MULTIPLE CASE STUDIES

The comparative case study design was the main qualitative research instrument for this study. It is the researcher’s hypothesis that the spatial variation in transactions costs to geographic location leads to cross-sectional heterogeneity in farming systems and market access. Therefore multiple case-studies were selected to elaborate on the Eastern Cape emerging ostrich farmer environment and the influences on their participation. Normally, in hypothesis-testing research, regular deduction is used. In case studies, it is directed towards understanding uniqueness and idiosyncrasies of particular cases. When investigating a group, fieldwork is conducted in order to measure natural circumstances on the spot (Welman and Kruger, 2001:183). According to Welman and Kruger (2001:184), three aspects are important. These aspects were applied in this case study:

 Boundaries should be determined.

 Techniques to collect data should not merely be used to describe but should be used to search in an inductive manner for recurring patterns.  Triangulation research methods are used to discern patterns.

Comparable cases were selected to attempt to predict similar results or predict contrasting results for expected reasons. As a first step, the case studies were selected within the Eastern Cape region of South Africa. All the case studies had been recognised and supported by the South African Department of Agriculture and had been supported as an emerging farmer programme initiative. A further selection criterion was that the cases had participated directly or indirectly with the commercial ostrich-industry supply chain. With reference to the delimitations discussed in Chapter 1, the case study selection was from farmers that were from predominately disadvantaged communities. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge no other emerging ostrich farmers were found and the sample represented the majority of the emerging ostrich farmer programmes in the Eastern Cape.

2.5.1 Research localities

The fieldwork was undertaken at the sites of the following five Eastern Cape smallholder programmes (Figure 2.1):

 Peddie Ostrich Programme near Peddie (Amathole District)

 Rockhurst Ostrich Programme near Grahamstown (Cacadu District)  Hlumani Co-operative farm near Bathurst (Cacadu District)

 Zamukwanda Ostrich farm near Pearston (Cacadu District)  Mimosadale Ostrich farm near Graaff-Reinet (Cacadu District)

2.5.2 Peddie Ostrich Programme 

Figure 2.2 Map of Peddie Ostrich farm

The Peddie Ostrich Programme is the largest and longest-lasting AgriBEE ostrich farmer programme in South Africa. There are 20 beneficiaries who are involved with the rearing of ostrich chicks. The farm is on commonage land which belongs to the Pikoli community. The farm is situated in the Amathole District and the closest market is at the town Peddie which is approximately 20 km away. The main source of water is from the Great Fish River.

2.5.3 Rockhurst Ostrich Programme

Figure 2.3 Map of Rockhurst farm

The Rockhurst farm is situated in the Cacadu District Municipality and the closest market is Grahamstown which is approximately 35 km away. The 4 126ha farm was purchased for R13 million by the provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in 2006. Figure 2.3 indicates the portion of the farm dedicated to the ostrich project. The ostrich farm is run by seven beneficiaries and their families who were former employees of the farm. The farm also has over 700 angora goats and is supported by the Mohair Empowerment Trust. The beneficiaries have a lease arrangement for the land from the Department of Land Affairs. The main source of water is from the Great Fish River.

2.5.4 Hlumani Co-operative farm

Figure 2.4 Map of Hlumani Co-operative farm

Hlumani Co-operative farm near Bathurst was established by 10 beneficiaries from the Bathurst Township. After they had been awarded 76 ha of land, the beneficiaries requested support from the Bathurst Social Development Department for farming goats. The land was assessed by officials from the Department of Agriculture, who decided that the farm was better suited for feedlot ostrich farming. The Social Development Department constructed ostrich chick pens, feedlot camps and a livestock loading ramp. The main source of water is from a borehole.

2.5.5 Zamukwanda Ostrich farm

Figure 2.5 Map of Zamukwanda Ostrich farm

The Zamukwanda Ostrich farm is situated in the Cacadu District Municipality and the closest market is Pearston which is approximately 5 km away. In 2005 six youths from the Pearston community received 6 ha of land on the farm Moolenhof to lease from the Blue Crane Route Municipality. In 2007 the Department of Agriculture supplied six farming units with four camps for ostrich chick rearing, the sheds and water facilities, as well as accommodation. The main source of water on the farm is from a borehole.

2.5.6 Mimosadale Ostrich farm

Figure 2.6 Map of Mimosadale Ostrich farm

The Mimosadale Ostrich farm is in the Cacadu District Municipality and is approximately 19 km to the south-west of Graaff-Reinet. The land was purchased by the municipality to supply Graaff-Reinet with water from the boreholes. The municipality made it available to emerging farmers as commonage land. The farm is an out-grower programme for local commercial farmers in Graaff-Reinet and is managed by one farmer. There are three boreholes that provide water on this farm.

2.6 QUESTIONNAIRE

After being adapted from a literature review on a variety of studies conducted on determinants of smallholder participation (Table 2.2), a questionnaire containing six components was constructed. The questionnaire employed methods that were helpful to apply and considered important in the emerging farmer sector. However, the variables were not uniform because farmers face different transaction costs, agricultural potential and farming systems. Therefore smallholder farmers or their enterprises can be differentially integrated into the supply chain because of variances in capacity or capability. In the questionnaire market participation was measured mainly according to transaction costs, human capital and market feedback. According to Van Tilburg and Van Schalkwyk (2012:35), “market access includes the ability to obtain necessary farm inputs and farm services and the ability to deliver farm products to the buyers”. In the survey market access was measured mainly according to constraints, state of the roads, transport and the proportion of the households with access to electricity and mobile phone ownership. It is hypothesised that farmers with access to electricity, good roads and mobile phones would need these to undertake basic business activities and influence capacity to participate. The degree of market access was measured according to distance to the nearest town and preferred market channel. 

Table 2.2 Researched determinants on smallholder participation in literature

FACTORS DETAIL STUDY

Marketing channels with focus on high transactions costs

Proximity to collection points

(p. 9). Staal, Delgado and _{Nicholson (1997).} Smallholder dairying under transaction costs

in East Africa. World Development  Co-operatives serve to reduce

transactions costs (p. 11). Market participation and growth opportunities with focus on high transaction costs

Access to assets: To provide an incentive for increased

productivity (p 169).

Delgado (1999). Sources of growth in smallholder agriculture

in sub-Saharan Africa: The role of vertical

integration of smallholders with

processors and marketers of high value-added items.   Access to information: Principal-

agents need to share production and marketing information (p.

169).

Access to services: Institutions should share the risks of service

delivery (p. 169).

Access to remunerative markets: Institutions should overcome

economies of scale in processing and marketing of

high value goods (p. 169).

Market participation and

capacity to participate

Household endowment: Size of arable land, value of livestock owned, pensions, earnings, non-

farm earnings, ownership of vehicle or tractor (p. 103).  Makhura (2001). Overcoming transaction costs barriers to market participation of smallholder farmers in the Northern Province

of South Africa Access to information: Farming

learnt through extension, average household education,

distance to nearest town and road conditions (p. 103). Household characteristics: Gender of household head, age

of household head and household size (p. 103). Interaction factors: Proximity and

road conditions to nearest town, average education and non-farm

Market participation and

sales

Transaction costs: Distance to roads, markets and towns, transport availability, labour, and

population density (p. 4-5). _{Ehui, Benin and Paulos} (2003). Policy options

for improving market participation and sales of smallholder livestock

producers: A case study of Ethiopia.  Human capital: Age, education,

gender, extension training (p. 4-5).

Physical capital: Number of livestock, producing stock,

farmland (p. 4-5). Financial capital: Crop income, non-farm income, credit (p. 4-5).

Marketing channels with focus on high transactions costs

Observable and unobservable costs associated with arranging

and carrying out a transaction (p. 320). Alene, Manyong, Omanya, Mignouna, Bokanga and Odhiambo (2008). Smallholder market participation under transaction costs: Maize supply and fertiliser demand in Kenya.   Market participation with focus on socioeconomic, education and institutional

Variable measured: distance, cooperative membership, family

size, education, supportive infrastructure, transportation costs, high dependency ratio

and age (p 23).

Gani and Adeoti (2011). Analysis of Market Participation

and Rural Poverty among Farmers in Northern Part of Taraba State, Nigeria.

Ability to participate in

markets

Require extension, support to initiate group action, mentorship

alliances are needed to strengthen the human and social

capital base of smallholders (p 39).

Van Tilburg and Van Schalkwyk (2012). Strategies to improve smallholders’ market access. In Unlocking markets to smallholders. 

Table 2.3 Summary of questionnaire

SECTION TITLE TOPICS

A Demographic details Farmer profile and household composition

B Human capital Education and training

C Farming and agro- pastoral

Records, labour, number of animals, mortalities and other sources of

income

D Constraints Disease, feed, water, distance and weather

E Marketing and market access

Market channel, transport and market information

F Institutional support Role player, extension and industry

H Other income Income from informal activities and other crops or livestock

2.7 FOCUS-GROUP DISCUSSIONS

The main findings and themes in the questionnaires were carried over to the focus groups. Focus groups were used to examine the opinions and perceptions of participants since they have certain advantages that other participatory research methods may not have. Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook (2007:42) claim that focus groups often accomplish responses that would not have been achieved through individual interviews or quantitative methods. Since the farmers gave feedback in a group, they built upon one another’s answers and the researcher was able to gather more information in a short time. Seeing that not all information may have been available from the emerging farmers, further information may have been available from external participants and stakeholders. Therefore there was a mix of farmers and other relevant stakeholders invited for the focus-group discussions, namely, mentors, extension officers, programme managers and representatives from the Department of Agriculture. Generally, different stakeholders see different aspects of the problem and/or have different perceptions of it. Focus-group discussions involved an interactive group discussion on particular topics within a permissive, non-threatening environment. The data produced by participants was captured, coded and analysed using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (Atlas.ti).