CEO, Grain SA
THEODORE ROOSEVELT ONCE WROTE THAT IT IS NOT THE CRITIC WHO COUNTS, NOR THE PERSON WHO POINTS OUT WHERE THE STRONG PERSON STUMBLES. THE CREDIT BELONGS TO THE PERSON WHO IS IN THE ARENA, WHOSE FACE IS MARKED BY DUST, SWEAT, AND BLOOD – WHO STRIVES, SOMETIMES FAILS, BUT DARES GREATLY.
I believe this is a fitting description of South African agriculture today. Producers face rising input costs, infrastructure failures, policy uncertainty, market pressures, political debates, and increasingly unpredictable weather. We are battered, but we are still in the arena – and remaining there gives us the ability to influence what happens next.
Agriculture is a productive sector, but it is also a political playing field. We must listen, engage respectfully, and base our positions on evidence, but organised agriculture must also recognise its responsibility to shape the debate and not be drowned out by other voices.
This requires leadership that manages a diversity of interests and shape the discussion towards the sustainability and profitability of agriculture. Empty chairs cannot influence decisions. The story of Nehemiah provides a useful analogy. His task was to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem despite fierce opposition from those who criticised the work without accepting responsibility for the outcome. His response was to protect his people, remain focused, and continue building. For agriculture, the message ‘keep building’ is equally relevant.
Stay on course
For this we need unity of purpose – not unity of thinking or doing. What matters is that we share the same objectives: agriculture that is profitable, competitive, and sustain-
able, keeps producers on the land, creates employment beyond the farm gate, earns foreign exchange, supports processing and manufacturing, strengthens rural econo-
mies, and contributes to food security. Our differences are healthy because they challenge assumptions and strengthen collective thinking. Let’s respect our differences but be serious about what we would like to achieve.
Food security is more than just cheap food. Affordable food is essential, but food security depends on both the availability of food and the ability of households to afford it. Agriculture contributes to both – purchasing power depends on jobs, businesses, investment, and economic growth.
If policy continually transfers the cost of affordability to producers, they will eventually produce less, invest less, or leave the sector. We must not only ask how to keep food affordable, but how we preserve the productive capacity needed to ensure food remains available tomorrow.
Technology for sustainability
Sustainability does not mean using less technology. Better genetics, precision agriculture, improved crop protection, advanced fertilisation, useful data, and more efficient machinery enable farmers to produce more with fewer resources. It can reduce fuel consumption, improve input efficiency, and lower the environmental footprint per tonne produced. Access to technology is therefore not merely a competitiveness issue, it is also a sustainability requirement.
The same principle applies to regulation. Regulation has an important role in protecting consumers, workers, and the environment, but it must also enable responsible innova-
tion. Delays in access to agricultural technologies, crop protection products, fertilisers, or animal-health products carry a cost. We need science-based regulation, effective enforcement, and predictable timeframes that manage risk without restricting progress.
Farmer development and commercial farming are not opposing objectives, but they require fundamentally different approaches. Agricultural technology is scale-neutral, including genetics, agronomy, information, market access, finance, and logistics. Commercialisation is demonstrated when that producer can survive production cycles, access markets, remain competitive, and reinvest. Farmer development must therefore be accompanied by quality technology, finance, infrastructure, and markets.
Finally, we must be willing to challenge accepted ideas that are considered to be ‘holy cows’. Consensus is useful, but it is not the same as progress. Every policy, regulation, and market intervention should be tested. Does it strengthen producer profitability or resilience and promote fair competition? Does it improve access to technology, markets, or infrastructure and protect food security without weakening future production? And does it result in measurable delivery rather than simply more compliance?
If not, we should improve it or replace it. Our responsibility is to drive the unproductive holy cows out of the kraal and harness those that can move agriculture forward such as technology, fair competition, functioning infrastructure, farmer development, food security, and measurable delivery.
The wall will not be rebuilt by commentary from the sidelines but by people prepared to enter the arena, accept responsibility, and keep building. South African agriculture needs leadership with the courage to challenge broken systems and turn discussion into delivery.
We are still in the arena and we will continue building.
