for for the water management in is responsible for control Association’s co with stakeholders water control and Ganspan? & management of functions management irrigation water Who is in control of the land? o State owns the land Information on land Semi-structured interviews Which resources do o People have full control of ownership from they control land community members What type of crops are they o Crops: Groundnuts, Information on the types o Transact walks Which resources do growing/livestock are they lucerne, watermelons of crops and of livestock o Key informants they own having and why? o Livestock: Goats o Semi-structured interviews RQ2: What are the current socio-economic dynamics occurring in the settlement?

Information needs Expected analytical Research questions Potential answers Research tools & methods and/or sources output SQ2.1: Which is the most relevant analytical perspective to find solutions for the settlement?

What are the problems within o Lack of farming o Information on o Inventory analysis Primary stakeholders’ the community and what are the equipments ownership of o Semi-structured perception on current possible causes of these o Lack of financial support equipment interviews with situation problems? o Lack of marketing o Information on the community members avenues current markets that exist o Information on current sources of finance

64

SQ2.2: How do the objectives and livelihood strategies of the key stakeholders affect the socio-economic dynamics?

What support do other o Technical support from Information on services o Semi-structured Who are the relevant stakeholders offer to the extension officers and support provided by interviews with stakeholders in the community? o Financial support from different stakeholders in community members settlement credit institutions the community o Key informants o Interview stakeholders How does the support from Support offered by Impact of the support Community workshop Usefulness of services various stakeholders affect your stakeholders play a vital role offered by different (important stakeholders and and support offered livelihood? in improving their stakeholders linkages between community livelihoods and stakeholders) How do you rate support from Average support offered by Is the community happy Ranking & scoring of Stakeholder stakeholders? stakeholders with the support different stakeholders by performances community SQ2.3: What is these stakeholders’ perception of socio-economic dynamics? What do you see as factors o Lack of employment Factors that affect their Key informants and other Current situation and affecting the community’s o Lack of technical livelihoods stakeholders how it can be improved livelihood? information Focus group discussions o Limited land size What are the major obstacles o No developmental Information on the Semi-structured interviews Factors hindering that hinder the community opportunities current developmental with stakeholders developments development? o Lack of employment opportunities that exists o Poor agricultural in the community production 2.4 How are stakeholders organised to use, manage and control the resources relevant to these dynamics? How do you manage and Poor management of Information on their Semi-structured interview Management control these resources? resources management skills capabilities of community members

65

Who is responsible for o Men control most Community members’ Group discussions Gender roles management of these resources resources perceptions on gender o Women only manage equality issues household resource Information needs Expected analytical Research questions Potential answers Research tools & methods and/or sources output SQ2.5: What are the wider factors that affect the socio-economic dynamics (what are the “driving forces” & the possible future scenarios for these driving forces)? What are the external factors o Land ownership Information on factors o Key informants Documentation of the that have impact on your o Insufficient water that are beyond the o Semi-structured external forces and livelihood? community’s control interviews future scenarios How are they likely to Negative impact on Impact of the external Focus groups interviews with Impact of external influence your livelihood in the agricultural development in forces in their livelihoods community members forces and future future? the settlement scenarios RQ3. What could be a “better situation” (vision) of the future “agricultural” development in the settlement?

SQ3.1: What different strategies can the prioritised/selected groups of stakeholders follow to improve their situation? What are the possible solutions Combination of activities Perceptions on the future Stakeholder workshop Solutions for identified to your problems? problems Besides agriculture what else o Small business owners Analysis of skills Semi-structured interviews Other developmental can the community engage in? o Work outside agriculture available in Ganspan possibilities

Where do you want to be in 5- Fully commercial farmers Future perception of Stakeholder workshop Future for Ganspan 10 years from now? community members Settlement

66

What will make it possible for o Access to financial Viability of the strategies Benefit-cost analysis Conditions for the you to be there? resources given all the resources vision o Have ownership of land

RQ4: How could an initial road map to get from the “current” to the identified “better situation” look like?

4.1 What are possible future scenarios, and what are the strategies that stakeholders can adopt to take into account these scenarios? How do you get from current o Combined activities Stakeholder perceptions Stakeholder workshop Roadmap for situation to the future vision? (agriculture & non- on the possible strategies development agricultural) to follow in developing o Provision of capital, the area equipment and title deeds

67

68

ANNEX 3: WORK PLAN

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output

Jason & Simphiwe with Logistics 12 March Confirm logistics E-mail Wageningen Thembi & Colletah confirmed

25 March Settle in Team Jan Kemp Hotel Team settled

Meeting Team, Thembi & Colletah Introduction to community Ganspan Team introduced to 26-27 March community with community (Introductory workshop) Community Hall the community leaders representative

Relevant Collect & analyse 26-30 March Reading data Team Jan Kemp Hotel information secondary data extracted from data

Draw an initial Team Jason, Wongiwe & 27 March Meeting Jan Kemp Hotel Budget drawn budget Simphiwe WEEK 1 Revise work & research Revised work & 28 March Meeting Team Jan Kemp Hotel plan research plan

Meeting Vaalharts Carine, Jason & Simphiwe Vaalharts 28 March Meeting Done extension officer with G. Goabuse Research Station

Meeting Municipal officials Dave, Precious & Wongiwe Jan Kemp 28 March Meeting Done & Mayor with G du Preez Municipal Offices

Prepare initial outline of Team 28 March Team Jan Kemp Hotel Outline prepared report discussion

Prepare for community 30 March Meeting Team Jan Kemp Hotel Workshop planned workshop

69

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output Agro-

Workshop with community ecological Ganspan Workshop Team representatives systems Community Hall objectives achieved 31 March workshop

Relevant 31 March – 04 Continue analysing Read & give Vaalharts Team information April secondary data feedback Research Station extracted from data

Simphiwe & Carine with Vaalharts 31 March Meeting with DARL Meeting Done Annette Theunisen Research Station

Meeting with Vaalharts Dave & Carine with Japie Vaalharts 01 April Meeting Done Water Users Association Momberg Research Station WEEK 2

Phokwane Meeting with Mayor and Municipality Team with G du Preez & Hartswater 01 April Development Officer of Done Council Morgan Motswana Municipal Offices Phokwane Municipality Meeting

Update research and work Vaalharts Update work & 01 April Meeting Team plan Research Station research plan

Livelihood & Participatory Team, Driek with DARL Vaalharts 02-04 April Workshop Done approach workshop staff Research Station

Start writing Chapter 1 Vaalharts 04 April Team Writing started draft Research Station 1-2: Dave, Wongiwe & Submit draft of Chapter 1: Simphiwe Vaalharts Chapter 1 draft 06 April Objectives 3-4: Carine, Jason & Research Station ready Precious 70

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output Formulate the criteria for Vaalharts 06 April livelihood analysis Meeting Team Criteria formulated Research Station (typology)

Visits to projects in Objectives 07-08 April Transect walks Team with project members Ganspan Ganspan achieved

Meeting with FARM- 08 April Meeting Dave with Lazarus Joseph Kimberley Done Africa Meeting with Dept. of Precious, Carine & Vaalharts 08 April Social Services & Meeting Simphiwe with Dodo Done Research Station Population Development Dipatshe Meeting with Dept of Dave & Wongiwe with Niel 08 April Housing & Local Meeting Kimberley Done Ferreira

WEEK 3 Government Discuss TOR & Time- Vaalharts 09 April Meeting Team with Task Team Done frame of the study Research Station

Semi- Verification of Typology structured Team with community 09 April Ganspan Criteria verified criteria interview members (case studies) Send stakeholder invitation Call, fax & Vaalharts 09 April letters for Week 4’s Jason, Simphiwe & Carine Invitations sent e-mail Research Station workshop Chapter 2: Dave, Wongiwe Submit draft Chapter 2 & & Simphiwe Vaalharts 11 April Draft submitted Chapter 3 Chapter 3: Carine, Jason & Research Station Precious

71

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output

Semi-structured interviews (SSI) Team with community Interviews SSI Ganspan 11 April in the community members conducted (80 households)

Team with community Interviews 14 April SSI Ganspan Continue with SSI members conducted Revise draft Vaalharts Draft chapters 14 April Team Chapter 2 & 3 Research Station revised Analyse primary data form Vaalharts 14 April Team Data analysed SSI Research Station

Stakeholder workshop Juan & Thembi with Team & Vaalharts 15-16 April Workshop Done (wider audience) Other participants Research Station

Capturing information on Vaalharts Information 16-18 April Juan & Thembi with Team current & future scenarios Research Station captured

Vaalharts Chapter 4 is WEEK 4 17 April Structure Chapter 4 Juan & Thembi with Team Research Station structured

Meeting with Senwes Wongiwe & Carine with Senwes Silo’s Jan 17 April Meeting Done cooperative Karel Meiring Kempdorp Formulate Discuss relevance of Vaalharts implications from 17-18 April stakeholder workshop for Discussion Juan & Thembi with Team Research Station current and future study situation

Meeting with Olam Carine & Jason with Alewyn Olam factory Jan 18 April Meeting Done (Groundnut factory) Schiebusch Kempdorp

72

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output

Vaalharts 18 April Editing Chapter 1-3 Juan with Team Done Research Station

Vaalharts 22-24 April Drafting Chapter 4 Team Chapter 4 drafted Research Station

Vaalharts 24-25 April Give draft to reviewer Print out draft Team with reviewer Done Research Station

Continue writing of Vaalharts 25 April Team Writing continued Chapter 4 Research Station

WEEK 5 Vaalharts Incorporate 25 April Get feedback from reviewer Meeting Team with reviewer Research Station subjected changes Sending invitations for Call, fax & Vaalharts 25 April stakeholder workshop Simphiwe & Carine Invitations send e-mail Research Station (6 May) Edit report (Chapter 1-3, & 28 April – 02 Vaalharts part of 4) according to Dave Report edited May Research Station reviewers feedback Vaalharts 28 April Freedom day Working Team Working Research Station Calling & Vaalharts Focus group Arrangements for focus meeting with Team with Ganspan 28 April Research Station discussion planned group discussions community community & Ganspan & arranged members

Review focus Group Vaalharts Questions 28 April Team discussion questions Research Station reviewed and ready

73

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output Review research plan & Vaalharts Plan revised & Team 28 April identify information gaps Research Station gaps identified

Planning of stakeholder Vaalharts Stakeholder 28 April Meeting Team workshop (6 May) Research Station workshop planned

Team & Ganspan Vaalharts 29 April Focus group discussion Workshop community & other Done Research Station stakeholders WEEK 6 Vaalharts Done & included 30 April Stakeholder linkages Jason Research Station in Chapter 4 Finalize and send Call, fax & Vaalharts 30 April invitations for stakeholder Carine Invitations sent e-mail Research Station workshop 01 May Team Holiday Workers Day Team on holidays

02 May Team Holiday Holiday Team on holidays Preparation for stakeholder Vaalharts Workshop 05 May Team workshop Research Station prepared Stakeholder workshop Team with Ganspan 06 May Vaalharts (Give feedback & fill gaps Workshop community & other Gaps filled Research Station on strategies) stakeholders

Analyse stakeholder future Vaalharts Perceptions 06 May Meeting Team perceptions in Chapter 4 Research Station analysed WEEK 7 Continue writing Vaalharts 07-08 May Team Writing continued Chapter 4 Research Station Vaalharts 09 May Submit draft Chapter 4 Team Draft submitted Research Station

74

Date What How Who, with whom Where Output

Vaalharts 12 May Editing Chapter 4 Team Chapter 4 edited Research Station

Preparation for final report Vaalharts 13 May Meeting Team Presentation ready presentation Research Station

Vaalharts 14 May Final presentation Workshop Team with Task Team Report presented

WEEK 8 Research Station

Vaalharts 14-16 May Editing Report Team with reviewer Report edited Research Station Vaalharts Final report 16 May Submitting final report Team to client Research Station submitted Vaalharts 18 May Team leaves study area Team with reviewer Team left Research Station

75

76

ANNEX 4: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

GANSPAN COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS ON LIVELIHOODS

1. What activities are you engaged in to make a living? • List sources of income in terms of farming income and non-farm income • Prioritise them in the pie-chat below

2. Land ownership: • Do you own land? • Do you rent out land? • Are you renting other people’s land?

KEY INFORMANTS IN THE COMMUNITY

1. What are the activities in the community? 2. What resources are available? Who has control over the available resources? 3. What are the important crops and livestock in the settlement? 4. What products (crops &/or livestock) do you produce for household use)? 5. What products (crops &/or livestock) do you sell? 6. Which product (crop &/or livestock) is the most profitable? 7. Which product (crop &/or livestock) is the least profitable? 8. With which stakeholders do you link? And for what reason? 9. What are the main problems in the community and what causes them? 10. Do you belong to a group project? 11. In which year did the project start? 12. How many members does the project have? 13. How many hectares is the project utilizing? 14. Do the members of the project contribute (labour or finance) towards production activities?

77

FOCUS GROUPS: AGRICULTURAL & NON-AGRIRCULTURAL ACTIVITIES

1. What are factors affecting your livelihoods? 2. What are the things that may improve your livelihoods? 3. Besides agriculture, what else can you do in Ganspan? 4. What is the procedure that you follow when you sell your produce? 5. Have you signed a contract with any market? 6. Do you understand the implications of engaging in a contract? 7. Where do you get the information on markets prices and quality requirements? 8. What are the costs of producing the following crops? • Crops • Livestock • Ground nuts • Wheat • Vegetables 9. Where do you sell your vegetables? (Contact person) 10. What are the revenues? 11. Did you try to access finance? 12. Do you belong to any farmer organisation? 13. What are the monthly contributions? 15. How are these organisations organized and how do they function? 15. What are the problems experienced by these organisation? 16. What are the benefits of the belonging to the organisations? 17. Rate support services of the stakeholders: • Phokwane Municipality • DALR • Cooperatives 18. Are these stakeholders working together (collective action)? 19. If not, is it possible/ important for them to work together? 20. What opportunities do you see for the future of Ganspan?

DEPARTMENT OF AFRICULTURE & LAND REFORM (DALR)

1. How did the Ganspan Settlement develop? 2. How did the settlement change after 1994? 3. What is your current perception on Ganspan? 4. Is there potential for agricultural development in the settlement? 5. Are the people willing to make a living through agricultural activities? 6. What is your perception on the current challenges & problems that hinder agricultural activities in Ganspan? 7. How does the DARL interact with the community, and how often? 8. Is there any kind of support you provide to the community? What type of support? 9. Is the DARL involved in any projects in the settlement? 10. What opportunities exist for the settlement in terms of agricultural development as well as non-agricultural developments? 11. What kind of future do you want for Ganspan? And what strategies can be used to get to the better future situation?

78

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES & POPULATION DEVELOPMENT

1. What was the Department’s responsibility prior to 1994 in Ganspan? 2. What is the Department’s current involvement in the settlement? 3. Are you involved in any projects in Ganspan? 4. How does the Department consider involvement in a specific project (What is the criteria used?) 5. Does the Department provide support to the community/ project? What type of support? 6. What are the reasons for getting involved in a specific project? 7. What do you see as the major obstacles/problems for the project’s success? 8. How do you think these problems can be solved? 9. Do you interact with the DALR? 10. What is your perception on the problems Ganspan? 11. What is your perception on the future of Ganspan? And what strategies could be used to get to the better future situation?

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & LOCAL GOVERNEMENT

1. How did the Ganspan Settlement develop? 2. How did the settlement change after 1994? 3. What happened to the land claim by Kgosi Mankoroana on the Vaalharts area? 4. When will land be transferred to Phokwane Municipality? And from the Municipality to the community?

FARM-AFRICA

1. What are the main objectives of FARM-Africa? 2. Why is FARM-Africa involved in Ganspan since it’s not a Land Reform project? 3. What are the criteria for choosing a specific project? 4. What does the agreement with beneficiaries entail? 5. What kind of support do you give to community projects? 6. What are the reasons for getting involved in a specific project? 7. What do you see as the major obstacles/problems for projects’ success? 8. How do you think these problems can be solved? 9. Do you interact with the DALR, and how often? 10. What is your perception on the problems in the settlement? 11. What is your perception on the future of Ganspan? 12. What strategies could be used to get to a better future situation in Ganspan?

PHOKWANE MUNICIPALITY

1. How did the Ganspan Settlement develop? 2. How did the settlement change after 1994? 3. What is the municipality’s role in Ganspan? 4. What are the current challenges in Ganspan? 5. Are there any projects currently in Ganspan conducted by the municipality? 6. Is farming a good option for the settlement according to the municipality? 7. Are you responsible for providing household & irrigation water in Ganspan?

79

VAALHARTS WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

1. What were the responsibilities of Vaalharts Water in Ganspan prior to 1994? 2. How did your responsibilities change after 1994, and what are they now? 3. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the irrigation infrastructure? 4. Explain the water allocation system to Ganspan. 5. Do the farmers in Ganspan pay directly to you? 6. How much water does Ganspan receive? 7. Do you provide any support to the farmers? 8. Do the farmers in Ganspan receive subsidized water from government?

SENWES

1. Do Senwes have contracts with the people from Ganspan (Vukani Bafazi project)? Specifics? Period? 3. Do you provide transport for Ganspan farmers’ produce? 4. What other assistance do you offer to farmers? 5. How is the quality of products that comes from Ganspan? 6. What are your perceptions on the main problems in Ganspan? 7. What do you think are possible solutions for Ganspan?

OLAM

9. Does Olam have a contract with the farmers in Ganspan? 10. Does Olam provide technical support to farmers? 11. What is your perception on the problems in Ganspan? 12. Do you think it’s possible for farmers from Ganspan to make profit from what they produce?

80