Analysis of smallholders' farm diversity and risk attitudes in the Stellenbosch local municipal area

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to consider whether smallholders operate within homogenous ordifferentiated farming systems i.e. a similar ''one type' system or a system that could bedescribed as a smallholder typology consisting of a number of farming types. The enquiry firstlydescribed and analysed farm diversity and then developed risk attitude profiles of smallholderfarmers in the Stellenbosch local municipal area in the Western Cape province of South Africa.The problem statements, directing this study is that there is a general misconception thatsmallholders are all ''the same' and that they all operate within one ''representative farmingmodel'; and that the majority of smallholders are risk averse. These views also argue that allsmallholder farmers are not primarily directed at profit objectives, but that social considerationsare most relevant and that different social orientations are shaping farming systems. These viewsare investigated in this study and the hypotheses directing this analysis is that smallholders in thestudy area are not a homogenous group; rather types within a broader farming typology, withdifferent orientations and objectives and with different risk attitude profiles.The study originated as part of an international collaborative investigation – the South AfricanAgrarian Diagnoses project, a joint research project of the Agro Paris Tech/Agence Francaise deDevelopment, the Standard Bank Centre for Agribusiness Development and Leadership,Stellenbosch University and the University of Pretoria in to farmer diversity and farmertypologies in South Africa. This investigation looked at smallholder farming in different agrogeographicalareas in South Africa, with this particular study focussing on potential smallholderfarmer diversity in the Stellenbosch local municipal area. The Stellenbosch local municipalityand Western Cape Department of Agriculture provided logistical support, information to thisinvestigation and participated in focus group sessions.Smallholder activity in this study was defined to include both small scale farming activities andthe mobilisation of smallholders/farm workers in so-called ''farm worker equity schemes' – atype not included in the other regions. Data was collected from eight smallholders' farmingcommunities and the four different farm workers' equity share schemes through surveys andinterviews. The following towns and hamlets: Franschhoek, Kylemore, Lanquedoc (Herbal Viewand Spier Corridor), Pniel, Jamestown, Raithby, Lynedoch and Koelenhof; and four farm workers' equity share schemes were: Swartrivier vineyard project, Koopmanskloof vineyardproject, Enaleni Trust and Poker Hill vineyard project.Personal interviews and focus group discussions were conducted and cluster analysis was usedfor the diversity (typology) analysis and the Likert scale was employed to measure risk attitudeprofiles. A non-probability sampling approach was used to select a sample size of 49respondents. The reason for using non-probability sampling technique was that when one wantsto do the diversity analysis, one must try to include many respondents in the sample and thefarmers that are included must be representative of the population from which they are selected.The variables selected as determinants of farm diversity included information about:demographics and households, land ownership and occupation, farming activities, farmingobjectives, agricultural inputs, labour, equipment, farming constraints, access to markets,financial support services, educational and training services, extension services and reasons forquitting farming activities. From this, different farming types and typologies were identified,described and structured. Preference indications for different risk management strategies werethen used to measure and describe the risk attitudes of different types of smallholder farmersusing the Likert risk attitudinal scale.The results and findings confirmed the study hypotheses relating to diversity in smallholderfarming in the target area, namely that smallholders in this geographical area are not ahomogenous group and rejects the stated hypotheses that most smallholder farmers are riskaverse. A Stellenbosch smallholder typology, with six different farming types were establishedviz: type 1 – farmland-occupying but non-farming households (10.2% of the sample), type 2 –pensioner – livestock farmers (16.3% of the sample), type 3 – part-time cattle farmers (14.3% ofthe sample), type 4 – commercial equity share farmers (16.3% of the sample), type 5 – retirementplanning crop producers (20.4% of the sample), and type 6 – commercial crop producers (22.5%of the sample).With regard to risk profiles, risk attitudes varied between these types and also within each type,hence risk attitudes for smallholders are also not found to be similar.The results revealed that those smallholder farmers moving on a development path towardscommercial agriculture (types 4, 5 and 6) were risk preferring; less commercially orientated farmtypes (types 1, 2 and 3), showed risk averse and risk neutral orientations. The risk profilepercentages of farmers interviewed were 43.2%, 34.1% and 22.7%, respectively for riskpreferring, risk neutral and risk averse; this finding rejects the stated hypotheses.From these results, a number of issues, relevant to development support programmes, wereproposed for further agricultural economic research. The most important of these are related to:appropriate development support strategies related to farm types and the potential developmentpaths for each type; and the structuring of appropriate ''risk management instruments' for eachtype, in particular to support smallholder farmers; with a development trajectory towardscommercial farming, i.e. to support emerging commercial farmers – an important category offarming listed in current government policy and in the National Development Plan.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University