20 September 2023
By: Nico van Burick
The master plan for agriculture and agro-processing has once again hit a dead end, primarily due to differences over labour issues.
Despite opposition from Agri SA, the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development has asked the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to act as a mediator between agriculture and labour organisations in an attempt to reach consensus on labour issues.
In response, Christo van der Rheede, the executive director of Agri SA, said further negotiations on labour issues opposed by Agri SA would have consequences for the agricultural sector.
“We warned that the master plan should not be opened up for further negotiations and politicised for personal gain, but unfortunately our advice was ignored.
“We wonder who will now take responsibility for this deadlock. Certainly not Agri SA,” he said about the request directed at the local director of the ILO, Joni Musabayana, by the department and the National Agricultural Marketing Council.
In his letter to the ILO, Mooketsa Ramasodi, the director-general of the department, says areas of difference include interventions to increase employment in the agriculture and processing sectors, better working conditions and benefits for workers, principles of ethical trade, social protection for farmworkers, expansion of the government’s ability to enforce labour laws, funding for farmworker programmes and ownership schemes for workers.
He says the fact that these issues are unresolved poses a risk to the successful implementation of the master plan. He asks the ILO to help find common ground so the implementation of the master plan, which includes labour and job creation preferences, can be accelerated.
In response to the letter, TLU SA says several agriculture organisations are not recognised in it. CEO Bennie van Zyl says the letter was selectively sent to certain stakeholders.
“Of course, we have certain dilemmas about labour and the approach to it. A farm is not there to create jobs. It is there to make a profit. If the farm is successful and grows, it will be able to create jobs. But it’s not primarily about job creation, and labour organisations need to realise that.”
Handle labour issues responsibly
Van Zyl says technology and mechanisation mean it’s increasingly possible to replace labour, so labour issues must be handled responsibly. “Labour should not be exploited, but it primarily depends on what a business can afford. No labour component has a right to certain benefits and privileges if the profitability of that business cannot support it.”
The agricultural master plan was rushed through too quickly and signed prematurely, says Van Zyl, but it remains open for unresolved issues, and it has been said that the plan will be reviewed annually for outstanding matters.
“I’m asking for economic sustainability, and that includes fair labour practices,” he says. “The DG’s issues need to be addressed, but why selectively and not by all stakeholders in the value chain?”
Theo de Jager, chairman of the Southern African Agri Initiative (Saai), refers to an alternative master plan developed by Saai, TLU SA, the national employers’ organisation, the agricultural employers’ organisation, Wildlife Ranching SA (WRSA) and the consumer forum.
Talks have been held with the department, the National Agricultural Marketing Council and Agbiz to examine the compatibility of the state’s transformation-centred plan with the alternative commercially focused plan.
De Jager says the inputs of trade unions in drafting the master plan received prominent recognition, but no employer organisation was involved and all of TLU SA’s inputs were ignored.
“In the state’s master plan, transformation is referred to more than 90 times, with no mention of profitability, sustainability or the effectiveness of value chains.”
De Jager believes the demand by trade unions for the ILO to act as a mediator in the unrepresented closed session opens up exciting possibilities.
“Saai and WRSA can demand that the World Farmers’ Organisation, to which they are affiliated, and the UN Committee on World Food Security also play a mediation role.
“The correspondence and new pressure on the state have defined the polarisation in agricultural leaders over the master plan, and the different camps are clearer than ever.”
