SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (SEIAS)FINAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE (PHASE 2)

MAY 2017

The Final Impact Assessment [Conservation Agriculture Policy]

The Final Impact Assessment provides a more detailed assessment of the ultimately

policy/legislative/ regulations/ other proposal. In addition, it identifies (a) mechanisms

for monitoring, evaluation and modification as required; and (b) a system for

managing appeals that could emerge around the implementation process.

1. The problem Statement/ Theory of Change

1.1.A summary of the identified problems to be addressed and the root cause(s)

of the problem that will be addressed by the new rule.

a) Summary of the proposal (Summary Background of the proposed

policy/bill/ regulations/ other)

It is broadly accepted within the scientific community that current crop

(and often livestock production systems) are not sustainable – they often

result in the physical as well as chemical degradation of natural

resources, notably soil health and soil quality. The current crop

production systems based on intensive and continuous soil tillage have

led to excessively high soil degradation rates in grain producing areas.

According to Le Roux et al. (2008), the average soil loss under annual

grain crops in the country is 13 ton ha-1yr-1. This is much higher than the

natural soil formation rate and implies, for example, we are losing almost

3 ton ha-1yr-1 for every ton of maize produced every year. This leads to

uneconomical production systems, based on high levels of external

inputs. Eventually, without a policy to influence the shift to sustainable

production system, the decline in soil health will seriously affect food

security, poverty alleviation efforts and ultimately national security. The

yield of conventional systems on maize is low, while the production cost

is higher owing to reliance on diesel due to multiple use of tractors.

b) Problem/s and root causes that the proposal is trying to address

2

Identified Problem Root causesReduction in natural

resources

Unacceptable Conventional farming

practices leading to decline in soil

quality, increased water runoff, soil

erosion, reduction in soil carbon

Natural disasters (prolonged drought,

floods, extreme weather condition.

Lack of capital to implement.

sustainable agricultural practices.

Reduced agricultural

productivity and increased

food insecurity.

Poor knowledge and skills in optimum

production practices.

Unsustainable land management

practices leading to soil degradation

and deteriorating soil quality.

Overgrazing.

Persistent drought.

Global climate change due to

excessive tillage based, high energy

use implements and agricultural

waste, not correctly managed

Competition rather than

complementarity between crop and

livestock farmers.

Deforestation Overharvesting of trees for wood and

clearing of land for agriculture

Poor adoption of

Conservation Agricultural

(CA) practices.

Lack of coherence in the promotion of

CA

Lack of step-by-step operational

guideline for CA production.

Lack of awareness by land users and

farmers

Lack of access to and high cost of CA

machines.

3

Identified Problem Root causes Limited access to CA research

funding

Lack of coherence in the promotion of

CA

Lack of step-by-step operational

guideline and coherence for CA.

Challenges of weed control in CA

Technologies.

1.2.Describe the intended outcomes of the proposal

To enhance protection and sustainable use of natural resources

To optimize productivity of agricultural production through:

o Increased soil organic matter

o Reduced production input costs

o Reduced greenhouse gas emission

Access to CA information and technologies

Management of NR and sustainability of bio-diversity in the eco-system

Increase CA-Related On-farm research

Innovative farming and private sector involvement in creating jobs.

Poverty reduction and improved food security

Improved training in accredited CA courses.

1.3.Groups that will benefit or bear the cost from the proposal, and the groups

that will face the cost. These groups could be described by their role in the

economy or in society. As a minimum, consider if there will be specific

benefits or costs for the poorest households (earning R 7000 a month or

less); for black people, youth or women; for small and emerging enterprise;

and /or for rural development. Add more rows if required.

4

Groups that will benefit How will they benefit?Farmers / Land owners /

Land users

Increased crop and livestock productivity and

income through enhanced soil health resulting

from reduced soil degradation, better soil

moisture retention and improved soil microbial

activities.

Reduced production costs and increased

profit.

Compliance to Environmental laws

Exposure to CA Information and technologies.

Capacity building through accredited training

and skills development.

Modern farming methods and technologies

promoted.

Improved environmental and ecosystem

services.

Communities Increased sustainable food security and

improved livelihoods.

Increased work opportunities.

Availability of disposable income to farmers.

Access to healthier food products.

Youth New opportunities for jobs.

Youth Participation in viable and sustainable

agriculture.

Private sectors New business opportunities (Financial

support; supply of implements, seeds,

laboratory and technical services).

New markets for associated implements.

Investors New technologies and industry opportunities

for CA technology manufacturing promoted.

Government Ensuring protection of agricultural resources.

Private Public Partnerships enhanced.

Less expenditure on social responsibility

5

Groups that will benefit How will they benefit?programme / redirection of fiscus/ finances or

other priorities.

Planners and Policy

makers

Policy shift and advocacy.

Research institutions Increased funding for CA research.

Property developers Better utilisation of resource for planning.

Reduced costs for land rehabilitation.

Insurance companies Good conservation practices lead to better

resilience to climate shocks and hence less

claims.

Lower premium for CA farmers.

Groups that will bear the cost or lose

How will they incur the costs or lose?

Government (DAFF,

PDAs)

Implementation and Incentive costs: New

implements, infrastructure, research, training

and incentive schemes.

Cost of capacity building.

Land users/ Farmers Initial capital cost and cost of switching from

Conventional to CA.

Investment in soil health improvement

Soil correction and mapping

Private sectors Capital and compliance costs

1.4.Behaviour that must be changed, main mechanisms to achieve the

necessary changes. These mechanisms may include modifications in

6

decision making process systems; changes in procedures; educational work;

sanctions; and or incentives. Also identify groups inside or outside

government whose behaviour will have to change to implement the proposal.

Add more rows if required.

Groups inside Government

Behaviour that must be changed (Current Behaviour)

Main mechanism to achieve the necessary changes

PDAs Extension and Advisory

services:

Operations in isolations

with no or low

interactive approached

with other related

departments.

Top down approach

followed by extension

to provide service to

farmers.

Streamlined decision making.

Adoption of community participatory

approach.

Training of extension personnel.

DAFF Misaligned programmes

with duplication,

contradiction, no synergy

(e.g. Extension Recovery

Programme, CASP, Illima

letsema, LandCare).

Lack of understanding of

the CA concepts and

formulation of promotion

strategies

Integrated planning,

Implementation, Monitoring

and Evaluation of programmes

and projects..

Alignment of policies through

mainstreaming of CA priorities.

Integrated grant framework

and standard operating

procedures.

Establishment of CA task

team: national, province and

local level incorporating private

sector and civil society.

Training in accredited CA courses,

7

Groups inside Government

Behaviour that must be changed (Current Behaviour)

Main mechanism to achieve the necessary changes

Seminars and workshops.

DRDLR Overlap of mandates

Operations in isolations

with no or low

interactive approached

with other related

departments

Consultation with DAFF as the lead

sector for project planning.

Improvement of regulatory

mechanisms to advance CA.

Improved Intergovernmental

Relations (Engagement with other

Departments for Cooperative

governance )

DEA Government

Departments operating

in isolation.

Duplication of

functions.

DEA should promote, coordinate and

provide guideline for Climate Smart

Agriculture (CSA), in consultation

with DAFF

Cooperative

Governance

and Traditional

Affairs

Poor LandCare

ethos: Sub-optimal

management of

land resources.

Communal LandCare authority

needs to be regulated and

monitored.

Advisory services from expertise

should be in place.

Improved adherence to municipal

plans and IDP.

Improve good communication

between Chiefs and Ward

councillors.

Municipality Principles of CA are

not incorporated in

the IDP.

Issues of Agriculture

are not clearly

outlined in the IDP.

Involve all local, provincial and

national stakeholders in planning

and implementation.

8

Groups outside Government

Behaviour that must be changed (Current Behaviour)

Main mechanism to achieve the necessary changes

Land

Users/Farmers

Reluctance and

slow adoption of CA

practices due to

ignorance, traditions

and lack of

exposure.

Awareness and capacity building

Provision of Incentives

Active promotion of CA principles

and technologies.

Awareness creation through

evidence based and innovative

appropriate research.

Continuous farmer innovation and

adaptation

Cooperatives

Extension

services

Prescriptive

requirement not in

line with CA

principles

Programme to support

implementation of CA.

Insurance

companies

Currently there is no

distinction between

premiums for CA

and Conventional

farming

practitioners.

Promote lower insurance premium

for CA practitioners.

Private Sector

(Manufacturer

s of CA

Equipment)

Make the CA

equipment and

technologies

available at

affordable prices

Special discount and tax rebates

should be introduced to support

the initiative.

Planners/

developers/

Bad attitude and

sometimes too

harsh towards CA

from platforms

/groups

Attitude change.

Awareness creation through

evidence based and innovative

trials.

9

1.5.Report on consultations on the proposal with the affected government

agencies, business and other groupings. What do they see as the main

benefits, costs and risks? Do they support or oppose the proposal? What

amendments do they propose? And have these amendments been

incorporated in your proposal?

10

Table on consultations:

Affected Stakeholders

What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks?

Do they support or oppose the proposal?

What amendments do they propose?

Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal?

1) Government Departments and Agenciesa) Department of

Environmental

Affairs

Benefits:* Effective protection of

natural resources.

Cost* Regulation cost

Support Work in collaboration

with other relevant

departments to pursue

common agenda and

avoid duplications.

Yes

b) Provincial

Departments of

agriculture.

Benefits:* Effective protection of

natural resources.

* Improved credibility and trust among farmers

CostCost of capacity building.

* Disaster reduction cost.

* Administrative cost:

Support * Work in collaboration

with other relevant

departments to pursue

common agenda and

avoid duplications.

* Improve Extension

Personnel’s

involvement in farming

through effective

programmes that

Yes

Affected Stakeholders

What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks?

Do they support or oppose the proposal?

What amendments do they propose?

Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal?

support CA.

2) Other Groupinga) AgriSA Benefits

* New business

opportunities in CA

Cost* Compliance cost

Supports Commercialise

agriculture

Yes

b)Farmers Benefits* Increase resilience and

improved ecosystem

services.

* Increase productivity and

profitability.

* Job opportunities.

* Improved livelihood.

Cost * Cost of shifting to CA.

Supports * Incentives from

government.

* Capacity building in

CA.

* Market for CA

produce.

Yes

c) Research and Benefits Supports Increase funding for CA Yes

12

Affected Stakeholders

What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks?

Do they support or oppose the proposal?

What amendments do they propose?

Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal?

Academic Institutions

(ARC, CSIR, Water

Research

commission,

Universities)

research and

development.

3) Business:

b) Agribiz-

Agribusiness

Benefits* New business

opportunities in CA

Cost* Compliance cost

Supports Insurance for farmers

against risk

Yes

13

1.6.Possible disputes arising out of the implementation of the proposal, and

system for settling and appealing them. How onerous will it likely be for

members of the public to lodge a complaint and how burdensome and

expeditious is the proposed dispute-settlement procedure?

Groups Possible dispute MechanismHerbicide

Manufacturing

Companies

Preferred herbicide

for weed control is

an issue

More research and trials

will be required.

Industrial development

support for CA specific

herbicide businesses.

Fertilizer

companies

There will be a

reduction in the

requirement and use

of fertilizer as being

promoted by various

companies.

Crop rotation principles

and legume

technologies will

minimise the need of

chemical fertilizers.

Industrial development

support for CA specific

fertiliser businesses.

Implement

manufacturers

CA will reduce their

sales.

Get involved in CA.

Invest in CA equipment

Existing

Conventional

farmers

They might refuse to

adopt the CA

principle

Ensure compliant

through Conservation of

Agricultural Resources

Act.

The Department should

support farmers that are

unable to shift to CA.

Crop and

livestock farmers

under communal

system.

Reluctance to shift

animals from CA

field.

Proper integration and

management of livestock

within CA systems to be

encouraged.

Increase mix farming

Groups Possible dispute Mechanismsystems.

Organised

Agriculture

Regulatory Courts.

Commercial

farmers

Not getting

subsidised

Subsidies/incentives for

all.

2. Impact Assessment

2.1.The costs and benefits of implementing the proposal to the groups identified

in point 6 above, using the following chart. Add more rows if required (Cost

drivers)

Group Implementation Costs

Costs of changing behaviour

Costs/Benefits from achieving desired outcome

Comments

Farmer Input/

implementation

Training,

Workshops,

Awareness,

Capacity Building

Increased Yields,

Improved

Livelihoods,

Improved Soil

Health

Government Incentive, disaster

cost reduction,

Administrative cost:

Extension

officers, public

and farmers and

agricultural

industries

Payment for

ecosystem

services.

Reduced payment

for disaster cost.

Increase resilience

and

Improved

ecosystem

services.

Public Inputs: Taxes Training,

Workshops,

Awareness,

* Positive effect on

environment

resulting health

15

Group Implementation Costs

Costs of changing behaviour

Costs/Benefits from achieving desired outcome

Comments

Capacity Building society.

* Increase

resilience.

2.2.Changes required in budgets and staffing in government in order to

implement the proposal. Identify where additional resources would be

required for implementation. It is assumed that existing staff are fully

employed and cannot simply absorb extra work without relinquishing other

tasks. (Do you need extra Directorate, Offices, or existing staff, additional

budget or reprioritisation of programmes)

National Treasury must allocate funds for Conservation Agriculture

and LandCare programme of DAFF

Government must mainstream CA into existing programmes.

The current pool of extension staff need to be trained on CA principles.

Additional resources will be required in provinces to train and

capacitate extension staff and farmers in order to implement the CA

policy successfully.

Introduce social scientists and social innovation approaches skills.

2.3.Describe how the proposal minimises implementation and compliance costs.

The proposal will be implemented through LandCare and other related

agricultural programmes complimented by educational, training and other

value chain initiatives. Additional injection of budget to LandCare programme

will ensure effective and efficient upscaling of conservation agriculture.

16

3. Managing Risk

3.1.Describe the main risks to the achievement of the desired ends of the

policy/bill/regulations/other and/ or to the national priorities (aims) that could

arise from adoption of the proposal. Also describe the measures taken to

manage the identified risks. Add more rows if necessary. (what are risk that

will hinder your achievement e.g. budget, some risk you may identify during

consultation)

Identified Risk Mitigation MeasuresNo budget Resource mobilisation of donor funding

Lack of capacity to implement

appropriate CA approaches and

technologies

Relevant Training in CA approaches

and technologies

Lack of access to CA equipment Government mechanisation

programmes and Incentives, Access to

Green Climate Fund.

Extensive loss of topsoil None

System failure Mapping/zoning of soil suitability

Stakeholder buy-in Proper consultation

Training and demonstrations trials

Soil borne disease and pest

infestation

Crop rotation

Integrated pest management

CA takes a minimum of 3 years to

yield positive results

Farmers will be encouraged to start the

CA practices in phases

Availability of CA equipment Manufacturers and importers will be

encouraged to supply the equipment

Availability of cover crop seeds Seed companies will be encouraged to

start producing the seeds

Negative perception on CA Training and Knowledge transfer

Study tours

Farmer field schools

17

3.2.Describe the mechanisms included in your proposal for monitoring

implementation, evaluating the outcomes, and modifying the implementation

process if required. Estimate the minimum amount of time it would take from

the start of the implementation process to identify a major problem and

remedy it

A PM&E framework should be developed and implemented on national,

provincial/district, and farm level) measuring different criteria constituting

social, natural, physical, human and financial capital. This framework should

be a collaborative effort by the public and private sector. A committee

consisting of respected public and private sector scientists, farmers and

representatives from consumer and producer organisations should be

constituted to guide the development and implementation of this framework,

which would include the identification, measurement and evaluation of key

indicators of CA use.

Indicators will assess the adoption of CA and the extent of its impact on

sustainability and production. These indicators include area under CA, ideally

specified per farmer category (scale of farmers). Other indicators suggested

include GHG emissions, a carbon stock inventory, soil health indicators, input

use, stocking rates; production figures, etc.

4. Summary

4.1.Summarise the impact of the proposal on the main national priorities (How is

your proposal contributing to this national priority)

National Priority Impact1. Social Cohesion Healthy, happy, vibrant rural and urban

communities.

Improved family cohesion: Women in agriculture

will generate more income for the families

2. Security (Safety, Financial, Food, Food security, financial security, energy security

18

National Priority ImpactEnergy and etc.)

3. Economic Growth Sustainable regenerative long-term growth

Increased and sustained contribution of

agricultural sector to GDP

4. Economic Inclusion (Job Creation

and Equality)

Sustainable job creation and increasing women

and youth participation in agriculture

More productive land available, more yields

resulting in more jobs along the value chain

5. Environmental Sustainability Improvement of soil health and biodiversity

4.2. Identify the social and economic groups that would benefit most and that

would bear the most cost. Add more rows if required. (ranking of groups in

terms of benefits and cost, will it be supported by commercial /smallholder)

Main BeneficiariesCitizens of South Africa

Future generations

Government

Main Cost bearersGovernment, Farmers / Land

Users/Land Owners /

Government/ Farmers/Land

Users/Land Owners/

Government

4.3. In conclusion, summarise what should be done to reduce the costs, maximise

the benefits, and mitigate the risks associated with the

policy/bill/regulations/other. Note supplementary measures (such as

19

educational campaigns or provision of financing) as well as amendments to

the draft itself, if appropriate. Add more lines if required. (Summary of your

intent, benefits, reduce cost, risk - how to mitigate , intergovernmental etc)

Consistency?

a) Use existing LandCare programme governance model and expand the

conditional grant of the programme.

b) Update all sustainable use of natural resources policies and regulations

to advance Conservation Agriculture

c) Update farmers support funding criteria to include practising or intention

as a minimum requirements

d) Update insurance premium criteria and disaster support to favour farmers

practising Conservation Agriculture

4.4.Please identify areas where additional research would improve

understanding of the costs, benefits and/ or risks of the

policy/bill/regulations/other

(Research identified to inform the policy)

Research on cost and benefit of the CA practice

Development of CA related equipment

Conducting on-farm trials for new CA equipment and technologies

Cover crops and mulching availability and trials

Quantification of water conservation and productivity

Soil fertility management

Crop rotation and management

Weed control and management of herbicides and its environmental

impact

Labour productivity under CA and economic analysis

CA and Climate change

Integrated and participatory research approach. Natural systems are

not linear.

For the purpose of building SEIAS body of knowledge please complete the following:

20

Name of Official/s Ramakgwale Klaas MampholoR.L Bosoga

Designation Director & Deputy DirectorUnit Land use and Soil ManagementContact Details 012 319 7687Email address klaasm@daff.gov.za

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CA............... Conservation Agriculture

DAFF ........... Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

21

DRDLR.......... Department of Rural development and Land reform

PDAs............ Provincial Departments of Agriculture

CASP............ Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme

22