Categories: Global Farming

Are we really better off without control?

Farmers frequently complain that they are exploited and ‘things were much better’ in the old days. Are they right?

When I studied agricultural economics many years ago, four pieces of legislation were regarded as the cornerstones of agricultural policy.

These were:

  • The Marketing Act;
  • The Co-operative Act;
  • The Agricultural Credit Act;
  • The Soil Conservation Act.

These four acts governed much of the relationship between government and farmers. Since 1994, they have largely been replaced by other legislation. Various interest groups agitated for the old marketing schemes to be scrapped. It has to be said, however, that through their rigidity and arrogance, the control boards played into the hands of those in whose interest it was to remove control from the marketing chains.

Was the changeover too rapid?
A major change occurred when the Marketing Act was replaced at the beginning of 1998. The first action taken under the auspices of the new act was to close down all the former marketing boards. This was done with an unseemly haste that surprised even some of the authors of the act.

Suddenly farmers who were used to a regulated marketing environment were left to fend for themselves.

In time, the agricultural sector came to realise that there were crucial functions that could only be done collectively. The maintenance of quality standards, provision of marketing information, generic product promotion, transformation and export promotion were the main functions identified for collective action.

No intervention in the marketing channel
The various agricultural industries applied successfully for statutory funding and created organisations to perform these collective functions on their behalf. However, none of the schemes allowed any intervention in the marketing channel.

There are well-known agricultural officials who are proud of their role in removing the marketing chains. As one journalist recently put it in no uncertain terms, “[This] single-handedly resulted in the breakdown of the marketing system”.

Farmers, on the other hand, frequently complain today that they are exploited and that ‘things were much better’ in the old days.

Under the previous marketing schemes, prices were closely managed. In the grain marketing chains, for example, the producer price, manufacturer’s price and retail price of many products were controlled.

Single-channel marketing schemes were also vigorously enforced, and people were actually prosecuted for contravening the single-channel regulations.

To take just one example, it was illegal for a farmer to sell maize to a neighbour. Every producer was compelled to sell at a specified price to the local co-operative, which was appointed as an agent for the Maize Board.

A fair price for their products
Producer prices were determined by government and were largely based on a cost-plus approach. Although the system was undoubtedly rigid, it ensured that farmers received a ‘fair’ price for their products.

When the grain schemes closed down, farmers no longer received a standard price, and processors and retailers no longer had to abide by fixed prices.

Logically, retail prices should be related to producer prices. A look at the relationship between producer and retail prices shows that this is unfortunately no longer the case.

Dr Koos Coetzee is an agricultural economist at the MPO. All opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect MPO policy.

Recent Posts

Local manufacturers seen at Royal Show

Every year, the Royal Show features exhibitors and agricultural equipment quite different from those at Nampo. The Royal Show is…

12 hours ago

Making the most of calcium as a soil and plant nutrient

Despite being a vitally important element for optimal crop production, calcium is often largely undervalued by farmers and agronomists. Plant…

2 days ago

Omnia to pay R30 million fine for collusion

Following an almost 15 year legal battle between Omnia Fertilizer and South Africa’s Competition Commission (CompCom), the fertiliser company has…

2 days ago

Farm hard with Firestone

Farming isn’t just about beautiful mealie fields and incredible sunsets over your herd. It’s about long days, sweat on foreheads…

2 days ago

How to implement a succession plan

The importance of a succession plan for a farming business cannot be underestimated, and must be prioritised.

3 days ago

Hemp production could soon be legal

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) has formally requested the Department of Health and the Department of Justice…

3 days ago

This website uses cookies.