According to the author, Gauteng's agri-parks are failing to deliver on promises made to small-scale farmers, despite significant state investments over the past decade.
Goals and Reality of Agri-Parks
These agri-parks were conceived as centers of hope, intended to help emerging farmers transition from mere survival to sustainable development. Their intended function included establishing links between small producers and markets, creating jobs, enhancing food security, supporting agro-processing, and transforming state agricultural infrastructure into an engine for local economic growth.
However, the reality is that after ten years and the injection of over 155 million Rand in public funds, progress in assisting small farmers remains minimal, causing serious concern.
Financial Reporting and Governance
In response to inquiries from the DA party to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, the department reported that R141.5 million was spent on capital expenditure and R13.5 million on operational expenses in Gauteng's agri-parks over the last decade.
Popular
Nevertheless, the same response indicated that comprehensive financial reports detailing income, operating costs, or profits/losses for each agri-park are unavailable because they are not being compiled. The author believes this situation should concern every resident of Gauteng.
The government can report on the expenditure for maintaining the agri-parks but does not disclose whether any funds have been recouped or which agri-parks are financially self-sufficient. The department also acknowledges deeper management issues, unclear roles and responsibilities, and serious gaps in security and asset management. The author stresses that this is not just a financial failure, but a failure of the concept itself.
Proposals for Model Reform
The DA states that it is not against the concept of agri-parks, but against the model that condemns emerging farmers to dependency instead of fostering their growth as agricultural entrepreneurs. The DA believes that Gauteng should not abandon the idea of agri-parks, but rather save it.
The first step must be to stop treating state support as an unlimited cheque. The government must provide a platform that includes access to land, large-scale infrastructure, basic services, water supply, security, training, technical support, and initial incubation. However, upon completion of the incubation phase, every operator must transition to a results-based path.
The DA proposes a simple and effective transformation model where each agri-park operator must sign an agri-park accountability agreement. This contract must clearly define production targets and other maintenance obligations.
The second reform should involve implementing a phased lease and repayment model. During the initial incubation phase, rent may be minimal, but training, reporting, and participation must be mandatory. Once production begins, operators should contribute a small service fee. This approach protects emerging farmers in the early stages while preventing perpetual dependence.
Systemic Changes and Transparency
The third reform requires abandoning weak, fragmented operating models. The aggregator-entrepreneur model, where a leading enterprise groups small producers into value chains, implies surrounding them with the commercial systems necessary for success. A small farmer cannot succeed if the government only provides a tunnel but fails to ensure a reliable market, functioning cold chain, business reporting system, enforceable lease agreement, and maintenance plan. Infrastructure alone does not create farmers; effective systems do.
The fourth reform is professional management. Agri-parks should operate as productive agricultural sites with professional management, such as through a public-private management company or independent agri-park management units. The government should retain oversight and ownership of state assets, but daily management must become more disciplined, transparent, and business-oriented.
The fifth reform is a public agri-park dashboard. Each agri-park must regularly report on daily inflow and outflow, including maintenance costs. If an agri-park is functioning, the public should be able to see it; if it is failing, that should also be evident. Transparency is the beginning of accountability.
The sixth reform is consequence management. Emerging farmers who work diligently and produce consistently should receive support and be connected to better markets. Similarly, struggling operators should receive targeted support and a clear exit strategy. However, repeated failure to meet obligations cannot be ignored. A model without accountability is not compassionate, but unfair to the very farmers it supposedly helps.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The DA is convinced that Gauteng's agri-parks can still succeed, but they must not function as political exhibits. They cannot operate as free infrastructure without financial discipline. They cannot operate if the department records expenditures but demands no returns. They cannot operate if the government provides support but never demands accountability.
The DA has a clear plan to support small farmers: helping them produce, helping them sell, and directing those revenues toward maintenance, passing the benefit to the next farmer. Gauteng must stop investing public money without measuring the harvest. After ten years and over 155 million Rand, the residents deserve functioning agri-parks, not excuses, dependency, or another decade of unmeasured promises. Our hopeful farmers and supportive residents deserve to see a real harvest.
