Course:RES510/2023/Land Degradation, Agroecological Transformation & Land Rehabilitation in Post-Apartheid South Africa

From UBC Wiki

Executive Summary

Agricultural land degradation and consequent loss of land productivity is a significant challenge in South Africa. This is most severe in rural regions where black South Africans were forcibly relocated through policies of segregation during apartheid. Even after the end of apartheid in 1994, extreme land degradation, agricultural failure, associated poverty, and food insecurity in those regions continued. Multi-level efforts have begun to rehabilitate the the degraded lands through agroecological practices and to address sustainability challenges in the agri-food system.


This case study examined how apartheid and land tenure policies in the 20th century and other biophysical processes caused the degradation of agricultural lands in South Africa and what agroecological options exist for restoring the degraded lands. Using iPES-Food 2018’s Four Dimensions of Change framework, information about land degradation, rehabilitation measures, and opportunities and challenges for sustainable agriculture was analyzed.


Agricultural land degradation in South Africa was largely driven by combined political, social, and economic factors that incentivized or forced the use of unsustainable agricultural practices during the apartheid and post-apartheid periods. The consequence of this was severe land degradation, productivity loss, and further marginalization of black farmers. As much as 70% of the land in South Africa is considered to be degraded. Growing concern over the sustainability of the agricultural system has led to the gradual adoption of agroecological practices to rehabilitate degraded land. These practices include the use of organic fertilizers, minimum tillage, and mixed cropping. These changes are reflected in government policies, institutional frameworks, production practices, knowledge generation and transmission process, and social and economic relations.


The challenges associated with land rehabilitation through agroecological practices include lack of seed sources, limited access to credit, and availability of alternative inputs for sustainable practices. Legal restrictions against seed retention present significant hurdles to adoption of agroecology. Recent shifts in policy and the institutional landscape in South Africa show growing convergence of policies towards sustainability in resource management, which present opportunities to scale up agroecological transitions. Importantly, placed based initiatives and premium markets demonstrate that bottom up efforts can make a difference in agroecological rehabilitation of degraded lands.

Introduction

A sorghum plant[1] ​​(Sorghum and Sunflower j.v. Formed in South Africa, 2018).

Apartheid was an institutionalized racial segregation system that existed in South Africa and South West Africa, now Namibia, officially from 1948 to 1994. As South Africans were separated between races, millions of black South Africans were forcibly removed from the places they lived and were given limited land to live on and cultivate, losing connections that they had to the soil, crops, and trees. Sorghum is an indigenous grain that displaced black South Africans no longer had space or resources to grow[2]. Most of the land allocated to black South Africans, called “homelands,” was already marginal due to arid and semi-arid climates, poor soil quality, historic overgrazing, and water-sucking invasive plant species[3][4][5][6].

Said by Dinah, a black female South African farmer at Hleketani Community Garden, about life before and during apartheid: “At the countryside we had space for sorghum, we had space for maize, we had space for squashes […] It was a healthy life [...] I lost everything I knew, the trees and the land […] Now the space of ploughing is very small […] We can’t forget sorghum”[2].


In South Africa, agricultural degradation was the result of combined political, social, and ecological actions that incentivized farmers to over-cultivate agricultural lands. Many of the socio-economic and environmental drivers of agricultural degradation in the 20th century still impact agriculture in present-day South Africa. Drivers include policies of rural marginalization, land tenure systems, rural poverty, food insecurity, and lack of access to agricultural resources and information. Stakeholders at many levels in South Africa - the state government, nonprofit organizations, and rural communities - are attempting to support agroecological transitions to rehabilitate soils, improve livelihoods, and bolster the economy.

The following report opens with an exploration of the history of South Africa and the process from land marginalization to land degradation under social, economic, and environmental forces including apartheid. The dimensions of change toward land rehabilitation and agroecological transformation are analyzed and the challenges and opportunities for scaling up, out, and deep disruptive solutions, a concept proposed by Valencia et al., 2022, are examined. The case study draws on literature, policies, and local initiatives across South Africa regarding agroecology to inform a whole-country interpretation of possibilities for agroecological transformation. Recommendations and suggested areas of further research are provided for a better understanding of the agricultural rehabilitation and social recovery options in South Africa.

Background

From Colonization and Apartheid to Contemporary Governance

Governance in South Africa has a long history of control of rural livelihoods and agricultural activities. In the 20th century, the country experienced both British colonialism and apartheid governance policies. The modern South African state was founded in 1902 as a unit of the British Empire[5]. The colonial government implemented many racially and geographically discriminatory policies. The colonial government set additional taxes for indigenous Africans and assigned very little land for them to live on[7]. In 1948, the Afrikaner-dominated National Party took control of the nation[5]. The National Party enacted aggressive laws that established official racial identities for the population and enforced rigid segregation between “whites,” “black Africans,” “coloreds,” and “Indians”[5]. The agricultural and rural governance approaches of the National Party upheld the strict “apartheid” (separateness) of the racial groups[5].


The National Party took extensive actions to segregate black Africans through forced relocation to designated rural areas[5][4][6]. Government policies, such as the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951, actioned rural marginalization by forcing black Africans to relocate and live on the poorest quality rural lands available[5]. The relocation policies uprooted stable communities in both urban and rural regions and compelled their re-establishment in the “homelands,” which were ill-suited to support community livelihoods[6]. More than 3.5 million people were forcibly relocated in this manner[5][4]. The policies accelerated cycles of poverty and made unsustainable land use nearly inevitable for the homeland communities[4].


Environmental and agricultural policies enacted by the National Party upheld similar institutions of control and racial discrimination. Agriculture operated within a closed economy that was tightly regulated by the government, which prioritized large commercial agricultural operations owned by white citizens[8]. Environmental policies set out to maintain the productivity and economic potential of agricultural lands through intensive agricultural practices[8].


The combined impact of forced relocation and environmental policies can be termed “environmental apartheid:” the use of rural lands to deliberately marginalize racialized groups and the subsequent consequences of geographical and social marginalization[5]. Environmental apartheid degraded the productivity and ecological health of all rural lands by forcing black Africans to cultivate already-marginalized soils, encouraging white farmers to enthusiastically over-industrialize and over-cultivate, and upholding social inequality through unequal access to natural and economic resources[5].


The end of the National Party’s apartheid reign came about in 1994[5]. The newly elected government under President Nelson Mandela set in motion broad changes to social and economic policy to improve racial equality and reduce rural marginalization. The restrictive legal status of the “homelands” and the requirement that black South Africans lived in those communities were eliminated[5].


Reform policies after 1994 represented a significant shift in rural and agricultural governance and broadly impacted rural communities and land quality. Land reform and agricultural reform policies were implemented to address and remedy past injustices, foster stability, improve household welfare, and alleviate poverty[8]. Land redistribution and land tenure reform were key characteristics of these policies[8]. The Mandela government also reduced control and restrictions over the agricultural industry. Agriculture was largely de-regulated, subsidies eliminated, and international trade encouraged by reducing import and export controls as a part of the global market liberalization movement[8]. The deregulation of agriculture further incentivized production practices that extracted all productivity possible from already marginal agricultural lands.


The Constitution adopted by South Africa in 1996 outlines the right of every person to live in an environment that is safe and for that environment to be protected for present and future generations by preventing ecological degradation and pollution, promoting conservation, and using natural resources sustainably[9].

Land tenure structures in modern-day South Africa distinguish between commercial farming lands and communal farming lands[10]. Most communally-managed areas are the former homelands and are currently state-owned[10]. Agricultural activities in communal areas are mainly subsistence in nature or sell to local markets, while produce from commercial farms is sold large-scale in domestic and international markets[10].

State of the Land

Present-Day Land Quality

A Land Degradation Index created by the South African government to assess the quality of lands across the country. The map shows that most of the land experiences low to medium degradation severity but that large parts of the Northern Cape, North West and Eastern Cape Provinces experience high degradation severity. From the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, 2018, p.5.

The land in South Africa is largely marginal and predisposed to degradation because of climate and topography[9]. More than 70% of the land in the country has been intensely impacted by soil erosion and is degraded as a result[9]. Of the South African land surface, 80% is used for agriculture and subsistence livelihoods[9]. Only 11% of the agricultural land is classified as arable, and most of this arable land has been allocated to commercial agriculture operations[9]. Areas of degraded soils in the country are strongly associated with communal rangelands and are steeply sloped, have poor-quality soils, and experience high temperatures[9][3].

Drivers of Land Degradation

Natural processes of soil erosion have been accelerated by deforestation, overgrazing, poor agricultural methods, and forest fires[9]. Agricultural policy instruments favoured white commercial farmers and incentivized over-cultivation. Investments in irrigation facilities and fertilizers were subsidized and favourable taxation and interest rates encouraged over-mechanization of the agricultural process[11]. The country’s economic and food-system independence was achieved at the expense of land degradation and groundwater resource depletion.


The selection of crops, specifically, shaped the agricultural ecosystem through diverse land use patterns, water consumption, and soil health. During the 20th century, the predominant crops in Northeastern South Africa were wild vegetables and corn[12]. These species are very nutritious and important for subsistence farming. However, the wild vegetables absorbed a lot of water from the soil and degraded soil quality[12]. Marginalized farmers had no option but to cultivate crops to feed their communities despite the resulting agricultural degradation.


Severe weather events have further stressed the already-fragile agricultural ecosystems in South Africa. The El Niño events of 1991-1992 and 1997-1998 triggered altered precipitation patterns leading to droughts or excessive rainfall in different regions, thereby affecting crop yields and productivity (Anyamba et al., 2001). The La Niña event of 1999-2000 damaged the agricultural lands by causing flooding, soil erosion, and drought in different regions[4]. South Africa experienced devastating cyclones and powerful storms in 2000, 2019, and 2023, which caused widespread destruction of farming infrastructure, displacement of populations, and long-term economic setbacks for agricultural communities[13].

State of the People

The dense population in the former homelands led to overutilization of the agricultural lands and therefore land degradation in the form of soil erosion and loss of productive capacity. By 1994, 80% of South Africa's total population had access to only 13% of the land[14]. Rural populations are twice as high in communal areas than in commercially oriented agricultural regions[10].

The legacies of social and geographical segregation continue to marginalize rural communities in South Africa. Former homelands still lack basic municipal services of running water, sanitation, electricity, road maintenance, hospitals, and schools[5]. The degradation of the former homelands also continues to drive rural food insecurity and job insecurity. Food insecurity and malnutrition remain severe; nearly 50% of people living in the former homelands were food insecure in 2008[15]. Food insecurity and malnutrition are causing stunting in 32% of children under 5 years of age in these communities[16]. The former homelands have very high rates of unemployment and job insecurity[5]. Illnesses including HIV/AIDS continue to threaten human health and well-being, specifically in the black populations in the former homelands[17]. Close to 6.5 million people in South Africa experience poverty, most of whom live in poor rural communities[18].

Agricultural extension services offered by the South African government do not address the actual localized challenges experienced by farmers[19]. Both extension services and researcher-farmer collaboration are also very limited; only 2,500 agricultural extension officers have been hired to support more than 3 million farmers in the country[20]. In Thorndale, Limpopo, nearly 62% of the interviewed farmers said that they do not have contacts with extension officers, and the remaining 38% of the interviewed farmers experienced infrequent contacts and limited extension services[21]. Scarce examples of research farms include Tygerhoek Experimental Farm in the Overberg[22]. Black female farmers in particular have been excluded from access to secure land tenure, water, novel agricultural technologies, and extension services[19]. The interplay between social injustice and environmental injustice perpetuates a relentless cycle of impoverishment for both people and the land[5].


The forced relocation policies also caused Indigenous Africans to lose connections to their traditional land and knowledge. In Transkeian districts, the surge in population partly led to the breakdown of the traditional rotational systems of mixed farming[11]. Women of Tsonga ethnicity within Gazankulu expressed frustration upon arriving in the “homelands” that they for not have enough allocated space and labour to grow sorghum, their indigenous grain[23].

Core Analysis

Dimensions of Change for Agroecological and Rehabilitative Transitions

Four Dimensions of Change analytical framework for agroecological transitions. From iPES-Food, 2018, p.14.

Agricultural land degradation in South Africa was largely driven by political, social, and economic conditions that incentivized or forced the use of unsustainable agricultural management practices. Apartheid policies of harsh social, economic, and political injustices set in motion severe environmental consequences that continue to scar the lands and peoples[5]. The changes that have and continue to occur within South Africa that have potential to support agroecological transitions are examined in the following section using a “Four Dimensions of Change” framework[24]. The framework, illustrated below, organizes the many dimensions of socio-ecological systems and agroecological transitions into categories of changes in institutional frameworks, changes in production practices, changes in knowledge generation and transmission, and changes in social and economic relations[24].

Changes to Institutional Frameworks

The Constitution adopted by South Africa in 1996 outlines the right of every person to live in an environment that is safe and for that environment to be protected for present and future generations by preventing ecological degradation and pollution, promoting conservation, and using natural resources sustainably[8]. This was the first step in institutional change and transformative agricultural change in South Africa.

The modern South African government continues to put in place policies and governance structures to address inequities and agricultural land degradation. These policies and paradigm shifts are setting the underlying conditions for more sustainable food systems to emerge. At the international level, South Africa is now a party to the United Nations Convention to Combat Deserti (UNCCD), Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Paris Agreement, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and the Rio +20 Summit[9]. This engagement represents a commitment at the national level to protect and rehabilitate natural resources and food-producing ecosystems. This is a significant departure from the closed-off approach of the National Party in the 20th century and an important move to a policy environment more supportive of rehabilitative agricultural management.

Numerous changes have been implemented by the national government in the 21st century to address causes of rural marginalization and land degradation. Secure access for racialized communities to agricultural land has been improved through land tenure and ownership reform. More than 13 million hectares, representative of about 17% of the agricultural land in South Africa, have been transferred from white landowners to racialized communities through redistribution, restitution, state procurement, and private transactions[8]. Several initiatives related to agricultural rehabilitation also directly address the linked dimensions of rural poverty, job insecurity, and food insecurity in the former homelands. The National LandCare Programme and Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programs set out to increase sustainable use of private and communal agricultural lands by reducing poverty, increasing food security, increasing job security, and improving quality of life for rural communities[9]. The CBNRM and Working for Land programmes incorporate community engagement and empowerment into agricultural rehabilitation activities[9]. Each of these policies contribute to a South Africa where farmers and farming communities are able and encouraged to rehabilitate and steward agricultural lands for the long term.


Much greater recognition for the social and economic value of healthy agricultural ecosystems and biodiversity has been incorporated into South African governance of natural resources. The National Action Programme (NAP) was first developed in 2004 in accordance with the UNCCD[9]. The NAP was revised and the Second NAP was released in 2018 to match the updated UNCCD Strategic Framework[9].  It seeks to identify and address the causes of desertification, land degradation, and drought in South Africa[9]. The NAP’s objectives include rehabilitating degraded lands and soils, promoting sustainable agricultural methods that protect watersheds and soil health, and improving agricultural land quality to support food security[9]. The program encourages agricultural management that protects land, water, soil nutrients, genetic resources, and carbon storage[9]. A key intention of the NAP is to strengthen institutional frameworks to develop cooperation and coordination between all levels of government, donor groups, community organizations, and local peoples[9]. The NAP has been an important vehicle for institutional change and agricultural rehabilitation at the national level in South Africa.


These many programs by the South African government represent a paradigm shift at the national level to rehabilitate agricultural lands and empower rural agricultural communities living in the former homelands. The gradual shift in the institutional environment is supporting broad agroecological transitions and greater resilience of agricultural productivity and agricultural communities to endure social and environmental changes.

Changes to Production Practices

The South African agricultural industry has begun adopting production practices that reduce land degradation and instead rehabilitate soils by increasing resource use efficiency and reducing or substituting conventional inputs[25]. Such changes are mainly reflected in the uptake of conservation agriculture and organic farming practices.


In the Rûens winter grain belt in Western Cape province, conservation agriculture has been adopted to combat soil degradation that occurred due to loss of top soil and organic matter, removal of crop residues, and heavy application of synthetic fertilizers[26]. Conservation agriculture minimizes soil disturbance and retains moisture through low or no-till methods, diversifies farm ecosystems through intercropping and/or crop rotation, and maintains permanent ground cover with crop residues or living plants[27]. Intensive practices are also being substituted for ecological practices such as on-farm biomass recycling, biological pest management strategies, planting legumes for nitrogen fixation, cover cropping, compost application, livestock integration, and regular monitoring for soil health[28]. The goal of these shifts is to gradually eliminate the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and to rehabilitate the agricultural soils. The Western Cape province has the highest rate of adoption of conservation agriculture principles; 51% of grain farmers practice all three principles of conservation agriculture[26].


Tygerhoek Experimental Farm in the Overberg, which also follows conservation agriculture principles, demonstrated that incorporating livestock pastures in crop rotation systems could enhance crop yields and farmer incomes for those systems[22]. Intensive export-focused agriculture that emerged under the trade liberalization policies of the 1990s consistently exhibited lower crop yields and higher costs for farmers compared to systems with livestock pastures[22]. Drought resilience of farms that utilized livestock pastures in crop rotation improved over time, with yields recovering quickly after dry years[22].


These changes in production practices in South African agriculture demonstrate the beginnings of agricultural transformation. Uptake of agricultural management paradigms such as conservation agriculture has the potential to rehabilitate agricultural lands across the country. Farm diversification and minimization of mechanical and chemical disturbance can greatly increase the resilience of agriculture to extreme weather, erosion, and desertification.

Changes to Social and Economic Relations

A transformation in social ties and economic relations is crucial for agroecology and land rehabilitation, especially given that the causes of land degradation in South Africa are a mixture of environmental, economic, political and social forces. The Declaration of the International Forum on Agroecology states that “families, communities, collectives, organizations, and movements are the fertile soil in which agroecology flourishes. Solidarity between peoples, between rural and urban populations, is a critical ingredient”[29].


While the South African government has been implementing policies to address land marginalization and degradation, bottom-up approaches that redefine social and economic relations are observed across South Africa. One notable example is an agroecology movement focusing on female farmers in the Eastern Cape Province[19].

Location of the case study area, Amathole District Municipality on the South African map. From Fisher, 2017 as cited by Chanyau & Rosenberg, 2023.

In the early 2000s, the Zingisa Educational Project (ZEP), a non-governmental organization, initiated an agroecology movement that provides black female farmers with agricultural extension services to foster social learning of local ecological knowledge, which refers to the process of co-learning and co-construction of new knowledge[19].


Through social learning events held in communal spaces and the neighborhoods’ community gardens, the farmers gained access to information about agricultural techniques, such as the optimal spacing between plants when planting seedlings. The demonstrations of agricultural techniques were conducted by extension officers, predominantly women, in farmers’ local language of isiXhosa. During the early stages, the movement encountered challenges stemming from patriarchal norms and the prevailing social structure. At the events, farmers were encouraged to share their own farming practices or solutions to issues specific to their local farming context.


Interviewees in Chanyau & Rosenberg’s[19] study shared the novel dynamics between extension officers and participants of information-sharing days held in the communal spaces and community gardens:

“When we go for [community engagement] dialogues, we set up the meetings in advance, we then do our programmes here [at the offices], but then when we are with them [the community], we change the programme to go with the learning interests of the participants because we learn from each other … we engage in a two-way process where we all learn … It has been a great learning experience for me. I didn’t know as much about climate change and agriculture as I do now.”

In contrast to traditional top-down and linear extension models, the social relations between extension officers and farmers in this initiative involve two-way communications. The initiative is also found to have developed a sense of community among the farmers, extending the social cohesion beyond the social learning events to daily lives[19].

From a SES perspective, the sharing of agroecological practices and collective wisdom by both the extension officers and farmers offers diversity to the community and opens up more solutions to cope with negative disturbance, such as natural disasters, to the community. In terms of economic relations, enhanced social cohesion would improve market access and increase bargaining power for better profit margins of the community as a whole[19]. We reckon that women-led agroecology initiatives that advocate open communications and social learning could also act as a source of positive disturbance to alter the patriarchal social system in South Africa.


Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) is another initiative that helped build solidarity between farmers, improving social and economic relationships for agroecological transition. PGS is a national network established in 2011 to aid local market access for organic and agroecological farmers, PGS South Africa is an NGO facilitating this initiative. This initiative is supported by the PGS Pollinators’ Programme, where farmers as pollinators are trained in organic agricultural practices and these pollinators expand PGS groups in their locality, helping build locally connected food systems and better knowledge sharing among organic food producers[28].


The strength of PGS lies in its emphasis on ongoing social interactions within the organic farming community. By actively involving farmers, consumers, and other participants, PGS not only verifies adherence to organic standards but also creates a space for shared learning and collaboration. This communal approach not only builds trust but also contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the local food system[30]

Changes to Knowledge Generation and Dissemination

Localized agroecological food systems would require inputs from farmers, governments, and scientists[31]. The generation and dissemination of agricultural knowledge, especially those that are location-specific, are crucial for farmers living on degraded land.

This process echoes with the concept of panarchy across multiple socio-ecological systems (SES) at different scales. Conventionally, agricultural knowledge and technologies are developed and stored by scientists and the government. They are passed down to smaller SES, which are farmer communities across the country. However, the effectiveness of the conventional process is in question considering its limitations discussed in the State of the People section[20]. The same ZEP-led initiative mentioned above demonstrates a new way of knowledge generation and dissemination, in which black female farmers can also take the initiative to share localized knowledge, instead of only receiving knowledge from the government through extension officers[19]. Community-oriented social learning events also introduce novel agroecological practices developed by farmers, with potential applicability to other farmer communities, or even possibility to revolt the memory of the larger system i.e., governments at city, provincial and national levels.  


We acknowledge that the benefits brought by this ZEP-led initiative example do address changes in more than one dimension conceptualized by IPES-Food. While we attempt to separate the nuanced implications of this initiative’s impacts into different dimensions, the difficulty we faced also demonstrates how one single initiative can promote agroecology on multiple fronts. The following section investigates the feasibility, challenges and opportunities in scaling up, out, and deep to amplify the recovery from land degradation of South Africa.

Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges

Government policies from the 20th century still impact the quality of land available to local farmers, agricultural productivity, agricultural management practices, access to markets, and access to healthcare[5]. Land tenure security remains a challenge for many farmers; land in the communal areas, or the former homelands, is owned by the state government while commercial land ownership is private and overwhelmingly white[4]. Further, the patchwork of institutional structures, political objectives, and ideologies complicate the governance of natural resources and agricultural lands in ways that can hinder agroecological transitions[32].


Economic constraints in South Africa also present significant challenges to farmers seeking to adopt more rehabilitative agricultural management practices. Communal farmers have limited access to loans, credit, and government subsidies for equipment, labour, and the transition period between intensive and agroecological agricultural management[33]. Limited access to alternative inputs such as biofertilizers and sources of diverse seeds can also constrain farmers who are seeking to shift to rehabilitative practices[28]. Legal restrictions against seed retention by farmers further aggravates issues of lack of access to seeds for diversification and for farm-specific adaptation to climate impacts for smallholder farmers in South Africa[33]. One farmer described the challenge as such: “We are not allowed to retain seed by law. This makes it difficult to grow different crops and varieties because seed is very expensive hence we just only buy one variety for our main crop”[33]. These economic constraints affect small-scale farmers, in particular, and slow the pace of agricultural transition where there is farmer motivation and interest in rehabilitation.


An additional key challenge for agricultural transformation in South Africa is the tension that farmers experience between their subsistence needs and the risk inherent in management transitions. The adoption of rehabilitative practices requires farmers to take on a degree of risk that is not accessible or acceptable to many, especially for small-scale and communal farming[33]. In the semi-arid Limpopo and Eastern Cape provinces, small-scale farmers face critical tradeoffs between meeting household needs for food and income and implementing practices to rehabilitate soils[33]. One common practice for rehabilitating degraded soils and improving productivity requires farmers to leave crop residues on agricultural fields as surface mulch to protect soils[33]. It can be challenging for farmers to produce enough crop residues to enhance crop production and provide sufficient supplementary feed for livestock[33]. In the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, poorer farmers are motivated to diversify crops but are often unable to secure sufficient land and labour resources for both diversification and subsistence needs[34]. In these ways, practices to rehabilitate soil remain far more accessible to large-scale commercial farming operations that can absorb a higher level of risk[28].


Many soil rehabilitation agricultural practices pose similar dilemmas of risk to farmers that do not have the financial security or food security to potentially lose productivity, even temporarily. Instead, small-scale and communal farmers often seek to reduce variability and ensure consistency in production to support their own food security, which can be precarious during periods of farm-level transition from intensive practices to rehabilitative practices[33]. Without an adequate system to support and incentivize agricultural transformation, uptake of agroecological practices remains limited among small-scale and communal farmers[28]. Small-scale and commercial farmers lack adaptive capacity to tolerate periods of reduced productivity.

Opportunities

The modern South African government is building a web of intersecting policies and initiatives to address the related issues of biodiversity loss, climate change, and agricultural degradation[8]. Recognition by the state government that agricultural rehabilitation is a priority for social, economic, and ecological well-being builds agroecological principles into programs across the country[8] The shift in institutional values opens up opportunities for scaling-deep policy reforms that confront and remedy racial injustice and inequity of farmers between different races and under different land tenure systems. The emerging policy environment enables community-driven initiatives to emerge and address the linked issues of rural poverty, food insecurity, and agricultural degradation.

Better policy support can scale up the implementation of agricultural practices that contribute to more resilient agricultural systems and bolster food security for rural communities[27]. Increased subsidy support to farmers and businesses carrying out beneficial agricultural practices could contribute to more resilient agricultural systems and bolster food security for rural communities in the long run.


Participatory action research holds significant potential for increasing adoption of rehabilitative agricultural practices across South Africa. These on-farm experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of specific agroecological methods and facilitate knowledge-sharing within rural communities. Building trust and confidence in practices is essential for increased adoption of measures to rehabilitate agricultural land. When participatory action research has farmer engagement and coordinated extension support, it can increase awareness of possibilities and support development of practical skills[19].


Place-based initiatives are an area of opportunity for scaling up agroegolocial transformation and building local networks of support for farmers. Initiatives such as ZEP that engage the local community to address region-specific challenges offer important opportunities for learning and community support. Participatory Guarantee Schemes provide farmers with access to markets for their goods and technical support for their farms and builds relationships between farmers and consumers[30]. Collaborative partnerships between all stakeholders can build effective communication and for sharing agricultural knowledge. Community knowledge-sharing increases understanding of causes of land degradation and opportunities for rehabilitation[19].

Conclusions

Lessons Learnt

Agricultural degradation was and remains driven by combined forces of social inequality and poverty, imperative for economic growth, ecological vulnerability, and political fragmentation. Agroecological transitions in South Africa must grapple with economic inequality and a legacy of social injustice that remains inadequately addressed. A successful agroecological transformation in South Africa will require addressing ecological concerns while maintaining focus on social justice, economic empowerment, and the establishment of long-lasting social cohesion and well-being.


Both communal and commercial farmers have begun adopting agroecological practices in response to increasing land degradation and resulting productivity loss. Key leverage points in institutional changes are incorporation of agroecological principles and community-based initiatives in agricultural and natural resource policy. Farmers are adopting more rehabilitative agricultural management practices when they have the adaptive capacity and support network to meet their subsistence needs while making the switch to different practices. Initiatives to increase use of rehabilitative practices have been most successful when they empower women and provide access to agricultural resources, financing, and markets. Shifts from top-down to bottom-up knowledge generation and cross-community knowledge-sharing empower rural communities to develop place-based solutions to agricultural degradation and food insecurity. Specifically in communal farming areas, examples of transitions towards agroecological and rehabilitative practices include the use of integrated farming in community gardens, women-led agroecology co-learning efforts, and broad application of principles of conservation agriculture.


All of these shifts evident in practices of agriculture in South Africa are essential for addressing the drivers of land degradation and improving the resilience of agriculture, especially for poorer communities. Agroecological transformation faces a number of challenges that will require long-term change and scaling up, out, and deep. Separate systems of land tenure and the lack of formal recognition of agroecology in government policies hold back farmers and organizations that are seeking to reverse land degradation. Limited access to seeds, technologies, and finance are constraining uptake and expansion of agroecological practices. Economic constraints are most impactful in historically marginalized communities, such as the rural communities in the former homelands, who continue to experience poverty, food insecurity, job insecurity, and social isolation. The necessity of subsistence cultivation disincentivites farmers from taking risks when they lack other sources of income and social security.


The interconnected impact of government policy, economic incentives, social opportunities, and changes to information-sharing have significant potential to support a broad agroecological transformation in communal and commercial agricultural lands. There has been a major shift in government policy that is creating an enabling environment for social justice, agroecology, and food security movements to take off. Farm-level and community-led experiments with rehabilitative agricultural practices are demonstrating the increased resilience and community well-being that can arise from agroecological transformation. South Africa is a nation with significant potential for an agroecological transformation to uplift racialized peoples, rehabilitate the natural resources, and bolster a growing economy.

Recommendations

Building on findings from the core analysis, the following recommended actions can accelerate agroecological transformation in South Africa:

1. Establish an institutional environment that incentivizes the adoption of rehabilitative agricultural management practices by providing secure land tenure for historically marginalized populations, supporting broader access to finance and education, and implementing policies to prioritize communal interests over private profit.

2. Improve access to agricultural resources such as technologies, seeds, labour, and other inputs.

3. Establish place-based knowledge sharing platforms at community, provincial and national levels to promote the dissemination of innovative agroecological technologies and practices developed by researchers and farmers across the country.

4. Install financial structures that incentivize the adoption of agroecological practices in the form of subsidies, credit, and niche markets.

5. Build the adaptive capacity of rural agricultural communities to persist through climate change impacts, agricultural management practice transitions, and socio-economic challenges.

6. Conduct further research on laying out pathways towards agroecological transformation for South Africa, including:

  • Food system Innovation in production, consumption, and distribution (e.g., higher visibility of the supply chain)
  • Maximizing the valuation of the local resources through creative solutions.
  • The application and integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and modern Western Science
  • Examining the influences on governance, CBNRM, National and International policies.

7. Identify and prioritize initiatives that can set off multiple dimensions of change with the objective of accelerating agroecological transformation and addressing the linked challenges of climate change and food insecurity.

Bibliography

  1. ↑ Adobestock (2018). Sorghum and sunflower j.v. Formed in South Africa. (2018, September 20). World Grain. https://www.world-grain.com/articles/11003-sorghum-and-sunflower-jv-formed-in-south-africa
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Vibert, E. (2018, December 2). Healing in the soil. Womensfarm.org. https://www.womensfarm.org/hleketani-garden/healing-in-the-soil/
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Hoffman, M. T., & Todd, S. (2000). A national review of land degradation in South Africa: The influence of biophysical and socio- economic factors. Journal of Southern African Studies, 26(4), pp. 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/713683611
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Wessels, K. J., Prince, S. D., Frost, P. E., & van Zyl, D. (2004). Assessing the effects of human-induced land degradation in the former homelands of northern South Africa with a 1 km AVHRR NDVI time-series. Remote Sensing of Environment, 91(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.02.005
  5. ↑ 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 Stull, V., Bell, M. M., & Ncwadi, M. (2016). Environmental apartheid: Eco-health and rural marginalization in South Africa. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.04.004
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Zazu, C., & Manderson, A. (2021). Agroecology and Climate Change Adaptation: Farmers’ Experiences in the South African Lowveld. In N. Oguge, D. Ayal, L. Adeleke, & I. da Silva (Eds.), African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation (pp. 363–378). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45106-6_181
  7. ↑ Hay, M. (2014). A Tangled Past: Land Settlement, Removals and Restitution in Letaba District, 1900–2013. Journal of Southern African Studies, 40(4), 745–760.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 OECD. (2022). South Africa. In Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2022: Reforming Agricultural Policies for Climate Change Mitigation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/2ca16377-en
  9. ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment. (2018). Second National Action Programme for South Africa to Combat Desertification, Land Degradation, and the Effects of Drought (2018-2030) (pp. 1–35).
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Meadow, F. E. & Hoffman, M. T. (2002). The nature, extent and causes of land degradation in South Africa: Legacy of the past, lessons for the future? Area, 34(4), pp. 428-437.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Fox, R. C., & Rowntree, K. M. (2001). Redistribution, restitution and reform: Prospects for the land in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. In A. J. Conacher (Ed.), Land Degradation. The GeoJournal Library (Vol. 58, pp. 167–186). Springer.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Mavengahama, S. (2013). The contribution of indigenous vegetables to food security and nutrition within selected sites in South Africa, PhD Thesis, Stellenbosch University, page 1-188 https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/bb27130d-2ada-4971-b2ce-0b2badae9978/content
  13. ↑ Reuters, 2023. Cyclone Freddy among Africa's deadliest storms. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cyclone-freddy-among-africas-deadliest-storms-2023-03-15/ Accessed on Dec 12, 2023
  14. ↑ Kerr Watson, H. (2001). Soil sustainability and land reform in South Africa. In A. J. Conacher (Ed.), Land Degradation. The GeoJournal Library (Vol. 58, pp. 153-166). Springer.
  15. ↑ Labadarios, D., Mchiza, Z. J. R., Steyn, N. P., Gericke, G., Maunder, E. M. W., Davids, Y. D., & Parker, W. A. (2011). Food security in South Africa: a review of national surveys. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89(12), 891-899.
  16. ↑ Zere, E., & McIntyre, D. (2003). Inequities in under-five child malnutrition in South Africa. International journal for equity in health, 2(1), 1-10.
  17. ↑ Shisana, O., Rehle, T., Simbayi, L. C., Zuma, K., Jooste, S., Zungu, N., ... & Onoya, D. (2014). South African national HIV prevalence, incidence and behaviour survey, 2012.
  18. ↑ Lehohla, P. (2014). Census 2011: Profile of older persons in South Africa. Statistics South Africa. Pretoria.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 Chanyau, L., & Rosenberg, E. (2023). Women farmers leading and co-learning in an agroecology movement at the intersections of gender and climate. Agenda, 1-17.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Manoko, T. (2022, July 29). ‘We want competent extension officers, please’. Food For Mzansi. https://www.foodformzansi.co.za/we-want-competent-extension-officers-please/
  21. ↑ Akpalu, D. A. (2013). Agriculture Extension Service delivery in a semi-arid rural area in South Africa: the case study of Thorndale in the Limpopo province. African journal of food, agriculture, nutrition and development, 13(4), 8034-8057.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 Stead, B. A. (2021). Indicators and considerations for sustainable winter cereal production systems in the Overberg (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).
  23. ↑ Vibert, E. (2016). Gender, resilience and resistance: South Africa’s Hleketani Community Garden. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 34(2), pp. 252-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2016.1202508
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 iPES-Food. (2018). Breaking Away from Industrial Food and Farming Systems: Seven case studies of agroecological transition. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.
  25. ↑ Swanepoel, C. M., Swanepoel, L. H., & Smith, H. J. (2018). A review of conservation agriculture research in South Africa. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 35(4), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2017.1390615
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Strauss, J. A., Swanepoel, P. A., Smith, H., & Smit, E. H. (2021). A history of conservation agriculture in South Africa. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 38(3), 196-201.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R., & Kassam, A. (2012). Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. Field Actions Science Reports. The journal of field actions, (Special Issue 6).
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 Greenberg, S.; Drimie, S.; Losch, B. Learning from Local Initiatives for Agroecological Development in South Africa. TAFS Policy Brief 2, 2022. Available online: https://foodsecurity.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TAFS-Policy-Brief-2.pdf
  29. ↑ Nyéléni, M. (2015). Declaration of the international forum for agroecology. International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty. Consultado o, 18.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Greenberg, S., Drimie, S., Losch, B., & May, J. (2023). From Local Initiatives to Coalitions for an Effective Agroecology Strategy: Lessons from South Africa. Sustainability, 15(21), 15521.
  31. ↑ Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., Giraldo, O. F., Aldasoro, M., Morales, H., Ferguson, B. G., Rosset, P., & Campos, C. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and sustainable food systems, 42(6), 637-665.
  32. ↑ Kroll, F. (2021). Agroecology and the metropolitan biopolitics of food in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, 6(1). https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/uar2.20010
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 Rusere, F., Crespo, O., Dicks, L., Mkuhlani, S., Francis, J., & Zhou, L. (2020). Enabling acceptance and use of ecological intensification options through engaging smallholder farmers in semi-arid rural Limpopo and Eastern Cape, South Africa. Agroecology and sustainable food systems, 44(6), 696-725.
  34. ↑ Hitayezu, P., Zegeye, E. W., & Ortmann, G. F. (2016). Farm-level crop diversification in the Midlands region of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa: patterns, microeconomic drivers, and policy implications. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(6), 553-582.


This resource was created by RES510: Valerie Zimmermann, Ka Lai Or, Lingmi Wu, Gopal Khanal.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:RES510/2023/Land_Degradation,_Agroecological_Transformation_%26_Land_Rehabilitation_in_Post-Apartheid_South_Africa&oldid=817115"