New agricultural development criteria: a proposal for project design and implementation

Abstract

An environment conducive to a viable emerging agricultural sector is developing in South Africa, but it has yet to benefit most resource-poor producers. Some of the crucial constraints are accessibility and affordability of resources and services. Centrally managed agricultural projects as the main historical development model have largely failed to live up to the expectation that this would be the ‘cutting edge’ of development. This paper argues that the failure of these projects was partly due to four criteria for development not being sufficiently incorporated into project design and implementation: technical aspects of a project must be reconciled with social structures and realities; farmer diversity must be dealt with through focused support; business linkages must be structured and maintained; and skills development and participation must be institutionalised. Two of these criteria – dealing with diversity and facilitating participation – are elaborated on through a case study in the North West Province of South Africa. Typology analysis led to the identification of four distinct farmer types and this was followed by a Logical Framework planning process to develop a unique support strategy for each type. The objectives and activities required for each type are quantified. It is argued that this model, extending the project cycle to include the four new development criteria, constitutes a model for small farmer entrance into a competitive market.

1. Introduction

To obtain economic growth with equity is a policy priority in South Africa, and a process in which the agricultural sector is earmarked to play a key part (NDA, 2001). Agricultural development initiatives should specifically recognise the obstacles small-scale producers face in adjusting to the global market, and give priority to addressing constraints on access to services and resources through innovative strategies (Singini & Van Rooyen, 1995; Van Rooyen et al., 2002). Specific constraints that need to be dealt with to empower small producers are difficulties in accessing resources (credit, land), services (extension, research), markets and market information. This paper provides evidence that extending the traditional project cycle with its established economic principles to include four new development criteria successfully addresses these problems.

Large-scale commercial operators are in a position to profit from economies of scale, bringing their unit costs down, but resource-poor farmers cannot do this and so must pay higher prices, which inhibits their profitability and competitiveness. Quality control can also be complex and costly, further inhibiting market-related production by these farmers. These constraints result in negative economies of scale for resource-poor farmers (Delgado & Siamwalla, 1997; Van Zyl & Kirsten, 1998). An important requirement for viable agricultural development is therefore to integrate producers with business support structures, which essentially entails lowering the cost of transactions. Such a strategy would make the sector more efficient by considerably reducing costs.

In 1982 J Price Gittinger stated that agricultural projects are the ‘cutting edge’ of development (Gittinger, 1982: 3–40). The World Bank also promoted this concept during the 1970s and 1980s. However, this strategy lost popularity during the early 1990s owing to a low apparent success rate (World Bank, 1987; FAO, 1988; Van Rooyen et al., 2002). This paper argues, however, that the project approach still constitutes an effective development strategy because it focuses on dealing with the constraints mentioned. Projects that harness resources, inputs, support services and market access offer a focused approach to development and economic growth (NDA, 2001; Van Rooyen et al., 2002). Evidence to support a new project model – integrating agricultural role-players so as to lower transaction costs – has been obtained by analysing the Sheila Project in the North West Province of South Africa.

The Sheila project was located roughly 30 km north-east of Lichtenburg, and was initiated during 1977 as part of the Bophuthatswana Government's main agricultural development strategy, to establish independent farmers through central provision of support services: i.e. a project. The project was terminated during 1994, but served as a case study of the project approach in various investigations. The authors became involved in evaluation of the project as part of an initiative of the North West Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment to analyse past development efforts in order to gain lessons for future initiatives. The main author used the Sheila project as the case study for his PhD and was involved in analysis of the project for a period of six years. The history of the project, its rationale, aims and objectives as well as its performance and that of its participants are dealt with in detail in this paper.

2. Reconsidering the project approach in agricultural development

Capital-intensive projects, initiated to increase production and provide employment in rural environments, were the mainstay of agricultural development in South Africa until the early 1990s. These projects, often managed by agricultural parastatals, aimed to establish a farmer class that would use technically sophisticated, capital-intensive methods. Examples in the erstwhile Bophuthatswana (now North West Province) include the Sheila, Mooifontein and Taung Projects (1976–94). Individuals were settled as ‘project farmers’ and ‘managed’ under the control of a centralised, corporate project management. Agricultural development corporations (parastatals), such as Agricor, were established to execute these projects. Food production was a major objective, to give the impression that the farmers of Bophuthatswana were self-sufficient. By participating in cooperatives and project committees, farmers officially assisted in decision making. However, such committees were generally not actively engaged in management (Stacey, 1992; Worth, 1994). The philosophy of optimal resource use through scientific farming methods, sophisticated mechanised systems and high value cash crops often contributed to dependence on capital and central management.

The authors of this paper contend that these centrally managed schemes failed as a development model largely because insufficient attention was paid to social reality, skills and entrepreneurial development and management requirements. Although projects often resulted in immediate higher agricultural yields, these were generally not sustained. Top-down planning and inadequate farmer participation resulted in a lack of real farmer ownership and commitment. Undue emphasis on physical planning and insufficient incentives limited the projects' impact, and a management style of command and control rather than support and facilitation, participant selection according to political affiliation, insecure tenure, and deficient services also contributed to project failure (Van Rooyen & Nene, 1998). Development agencies became disillusioned with projects during the 1990s because of their limited effectiveness and relatively high costs (Carruthers & Kydd, 1997).

To an extent, however, poor performance was the result of weak implementation and management of the project cycle. Many project failures can be traced to poor preparation, selection and/or implementation. Also contributing to the limited success was a lack of strategic planning and political commitment to developing an independent farmer class (Bembridge, 1988; Van Rooyen, 2000) and the resulting lack of a comprehensive support policy and funding. Failure by initiators to adapt to the social environment and introduce participative development strategies furthermore resulted in farmers not being actively involved in their own development. The human factor was subordinated to the urgency of economic, technological and political considerations. History is therefore inclined to record the failure of the project approach.

3. A new approach: Design criteria for agricultural projects

Evaluation of various agricultural projects established specific failures in planning and implementation. The authors of this paper argue that projects could still constitute an important means to stimulate growth and development, if certain omissions can be rectified. This paper introduces an adapted project planning and implementation framework, based on scrutiny of project history generally, with specific emphasis on the Sheila case study. The fact that an integrated approach to agricultural growth and development is a national strategic priority (NDA, 2001) strengthens this argument. The importance of the project cycle as a guideline for project planning, appraisal, management and evaluation is also stressed in an evaluation of World Bank-sponsored development projects. The project cycle is still a major part of development strategy and most projects funded by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) are planned and evaluated according to its principles (World Bank, 1987, 2000). Recent South African policies allude to the project approach as a viable strategy for agricultural development, as it places a premium on focused interventions, a participative process, and an integration of stakeholders that allows for forward and backward linkages as crucial elements of development.

In essence a development project, as an instrument of change, aims to improve a situation over time, through a particular set of interventions. Often the focus is on the flow of government funds and possible mobilisation of private funds. These flows were therefore often regarded as the central element in many definitions of projects. The contemporary view is that development projects are in the first place people-oriented and that provision must be made for the dynamic elements of change over time. In this context a project could be defined as an intervention based on a proposal dealing with the technical, economic, social, organisational and managerial nature of that particular intervention (Van Rooyen et al., 2002). Production plans and managerial and organisational skills are required, input and output networks must be activated, demand must exist for the project output, and capacity development must occur. Projects in developing agriculture are often financially supported by government, development agencies and the private sector. Arrangements such as financial ‘grace periods’ and initial grants and/or subsidisation are often warranted, given the nature of development and the competitive agricultural environment. Essentially, agricultural projects aim to increase production and stimulate job creation through coordinated resource and technology use (Van Rooyen et al., 2002).

This paper hypothesises that incorporating key lessons from project history into the project cycle constitutes a viable development solution. These lessons are distilled into project design criteria which, if included in the project cycle, would contribute to projects that would significantly enhance agricultural growth (Verschoor, 2003). Four main project design criteria are proposed:

• i) Participative, inclusive project planning and implementation

  The project approach does provide a practical focused approach to dealing with a variety of agricultural and rural development constraints and mobilising wider access to services and inputs. This is to an extent a return to the conventional wisdom of the 1960s and 1970s. However, the original project cycle described by Gittinger (1982) must be adapted to include participative processes that will enable farmers to articulate their requirements, empower cohesive farmer groups and eliminate top-down overemphasising of technical aspects. This focus on participation addresses a key constraint observed in general design and implementation. Participation also enables local knowledge and initiative to be incorporated and increases commitment, social sustainability and use of opportunities (Cernea, 1991; Stilwell, 1998).

• ii) Providing for social integration in project design

  Reconciling technical innovation with social reality remains complex. Technical innovations (mechanisation and management technologies) must take into account social realities such as literacy and skills level, and cultural and communal practices. Social knowledge brings complementarities to projects, when social science is converted into operational know-how (Cernea, 1991). Projects must address the farmers' preferences so as to enhance sustained participation. Communication and linkages between stakeholders must be addressed through community mobilisation, capacity building and collaborative forums. Institutional transformation is often needed to facilitate this process of mobilising effective access: credit institutions, input suppliers, processors and funders must be linked closely to producers. The supplier/marketer/processor typically gets the benefit of a relatively assured supply of the output product at harvest and the option of making collateral loans, and the participating farmer gets the benefit of support through a business focus (Delgado, 1998). Such ‘supply chain’ arrangements facilitate better relations and share the overall risk. However, such successful supply chain integration depends on social interaction, trust and the development of relationships (Doyer, 2003). Depending on the particulars of a project, supply chain role-players should be involved in the planning and implementation phases (Jaffee & Morton, 1995; Delgado, 1998).

• iii) Including economic diversity in project design and implementation

  When project participants are selected, differences in attitude and aptitude are seldom noted. This means that project participants do not share the same constraints, do not have the same opportunities and do not strive for the same goal. Therefore no shared vision exists, and participation and social development are constrained (criteria i and ii). Economic diversity in a target population must be described functionally to enable appropriate project design and implementation. Differences in objectives, access to resources and services, and activities, aptitude and attitude must be quantified into focused support measures according to type requirements (Laurent et al., 1999). Typological analysis is thus required to enable the required attention to and quantification of economic diversity (as described in section 4, below).

• iv) Human capacity development

  Human capacity development and skills training are an important determinant of successful agricultural development (Van Zyl & Kirsten, 1998). Economic transformation therefore focuses increasingly on Human Capital Development (HCD), broadly defined as expanding choices and the ability to react to change (Timmer, 1988). Neglect of human development would often feature in development failures, and various studies illustrate the value of HCD in enabling efficient resource use and productive farming (McCalla, 1999). Low farm earnings could be explained to a significant extent as resulting from low investment in human capital development. The organisation of project stakeholders and participants and facilitation of interaction and networking (social capital development) are therefore crucial to the success and sustainability of any development project. During this process, skill limitations can be addressed through focused training programmes. This capacitates project participants to make informed decisions.

3.1 Adapting the project cycle

For a project to be successful the guidelines of the project cycle must be rigorously implemented (Van Rooyen et al., 2002). The cycle should, however, further incorporate the four criteria described above, which address participative processes, social integration and linkages, economic diversity, and capacity development, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The project cycle. Note: *In recognition of the four proposed criteria, evaluation of technical reconciliation with social reality, farmer diversity quantification, structuring of business linkages and institutionalisation of skills development and participation require specific attention

During the identification stage, project managers must recognise the way technical innovations could impact on social realities. They must identify and engage potential stakeholders and structure linkages and coordination, and take into account compatibility with existing production systems and resource use patterns. They must consider how participation and empowerment are to be achieved, and find appropriate and sustainable sources of funding. They must take note of diversity within the targeted population. During the appraisal stage, they must determine the conditions for socially, technically, economically and institutionally sustainable implementation. They must spell out their analysis of diversity, the link between social reality and technical innovation, the particulars of linkages, coordination and participation, and strategies for human and social development. At the implementation stage it is vital that linkages, cooperation and participation remain at the top of the agenda. Evaluation, at any stage, should review particular design criteria and assumptions, as these may be indicators of the project's success or failure.

4. Application

This section considers the case study that was done of the Sheila Project in the North West Province and how the authors' proposed design criteria might be applied to this project.

4.1 Historical background

To test the proposal that the redesigned project approach including a new set of project design criteria has potential for sound agricultural development, the Sheila Project (1976–94) in the erstwhile state of Bophuthatswana was studied (Verschoor, 2003). This project aimed to improve land use, farmer capacity and sustained surplus grain production. Roughly 6 000 hectares were cultivated as a large farm unit and the local cooperative acted as input provider and market agent. Technical training was sporadic and insufficient. Effectively, from the inception of the project, the majority of land rights holders became largely inactive. Project farmers perceived advantages to include a cash flow, available mechanisation, credit, and management by the project agent. Participants' land holdings were enlarged from 5 to 15 hectares, while average yields improved from approximately half a ton per hectare to over two tons per hectare.

However, it was clear to the authors that many of the considerations their proposed design criteria would take into account had been neglected in the Sheila project. Active participation and capacity building had not been attended to. Economic diversity in the community and social realities had not been recognised. There were not enough linkages between project management and the participating farmers, and communication was poor. While ‘top farmers’ did well, the majority lagged behind owing to a lack of capacity development and commitment. During the project's lifetime, the initially positive profit margins decreased, while differences between farmers remained pronounced. The objective of developing potentially arable land and increasing food self-sufficiency for Bophuthatswana was achieved, albeit temporarily and only for a selection of participants, at extensive public cost. The project was unable to establish farmers and instead left many in debt, while at the same time it intensified class differences. Farmers are currently in the same situation they were in before the project started. After years of project support they are not significantly better farmers. Sharecropping is again the major form of agriculture, and a significant drop in agricultural activity has been evident since 1994 when the project was terminated. Average yields decreased during the project from over 2 tons per hectare to 1.7 tons per hectare (Verschoor, 2003).

4.2 Describing diversity: developing a farmer typology

To formalise and quantify implementation of the criteria dealing with participation and economic diversity, the authors developed a farmer typology for Sheila. This entailed the following:

• Interviews were held with 123 farmers (out of 296 land rights holders) on 128 variables.

• An initial descriptive statistical analysis showed that farmer diversity was high (coefficients of variation ranging from 40 to 100), supporting the need for diversity analysis. This analysis quantified information about participating farmers with regard to land and other resources, expenses, inputs and outputs, capital, credit, constraints and their perceptions of the project.

• Factor analysis was then used as a dimension-reducing technique to identify the variables that had the largest impact on the recorded variance. Variables, representing socio-economic aspects, resource access and performance, were identified (see Table 1).

• A PCA (principal component analysis) was subsequently done on these variables and four types of farmers, representing project participants, were identified. A discriminant analysis showed that variables used as indicators significantly explained differences between types.

• Multivariate analysis was thereafter used to develop a classification model, the validity of which was established by the fact that farmers were 78, 96, 84 and 100 per cent correctly placed into types 1 to 4 respectively, providing a unique farmer profile or typology.

• Subsequently a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done to establish that all types differed significantly from all others (p = 0.00137), showing that the correct variables were used as indicators of the described diversity.

To sum up, factor analysis used as a dimension-reducing technique isolated indicators that elucidated diversity. These were used to describe a typology with four farmer types which were significantly different from one another in terms of access to resources, inclination towards agriculture and economic performance. The typology was found to be a statistically highly significant representative model of agricultural types in the Sheila area, as shown in Table 1. (For a detailed description of this process see Verschoor, 2003.)

Table 1: Farmer types in a typology for Sheila

Farmer type	No. of ha	No. of ha used	Mechanisation	Household Income	Yield in tons per ha*	Input*	Household size	No. of incomes	No. of livestock
Commercialising	110	75	Own	R1800	2.3	6000 kg	5.4	3.1	43
Entrepreneurs	40	40	70% own	R1000	1.5	2400 kg	5.3	2.7	8
Opportunist	15	9	92% hire	R800	0.7	1200 kg	5.3	2.4	6
Inactive landowners	15	1	hire	R750	0	760 kg	5.6	2.3	6
*Data represent a figure, combining maize and sunflower yield (or input of fertiliser and seed mass), used only as a means to distinguish types.

‘Inactive landowners’ have access to land but use it very sparingly. No yield is recorded, although some input costs are committed. This type of farmer functions in a subsistence existence with several livelihood strategies. ‘Opportunists’ typically vary their agricultural activity according to resources and opportunities available during a particular season, obtaining mechanisation services from contractors. ‘Entrepreneurs’ plant a significantly larger area and have better access to mechanisation. These farmers also invest more in inputs and obtain better yields. ‘Commercialising’ farmers constitute the most affluent and successful group. Although the amount of land they use is still questionable in terms of economic viability, this group invests significantly in their enterprise and their aim is commercial success. They have a significantly higher income and larger enterprises.

4.3 Participatory planning: developing strategies through Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) planning

Support strategies should vary for different farmer types. Serving farmers according to type will make the client profile clearer, facilitate an appropriate strategy per type, and improve outcomes. Redesigning the project for the Sheila community was initiated through a participative planning process where the typology was used as a basis for designing appropriate and unique strategies for each farmer type. Farmers representing the four isolated types were engaged separately in participative consultation processes through Logical Framework Analysis planning (LFA). (For an extensive description of LFA in project planning see Van Rooyen et al., 2002.) Objectives and activities identified as required for each type were subsequently described through an LFA matrix for each farmer type.

During the participative process it was established that while much land in the area is currently lying fallow, access to this land is limited by the communal tenure system, and social constraints such as contract failures and security issues also limit land rental. Apart from the land access constraint, other problems that were identified related to capital, limited mechanisation systems, security and social relationships. To rectify these problems that culminate in limited sharecropping, specific strategies are required.

These issues affect all four types of farmers. Inactive landowners, the most vulnerable group, have limited access to resources and do not qualify for credit. Opportunists occasionally use available land through contracting but the mechanisation services they need for cultivation are limited. Entrepreneur farmers are constrained by the lack of support systems such as mechanisation and credit. And commercialising farmers need access to more land and suffer most from breakdowns in relationships and miscommunication, as they are often perceived to exploit landowners by giving them a share of the harvest that is thought to be less than agreed upon.

Although the basic goal of the farmers participating in the Sheila Project could be described as obtaining improved livelihoods and higher profit margins, their specific goals differ considerably. Addressing these differences and obtaining improved livelihoods is, however, achievable through increasing sharecropping contracts and thus increasing the area that is used. The authors believe that facilitating sharecropping is the best means of reviving agricultural production at Sheila.

4.3.1 Project design for ‘inactive landowners’

The goal of a project intervention for the ‘inactive landowners’ is to create opportunities for gaining some income from their 15 ha plots, as currently none is being obtained. This should improve food security and self-sufficiency for this type. The purpose of a project intervention benefiting ‘inactive landowners’ would be to increase production at Sheila through better use of the land. The main intervention strategy for this type would consequently be to improve relationships between these farmers and the other farmer types, especially the commercialising and entrepreneur types, to facilitate more and better sharecropping contracts. This would require the organisation of sound communication between farmer types and a more inclusive process of contract development. The specifics of this process are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Project design for ‘inactive landowner’ farmer types

	Intervention logic	Objectively verifiable indicators	Sources of verification	Assumptions
Goal	Food secure, self-sufficient households	Nutrition/health and employment data, income	Publications, reports, statistics from Central Statistical Services (CSS)
Purpose	More land used for agricultural income	Number of contracts, area planted, yield data	Contract documents, reports, records	Community and role-players committed
Intermediate results	Rectify relationships within farmer types Facilitate participative contract development	Regular group interaction, agricultural study group activities, contract numbers, area used	Input and yield data, contracts, reports, study group minutes	Goodwill and trust can be developed Support and skills available
Activities	Organise and empower viable study groups. Organise security system Establish alternative income-generating projects	Group formation process, constitution and goals, HCD schedule, planning process, resulting proposals and implementation	Minutes, programmes and schedules, project reports, proposals	Participant commitment to cooperation and project revival Means and leadership available in community

4.3.2 Project design for ‘opportunists’

The goal of a project intervention for opportunists would be, as for the inactive landowners, to increase their income from their 15 ha plots, thus contributing to household income. The purpose would be to increase the area being cultivated and to use the available land that is currently providing no income. The main intervention strategy for this group would consequently be to facilitate access to capital or credit, which would also enable access to mechanical services. Another important intervention would be to improve the relationships and organisation of the farming community to facilitate contractual relationships with ‘inactive landowners’. Other activities would include developing study groups, building capacity and determining security measures. These are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Project design for ‘opportunist’ farmer types

	Intervention logic	Objectively verifiable indicators	Sources of verification	Assumptions
Goal	Improved livelihoods/profit	Nutrition/health data, jobs, household income, profit	Publications, reports, CSS statistics
Purpose	Increased contracts, i.e. production	Number of contracts, area planted	Contract documents, reports, records	All stakeholders committed and involved
Intermediate results	Access to capital (credit) and mechanisation	Loans granted, inputs bought, number of working tractors, area ploughed	Land Bank reports, Co-op records, ward records, reports, yield data	Debt, security issues dealt with, viable links forged
Activities	Study group development and HCD Participative contract development	Programmes, training schedule, results, records	Programme and project reports, publications, constitution	Participant commitment to process and communal action. Leadership, support and skill available

Table 4: Project design for ‘entrepreneur’ farmer types

	Intervention logic	Objectively verifiable indicators	Sources of verification	Assumptions
Goal	Improved agricultural income/profit	Yield data, net farm profit, household income	Publications, reports, CSS statistics	HCD implemented and management sound
Purpose	Increased contracts, i.e. production	Contract numbers, hectares planted, active farmers	Contract documents, reports, records	Communal commitment, acceptable agreements
Intermediate results	Access to capital (credit) and functioning mechanisation	Loans granted, inputs bought, number of working tractors, area ploughed	Land Bank reports, Co-op records, Dept of Agric. records, reports	Debt, security issues dealt with and link established
Activities	Develop linkage with Co-op, Land Bank etc., organise participative contract development	Agreements, proposals, resources: loans, mech., contracts, groups	Written agreements, contracts, North West Co-op, Land Bank records	Commitment to cooperate; links viable, facilitation effective

Table 5: Project design for ‘commercialising’ farmer types

	Intervention logic	Objectively verifiable indicators	Sources of verification	Assumptions
Goal	Improved agricultural income and profit	Input and output data, net farm profit, agricultural income	Publications, reports, CSS statistics	Sound communication, security and management
Purpose	Increased cropping area: i.e. efficiency	Number of contracts, area planted, number of active farmers	Contract documents, reports, records	All committed to process and HCD
Intermediate results	Develop linkages with key stakeholders to facilitate access to resources and services and rectify relationships	Loans granted, inputs bought, agreement contracts	Land Bank, Co-op and other reports, Dept of Agric. reports, transaction records	Relationship established between role-players through organised communication and credit arrangements
Activities	Study groups formed, HCD instituted, contracts developed, linkage agreements established	Programmes and minutes, input–output contracts, sharecropping contracts Resources: loans, mechanisation, contracts, groups	Stakeholder reports, contract records	Acceptable and skilled leadership and facilitation

4.3.3 Project design for ‘entrepreneurs’

The goal for the entrepreneur farmer type would be to increase agricultural income by increasing grain production. The purpose for entrepreneurs is therefore to revive sharecropping contracts with inactive landowners in order to access land for cultivation. Key strategic interventions in this regard would include helping farmers access capital and, closely linked to this, facilitating better access to mechanisation equipment. This farmer type will also be participating in the organisation of contract development to enable sharecropping. Another important intervention would be to improve the relationships and organisation of the farming community to facilitate contractual relationships with ‘inactive landowners’. Other activities would include developing study groups, building capacity and determining security measures.

4.3.4 Project design for ‘commercialising’ farmers

For commercialising farmers the goal would be to make production more efficient by addressing the constraint of having limited access to land. A project intervention would therefore aim at increasing the area cultivated, and a key intervention would be to institutionalise sharecropping through contract development. A participative discussion with all farmer types on the sharecropping process should help them understand better the constraints of the enterprise, especially as land rights holders sometimes perceive land rental as exploitative. More efficient use of resources should be encouraged by creating effective linkages with stakeholders in the value chain. The aim of these interventions would be to facilitate cost-effective access to capital, services (including mechanisation) and resources. With improved access to land, mechanisation services can also be made more efficient, through the resultant improved economies of scale.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Much of the land previously cultivated at Sheila is currently lying fallow, generating neither income nor economic benefit. The potential of a redesigned project at Sheila will depend largely on the successful institutionalisation of a refined project cycle, incorporating criteria which address social issues, linkages, diversity and capacity development.

The central thrust for reviving the project would be to improve the sharecropping arrangements between farmer types, in recognition of the land tenure system. Although this is a logical solution for most farmers, a viable system has not developed. Important social issues, such as the diversity of the community and how to link producers to each other, and to other stakeholders in the agricultural value chain, have not been addressed. These issues would be addressed within a revised project approach that includes the proposed criteria. As a result of performance diversity at different land units at Sheila, some land rights holders regard the share of the harvest they subsequently receive as unfair, when compared with that of others. Different farmers and farmer types clearly do not trust one another and a social capacity development process could facilitate better understanding. Once this issue has been addressed, sharecropping may be the strategy that could benefit all farmer types, although each group will have specific focus areas in the process. It is possible to achieve agreement on a broad sharecropping system, with scope and sub-projects for the four farmer types in the Sheila typology, facilitating access to resources and services. This would be done by forming and empowering ‘study groups’ for the sectors, each with its particular focus.

Each type in the Sheila typology has a distinctive support focus, while the common goal is to increase the productive area and to obtain or increase income through grain production. The specific aims of the four farmer types differ depending on their financial and skills profile. Addressing these differences and obtaining improved livelihoods and profit is achievable by increasing the practice of sharecropping, thus increasing the area of land used.

The success of such an intervention would depend on communication and agreement between farmer types in the Sheila typology. With the communal land tenure system, the broader community actually has a claim to the land involved. It is therefore imperative that the community should also accept the project particulars as developed by the various groups, which would result in a limited number of farmers cultivating on behalf of many landowners. It is concluded that it is crucial for viable agricultural development to increase emerging farmers' efficiency by integrating agricultural role-players to lower transaction costs. It is suggested that a revised project approach, extending the traditional project cycle with its established economic principles to include four new development criteria, will impact positively on economic growth with equity within South Africa, as it will effectively address constraints in access to services and resources.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Johan van Rooyen

Professor at the University of Pretoria.