Revitalising Agricultural Education and Training in South Africa

Full text

© Academy of Science of South Africa
June 2017
ISBN 978-0-9947117-1-7
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/assaf.2016/0016
Published by:
Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
PO Box 72135, Lynnwood Ridge, Pretoria, South Africa, 0040
Tel: +27 12 349 6600 • Fax: +27 86 576 9520
E-mail: admin@assaf.org.za
Reproduction is permitted, provided the source and publisher are appropriately
acknowledged.
The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) was inaugurated in May 1996. It was
formed in response to the need for an Academy of Science consonant with the dawn
of democracy in South Africa: activist in its mission of using science and scholarship
for the benet of society, with a mandate encompassing all scholarly disciplines that
use an open-minded and evidence-based approach to build knowledge. ASSAf
thus adopted in its name the term ‘science’ in the singular as reecting a common
way of enquiring rather than an aggregation of different disciplines. Its Members are
elected on the basis of a combination of two principal criteria, academic excellence
and signicant contributions to society.
The Parliament of South Africa passed the Academy of Science of South Africa
Act (No 67 of 2001), which came into force on 15 May 2002. This made ASSAf the
only academy of science in South Africa ofcially recognised by government and
representing the country in the international community of science academies and
elsewhere.

3
LIST OF FIGURES 7
LIST OF TABLES 7
LIST OF ACRONYMS 9
FOREWORD 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19
CHAPTER 1: Introduction 33
The Inception of the Study 33
The Relevance 33
The Strategic Position of the Academy 34
The AET Consensus Study Approach 34
The Commissioned Studies 36
Envisioning the Future (CS1) 36
Mapping the System (CS 2&3) 36
Understanding the Teaching, Research and Extension Nexus in
South Africa (CS4–7) 37
Opportunities for South African AET to Support the Science Agenda for
Agriculture in Africa (CS8) 38
Integration and Governance Reform (CS 9&10) 38
CHAPTER 2: Methodology 41
Key Objectives and Aims 41
Key Question One: Where are we now? 41
Key Question Two: Where do we want to be in the future? 42
Key Question Three: What would be the road(s) to transformation? 42
Key Question Four: What conditions will make it work? 42
Commissioned Study Methodologies 42
Envisioning the Future (CS1) 42
National Mapping Study (CS2) 43
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3) 43
Understanding the Teaching, Research, and Extension Nexus: Education (CS4) 44
A Demographic Prole of South African Tertiary Education (CS5) 44
Understanding the Teaching, Research, and Extension Nexus: Extension (CS5) 44
Understanding the Teaching, Research, and Extension Nexus: Research (CS7) 45
Alignment with Science Agenda for African Agriculture (CS8) 45
Integration and Governance Reform (CS9) 45
Towards the Conceptualisation of an Ideal AET System (CS10) 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5
4
CHAPTER 3: Where are we now? 47
Agriculture on the Forefront of the International Agenda 47
Continental Developments and Opportunities 48
A Science Agenda for African Agriculture (CS8) 50
The South African Context 52
A Haunting Historical Legacy (CS1) 52
The National Agenda (CS1) 55
Mapping AET in South Africa 56
National Mapping Study (CS2) 56
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3) 61
A Knowledge Triangle for Innovation in the Agro-Food Value Chain 63
The Educational Context (CS4) 65
Transformation and Reform in Education 65
The Post-School System 68
The University Sector – An Overview 70
AET in the University Sector 71
Prole of Staff in Agricultural Sciences 73
Prole of Students in Agricultural Science 74
Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) 77
Agricultural Colleges: Where to Now? 79
Community Colleges: Opportunity for AET to Expand its Reach? 81
The AgriSETA 82
Tracing Graduates into Employment 82
The School System 83
Extension and Rural Advisory Services (CS 6) 88
Best-t Forward 89
The South African Context 92
Research Context (CS7) 96
Strengths of the ARC 96
Challenges 97
Recommendations 97
CHAPTER 4: A Vision for the Future 101
Envisioning Agriculture (CS1) 101
Opportunities for Supporting the Science Agenda (CS8) 102
Areas Where South African AET Could Learn from Other African Experiences 105
Governance & Reform: An International Perspective (CS9) 106
The United States Land-Grant System 107
The Indian Land-Grant Experience 111
The Brazilian Experience 113
Imagining Innovation at an Institutional Level 116
EARTH University 116
Towards an Ideal AET System (CS10) 118
Tackling Transformative Change 118
Roadmap Towards Transformative Change in the South African AET System 120
Accelerating Transformative Change 127
Understanding Transformative Change 127
CHAPTER 5: Main Findings 131
Envisioning AET in the Future 131
Key Finding 1: Continued Challenges Facing AET 131
Key Finding 2: The (Dis-)Enabling Environment 132
Governance and Coordination (CS1&2) 132
The Case of the Agricultural Colleges (CS3) 132
Key Finding 3: Relevant Institutions and Adequate Resources 133
Articulation and Integration (CS3–7) 133
Reversing the Inverted Pyramid 134
Funding and Resource Allocation (CS 3–7) 135
Key Finding 4: An Adequate Number of Appropriately Trained Graduates 135
Relevance and Responsiveness of Curricula 135
The AET System is in Dire Need of Quality, Qualied Educators 137
Diversity and Transformation in the Context of Access and Meaningful
Participation 137
Professionalisation of Extension Work 137
Use of ICT and Social Media (CS3) 138
Agriculture as First Choice and Career Pathways 138
Key Finding 5: Strong Linkages and Feedback Mechanisms 138
The Knowledge Triangle 138
Opportunities for Regional Partnerships and Collaboration 140
Concluding Reection: Challenges in the South African Innovation System 141
CHAPTER 6: Recommendations 145
Recommendation 1 145
Recommendation 2 145
Recommendation 3 146
Recommendation 4 146
Recommendation 5 147
Recommendation 6 148
Recommendation 7 149
Recommendation 8 149
Recommendation 9 150
Recommendation 10 151
REFERENCES 155
APPENDIX 1: Biographies of Study Panel Members 165
ENDNOTES 171

7
Figure 3.1 Map of the AET system 58
Figure 3.2 Agricultural knowledge triangle 64
Figure 3.3 Share of female staff in agricultural sciences by qualication
level, 2010-2014 74
Figure 3.4 Share of staff in agricultural sciences by age and qualication
level, 2014 74
Figure 3.5 Enrolled agricultural science students by gender 76
Figure 3.6 Graduated agricultural science students by gender 76
Figure 3.7 Framework for analysing advisory services 90
Figure 4.1 Simplied organisational chart of Iowa State University 109
Figure 4.2 The AET system embedded in the Agricultural Innovation System 118
Figure 4.3 An ideal roadmap for the transformation of AET 121
List of TABLES
Table 3.1 Themes of the science agenda 51
Table 3.2 Role players in the delivery of AET 57
Table 3.3 Government departments responsible for delivery of AET 60
Table 3.4 Education and training reform since 1994 66
Table 3.5 Sub-categories of agricultural sciences CESM code 010 72
Table 3.6 Staff in agricultural sciences by qualication level 73
Table 3.7 Prole of academics in agricultural sciences by race and
qualication level 73
Table 3.8 Total number of enrolments in agricultural science by
qualication level 75
Table 3.9 Students enrolled in agricultural sciences by race and
qualication level 75
Table 3.10 Graduated agricultural science students by race and qualication
level 75
Table 3.11 Agriculture qualications offered by public TVET colleges 77
Table 3.12 Focus areas at public agricultural colleges 79
Table 3.13 Subjects offered at FET level 84
Table 3.14 Curriculum content of agricultural subjects 87
Table 3.15 Extension science professional registration category requirements 95
Table 5.1 NACI strategic outcome-oriented goals 142
List of FIGURES

9
AET Agricultural Education and Training
ABET Adult Basic Education and Training
ADI Agricultural Development Institute
AEAS Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services
AESIF Agricultural Education and Skills Improvement Framework
AFVC Agriculture and food value chains
AgriSETA Agriculture SETA
AIS Agricultural Innovation System
ANC African National Congress
API Animal Production Institute
ARC Agricultural Research Council
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and
Central Africa
ASGISA Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa
ATVET Agriculture Technical and Vocational Education and Training
AU African Union
AWARD African Women in Agricultural Research and Development
BATAT Broadening Access to Agriculture Thrust
BER Bureau for Economic Research
BSc Bachelor of Science
BSL Biological safety level
CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme
CCARDESA Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for
Southern Africa
CESM Classication of Educational Subject Matter
CEO Chief Executive Ofcer
CGIAR Global agricultural research partnership
CHEC Cape Higher Education Consortium
CIRAD French Agricultural Research and International Cooperation
Organisation
CoE Centre of Excellence
CORAF West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and
Development
CRLR Commission on Restitution of Land Rights
CPA Consolidated Plan of Action
CPD Continuous professional development
CPUT Cape Peninsula University of Technology
CRDP Comprehensive Rural Development Programme
CRP CGIAR Research Programmes
CS Commissioned studies
CUT Central University of Technology
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
DBE Department of Basic Education
DRDLR Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
DHET Department of Higher Education and Training
List of ACRONYMS

11
10
DoL Department of Labour
DPW Department of Public Works
DST Department of Science and Technology
DVC Deputy Vice-Chancellor
EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (the Brazilian Corporation
of Agricultural Research)
ERC European Research Commission
ETDP Education, Training and Development Practices
ETES Education, Training and Extension Services
E&T Education and Training
FANRPAN Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network
FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
FET Further education and training
FETC Further education and training colleges
FoodBev Food & Beverages Manufacturing Industry SETA
FTE Further training and education
GADI Grootfontein Agricultural Development Institute
GCHERA Global Confederation of Higher Education Associations for Agricultural
and Life Sciences
GET General education and training
GETC General Education and Training Certicate
GIS Geographic Information System
GDP Gross domestic product
GFRAS Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services
HE Higher education
HEMIS Higher Education Management Information System
HEQC Higher Education Quality Council
HSRC Human Sciences Research Council
IAD Institute for African Development
ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research
ICT Information and communications technology
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
JTTT Joint Technical Task Team
KALRO Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research Organisation
KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KZN KwaZulu-Natal
MOOC Massive Open Online Courses
MSc Master of Science
MUT Mangosuthu University of Technology
NACI National Advisory Council on Innovation
NAMC National Agricultural Marketing Council
NAIPs National Agriculture Investment Plans
NARS National Agricultural Research Systems
NASCA National Senior Certicate for Adults
NATED National Accredited Technical Education Diploma
NCAET National Council for Agricultural Education and Training
NCV National Certicate (Vocational)
NDA National Department of Agriculture
NDP National Development Plan
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development
NER National Extension Reform
NES National Extension Support
NETSAFF National Education and Training Strategy for Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIHSS National Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences
NMMU Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
NPC National Planning Commission
NRF National Research Foundation
NSC National Senior Certicate
NSFAS National Student Financial Aid Scheme
NSI National System of Innovation
NQF National Qualication Framework
OBE Outcomes-based Education
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OVI Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute
PAETA Primary Agriculture Education and Training Authority
PALCs Public Adult Learning Centres
PEA Participatory Extension Approaches
PGSARD Postgraduate School of Agriculture and Rural Development
QCTO Quality Council for Trades and Occupations
R&D Research and development
RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme
REID Rural Enterprise and Industrial Development
RID Rural Industrial Development
RISG Research and Innovation Strategy Group
RUFORUM Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
SAALSDA South African Agricultural and Life Sciences Deans’ Association
SAATA South African Agricultural Teaching Association
SACNASP South African Council for Natural Scientic Professions
SADC Southern African Development Community
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
SAQA South African Qualications Authority
SARChI South African Research Chairs Initiative
SARIMA Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association
SASAE South African Society for Agricultural Extension
SASAS South African Society for Animal Science
SAU State agricultural universities
SAYAS South African Young Academy of Science
SBD Small Business Development
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SET Sector Education and Training
SETA Sector Education and Training Authority
SETASA Sector Education and Training Authority for Secondary Agriculture
SGB Standards Generating Body
SHD Smallholder Development
SHFs Smallholder farmers
SLP Short Learning Programme (Short Course)

13
12
SMME Small medium and micro enterprise
SOYD Social Organisation and Youth Development
SRO Scientic Research Organisation
STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
STIAS Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study
STI Science, technology and innovation
STISA Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa
SU Stellenbosch University
SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
S3A Science Agenda for African Agriculture
TEAM-Africa Tertiary Education for Agriculture Mechanism in Africa
the dti Department of Trade and Industry
TUT Tshwane University of Technology
TVET Technical and vocational education and training
UFH University of Fort Hare
UFS University of the Free State
UKZN University of KwaZulu-Natal
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organisation
Unisa University of South Africa
UP University of Pretoria
US United States
USAf Universities South Africa
UCT University of the Western Cape
VC Vice-Chancellor
WIL Work-integrated Learning (Internships)
WRC Water Research Commission

15
The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) has as a specic mandate the provision
of evidence-based scientic advice to South African policymakers on matters of crucial
scientic importance. Evidence-based study project activities thus form the core of the
Academy’s function.
This consensus study was initiated by the ASSAf Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) Education Standing Committee, deriving from a deep concern
about the status of agricultural education and training (AET) in the country. The study
seeks to identify and address the challenges facing the AET sector in South Africa. It is a
timely study given the important role that this sector needs to play in meeting the United
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
The study aims to provide evidenced-based information and clear recommendations
to policymakers and other relevant stakeholders with an interest in agricultural human
capital development. Some of the key ndings of the study include inadequate funding
for practical-level training; weak linkages to industry for understanding training needs;
poor quality and inadequate numbers of educators who are appropriately trained to
teach agriculture at school level; and poor linkages in the research–teaching–extension
nexus. The recommendations are wide-ranging and very practical. It is hoped that they
will be used to inuence policymakers and thereby result in an improvement in the quality
of AET in South Africa.
Although specically focused on South Africa – a collation and analysis of international
practice within the South African context – the report is potentially a useful resource for
other countries on the African continent seeking to strengthen their own AET systems.
The report was developed and guided to its successful conclusion by an 11-member study
panel of experts, under the leadership of Prof Frans Swanepoel. It was peer-reviewed by
three experts and will be made available in an open access and free format.
The ASSAf Council would like to extend its sincere appreciation to the panel for their
expert contribution to the study and the attention with which they carried out their task.
Prof Jonathan Jansen
President: Academy of Science of South Africa
FOREWORD

17
This study was a collaborative endeavour involving many people from start to nish.
Although not an exhaustive list, we wish to thank the following people and organisations
for their participation in one way or another to ensure the success of the study.
• The Council of ASSAf for their foresight in commissioning this evidence-based study
and their ongoing support during the entire process.
• The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) as the primary sponsor of the study, and in
particular Dr Shadrack Moephuli, Chief Executive Ofcer (CEO) of the ARC for his
personal interest and support. De Beers Chairman’s Fund for their nancial support
of the project. In particular, the Centre of Excellence in Food Security, co-hosted
by the University of the Western Cape (UWC) and the University of Pretoria (UP),
for facilitating a two-month writing secondment for the panel chairperson to the
French Agricultural Research and International Cooperation Organisation (CIRAD).
A special recognition to Dr Patrick Caron for hosting the chairperson of the panel
at CIRAD for this period.
• The members of the study panel for their diligent commitment to ensuring the
success of the project.
• Particular appreciation is extended to Ms Nienke Beintema, Mr Johann Boonzaaier,
Dr Kirstin Davis, Mr Jan Greyling, Ms Joyene Isaacs, Mr Luvuyo Mabombo, Prof
Linus Opara, Prof Johan van Rooyen and Prof Mandi Rukuni for their additional
contributions in the form of commissioned papers which provided a much-needed
perspective to the study report.
• Dr Melody Mentz, senior researcher appointed to the study, for her support and
inputs into the project.
• All the persons, organisations and champions without whose generosity and time
the study would not have been possible.
• The peer reviewers who made well-founded and valuable suggestions regarding
the improvement of the draft of the study report.
• Ms Patricia Scholtz and LedCool for the editing and production of the study report.
• And nally, to the support staff, Ms Zuki Mpiyakhe (study director) and Prof
Roseanne Diab, Executive Ofcer for their contribution and assistance throughout
the project.
Prof Frans Swanepoel
Chair: ASSAf AET Study
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

19
Agriculture is a key component of the South African economy. Agriculture delivers
more jobs per Rand invested than any other productive sector, and remains critical
in the face of rural poverty and food insecurity. While the primary agricultural sector
contributes about 3% to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), if the entire value
chain of agriculture is taken into account, its contribution to GDP reaches about 12%.
(Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), 2013. Abstract of Agricultural
Statistics. Republic of South Africa) Although the country can maintain the ability to meet
national food requirements, more than 7 million citizens experience hunger, while 22.6%
of households have inadequate access to food (Stats SA, 2016).
South Africa’s agricultural sector faces several challenges – above and beyond the
implications of climate change. These include the declining accessibility to quality water
sources, the impact of unsustainable food production practices, competition with other
industries for the use of arable land, and the failure to effectively address land redistribution.
The sector continues to grapple with its haunting historical legacy. Although the inten-
tions and objectives of policy reform in agriculture over the past 20 years have been quite
deliberate in seeking redress, continuous changes and lack of systematic follow-through
in implementation have limited the effectiveness of the identied pathways to an equi-
table sector and society.
Among the primary challenges faced by the sector are the challenges experienced in
the broader agricultural education and training (AET) system.
An analysis of the targets set forth in the National Development Plan (NDP) places
agriculture rmly on the agenda for the next 15 years (NPC, 2011). Specically, and in
relation to AET, the NDP calls for:
• The creation of an additional one million jobs in the agriculture, agro-processing,
and related sectors.
• Increased investment in agricultural technologies, research, and the development
of adaptation strategies.
• Expanding the college system with a focus on improving quality.
• Improved skills development and training in the agricultural sector, including
entrepreneurship training. This should include the training of a new cadre of
extension ofcers.
• Investigation into whether extension and agricultural services are appropriately
located at provincial level.
• Innovative means for agricultural extension and training by the state in partnership
with industries.
Additional targets of indirect relevance to AET include increasing enrolment at universities,
increasing the number of students eligible to study towards mathematics and science-
based degrees, increasing the percentage of PhD-qualied staff in the higher education
sector, producing more than 100 doctoral graduates per million per year (from the current
30 to 35 per million per year). Furthermore, the aim is to expand science, technology, and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21
20
innovation outputs by increasing research and development spending by government,
and through encouraging industry towards increased support.
Whilst on the one hand, AET is rmly on the agenda, on the other hand the implication is
that the agricultural sector will be competing for resources with a range of other subject-
matter areas; to do so, the AET system needs to articulate its impact areas beyond
agricultural production and consider the training of persons who participate in the total
agricultural value chain and related sectors.
Key Objectives of the Study
The following key objectives were identied for the study:
• Provide a situation analysis of South African AET.
• Identify the challenges faced at each level and provide a set of recommendations
to address these challenges.
• Assess the relevance of curricula to current global challenges of food security,
climate change, and poverty alleviation.
• Determine where agriculture graduates get employed after graduation and the
roles they play in society.
• Relate ndings to best international practices and compare with the situation and
needs elsewhere in Africa.
• Provide a set of recommendations to address the identied challenges.
In order to address these objectives, four key questions were posed: (i) where are we
now, (ii) where do we want to be, (iii) what would be the road(s) to transformation, and
(iv) what conditions will make it work?
Approach
Through the deliberations of the panel at its inaugural meeting, it was agreed that the
most appropriate path to achieving the objectives and answering the key questions
of the consensus study, was to adopt a two-phased approach; each phase including
several commissioned studies to inform the development of the report and the panel’s
nal recommendations.
The Phase I studies provided a comprehensive understanding of the current situation in
the AET system. Based on the ndings of these studies, a series of more focused, in-depth
studies were commissioned for Phase II, resulting in a total of ten papers and/or inputs.
An overview of the studies and their respective methodologies is presented in Chapter 2.
Findings
The ndings from the consensus study are organised conceptually according to the ideal
AET system identied in Chapter 4.
KEY FINDING 1
There are numerous, continued challenges facing AET
These challenges are largely historical, identied early on in South Africa’s democracy,
and there is an urgent, pressing need to address these issues. This must be done cognisant
of the fact that the public education and training system has been in a state of fairly
constant reform since 1994. Now is an opportune time for transformation (not more reform
for the sake of reform) as the system as it relates to AET is highly uid.
KEY FINDING 2
AET currently operates within a largely disenabling environment
2.1. Governance and coordination: The system is in dire need of substantial governance
reform directed towards greater integration, cooperation, and accountability
to maximise the returns on available nances, human capital, and physical
infrastructure. A coherent vision of the future agricultural system(s) toward which
South African agriculture must move is needed to inform the focus and direction of
the future AET system and the governance thereof.
2.2. The case of the agricultural colleges: The colleges have usually been administered
and governed by the relevant line department or provincial department, and have
not been formally part of the higher education system. This is being revised, with
some colleges being moved directly to the Department of Higher Education and
Training (DHET). Despite this Cabinet-approved decision, there is still uncertainty
about the full implications.
Attempts were made by the study panel to meet with the respective parties to
understand fully the situation and to position the panel to make recommendations
regarding this important component of the AET system. The engagement was not
sufciently robust to allow for such recommendations to be made. A Joint Technical
Task Team (JTTT) to investigate the matter has been appointed by the DHET. Since
the JTTT was appointed in late 2016, signicant progress had not been made at the
time of nalising the study report.
KEY FINDING 3
Relevant institutions and adequate resources are needed to sustain an
effective, efcient AET system
3.1 Articulation and integration: Although supported in principle and allowed for within
the National Qualication Framework (NQF), there is very little articulation between
the various components of the AET system, with key blockages hindering the
realisation of a fully integrated system.
The transition from school to post-school education is one such key blockage
point. Agricultural subjects at high school may ironically be a disadvantage to
students trying to enter higher education, and mathematics is the biggest single
blockage in the pipeline, as most science and commerce-related programmes, as

23
22
well as vocational programmes at colleges and universities of technology, require
mathematics passes. Agricultural curricula at school level need to feed into the
system. There is no legal framework to encourage or require systemic relations
between universities and colleges of agriculture. The lack of clarity and progress
around the agricultural colleges and their positioning within DHET has signicant
ripple effects on the quality of educational provision and the potential for enhanced
articulation.
3.2 Reversing the inverted pyramid: South Africa’s post-school inverted pyramid
negatively impacts the delivery of AET in the country. Too many institutions focus
on academic programmes and too few prepare people for the intermediate and
lower levels of skills. This situation is unsustainable when taking into consideration the
NDP targets.
Signicant growth in enrolments and high-quality graduates are required in the
technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges for South Africa
to ‘ip’ its inverted pyramid. The important role of the colleges and the potential
role of the proposed community colleges are key levers in addressing the situation.
Practical and feasible solutions, which are innovative and forward-looking, should
be encouraged in order to address the situation.
Complex social and economic factors drive the current over-emphasis on university-
level training. Proposed solutions to address the matter must focus on ensuring
quality of education, exposure to cutting-edge practical training, and employability
of graduates, in order to be successful. This will require innovative collaboration
between the components of the AET system and the private sector.
3.3 Funding and resource allocation: Funding for education is a highly contested issue
across institutions in South Africa. The need for greater funding for AET was raised
at all stakeholder workshops, particularly the need for increased funding to enable
institutions to provide practical, vocationally relevant training.
The capacity of schools to effectively deliver agricultural science as a subject is limited
by a lack of funding and the absence of appropriate infrastructure for practical
training. Funds which are available are not efciently distributed or effectively man-
aged.
Funding support was identied as a key factor to draw students into AET in post-
school education. Access to funding for students, particularly in the colleges where
the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) is not accessible, is critical.
The AET system will need to engage in non-traditional approaches for funding
for practical-level training, including building linkages to industry and the private
sector. In the light of the current turmoil and uncertainty with regard to funding from
government, the sector cannot afford to be short-sighted in this.
KEY FINDING 4
An adequate number of appropriately trained graduates are not currently
being produced by AET
4.1 Relevance and responsiveness of curricula: There is no shortage of registered
qualications in the eld of agriculture in the NQF. To date, the focus has been
primarily on production; yet, skills for the agricultural supply chain come from a wider
range of disciplines than the specic agriculture-focused qualications. There is an
urgent need for improved relevance in the curricula.
Although there are exceptions, students are primarily educated for commercial
agriculture, with little focus on smallholder farmers (SHF) or on the social and human
dimensions of agriculture. Linked to the need for relevance, is the need for multi
and transdisciplinary approaches to curricula that address modern-day topics,
nd solutions to grand challenges, such as climate change, and drive economic
development.
Training fails to meet the needs of industry and bridge the skills-knowledge-practice
gap. Navigating the modern-day world of work requires the development of the so-
called T-shaped skills, where depth in discipline-specic knowledge is balanced by a
breadth of soft skills. Taking into consideration the important role that entrepreneurship
is expected to play in South African economic development, T-shaped skills must be
positioned as essential supplements to disciplinary knowledge, rather than add-on
components.
Industry stakeholders have specically expressed a clear need for the inclusion of
more practical exposure, internships, and industry placements; the need for the
development of combined skill sets; and improved communication between the
industry and tertiary education providers regarding AET programmes.
4.2 The AET system is in dire need of quality, qualied educators: The quality of educators,
as well as the number of teachers appropriately trained to teach agriculture at school
level and in vocational contexts is of serious concern. It will become increasingly
difcult to appropriately train adequate numbers of students without addressing the
need to replenish and build the cadre of agricultural educators.
The need for an increase in qualied educators is, however, not limited to any one
specic component of the AET system; rather, the need for improved skills is critical
across the board from school level to PhD level.
4.3 Diversity and transformation in the context of access and meaningful participation:
Within higher education, the prole of academics in terms of race remains
predominantly white, with at least ve out of ten academics with a PhD in a science
eld being white in 2014. However, the share of whites has decreased over the period
2010 to 2014 (HEMIS, 2016). The discrepancy is most pronounced at the PhD level,
with a clear evening out at the Masters and Bachelors level. Initiatives to enable
and support black academics to pursue their PhD in the sciences thus remain a high
priority.

25
24
There are also distinct gender gaps in the agricultural sciences, with signicantly
lower numbers of female staff in this group; women hold only about 30% of the
doctoral qualications in 2014. The share of female staff has in general increased
from 2010 to 2014 (HEMIS, 2016).
Neither the prole of enrolments nor of graduates has shifted over the period 2010 to
2014 with respect to the level of qualication. In 2014, 44% and 40% of the students in
the agricultural sciences continue to be enrolled in BSc and certicate or diploma-
level qualications, respectively.
In 2014, white students accounted for only 34% of the total enrolled students in
agricultural sciences. Their shares declined at all qualication levels over the period
2010 to 2014. In contrast to the prole of staff, the proportion of female students
enrolled in the agricultural sciences has equalled the proportion of male students,
whilst graduation of female students exceeded male students, albeit slightly, in 2014
(HEMIS, 2016).
4.4 Professionalisation of extension work: Within the framework of the Natural Scientic
Professions Act (No 27 of 2003), the latest elds of practice published under
Government Gazette Notice 36 of 2014 by the Minister of Science and Technology
include extension science as a eld of practice. Thus, only registered persons may
practise in a consulting, extension, or advisory capacity. The process of professional
registration of extensionists with the South African Council for Natural Scientic
Professions (SACNASP) was launched in the second half of 2014. The study panel
welcomes this development.
The Natural Scientic Professions Act also calls for continuous professional develop-
ment (CPD). Persons registered as professionals are required by their code of conduct
to practise strictly within their area of competence and to maintain and enhance
this competence. The study panel views this development as a key opportunity for
the sector.
4.5 Use of information and communications technology (ICT) and social media: Across
all provinces and levels of education there was little evidence for the use of ICT and
social media in education and extension, despite the numerous opportunities these
present.
The lack of ICT engagement at educational level translates into poor skills and weak
engagement with these technologies in the professional workspace, which is a
disadvantage for students.
4.6 Agriculture as rst choice and career pathways: Agriculture is not a career of rst
choice. This creates challenges for effective sourcing of high-quality students for
post-school studies. Within higher education there are very clearly articulated career
pathways within academia. There is, however, limited understanding or awareness
of the vast number of agri-business and entrepreneurship careers that exist along
the entire food and nutrition value chain. This lack of awareness is evident at both
school and higher education level.
KEY FINDING 5
Linkages and feedback mechanisms need to be intentionally strengthened
5.1 The knowledge triangle: The linkages between research, teaching, and extension
are poor, and there is a need for better coordination within this research–teaching–
extension knowledge triangle.
5.2 Research and research support: Greater cooperation between the Agricultural
Research Council (ARC) and the National Research Foundation (NRF) is urgently
needed. These organisations have a similar vision and mission as it relates to
capacity development, but a greater level of formalised cooperation towards a
more focused contribution to AET is required.
5.3 Research and education to extension: International evidence suggests that fostering
agricultural innovation through enhanced research support and entrepreneurship
can become a key driver of development. However, this cannot be realised without
effective innovation transfer, diffusion, and uptake. In the context of AET this process
is facilitated in a very large part by extension and rural advisory services.
The study panel considered the plausibility of implementing a land-grant type model
in South Africa. Several case studies in the United States (US), Brazil, India, and Kenya
were considered. Each case study was selected for the comparability of context to
South Africa, as well as to illustrate how various adaptions of the land-grant model
have been implemented globally.
Initial ndings support the assertion that adapted, context-sensitive land-grant
type models have high potential for success in the South African context. Revising
institutional arrangements at governmental level to achieve direct reporting of
those responsible for research, education, and extension is difcult to achieve in
many African countries, including South Africa. It likely would involve parliamentary
action, with divisive and complex politics in budget-constrained environments. The
cases of Brazil and Kenya have demonstrated that different organisational structures
are workable to achieve the same level of coordination and relevance if steps are
taken to ensure that the needed communication, transparency, and trust are in
place.
However, creating institutions with integrated organisational charts that link
undergraduate and graduate instruction, research, and extension programmes is
not sufcient to overcome poor communication and management; an enabling
environment, leadership, and good policy also are essential.
5.4 Opportunities for regional partnerships and collaboration: South African institutions
have experiences to share in terms of reforms and developments that craft a well-
integrated, self-productive, self-regenerating system of education, research, and
advisory services. The current consensus study is an exemplar in the respect that it
reects candidly on the system and envisions a transformed future. The very process
of conducting the consensus study can serve as a learning opportunity for other
countries seeking to undertake similar processes.

27
26
Various opportunities for contribution and collaboration within the region were
identied in the study. South African institutions should seek to identify ways in which
they can participate in continental partnerships that can strengthen AET in the
country and contribute to African development. Key role players with signicant
reputation and leverage should be engaged. Networks, such as the Regional
Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM), provide a platform
for this type of highly impactful collaboration.
South African AET institutions should seek ways of providing spaces for more open
ow of people, knowledge, and resources among other African countries.
Concluding reection: Challenges in the South African Innovation System
Since the adoption of the White Paper on Science and Technology (DACST, 1996), the
National System of Innovation (NSI) has made progress in several areas. However, various
challenges still need to be addressed. Each of the challenges identied by the National
Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) in the South African NSI is relevant to the AET context,
and in this respect the AET system represents a microcosm of the South African NSI.
Two further points must be noted. First, agriculture (and the agri-food value chain) has
been identied by NACI as one of the key priorities in the NSI as it relates to the water-
energy-food security nexus. Working towards an efcient AET system is therefore an urgent
national priority. Second, the strong overlap between the key challenges identied by
the study panel and the NACI situational analysis afrms the ndings of the consensus
report and enables prioritisation in addressing the current challenges.
Recommendations
The study panel notes that Recommendations 1 and 2 are core and fundamental
to the transformation of the AET system. Without the implementation of these two
recommendations, changes will be incremental, uncoordinated, and unlikely to catalyse
the scale of change needed. Conversely, the panel is of the conviction that should all
the recommendations be implemented, the synergistic gains will be far greater than
any individual effort. It therefore stands to reason that the recommendations are closely
related and highly integrated.
1
KEY ACTORS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE SEVERITY OF THE CONTINUED
CHALLENGES IN AET AND THE URGENT NEED FOR CHANGE
The panel recommends that ASSAf should put forth the ndings of the consensus study
to the Minister of Science and Technology with the request to bring the urgent need for
change to the attention of Cabinet.
The panel further recommends that the ndings of the study be broadly communicated
to key stakeholders in government. These include (but are not limited to) the Ministries
of Science and Technology; Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Higher Education and
Training; Basic Education; Trade and Industry; as well as all the provincial departments of
agriculture.
2
ESTABLISH A MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
The panel believes that it is necessary to establish a National Council for Agricultural
Education and Training (NCAET) which ensures the inclusion and participation of the
linked departments whose policy and programmes need to be synergised with the AET
system. A recommendation for a similar statutory body was made in 2003, and has not
been implemented – with consequences to the system.
However, the panel appreciates that there is currently a moratorium on establishing new
statutory bodies, and therefore recommends that a Ministerial Committee for AET be
established as a matter of urgency to look into the critical areas highlighted in this report.
The purpose of the committee will be to oversee activities related to AET for a period of three
years, with the goal of addressing the core challenges in the system – most specically
to guide the system towards greater integration, cooperation and accountability.
After this period, an evaluation of progress should be commissioned to determine the
effectiveness of the committee. If there is a lack of drastic and signicant change, it will
be necessary to give consideration to the establishment of the initially proposed statutory
NCAET.
3
EXPEDITE THE WORKING OF THE JOINT TECHNICAL TASK TEAM
The panel strongly recommends that the workings of the JTTT on the agricultural colleges
be expedited, and that sufcient resource allocations be appropriated to enable its
progress. The JTTT should report directly to and work closely with the Ministerial Committee
for AET.
4
COMMISSION A DETAILED STUDY ON ARTICULATION PATHWAYS AND
CURRICULUM INNOVATION
Once the Ministerial Committee for AET has proposed and approved a coordinated
governance framework, a clear matrix of human capital needs (Recommendation 1)
and related qualications, in the context of a well-structured AET Human Capital System,
should be developed.
The study panel recommends that based on the human capital needs matrix, an in-
depth case study on articulation pathways and curriculum innovation be commissioned
to demonstrate practically how a fully articulated system, which leverages ICT innovations
and a multi-disciplinary conceptualisation of agriculture, could be designed.
The outcome of the case study will allow for a foresight and modelling exercise which
should examine alternatives for implementation and pilot testing (Recommendation 5).

29
28
5
INVEST IN A PILOT PROJECT TO TEST THE FEASIBILITY OF AN ADAPTED LAND-
GRANT MODEL WHICH EMPHASISES INNOVATIVE CURRICULUM DESIGN AND
DELIVERY
The outcome of the articulation pathways and curriculum innovation study (Recom-
mendation 4) will allow for a foresight and modelling exercise to be conducted, which
proposes alternatives for implementation and pilot testing of a fully articulated micro-AET
system at provincial level, based on an adapted land-grant model.
Innovative approaches to curriculum design and delivery should be piloted within this
project, drawing lessons from successful international models (such as EARTH University)
and using cutting-edge ICTs.
The panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee for AET (or its successor, the
NCAET) be responsible for the oversight and coordination of the pilot study feasibility
analysis and the pilot study implementation.
6
STRENGTHEN THE AGRICULTURAL (FOOD VALUE CHAIN) RESEARCH
ENVIRONMENT
Greater formalised cooperation between the ARC and NRF is urgently needed. The
study panel recommends the establishment of a joint working group to coordinate and
integrate efforts between these institutions towards achieving a strengthened agri-food
value chain research environment, including funding postgraduate education and
research through the development of a resource allocation model to support AET high-
level training. Activities in this regard can begin immediately.
There is a need to strengthen the link between research at universities and the activities
of the ARC. Increased engagement between the NRF-ARC joint working group and the
South African Agriculture and Life Sciences Deans’ Association (SAALSDA) can facilitate
increased collaboration on high-relevance research projects. The study panel therefore
recommends that SAALSDA receives additional support to strengthen its activities.
7
TRAIN THE TRAINERS
Training the trainers is an important priority in sustaining a strong AET system. Specically,
persons engaged in the extension and rural advisory services component of the sector
are inuenced by AET in multiple ways; they are beneciaries of AET through the training
they receive, but then themselves become educators and facilitators of knowledge. For
this reason, the training of extension workers should receive substantial focus, as they
have the potential to be the primary agents through which innovation is translated from
the laboratory into practice.
In this context, the study panel recommends: (i) the establishment of a bursary fund for
persons training to be educators in AET, with an internship service component of at least
two years to retain skills; and (ii) more purposeful use of Sectoral Education and Training
Association (SETA) funding for reskilling and upskilling extension workers, in line with the
professional registration and for continuous professional development.
8
FOSTER LINKAGES THAT INCENTIVISE COLLABORATION, PROMOTE INNOVATION,
AND DIVERSIFY THE FUNDING BASE
The study panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee constitute a special working
group to investigate and propose strategies to increase the collaboration and partnership
between AET and related industry and business partners, in order to promote inclusive
innovation in the agri-food value chain. These partnership agreements should consider
platforms for internships and practical training opportunities for students in the AET system
(Recommendation 9), and should propose an incentive-based structure for industry and
business partners to increase participation.
High-net worth persons with an interest in the agriculture and food sector can play an
important role in funding AET. Opportunities of this nature should be explored and pursued
in the South African context.
9
INCREASE THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING THROUGH A
COMBINATION OF INCENTIVE STRUCTURES
Skills-based training, particularly around high-demand skills, clearly has a fundamental role
to play in economic growth, reducing (youth) unemployment, and improved livelihoods.
The study panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee sets up a task team to
develop a holistic model for vocational AET that takes into consideration successful
global models, as well as the governance reform required in South Africa. The task team
should develop proposals on how to creatively and efciently incentivise investment and
participation in vocational training by industry, business, students, and educators.
10
MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING FOR UNDERSTANDING
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
In South Africa, there is an urgent need for the development of responsive informational
and monitoring data on the AET system. The Minister has assigned NACI the task of
developing and hosting a science, technology and innovation (STI) data portal for the NSI,
a central repository that will be important in the establishment of research and strategic
intelligence. The panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee collaborates with
NACI, as well as a monitoring and evaluation expert to develop AET-specic indicators
which feed into and align with the broader national data portal. Collaboration with the
NRF’s new division for Strategy, Planning and Partnerships should also be explored to
enhance foresight capabilities, including strategic planning, modelling and analysis of

31
30
“critical technology needs” to support sustainable agriculture as a means of systematic
analysis and interpretation of data and perspectives to better understand trends and
future challenges to enhance AET.
An important component of this will be to design and conduct a national tracer study to
understand graduate employment in the sector.

33
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
The Inception of the Study
The initial request for the study was presented to the Academy of Science of South
Africa (ASSAf) by the South African Agricultural Teaching Association (SAATA) after the
compilation of a report on challenges facing agricultural schools. Based on the report,
the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Standing Committee of
ASSAf was convinced that the request by the association had merit. The proposal for the
current consensus study was drafted after consultation with stakeholders and inputs from
the ASSAf Council.
In 2013, ASSAf commissioned the consensus study to identify the challenges facing
agricultural education and training (AET) in South Africa, and in February 2013 the panel
members appointed for the consensus study were approved by the ASSAf Council.
The study was chaired by Prof Frans Swanepoel (former Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Research
and Innovation, University of the Western Cape; currently Professor at Future Africa,
University of Pretoria). Biographies of all panel members are included in Appendix 1.
The Relevance
The consensus study was commissioned at an opportune time, and the ndings from the
study are of direct interest to at least three government departments who have previously
expressed the need for and highlighted the relevance of the study.
The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) and the Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) seek advice on how to most effectively
establish working relationships between agricultural training colleges and how best
to address issues of articulation between colleges and universities. Both departments
seek to understand more clearly how the agricultural colleges should link to the higher
education and training sector in the context of the proposed shift of the colleges from
DAFF to the DHET. The study will inform the deliberation of the Joint Technical Task Team
(JTTT) which has been commissioned to provide in-depth recommendations on the way
forward with regard to this shift. The study will also provide valuable insights to the recently
established National Education and Training Forum for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(NETFAFF), which is responsible for the implementation of the revised National Education
and Training Strategy for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (NETSAFF).
DAFF seeks advice on the future provision and management of public extension services
in the country.
The Department of Science and Technology (DST) seeks to understand more clearly the
importance of the agricultural and life sciences in the context of growing the knowledge-
based economy, particularly from the perspective of the PhD as key driver and the 2020
Strategy of the National Research Foundation (NRF).

35
34
Simultaneously, the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) completed its statutory ve-year
review in mid-2015 and the ndings from the study can inform critical decision-making
for the increased impact of the ARC’s work in South Africa as it seeks to respond to the
review and implement its ndings. Similarly, the recommendations of the ARC review are
most appropriate to inform the recommendations put forward in this study report.
In addition to the targeted interests of the above, the importance of the study is
inextricably linked to the national development agenda.
The 2013 National Planning Commission (NPC) report highlighted that
“a signicant resurgence in AET is urgently required” if South Africa
wants to reach the target of creating at least a million jobs within the
agricultural value chain by 2030.
The Strategic Position of the Academy
ASSAf aspires to be the apex organisation for science and scholarship in South Africa,
recognised and connected both nationally and internationally. Through its consensus
studies ASSAf facilitates the production of authoritative reports on issues of national
importance with the aim to impact policymaking.
As an independent body that holds the Membership of many of the most prominent
scientists in the country, the Academy can draw on a pool of committed expertise across
disciplines and across universities and other science-based organisations to address
questions related to the production of high-level capacity for South African society and
its economy. The impact of earlier consensus studies is clear evidence of the high quality
and inuential nature of these reports.
The ground-breaking PhD Study (2010) remains the denitive study in South Africa articu-
lating the status quo of PhD training in the country, and has come to serve as a reference
point for monitoring progress in this regard nationally. Furthermore, the study provided
a solid foundation for the establishment of key national initiatives – most pertinently the
national PhD as key driver initiative which has been accepted by DHET and DST and is
coordinated by the NRF.
Similarly, the study on the State of Humanities in South Africa (ASSAf, 2011) led to the
establishment of the National Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS),
and has played an unquestionably important role in arguing for the fundamental role the
humanities play in the national development agenda.
The AET Consensus Study Approach
During the period 2013-2016, the study panel held a total of ve face-to-face panel
meetings, and hosted a national Imbizo at the NRF in partnership with the Standard Bank
Centre of Agribusiness Development and Leadership (Stellenbosch University (SU)) under
the auspices of the NPC.
The inaugural meeting of the panel was held from 2-4 October 2013 at the Stellenbosch
Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), SU. Through the deliberations of the panel at this
meeting, it was decided that the most appropriate path to achieving the objectives
of the consensus study was to adopt a two-phased approach – each with a number
of commissioned studies to inform the development of the report and the panel’s nal
recommendations.
An iterative process of internal and external review was implemented during the study –
allowing for panel member and expert feedback on the commissioned studies.
In accordance with ASSAf policy, the report was peer-reviewed to critically examine the
ndings and recommendations of the study. For this purpose, the following individuals
provided useful input: Prof Malcolm Blackie (Professor Emeritus of Soil Sciences at the
University of Zimbabwe, and RUFORUM advisory board member currently living in the
United Kingdom), Dr Lindiwe Sibanda (Chief Executive Ofcer and Head of Mission of the
Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN)), and Dr
Joyce Chitja (African Centre for Food Security at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN)
and ARC Board Member).
The nal study report was approved by the ASSAf
Council in March 2017.
Study Timeline
2-4 October 2013
July 2014
September 2014
October 2014
May 2015
October 2016
Inaugural Meeting
Phase I Studies commissioned
Panel Meeting Two
Phase I Studies presented
Phase II Studies commissioned
National Imbizo
In partnership with the Standard Bank Centre of Agribusiness
Development and Leadership of Stellenbosch University and
the National Planning Commission (NPC)
Panel Meeting Three
Revised Phase I Studies presented
Phase II Studies progress reports
Panel Meeting Four
Phase II Studies feedback and input
Consultative Session held with the South African Agriculture
and Life Science Deans Association (SAALSDA) hosted at the
th
5 RUFORUM Biennial Conference

37
36
The Commissioned Studies
Through the deliberations of the panel at its inaugural meeting, it was decided that the
most appropriate path to achieving the objectives of the consensus study was to adopt
a two-phased approach, each including a few commissioned studies (CS) to inform the
development of the report and the panel’s nal recommendations.
The Phase I studies provided a comprehensive understanding of the current situation in
the AET system. Based on the ndings of these Phase I studies, a series of more focused,
in-depth studies were commissioned for Phase II, resulting in a total of ten papers and/
or inputs.
An overview of each of the studies and their resultant outputs is described below.
Envisioning the Future (CS1)
The rst study is a conceptual paper by Bongiwe Njobe which envisions the future of
agriculture in general and AET in particular in South Africa. The paper reects on the
critical elements of policy and practice that potentially impact on the existing system in
order to present a context for a future vision for the system.
Whilst the starting point for the envisioning study is biased towards the agricultural policy
environment, consideration is given to the higher education and science and technology
policy environments and expectations from the study. Given the linkages and impacts of
the agricultural sector on other economic and social sectors, reference is made to the
possible inuences of other sectors where appropriate.
The paper attempts to dene what a future system would look like, what the expectations
of such a system would be, and how it would function. More specically, it considers how
effective working relationships could be established between different AET role players
within such a new system, and how issues of articulation within the system could be
addressed. The ndings of this study are primarily incorporated in Chapter 4; however,
the foundational arguments are included in the description of the South African context
in Chapter 3.
Mapping the System (CS2&3)
The second and third contributions aim to map the AET sector in South Africa.
Johan van Rooyen, Jan Greyling, and Johann Boonzaaier undertook a mapping exercise
of the AET landscape focused on institutional responsibilities and relationships at a national
level (CS2). In their paper they identify and describe the (national) stakeholders in AET,
the relationships and interactions (or lack thereof) between these stakeholders, and the
barriers which inhibit or restrict cooperation between them.
The detailed map is both described and graphically depicted in the report in Chapter 3.
In their paper, Van Rooyen et al. also provide strategic directions and pointers based,
inter alia, on interactions with stakeholders during the investigation, and suggest areas for
further research and analysis.
Luvuyo Mabombo and Linus Opara conducted a similar mapping exercise, but focusing
on the provincial rather than the national AET landscape. Through provincial workshops
these investigators explored the AET system in terms of educational institutions and other
public and private stakeholders with an interest in AET, including professional associations,
unions, and other appropriate bodies.
Based on a series of feedback sessions at the panel meetings, Mabombo and Opara (CS3)
describe governance and management in the provincial AET system; the relationships
and the possibilities for articulation between the different AET providers; and the typical
career paths in agriculture from training to earning, in particular, career paths in science,
farming, extension, and education.
Mabombo and Opara also provide reections on the funding of AET and the quantity and
quality of teaching skills available at provincial level, as well as the role of information and
communication technologies and social media. Their ndings are reected in Chapter 3,
along with the mapping of the national system.
Understanding the Teaching, Research and Extension Nexus in South
Africa (CS4–7)
The next four commissioned studies focused in depth on three separate, but interrelated
aspects of the national AET landscape, namely (i) education, (ii) extension, and (iii)
research. The results of these studies are discussed in Chapter 3.
Volker Wedekind reviewed the rst of these – education (CS4). His work reects the nested
nature of agricultural education within a wider education system that shapes, enables,
and constrains AET. This paper therefore provides a broad overview of the South African
education system in order to locate the AET system within it.
Wedekind begins with an outline of the architecture of the South African education
system post-1994, including an analysis of how the vestiges of the apartheid system
have continued to mark the system in various ways. Thereafter, he discusses the general
education system, focusing on agriculture in the curriculum and the state of agricultural
high schools. Existing AET provision in the tertiary or post-school system is also described.
Wedekind ends with a discussion of some of the possibilities for agricultural education
and training within the new landscape, and the possible blockages that may arise.
Nienke Beintema, in collaboration with Melody Mentz and Aldo Stroebel, analysed the
demographic prole of South African tertiary education in agricultural sciences (CS5)
using data available through the Higher Education Management Information System
(HEMIS) of the DHET. The data were used to investigate numerous common knowledge
notions about the prole of students and staff.
The paper by Kristin Davis and Fanie Terblanché summarises the available literature on
extension and advisory services in South Africa and internationally (CS6).
More specically, Davis and Terblanché review the issues and challenges facing
the national and international agricultural extension landscape in terms of the policy

39
38
environment; different governance models; capacity, management and advisory
service organisation; and the approaches, tools and methods used to full extension
functions. They consider the extension characteristics that affect the performance and
impact of advisory services and examine the ingredients for effective provision.
Research in the South African AET system is best explored within the context of the South
African ARC. During 2015, the ARC conducted its statutory ve-year review. Based on
the review documentation, and their participation in the process, Frans Swanepoel and
Aldo Stroebel provide an analysis of the current positioning of the ARC and the most
pressing issues facing the institution within the South African AET landscape. The insights
and linkages emerging from the review are integrated into the consensus study report
where relevant (CS7).
Opportunities for South African AET to Support the Science Agenda for
Agriculture in Africa (CS8)
In his paper, Mandi Rukuni explores the opportunities for South Africa’s AET system to
support the new Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (CS8). This new science agenda
requires innovative educational and training approaches that are more connected
to the new challenges facing rural communities and that build the capacity of young
people to be part of the transformation of the agricultural sector. The science agenda
now has broad stakeholder buy-in and has been endorsed by the African Union (AU),
the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), as well as all Africa’s major sub-
regional organisations, as the main framework for driving science and technology in the
Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) process.
Rukuni explores the implications of this unfolding integration of the science agenda into the
CAADP programmes and Results Frameworks, as well as the AU’s Malabo Declaration on
Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved
Livelihoods. More specically, Rukuni explores the opportunities that present themselves
for AET institutions in South Africa to make a contribution to these developments.
Integration and Governance Reform (CS9&10)
Ensuring that the knowledge and educational needs of food systems are met poses
organisational and structural questions across the globe. How can the next generation
of scientists, educators, and entrepreneurs access cutting-edge research results? How
can educational programmes be designed to be relevant to current issues, while at the
same time anticipating the skills that will be needed 20 years from now?
In her paper (CS9), Alice Pell attempts to answer these questions through an investigation
of the experiences of three countries – Brazil, India, and the US – to determine how these
can inform the ongoing development of educational and research programmes that
support the development of South Africa’s food system.
Pell explores institutional arrangements, organisational structures, and social and eco-
nomic contexts to see how the agricultural knowledge system can be structured to deliver
a safe, adequate, and affordable food supply, while simultaneously providing strong
environmental stewardship and good livelihoods for those working in food production,
processing, and marketing.
The goal of this paper is to promote discussion within South Africa on the strengths and
weaknesses of the current system and to develop a vision of what food system education
and research should look like in the future. To this end, Pell analyses the successes and
failures of several education, research, and outreach systems to assess which approaches
are most relevant and appropriate for the South African context and goals. The ndings
and recommendations of Pell’s work are provided in Chapter 4.
Taking into consideration the insights gleaned from all the commissioned studies and the
panel deliberations, Frans Swanepoel and Aldo Stroebel reect on the conceptualisation
of an ideal AET system (CS10). Drawing on the recent edited book, Towards Impact and
Resilience: Transformative Change in and Through Agricultural Education and Training in
sub-Saharan Africa (Swanepoel, Or and Stroebel, 2014), they reect on the pathways
to the transformative change required to position AET in South Africa to full its role in
developing the requisite capacity for an agro-food-processing value chain that can
provide nutritious food to the population, whilst contributing to improved livelihoods.

41
Key Objectives and Aims
Several objectives were agreed upon for the consensus study. The deliberations of the
panel, as well as the selection of the commissioned studies, were targeted towards
investigating each of these objectives. When considered together, the objectives
allowed the study panel to reect on four key questions in the context of AET in South
Africa. The objectives and the associated key questions are summarised below:
Key Question One: Where are we now?
This question sought to understand what the status quo of AET in South Africa is, but also
to understand what factors led to the current situation. Through its deliberations and
commissioned studies, the panel sought to understand the status quo from an integrated
systemic perspective. This key question relates directly to several of the study objectives,
and it is answered in an integrated fashion by the different commissioned studies.
STUDY PANEL OBJECTIVE COMMISSIONED STUDIES LINKED TO
OBJECTIVE
Provide a situation analysis of
South African AET
National Mapping Study (CS2)
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3)
Nested Overview of the Education
System (CS4)
Demographic Analysis of Tertiary
Education (CS5)
Analysis of Extension and Advisory
Services (CS6)
Critical Reection on the ARC Five-year
Review (CS7)
Identify the challenges faced at each
of these levels and provide a set of
recommendations to address these
challenges; to enhance the attractiveness
of agricultural education and training;
and to increase the number of students
studying these courses successfully.
National Mapping Study (CS2)
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3)
Nested Overview of the Education
System (CS4)
Analysis of Extension and Advisory
Services (CS6)
Critical Reection on the ARC Five-year
Review (CS7)
Assess the relevance of curricula to
current global challenges of food security,
climate change, and poverty alleviation.
Determine where agriculture graduates
get employed after graduation and the
roles they play in society.
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3)
Nested Overview of the Education
System (CS4)
Analysis of Extension and Advisory
Services (CS6)
CHAPTER 2: Methodology

43
42
Key Question Two: Where do we want to be in the future?
A solid situation analysis which considers the system in its totality, as well as the intersections
with other systems, creates the space to reect on an ideal future. This key question
sought to rethink what an ideal situation would look like in the future. The panel and
the commissioned studies focused both on the national system and on the continental
role that AET in South Africa can play. This guiding question relates directly to one study
objective, and is answered in part by two commissioned studies.
STUDY PANEL OBJECTIVE COMMISSIONED STUDIES LINKED TO
OBJECTIVE
Relate ndings to best international
practices and compare with the situation
and needs elsewhere in Africa, and
provide a set of recommendations to
address the challenges.
Envisioning the Future (CS1)
Opportunities for South Africa to
contribute to the Science Agenda for
African Agriculture (S3A) (CS8)
Governance and Reform – an
International Perspective (CS9)
Key Question Three: What would be the road(s) to transformation?
Key Question Four: What conditions will make it work?
These two guiding questions relate directly to one study objective, and are answered
in part by two commissioned studies (CS9 and 10). However, the ndings and insights
reected throughout this report provided critical inputs into answering these key questions.
STUDY PANEL OBJECTIVE COMMISSIONED STUDIES LINKED TO
OBJECTIVE
Relate ndings to best international
practices and provide a set of
recommendations to address the
challenges.
Governance and Reform – an
International Perspective (CS9)
A Reection on the Ideal AET System
(CS10)
Commissioned Study Methodologies
Envisioning the Future (CS1)
Njobe contemplated various frameworks for strategic thinking as a basis for developing
a vision statement for the AET study panel.
Ideally, the use of scenario (planning) option analysis and/or market future analysis would
have been more accurate in terms of creating a vision for the future of AET in South
Africa, as it is a complex challenge that has been the subject of numerous reviews over
the past two decades.
However, in the light of the time and resource constraints, the study document draws on
the knowledge, experience, and perspectives of the panel members, invited experts, a
literature review, and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis
that included consultative workshops with critical stakeholders.
National Mapping Study (CS2)
Van Rooyen et al. considered an analysis of the AET system through the use of social
network analysis techniques, as presented by Borgatti et al. (2013), but the use of this
methodology was dismissed given the limited scope of the study.
In consultation with the chair of the ASSAf AET study panel, it was decided to rather
construct an AET map that identies the relevant stakeholders and reects their interaction
(or lack thereof). It was envisioned that this map could assist in the identication of areas
of duplication, non-cooperation, and other structural challenges.
The construction of the map took place in a two-phased process. The rst phase consisted
primarily of a desktop study in which the perceived stakeholders were identied and
their interaction evaluated. This was supplemented with telephone interviews and
participation in some of the ASSAf – AET provincial mapping study meetings. Collectively
this resulted in the compilation of a rst draft national AET stakeholder map.
During the second phase, this map was presented in person to some of the stakeholders
identied for validation and improvement. Stakeholders were also asked to provide their
insights as to how the AET system should be improved.
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3)
Workshops were held in each of South Africa’s nine provinces in order for Mabombo
and Opara to obtain inputs directly from stakeholders on AET within the provinces. The
purpose of the provincial mapping was to understand the system in terms of:
• Institutions providing AET and qualications awarded at provincial level. This
included describing the interrelationship of the various actors with each other, and
illustrating clearly where articulation between institutions or providers is possible.
• Stakeholders with an interest in AET, including public and private stakeholders at all
levels. This also included professional associations, unions, and other appropriate
bodies.
• Governance and management.
• Typical career paths in agriculture from training to earning. This included broadly
describing career paths in science, farming, extension, and education.
An average of 20 stakeholders was at each provincial workshop, representing government
(agriculture and education), academia, students, as well as farmers and agri-business.
The various provincial case studies were analysed and the ndings synthesised to identify
common themes and challenges for integration into the consensus study report.

45
44
Understanding the Teaching, Research, and Extension Nexus:
Education (CS4)
Wedekind drew on his personal research and a desktop review to provide a synthesis
and overview of the education system in South Africa and to articulate how AET is nested
within this broader system.
By situating the AET system within the broader South African system, Wedekind used
policy analysis to identify the origins of various educational challenges facing the system
broadly, and highlighted blockages pertinent to AET.
He provided a synthesis of historic policy development and drew on current educational
policy frameworks to identify potential opportunities for AET within the education and
training landscape.
A Demographic Prole of South African Tertiary Education (CS5)
Beintema extracted and synthesised data from HEMIS to compile a quantitative prole of
the students and staff at South Africa’s higher education institutions.
The study was somewhat hampered by restrictions inherent to public domain HEMIS data.
For example, the manner in which agricultural engineering and veterinary medicine is
coded in the Classication of Educational Subject Matter (CESM) system resulted in these
disciplines being omitted from the dataset. The CESM system also underwent a major
revision in 2009 and as a result the 2005 to 2009 data cannot be compared to the post-
2009 data. At the time of the study the data available in the public domain did not extend
beyond 2013. Missing data on gender and race also meant that a small percentage of
students and staff were omitted from the analyses of these demographic characteristics.
Understanding the Teaching, Research, and Extension Nexus:
Extension (CS5)
Davis and Terblanché conducted a desktop study of international extension and advisory
research from 2001 to 2015. They utilised the ‘best-t’ framework of Birner et al. (2009)
to examine policy environment, governance structures, capacity and management,
and extension approaches, and organised the identied challenges that the sector is
facing according to the framework. The best-t approach embraces both the pluralism
of approaches used today and the diversity found within agricultural innovation systems
(GFRAS, 2012).
The framework looks at the impact pathways and inuencing factors for successful
performance, and the impact of extension services. It starts with the contextual factors
or ‘frame conditions’, including the policy environment, the general capacity of service
providers, and the production/farming systems and community aspects. The framework
then looks at the characteristics of the advisory service system that must respond to
the frame conditions. These characteristics include governance structures, capacity,
management, and extension techniques or methods used. These frame conditions and
characteristics then affect the performance of the service. Additionally, the response
through capacity and decision-making of farm households leads to impact.
Understanding the Teaching, Research, and Extension Nexus:
Research (CS7)
Swanepoel and Stroebel critically analysed the ndings of the ARC ve-year review from
the perspective of the intersection between the ARC and the broader AET system.
The ndings and recommendations from the review process were used to reect on
specic factors, including stakeholder relationships, relevance of the science, and the
relationship between the research–teaching–extension nexus and governance reform.
Alignment with Science Agenda for African Agriculture (CS8)
Based on his extensive experience on the continent and rst-hand participation in the
development of the Science Agenda for Africa, Rukuni provided an overview of the S3A
and its core purpose.
Through a combination of literature review, expert input, and panel engagement, Rukuni
provided critical commentary on the potential role of South Africa in the African agenda,
as well as the benets to AET nationally from alignment and engagement.
Integration and Governance Reform (CS9)
Pell selected the US, India, and Brazil as case studies to determine if the experiences of
these countries can inform the development of educational and research programmes
to support the development of South Africa’s food system.
These countries were selected because they all have endeavoured to link agricultural
outreach, research, and education; their experiences have been well documented;
each has made distinctive contributions to the organisation and delivery of food system
research and education; and each faces problems similar to those of South Africa and
therefore has experiences that are relevant to the South African context.
Like South Africa, these are culturally and economically diverse countries that face prob-
lems of inequality and discrimination, but have strong commitments to democracy, inclu-
sive development, and improved livelihoods for all citizens. Agriculture has considerable
economic and social importance in all three nations and all have experienced marked
failures and impressive successes in generating knowledge and providing information to
ensure that the food system contributes to economic, environmental, and human health.
Towards the Conceptualisation of an Ideal AET System (CS10)
Swanepoel and Stroebel drew on the insights of their own research and practice to
provide an overall synthesis framework for an ideal future AET system.
The framework took into consideration international literature and the national context.
The conceptualisation is based on a peer-reviewed edited book by Swanepoel et al.
(2014).

47
Agriculture on the Forefront of the International Agenda
The world population is hungry and malnourished
About 40% of the world’s population is either under or over-nourished to the extent that their
health and life expectancy are affected; about 900 million people are undernourished
and two billion are overweight, a quarter of whom are obese. A revolutionary change
in the global agriculture and food system is needed if we are to nourish today’s 795
million hungry and the additional two billion people expected by 2050. Africa and South
Asia are the areas with the highest levels of under-nutrition, yet both face increasing
challenges related to over-nutrition and non-communicable disease (McArthur, n.d.).
Increase in population size means more food is needed
Humanity needs to substantially increase the amount of food it produces to meet the
needs of a growing population and rising average incomes per person.
The rapidly growing population is increasingly living in urban areas
In 1970, about a quarter of the African population lived in urban areas. By 2050, nearly
60% of Africans will live in cities (World Bank, 2015). This situation will require signicant shifts
in food production and distribution, necessitating a focus on the agro-food-processing
chain, as opposed to a focus on productivity.
Agriculture both contributes to and is highly susceptible to the effects of climate
change
Agriculture accounts for approximately 14% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 25% when
including forestry and other land use. The major drivers of the problem are deforestation,
soil and nutrient management, and livestock emissions, so a ‘business as usual’ approach
to boosting global food production would have substantial negative consequences for
climate change.
Due to its dependence on the biophysical environment, agriculture is the economic
sector most uniquely susceptible to changes in climate patterns.
Agriculture will need to provide food, but it can also secure incomes
If done correctly, agriculture, forestry, and sheries can provide nutritious food for all and
generate decent incomes, while supporting people-centred rural development and
protecting the environment.
Already, agriculture is the single largest employer in the world, providing livelihoods for
40% of today’s global population, and it is the largest source of income and jobs for poor
rural households (UN, n.d.).
CHAPTER 3: Where are we now?

49
48
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) clearly illustrate the importance of the
agricultural value chain in the global development agenda, linking agriculture to no
fewer than 11 out of 17 goals (UN, n.d.).
More than any other sector, agriculture is the common thread which
holds the 17 SDGs together.
Investing in agriculture can address not only hunger and malnutrition,
but also other challenges, including poverty; water and energy use;
climate change; and unsustainable production and consumption; as
well as protecting biodiversity on land and in water.
Continental Developments and Opportunities
Two hundred and twenty-seven million of the world’s chronically hungry live in Africa. This
translates to approximately 30% of this group (Farming First, n.d.).
Seven out of ten people living in sub-Saharan Africa are farmers (compared to the US,
where the ratio is two out of a hundred); yet, Africa has to rely on imports and food aid
to feed itself. Though it is the poorest continent in the world, it spends about $50 billion a
year buying food from rich countries (Gates and Gates, 2015). Bill and Melinda Gates
made their ‘big bet’ that Africa would be able to feed itself by 2030 – an ideal which
will only be attainable by accelerating the rate of innovation and access to agricultural
extension services for smallholder farmers.
Sub-Saharan Africa is considered the ‘youngest’ region though the majority of this
younger population remains unemployed and their skills and capabilities under-utilised.
Sixty per cent of the continent’s unemployed are aged 15–24 years and about 40% of
Africa’s workforce is under the age of 23 (Swanepoel and Stroebel, 2016).
Science can and should drive transformation of agriculture in Africa. Science contributes
towards making agriculture in Africa more productive, competitive, sustainable, and
inclusive. Scientic solutions for agricultural transformation need to be pursued further,
while recognising the fragility of African environments, its rich biodiversity, and the
complexity of the agricultural production systems across Africa. Transforming Africa’s
agriculture requires a science system that produces both ‘technical’ and ‘institutional’
innovations.
Encouragingly, political support for African agricultural development and the role therein
of science, technology, and innovation has reached an apex on the continent. This impetus
for a science-driven agriculture in Africa requires innovative educational and training
approaches that are more connected to the new challenges facing rural communities
and that build the capacity of young people to be part of the transformation of the
agricultural sector. Ultimately, science and innovation have to be mainstreamed as an
essential part of agriculture-led social and economic transformation in Africa.
The need for transformation in African agricultural has been widely acknowledged.
However, despite the plethora of programmes and initiatives, as well as signicant
investment, the results to date have not met expectations. This can be attributed in part to
a lack of coordination between initiatives and role players and the fragmented nature of
the approach to change. The past three years have brought about a number of notable
developments which hold promise for a more focused and coordinated attempt at
effecting the needed change.
The rst development is the articulation of the AU’s vision for the continent, Agenda
2063, which envisages “[a]n integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by
its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in global arena” (AU Commission,
2015). This is a vision that is expected to be achieved over a 50-year timeline and thus
takes into consideration the reality of where the continent is today and the complexity
of moving towards the future. The Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for
Africa (STISA-2024) – accepted by Heads of State and Government to replace the 2005
Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA) has prioritised food and nutrition security and the
eradication of hunger as one of six focus areas (AU, 2013).i*
Over the next ten years, the agricultural agenda within Agenda 2063 will be primarily
driven by the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) –
an agreement between Heads of State and Government in 2002 – and the Malabo
Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity
and Improved Livelihoods, adopted during the 23rd Ordinary Session of the AU’s Heads of
State and Government (AU Commission, 2015).
2014 was a landmark year for African agriculture. It was the Year of
Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition Security, and the year in which the
Malabo Declaration was adopted to realise the continent’s agricultural
transformation by 2025.
In the CAADP’s ten-year review and subsequent forward planning (NEPAD, 2012), Africa’s
capacity to generate knowledge, foster learning, and enable skills development among
its workforce is recognised as a game changer in the context of the rally to fundamentally
reshape African agriculture. Yet, notwithstanding widespread acceptance of the essen-
tial role of AET in igniting agricultural transformation, there was until very recently no
credible and overarching continental-level framework, with a realistic and achievable
concomitant strategic plan, to effectively address the core problem of human capacity
decit within the Agricultural Innovation System (AIS). The CAADP – Sustaining the
Momentum into the Next Decade NEPAD report (2012) therefore called for a roadmap
– an Agricultural Education and Skills Improvement Framework (AESIF) to excite and
harmonise a vision and agenda that will both power, and empower, AET. This framework
was to include, centrally, vocational education and training, as well as tertiary education
over the next decade (2015-2025). AESIF was nalised in 2015, and is as much an exercise
in advocating for out-of-the-box thinking, as it is a call for grounding, a search for
*Refer to the Endnotes

51
50
complementarity, and an effort at consolidation. The idea that Africa acts in a smart and
unied fashion cannot be overstated; therefore, AESIF begins by iterating how intelligent
load-sharing and an integrated approach between the different strategic and policy
frameworks, implementers, and nancing catalysts, will undergird its success and impact
over the coming decade.
A Science Agenda for African Agriculture (CS8)
The outsourcing of science for agriculture in Africa is not an alternative. African leaders
– in science and government – must take responsibility for the role of science on the
continent. Taking cognisance of the critical role of science and agriculture in the global
sustainable development agenda, now is the opportune time for Africa to make its mark
as a player in global science. African solidarity for science is the most signicant strategy
in achieving the vision, which is articulated in the Science Agenda for African Agriculture
or S3A (FARA, 2014). Led by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), the
Science Agenda has been endorsed by the AU, NEPAD, as well as all Africa’s major
sub-regional organisations as the main framework for driving science and technology
in the CAADP process. The S3A provides a collective vision for science in agriculture in
Africa, through a framework and set of guidelines to shape immediate priority setting for
implementing CAADP.
The core of the agenda is to connect science with end users in a more effective way for
the benet of society. This will be accomplished in several ways:
• Identifying the broad areas of science to be developed in partnership with the
main stakeholders.
• Facilitating the necessary transformation and strengthening of national science
and technology institutions.
• Focusing on the need for human capacity building at all levels.
• Facilitating increased funding from diversied sources to support science.
• Facilitating alignment of actions and resources to ensure value-for-money and
desirable impact,
• Facilitating effective partnerships among mandated African institutions at sub-
regional/regional levels and between these actors and their external partners.
• Committing to solidarity in science by sharing information, technologies,
information, facilities and staff in pursuit of common challenges and opportunities.
• Creating favourable policy environments for science.
It is clear that the need to transform agricultural education and
training is imperative in the light of the fundamental role that the
sector will play in the development agenda on the continent, but
also in the international arena. Ultimately, the ability of the people
on the continent to feed themselves, and potentially feed the global
community, is inextricably linked to the sector’s capacity to innovate,
educate and diffuse climate smart approaches to agro-food-
processing in an economically inclusive manner.
Major Themes of the Science Agenda
Table 3.1: Themes of the science agenda
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVITY IN MAJOR
FARMING SYSTEMS
FOOD SYSTEMS AND VALUE CHAINS AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY & NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
• Transforming production systems.
• Crop improvement and protection.
• Livestock breeds, heath and feed.
• Aquatic and inland sheries.
• Agro-forestry and forestry.
• Agricultural mechanisation.
Food and nutritional security, food
processing, safety and storage.
Post-harvest handling, processing and
storage.
Conserving and enhancement of
biodiversity.
Land and water resources and irrigation
management.
MEGA TRENDS AND CHALLENGES FOR
AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS
OF SCIENCE FOR AGRICULTURE
Climate change, variability adaptation
and mitigation.
Policy and institutional research,
including market access and trade.
Improving livelihoods of rural
communities.
Sustainable intensication: as an
organising framework for enhancing
productivity, at all scales of production.
Modern genetics and genomics: to give
better understanding of gene function,
leading to more specic targeting of
genetic improvement in agriculturally
important species of crops, livestock,
sh and trees.
Foresight capabilities, including
strategic planning, modelling, and
analysis of ‘critical technologies’, as
a means of systematic analysis and
interpretation of data and perspectives
to better understand trends and future
challenges.
Sustaining basic science capacity at
the national level.
Effective national systems are the
building blocks for regional and
continental partnerships.
Global partnerships in science: The
CGIAR is a key partner of the National
Agricultural Research Systems (NARS)
and Scientic Research Organisations
(SROs). Recent reform of the CGIAR
including CGIAR Research Programmes
(CRPs) targeting collaboration on
specic themes is expected to improve
alignment with CAADP.
Source: Based on FARA (2014)

53
52
The South African Context
Agriculture is a key component of the South African economy
Agriculture delivers more jobs per Rand invested than any other productive sector, and
remains critical in the face of rural poverty and food insecurity (DAFF, 2016).
While the primary agricultural sector contributes about 3% to the country’s GDP, if the
entire value chain of agriculture is taken into account, its contribution to GDP reaches
about 12%. (Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), 2013. Abstract of
Agricultural Statistics. Republic of South Africa)
The number of households engaged in agriculture (referred to as agricultural households),
was 2.9 million in 2011. Nationally, 24.9%, 20.7% and 16.3% of agricultural households were
in KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, and Limpopo respectively (DAFF, 2016).
Although the country can maintain the ability to meet national food requirements,
more than seven million citizens experience hunger, while 22.6% of households have
inadequate access to food (Stats SA, 2016). Malnutrition continues to rise due to income
inequality and inadequate access to appropriate foods.
Although South Africa is a net exporter of food and commodities (especially grains), it is
a dual economy, with a combination of large scale and medium commercial enterprises
on the one hand, and small-scale farmers on the other hand. The highly productive and
competitive sector includes approximately 23 500 farmers contributing to exports. More
than 1.5 million farmers constitute the uncompetitive sector, and consist of new entrants
(land reform beneciaries), smallholder farmers, and communal farmers; these are
typically very low in productivity (DAFF, 2016).
South Africa’s agricultural sector faces several challenges above and beyond the
implications of climate change (including a crippling drought in the 2015/2016 period). These
include the declining accessibility to quality water sources, the impact of unsustainable
food production practices, and competition with other industries for the use of arable land.
Among the primary challenges faced by the sector are the challenges experienced in the
broader AET system – including in the education, extension, and research components.
A Haunting Historical Legacy (CS1)
During apartheid, the South African economy “was built on systematically enforced
racial division in every sphere of society” (ANC, 1994). This division was pertinent to
both the agricultural and education sectors. In agriculture, the provision of services was
disaggregated by race, location, commercial farming orientation, and allocation of
public resources.
Post-democracy, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) was the
founding policy document for transformation in South Africa. It was an “integrated,
coherent socio-economic policy framework intended to mobilise people and resources
towards the building of a democratic, non-racial, non-sexist future” (ANC, 1994).
The emphasis in the RDP was on the need to de-racialise access to basic needs such as
land, education, and social services as a means of redress of poverty and inequality.
Agriculture was identied as one of the established sectors in the economy that had
excluded the participation of the majority. The required change would therefore need
to create access to agriculture for historically disadvantaged groups and this was
inextricably linked to land reform. Consequently, the assumption was that agricultural and
other support services would be made available in relation to land reform programmes.
What was not adequately dealt with at the time was the articulation of the problem with
respect to the then existent agricultural sector and specically the provision of agricultural
support services (through extension), the orientation of agricultural education, and the
limited levels of competence and relevance with respect to agricultural science research.
Furthermore, in its assumption that rural development and poverty reduction would be
achieved primarily through following a pathway from land reform through agriculture
to food security, the RDP left a gap in articulating the opportunity that an immediate
reform of the prevailing extension services could have contributed to agricultural income
growth in the then homeland areas.
Since 1994, various reforms have been introduced to the agricultural sector “with the
intention of improving the efciency of the commercial sector, and addressing the
structural inequality characterising South African agriculture” (Tregurtha et al., 2010). The
initial approach to the agricultural sector transformation was articulated in the Broadening
Access to Agriculture Thrust (BATAT) in 1995, which was the outcome of multi-stakeholder
consultations and provided key inputs into the Agricultural White Paper in 1995 (DoA,
1995). BATAT suggested various focus areas for driving transformation in agriculture,
including access to nance, human resources development, and technology transfer.
Within the ambit of the BATAT Programme, over 100 agricultural extension practitioners
and farmers were jointly exposed to a range of experiences of smallholder agricultural
systems in Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Chile, and Indonesia.
The RDP, BATAT and Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa (ASGISA)
were expected to have a substantial impact on future agricultural education policies,
because human capital is viewed as one of the cornerstones. The anticipated impact
did not transpire.
In the subsequent years, with a change in the political leadership at the level of Ministry,
a new policy discussion document with three main strategic areas was developed,
titled Agricultural Policy in South Africa: A Discussion Document (Ministry for Agriculture
and Land Affairs, 1998). AET was not explicitly articulated as a strategic area, although
education and training clearly underpinned the accomplishments of the identied
strategies.
In 2004, there was once again a change in political leadership that brought higher level
attention to the agricultural sector through the establishment of the Presidential Working
Group on Agriculture. This forum was chaired by the President and brought together
the different ministries which had an impact on agriculture as well as the leaders of
the farmers’ organisations. In 2001, the Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture was
adopted as a strategy document for the sector with a unied vision of a ‘united and
prosperous sector’ (DoA, 2001).

55
54
The intentions and objectives of policy reform in agriculture over the past 20 years have
been quite deliberate in their intention for redress. In hindsight, however, the weakness
of the RDP was that it was an all-encompassing ‘clarion call’ for development of an
equitable society without the requisite clarity on the outputs, sequencing, and capacity
being in place.
The challenge in South Africa is identifying the key policy objectives
that should be driving the evolution of agricultural education and
training in the country.
In the early days of democracy, an overview of AET in South Africa by Van Rooyen et
al. (1996) concluded that AET would “require a substantial reorientation to serve a much
wider clientele”. Included in the parameters they suggested were consideration of the
responsiveness of the system to the ongoing social, economic, and political changes;
the need for rationalisation and greater integration and linkages between the various
components of the AET system, as well as in relation to the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) region; and targeted training programmes to effect afrmative
action and enhance the skills of the providers of extension within the public sector.
For the rst decade following the new democracy in South Africa, structural challenges
encountered with the constitutionally dened decentralisation of extension, inadequate
allocation of resources to agriculture, and a focus on production, all reinforced the
gaps in problem denition with respect to the role and signicance of agriculture, and
within that, the role of AET. The numerous policy development processes in South Africa’s
democracy did not immediately translate into well-resourced nationwide programmes,
and consequently the opportunity to transform the agricultural education and training
system has remained ineffective.
In 2003, the National Department of Agriculture developed a strategy for AET, which
envisioned the following for the system:
• An effective and well-coordinated AET that is integrated at all levels and responds
appropriately to South African Agriculture.
• Equitable access and meaningful participation in AET for all South Africans.
• The application of effective quality assurance of AET at all levels.
The strategy dened several aspects of the problems faced by the AET system at the
time:
• AET lacked coherence and co-ordination both between the formal and non-
formal sub-sections, and vertically within the formal education and training sector.
• The funding of the programmes was skewed and uneven across different sites of
provision with former white institutions still better resourced than their historically
black counterparts.
• Programmes differed markedly in quality, standards, outcomes, and curriculum
and therefore limited the opportunities for students to change institutions, which
created further barriers to higher levels.
Whilst the document was quite comprehensive in the overview of the challenges facing
the sector it was weak in dening an implementation plan. The key activity that was
envisioned was an AET Council. The strategy states that “[t]he primary function of such an
entity would be to provide public accountability, policy formulation and maintenance,
coordination and strategic guidance for AET” (NDA, 2003). To date, there is no evidence
of implementation of the structure, despite its signicant importance at the time. The
relevance of the priorities identied in the 2003 strategy became increasingly clear
during the work of the study panel, and the proposed establishment of an AET Council is
of particular signicance to the study recommendations.
The National Agenda (CS1)
The NDP vision for South Africa has a 2030 target date for achievement, and the vision
document is written in a form that is aspirational in its attempts to mobilise people to
participate in creating the future (NPC, 2011).
South Africa belongs to all its peoples. We, the people,
belong to one another.
We live the rainbow.
Our homes, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities are safe and
lled with laughter.
Through our institutions, we order our lives.
The faces of our children tell of the future we have crafted.
National Development Plan, South Africa (NPC, 2011)
The NDP Vision 2030 focus is on employment creation, access to basic social services
and redistribution of access to assets for economic development. An analysis of the
targets set forth in the NDP places agriculture rmly on the agenda for the next 15 years.
Specically, and in relation to AET, the NDP calls for:
• The creation of an additional 643 000 direct jobs and 326 000 indirect jobs in the
agriculture, agro-processing, and related sectors.
• Increased investment in new agricultural technologies, research, and the
development of adaptation strategies for the protection of rural livelihoods. Support
services for small scale and rural farmers and expansion of commercial agriculture.
• Maintaining a positive trade balance for primary and processed agricultural
products.
• Expanding the college system with a focus on improving quality.
• Improved skills development and training in the agricultural sector, including
entrepreneurship training. This should include the training of a new cadre of
extension ofcers that will respond effectively to the needs of smallholder farmers
and contribute to their successful integration into the food value chain.

57
56
• Investigation into whether extension and other agricultural services are
appropriately located at provincial level.
• Innovative means for agricultural extension and training by the state in partnership
with industries.
Additional targets of indirect relevance to AET include:
• 1 million learning opportunities through Community Education and Training
Centres.
• Increased enrolment at universities by at least 70% by 2030.
• Increased number of students eligible to study towards mathematics and science-
based degrees to 450 000 by 2030.
• Increase the percentage of PhD qualied staff in the higher education sector from
the current 34% to over 75% by 2030.
• Produce more than 100 doctoral graduates per million per year; a signicant
increase from the current 30 to 35.
• Expand science, technology and innovation outputs by increasing research and
development spending by government and through encouraging industry to do so.
The education targets in the NDP are quite specic in terms of numbers and the
requirements for increasing public expenditure in science and new technologies are
emphasised. What is not clear in the NDP 2030, however, is the relative importance of
agriculture within these targets.
So whilst on the one hand AET is rmly on the agenda, on the other hand the implication is
that the agricultural sector will be competing for resources with a range of other subject
matter areas; to do so the AET system needs to articulate its impact areas beyond
agricultural production and consider the training of persons who participate in the total
agricultural value chain and related sectors.
Mapping AET in South Africa
National Mapping Study (CS2)
The national mapping study sought to construct an AET map that identies the relevant
stakeholders and reects their interaction (or lack thereof) within the AET system. It was
envisioned that this map could assist in the identication of areas of duplication, non-
cooperation and other structural challenges.
The national mapping exercise distinctly highlighted the complex nature of the AET system
and the interaction between the various stakeholders. The map highlights the urgent
need for a greater level of alignment, the removal of duplication, and the removal of
compartmentalised (silo) structures that do not serve a coordinated and integrated AET
system. Clearly, from the analysis, the AET system is in dire need of substantial governance
reform directed towards greater integration, cooperation, and accountability to
maximise the returns on available nancial, human capital, and physical infrastructure.
The AET map (Fig. 3.1) illustrates the sheer number of stakeholders and the complexity of
the interaction between them.
Key Primary Role Players
A visual inspection of the number of interactions between stakeholders identies the most involved role players and parties in
the broader AET system (Table 3.2), all of whom are engaged in the delivery of AET.
Table 3.2: Role players in the delivery of AET
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FORESTRY AND FISHERIES
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
NON-PUBLIC TRAINING INITIATIVES
Food Security and Agrarian Reform
Branchii through the Directorate of
Sector Education & Training, as well as
the Directorate of Sectorial Colleges
(Headed by the same Director).
Historically, extension services resided
within the Directorate of Sector
Education and Training, but this
has been moved to the separate
directorates of National Extension
Support and National Extension Reform.
At present these directorates are not
involved in the actual provision of
services but are rather occupied with
the development of an overarching
extension policy framework for the
sector. The role of these directorates
after the completion of this process is
uncertain.
The actual provision of extension
services currently resides under the
respective provincial departments with
the support of the sectoral colleges.
SETA Directorate within the Skills
Development Branch through AgriSETA.
Universities and Branch Universities.
AgriSETA interacts with most of the
other AET stakeholders, both public
and private. This is mainly through
the provision of bursaries for tertiary
education, the funding of internshipsiii
(Work Integrated Learning), graduate
placementsiv, learnershipsv and short
courses.
AgriSETA also plays an important role in
ensuring the quality of training provided
through the accreditation of public
and private short courses, learnerships
and other training initiatives. Through
this role it interacts with a vast number
of stakeholders, especially private
training providers and in-house training
initiatives by companies. Within this
role it also interacts with various agri-
commodity structures.
Very little is known about these non-
formal degrees or diplomas, which are
mostly private initiatives. It is therefore
advised that private training initiatives
should be unpacked by further research
due to their importance and extent.
It must be noted that some private
training initiatives are not accredited
through Agriculture SETA (AgriSETA).
Source: Based on Greyling et al. (2014)

59
58
Figure 3.1: Map of the AET system
Source: Greyling et al. (2014)
From the map which follows in Fig. 3.1, it is clear that universities and sectoral colleges
have substantial interaction with the other stakeholders. It seems, however, that this is
not necessarily the case with the respective universities of technology and public further
KEY Government Departments Science Councils Other AET Stakeholders
Other AET Stakeholders
provides WILL, graduate
placements, leaderships & SLPs
Skills
dev SETAs AgriSETA
FDH FoodBev
DHET DTI DBE DL DPW
Secondary
schools
that provide
agric
sciences
courses
Private E&T
providers
Employers offering
WIL (e.g. GrainSA,
HortGro, NWGA,
NERPO)
TVET colleges
Public universities
accredits
training
(e.g. SLPs)
provides
bursaries
provides
matriculants
NRF ASSAf HSRC CSIR
DST Provincial
depts
responsible
for agric
jointly provides
extension services
Farmers in the province
interact on issues related to
the agri-food value chain network
NAMC ARC
CRLR
SBD &
dev n
Subsistence
farmers
RID SOYD
DRDLR
facilitates
interaction
DAFF
Admin
Marketing
Econ dev,
trade &
marketing
NER
GADI
SHD NES
FSAR
Sector transformation
Sectoral colleges
Subsistence
farmers
SET (ETES)
TVET
Univ
Policy
research
support
provides
bursaries
& research
funding
REID
Land tenure
& admin
education and training (FET) colleges. AgriSETA interacts with some of institutions within
this grouping but it seems that these institutions are somewhat outside the focus of the
mainstream stakeholders.
Admin Administration
AgriSETA Agriculture SETA
CRLR Commission on
Restitution of Land
Right
DAFF Department
of Agriculture,
Forestry & Fisheries
DBE Department of
Basic Education
Dept Department
Dev Development
DHET Department of
Higher Education
& Training
DL Department of
Labour
DPW Department of
Public Works
DRDLR Department
of Rural
Development &
Land Reform
DST Department
of Science &
Technology
DTI Department of
Trade & Industry
E&T Education &
Training
Econ Economic
ETES Education,
Training &
Extension Services
Fin Finance
FoodBev Food & Beverages
Manufacturing
Industry SETA
GADI Grootfontein
Agricultural
Development
Institute
NAMC National
Agricultural
Marketing Council
NER National Extension
Reform
NES National Extension
Support
REID Rural Enterprise
& Industrial
Development
RID Rural Industrial
Development
SBD Small Business
Development
SET Sector Education
& Training
SETA Sector Education
& Training
Authority
SHD Smallholder
Development
SLP Short Learning
Programme (Short
Course)
SOYD Social
Organisation
& Youth
Development
TVET Technical &
Vocational
Education &
Training
WIL Work-integrated
Learning
(Internships)
National Directorates with Current, Former or Potential Linkages to AET
The complexity of the AET system is further reected by the number of government
ministries which are linked to, or have clear alignment with DAFF and DHET who currently
hold the primary mandate for the delivery of AET. These departments and their linkage
are expanded on in Table 3.3.

61
60
Table 3.3: Government departments responsible for delivery of AET
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
AND LAND
REFORM
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY LABOUR BASIC
EDUCATION PUBLIC WORKS
The
Department
of Rural
Development
and Land
Reform (DRDLR)
was created
in 2009 and for
the rst time
in its history,
the country
had a ministry
dedicated
to the
development
of rural South
Africa.
Government’s
plan for
developing
rural areas, the
Comprehensive
Rural
Development
Programme
(CRDP)
is aimed
specically
at addressing
the blight of
poverty by
the creation
of vibrant,
equitable and
sustainable
rural
communities.
The
Department of
Science and
Technology
is not directly
involved with
AET as such,
but entities
within interact
with universities
and the ARC
on issues
related to the
agri-food value
chain.
These entities
also provide
a signicant
number of
bursaries etc.
that enable
agricultural
education
and provide
internships
and graduate
placements.
The
Department
of Labour
used to play
an important
role in AET
as custodian
of the SETAs,
most notably
AgriSETA.
The transfer
of the SETAs
to DHET has
resulted
in greatly
reducing the
non-existent
role of the DoL
since no direct
involvement
was identied
during this
mapping study.
The
Department of
Basic Education
(DBE) interacts
with the
DHET through
high schools
that provide
agricultural
sciences
courses; this
includes both
agricultural
and some
non-agricultural
schools.
The
Department
of Public
Works plays
an important
enabling role
in AET even
though it is
not directly
involved
therein. This
is through
the provision,
maintenance
and expansion
of the facilities
used for
agricultural
education and
training such
as the sectorial
colleges,
Departments
of Agriculture,
and research
centres.
Source: Based on Greyling et al. (2014)
During stakeholder meetings, it became apparent that the Department of Rural Develop-
ment and Land Reform (DRDLR) has limited interaction with DAFF, with some viewing
the interaction between the departments as constrained. Interestingly, the National
Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) facilitates interaction between DAFF and DRDLR,
not intentionally so, but rather by default, due to overlapping interests on projects by the
council. The lack of cooperation is reected in the duplication of directorates; examples
include the directorates of Subsistence Farmers both in DRDLR and DAFF. Another is that
of the directorates of Small Holder Development in DAFF, Small Business Development
and Development Finance in DRDLR and Small Medium Micro Enterprise (SMME)
development in the dti.
The dti has no clear interaction with any other AET stakeholder; scope exists however
for a more integrated process related to issues pertinent to agri-food value chains and
networks – processing, beneciation, trade, etc. Furthermore, the explicit emphasis in the
NDP which calls for the engagement of industry with AET signals a particular opportunity
for closer linkages.
Provincial Mapping Study (CS3)
Through an extensive series of provincial workshops in all nine provinces, the mapping
of the AET system at provincial level explored the AET system in terms of educational
institutions and other public and private stakeholders with an interest in AET, including
professional associations, unions and other appropriate bodies.
This study was comprehensive in its approach, targeting stakeholders in all nine provinces.
The feedback and ndings from the study conrmed many common-sense notions about
the AET system, as well the insights gleaned from various other commissioned studies.
Reference to these studies is noted where relevant in the discussion around the ndings
of the provincial mapping exercise.
The provincial mapping study covered the following thematic areas: school level
education, governance relationships, career pathways, funding and the use of ICT and
social media. Several key similarities were noted across all provinces within each of these
thematic areas. These ndings are elaborated on below.
Agriculture is not a career of rst choice
This creates challenges for effective sourcing of high-quality students for post-school
studies. The complexities of this are discussed in greater detail in the section on the shape
and size of the schooling system in South Africa (Page 66).
Lack of funding limits the quality of AET
Funding for education is a highly contested issue across institutions in South Africa. The
need for greater funding was raised at all stakeholder workshops, particularly to enable
institutions to provide practical vocationally relevant training. The capacity of schools to
effectively deliver agricultural science as a subject is limited by a lack of funding and the
absence of appropriate infrastructure for practical training. Funds which are available
are not efciently distributed or effectively managed.

63
62
Quality and availability of educators is of grave concern
The quality of educators, as well as the number of teachers appropriately trained to teach
agriculture at school level is of serious concern. The complexity of this issue is discussed
further on page 73.
ICTs and social media are not leveraged adequately
Across all provinces and level of education there was little evidence for the use of social
media in education and extension despite the numerous opportunities it presents.
Articulation into higher education is limited
There is minimal structure in the articulated pathways from high school and college into
higher education. This is exacerbated by the lack of structured governance relationships
between role players in the relevant systems.
Career pathways are perceived to be limited
Within higher education there are very clearly articulated career pathways within
academia. There is however limited understanding or awareness of the vast number
of agri-business/entrepreneurship careers that exist along the entire food and nutrition
value chain. This lack of awareness is evident at both school and higher education level.
Governance and structural relationships
Governance and structural reform pose major challenges to the AET system, as was
noted in the national mapping exercise.
Relationships between colleges and higher education are not structured or regulated
and rely primarily on individual relationships among institutional leaders. There is no legal
framework to encourage or require systemic relations between universities and colleges
of agriculture. The lack of clarity and progress around the agricultural colleges and their
positioning within DHET (as opposed to DAFF) has signicant ripple effects on the quality
of educational provision and the coordination of the stakeholders within the AET system.
There is also very little connection or collaboration between private and public education
providers.
Linkages in research–teaching–extension nexus are poor, and there is a need for
better coordination between the research and development, and extension systems.
Challenges in this “knowledge triangle” are discussed at length in the section entitled A
knowledge triangle for innovation in the agro-food value chain (Page 63).
Building on what works well
Through the provincial case studies, a few good practice examples were identied.
• Excellent linkages between agriculture high schools and farming enterprises were
identied in Limpopo.
• The North-West College of Agriculture is an exemplar with regards to the
articulation of curricula.
• Two examples of effective governance relationships between colleges and
universities were found in the Western Cape (Elsenburg/SU) and in the Eastern
Cape (University of Fort Hare (UFH)/Fort Cox College).
• Working partnerships between public and private Extension Systems were found in
the Sugar Industry in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and in Mpumalanga.
The panel recommends that these case studies be followed up in greater detail to
understand the mechanisms and pathways which enable their functioning and to
identify critical success factors. Greater understanding of these cases can contribute to
the design and implementation of similar initiatives in other provinces.
Knowledge Triangle for Innovation in the Agro-Food Value Chain
Skills for the agricultural supply chain are drawn from all levels of the system and not just
from the university sector, and they come from a wider range of disciplines than the
specic agricultural-focused qualications. Like any other economic sector, agriculture
requires a range of managerial, nancial, marketing and a wide array of technical skills
that are not agriculture specic – logistics, refrigeration, diesel mechanics, genetics,
veterinary sciences, hydrology and numerous others. Depending on where one draws
the boundary of agriculture there are myriad qualications and courses that have a
bearing on the eld. The importance of this agro-food value chain approach has been
highlighted in the discussions thus far; a shift in focus which is conrmed by various
commissioned studies discussed in this section. AET thus needs to focus on strengthening
capacities not only for production, but to equip a broad range of professionals and
practitioners to engage across multiple ‘points’ in the value chain.
The circle widens even further. An effective value chain approach not only considers the
role of education and training in isolation, but also takes into consideration the agricultural
innovation system, and the transformative role that research and development play
in stimulating and realising innovative solutions for the challenges that the agricultural
sector will be increasingly expected to solve. The research–teaching nexus must
therefore receive attention, as AET is training the future scientists who will help solve the
pressing challenges, but is also educating practitioners and professionals who need to be
cognisant of and connected to the most recent scientic breakthroughs to inform their
work.
Navigating the modern-day world of work requires of both students and educators to
become accustomed to and familiar with a broad range of skills – training and education
requires the development of the so-called T-shaped skills where depth in discipline-
specic knowledge is balanced by a breadth of soft skills – including communication,
management and nancial skills. Taking into consideration the important role that
entrepreneurship is expected to play in South African economic development, T-shaped
skills are positioned as essential supplements to disciplinary knowledge – rather than add
on components.
International evidence suggests that fostering agricultural innovation through enhanced
research support and entrepreneurship can become a key driver of development.

65
64
However, this cannot be realised without effective innovation transfer, diffusion and
uptake. In the context of AET, this process is facilitated in a very large part by extension
and rural advisory services, and will increasingly look towards smart ICT solutions to
catalyse this process.
Persons engaged in the extension and rural advisory services component of the sector
are inuenced by AET in multiple ways – they are beneciaries of AET through the training
they receive, but then themselves become educators and facilitators of knowledge. For
this reason, the training of extension workers should receive substantial focus as they
have the potential to be the primary agents through which innovation is translated from
the laboratory into practice. Training the trainers requires considered attention. The
same is true of those who are being trained to teach at school, colleges and universities.
Collectively this group of trainers represents a key opportunity for transforming the
practice of AET.
For reasons stated above, a situation analysis is presented in the following sections which
cover education, research and extension, also known as the agricultural knowledge
triangle (Fig. 3.2 below).
Figure 3.2: Agricultural knowledge triangle
Within this knowledge triangle, the roles of each of the actors are intersectional, and
extend beyond the actions of what each actor does in isolation. The role of researchers
is to design curricula for discovery learning which enable farmers and extension workers
to engage in conscious learning. Researchers also partner with farmers, specialists and
extension workers to develop new ideas and technologies. Extension workers focus on
helping farmers learn to become experts on their own farms and to become researchers
in their own right and help farmers cultivate capacity to learn through deliberate efforts
and a facilitated learning agenda. In this process, farmers build capacity to command
the factors inuencing the sustainability of their livelihoods; they acquire the sense of
equal partnership in the learning process and build their own capacities to learn.
Although the links between research, teaching and extension are important, various
challenges remain in effectively integrating these, including lack of skills and contextual
understanding on the part of each of the actors on how to engage effectively with
farmers (Christoplos, 2010).
Education
Farmer-Centred
Extension Research
It is within this context that the discussions in this section will:
• Provide a situation analysis of South African AET.
• Identify the challenges faced at each of these levels.
• Assess the relevance of curricula to current global challenges.
• Provide recommendations to address these challenges and to enhance the
attractiveness of agricultural education and training.
The Educational Context (CS4)
The literature on agricultural education tends to focus on a limited number of dedicated
agricultural training institutions and faculties of agriculture. However, agricultural edu-
cation needs to be understood as being nested within a wider education system that
shapes, enables and constrains agricultural education and training.
Transformation and Reform in Education
The history of apartheid education is well documented and the effects of this history
remain very present in the education system today (Soudien, 2007). Since the rst
democratic government took ofce in 1994, South Africa has attempted to break from
the apartheid past by reforming the system. A series of ambitious and radical reforms
have been introduced that have tried to modernise and integrate the system. These
reforms have affected all levels of the system, from early childhood education through
to university programmes and from adult literacy to special needs.
“Education reform has been a priority in South Africa since the
establishment of the Government of National Unity in 1994 and has
played a key role in redressing the injustices of apartheid.”
(OECD, 2008)
A comprehensive review of all the reforms and the policies which informed them is not
possible here, and so only the key moments will be described. The Constitution of South
Africa enshrines the right to education and guarantees ten years of free and compulsory
education. The constitution also describes education (other than universities) as a
concurrent competence, meaning that it is a shared responsibility between the central
national government and the provincial government. Until recently, provincial education
departments had responsibility for technical and vocational education and training
(TVET) colleges along with the entire schooling system and adult education. There have
been recent changes, but this provincial responsibility has had a signicant effect on the
system in that there are marked differences between various provinces.
The system is highly uid at present, with an emphasis on responsiveness and expansion in
the context of the NDP. Vocational training is afforded a high priority.
One of the earliest pieces of legislation passed by the new parliament was the South
African Qualications Authority (SAQA) Act (No 58 of 1995) which established SAQA as the

67
66
custodian of the National Qualications Framework (NQF). The adoption of the NQF has
had profound consequences for the education system (Allais, 2007), most centrally the
attempt to integrate all forms of education in one framework. Qualications frameworks
were developed primarily with occupational qualications in mind, but South Africa
included general education and higher education qualications in the same framework
as short courses and certicates – with varying levels of success (Harley and Wedekind,
2003; Jansen and Christie, 1999).
The NQF divides the education system into three bands (General Education and Training
(GET); Further Education and Training (FET) and Higher Education (HE)) with initially eight,
and later ten levels. The rst ten years of schooling as well as some basic adult education
is pegged at level one, and the remaining nine levels are spread across the Further and
Higher Education bands. It is in these two bands that the bulk of AET takes place. However,
because the FET and HE bands build on the GET band, problems in the foundations have
an impact on the tertiary part of the system.
An overview presented in Table 3.4 summarises in a general manner the broad thrust
of education and training reform since the advent of democracy. Much has been
achieved in transforming a highly segmented system into a national system, and there
has been signicant progress in terms of access at all levels. Unfortunately, the quality of
the expansion has at times been poor, and most critically the foundations have not been
strengthened.
Table 3.4: Education and training reform since 1994
GENERAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING (GET)
FURTHER EDUCATION AND
TRAINING (FET) HIGHER EDUCATION (HE)
Grades R–9 Grades 10–12 (through school,
college or workplace)
Post-school qualications
Number of curriculum reforms.
Curriculum 2005 combined
outcomes-based education
(OBE) with learner-centred
pedagogy and the
integration of knowledge
(Harley and Wedekind, 2004).
The reform of the FET band’s
curriculum followed the
introduction of Curriculum
2005 and some of the early
lessons from that reform were
not repeated.
The Senior Certicate was
replaced with the National
Senior Certicate. The key shift
from the old Senior Certicate
to the new National Senior
Certicate was the inclusion
of either mathematics or
mathematical literacy as a
compulsory subject for all
learners, and the addition of a
seventh, albeit half weighted,
subject called life orientation.
Reforms were radical, but
focused initially more on
structure than content.
Technical colleges were
merged and rebranded
as further education and
training colleges (FETC), while
universities were merged and
technikons transformed into
universities of technology.
GENERAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING (GET)
FURTHER EDUCATION AND
TRAINING (FET) HIGHER EDUCATION (HE)
Subjects combined into
learning areas.
Of relevance to this study –
science, biology and physical
geography were combined
into natural science.
The traditional subject
boundaries were retained, but
the rules of combination were
altered.
The changes focused on the
modernisation of subjects
and subject content, removal
of many smaller subjects,
the elimination of a three-
tiered graded curriculum and
assessment structure (lower,
standard and higher) and
discontinuing a combination
mechanism that enabled
pupils to combine subjects
from the technical college
curriculum with school
subjects to achieve a Senior
Certicate.
Universities reluctantly re-
curriculated along outcomes-
based lines to comply with the
NQF.
Wide criticism, hence review
commissioned. The review
committee recommended
signicant changes, including
tighter specication of
content and the reduction
in the number of learning
areas covered (Chisholm
et al., 2005). Most of their
recommendations were
accepted.
There have been subsequent
changes to the curriculum at
high school level but broadly
speaking this structure remains
intact.
More recently the curriculum
has been revised again and
new Subject Assessment
Guidelines produced that
specify very tightly what is to
be assessed.
In 2007, a new set of
qualications was introduced
into the FET colleges.
The National Certicate
(Vocational) or NCV as it
has become known sought
to refocus the colleges on
full time students at post-
compulsory level (i.e. beyond
Grade 9) rather than offering
an out of date curriculum
geared at an apprenticed
student.
Source: Based on Wedekind (2016)
Although drastic reform was necessary, what is clear is that the public education and
training system has been in a state of fairly constant reform since 1994 – an evolution
which has not fully realised its potential to integrate the system and provide quality
education. The next two-subsections focus on rst, the post-school system and second,

69
68
the school system. The purpose of these sections is to give an overview of the structure,
shape and size of each system, as well as an overview of the AET-related qualications
within each .
The Post-School System
The tertiary or post-school system is the core of the AET system. The establishment of
the DHET in 2009 resulted in the denition of a public post-school system integrated with
universities, further education and training colleges and adult education colleges, with
the department becoming moreover responsible for skills development. The Further
Education and Training Colleges Amendment Act (No 3 of 2012) declared these colleges
a national competency now under the jurisdiction of the DHET.
The White Paper for Post-School Education and Training (DHET, 2013) gave conceptual
expression to the notion of the post-school education and training system now integrated
with universities, TVET colleges and community colleges. As indicated in the White Paper,
the new conguration of the DHET opened up enormous possibilities for co-operation
among post-secondary institutions and other national stakeholders, in line with the vision
of the third National Skills Development Strategy (DHET, 2013).
South Africa’s post-school system is described as an inverted triangle with respect to the
programme and institutional types. Too many institutions focus on academic programmes
and too few prepare people for the intermediate and lower levels of skills. Currently,
there are just over a million students enrolled in university-level programmes and fewer
than that in technical and vocational programmes. While both systems have grown, the
largest growth has been in the TVET colleges, where over the past ve years the student
numbers have doubled.
National targets set by the DHET and also the National Planning
Commission propose a growth in universities to 1.5 million students while
the vocational system is expected to quadruple to 4 million. This will
result in a very different post-school system.
The top of the inverted triangle consists of the 26 public universities (offering qualications
primarily in the HE band). These are divided into three categories: traditional universities
with a strong research focus that offer a largely academic track with undergraduate
and postgraduate degrees. Universities of technology evolved from the technikon
system and are strongly vocational, offer certicates, diplomas and degrees and have
a stronger applied research orientation. Comprehensive universities offer both types of
programmes. There are a large number of private higher education institutions which
variously focus on one programme or eld or may offer a limited selection of programmes.
With a few exceptions, these private institutions have a limited research prole. The
university landscape is discussed in further detail on page 70.
There are 50 public multi-campus TVET colleges that offer a range of certicate, higher
certicate and skills programmes across a range of occupational categories. The
major programmes offered are the National Certicate Vocational (NCV) in a range of
specialisations at Level 4 and the old National Accredited Technical Education Diploma
(NATED) curriculum leading to a national diploma. There are over 500 private colleges
registered with the DHET that offer programmes at these levels. It is estimated that there
may be as many as 200 000 students enrolled in these colleges, although the data are
very uneven. The TVET colleges, and the types of qualications offered are discussed in
greater detail on page 77.
Formal qualications in South Africa have to be registered with SAQA and listed on
the NQF. Qualications can be registered by the specic provider that is offering the
qualication (for example a specic university) or they can be registered by an examining
body (for example the DHET) or other structure and be offered by any accredited
institution such as a college. There is no shortage of registered qualications in the eld of
agriculture on the NQF. A search of the SAQA database for qualications with the word
‘agriculture’ or ‘agricultural’ in the title revealed that there are 282 currently registered
qualications. These range from adult basic education and training (ABET) certicates
in primary agriculture through to Masters degrees. This search would not have included
explicit agricultural-related programmes which do not have the term in the title, such as
Bachelor of Science in Food Security Studies or a Diploma in Extension. There are thus well
over 300 qualications available on the NQF. Whether these qualications are in fact all
being offered is a different matter entirely.
In addition to the registered qualications, there are also part-qualications. In terms of
the current approach of SAQA and the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations
(QCTO), a part-qualication is “an assessed unit of learning that is registered as part of
a qualication” (SAQA, n.d.). For example, a part-qualication can be a module, or a
unit standard. All occupational qualications must include a work integrated learning
component. However, because workplaces are not always available to all students
enrolled in occupational programmes (either because employers are reluctant to make
the places available or because there are not enough places) there is the possibility of
awarding a part-qualication. In the main, part-qualications refer to modules or unit
standards that carry a certain number of credits and are pitched at a specic level of the
NQF, and are often offered as stand-alone short courses. Much like whole qualications,
there is a wide array of part qualications and unit standards that are registered on the
NQF. There are currently 1 425 unit standards registered in the Learning Field Agriculture
and Nature Conservation and 73 unit standards with agriculture or agricultural in their
title. Once again, this is by no means a full complement of relevant unit standards as unit
standards that apply to agriculture could come from practically any of the 12 learning
eldsvi. There is a large variation in terms of credits and levels from 20 credit units at NQF
Level 5 to 2 credit units at Level 1.
The nature of unit standards are highly outcomes-based modules that can be coupled
together to lead to a qualication. There has been much critical debate about whether
this competence-based training does indeed lead to sustained learning and pathways
to better job opportunities or further study (Allais, 2012). Much like the qualications, the
fact that these units are registered does not imply that they are necessarily being offered,
but approved providers could offer them. The providers are more diverse than with full
qualications, with public TVET colleges being one possibility, but more frequently private
training companies take this on.

71
70
Currently the least understood component of the post-school landscape is the category
of colleges that are designated as HE colleges. This term is dened in the Higher Education
Act and refers to institutions such as agricultural colleges, nursing colleges, police and
trafc police colleges and so forth. These colleges have usually been administered
and governed by the relevant line department or provincial department, and have
not been formally part of the higher education system. This is being revised, with some
colleges being moved directly to the DHET and others remaining but falling under the
quality assurance system. This has signicant implications for AET, and has proven to
be a challenging process, which is yet to be nalised and concluded. A JTTT has been
appointed to study the situation in detail and make relevant recommendations in this
regard. This matter is discussed in greater depth in the section on Agricultural Colleges:
Where to now? (Page 79).
The newest component of the post-school landscape is the community colleges. This
new institutional structure is discussed in the section Community Colleges: Opportunity for
AET to expand its reach? on page 81.
Rivera and Alex (2008) conclude that “agricultural education and
training, especially at the post-secondary level, are signicant for
advancing agricultural productivity and the processes that move
agriculture from farm-gate to markets”.
The University Sector – An Overview
The university sector has a wide array of agricultural and agriculturally-focused pro-
grammes and most universities and universities of technology have some agricultural
programmes on offer. Several well-established agricultural faculties, schools or depart-
ments have strong national and international reputations.
AET in the university sector faces many challenges, many of which are not unique to
AET. Some of the most salient challenges in the sector are discussed in brief, and linked
specically to the implications for AET.
South Africa needs to increase its participation rate in tertiary education to drive
economic development in a knowledge-based economy. This presents tangible and
not insignicant challenges to a sector which is already under strain.
Although the demographic prole of students in universities has shifted signicantly since
1994, the proportion of black students per capita in the sector is grossly unrepresentative of
the population demographics in the country. This is in essence an issue of access – which
is complicated by a number of factors including nancial affordability. The controversial
#feesmustfall campaign launched nation-wide in 2015 has highlighted pertinently the
plight of low-income students seeking to enter the university environment.
On the other hand, there is a limit to the carrying capacity at South Africa’s public higher
education institutions, whose enrolments have been increasing year on year. Although
ve new universities were announced in the White Paper for Post-School Education and
Training (DHET, 2013), and three have been established, it will take time for these new
institutions to grow into their role within the higher education landscape.
Admission requirements and the academic preparedness of students entering higher
education has been a topic of extensive debate and remains a challenge for institutions.
There has been much made of the apparent pass requirement of 30% in order to achieve
a senior certicate pass (Wedekind, 2013). The suggestion is that standards have dropped
and that a 30% aggregate is sufcient. This perception needs clarication. Even for the
lowest category of pass (higher certicate pass), three subjects including the home
language must be passed with a 40% minimum. For progression into higher education
qualications the requirements are signicantly higher and exceed the requirements of
the old system under apartheid. A recent Ministerial Committee review has proposed
further tightening of the requirements around language of learning and teaching, which
shifts the aggregate requirement closer to 50% (Ministerial Committee on the National
Senior Certicate, 2014). However, actual percentages tell very little about whether the
students have the requisite competencies. Evidence suggests there is cause for concern.
The National Benchmark Test results have illustrated that less than a third and a tenth
of students entering higher education have the requisite language and numeracy skills
respectively to cope with the demands of higher education without additional academic
support.
In response to the situation, higher education institutions set their own entry requirements
on top of the minimum requirements set down in policy. This is based on a points system
allocated to subjects based on marks and in some cases, subject choice. Certain subjects
are excluded from this formula and there may be minimum requirements for specic
subjects in some elds, most notably mathematics. These entry requirements mean that
there is a smaller proportion of students who meet the criteria to enter the system. Post-
school AET is further affected by these lower than desired translation rates because it
is competing for the pool of students with access to high-prole elds of study such as
medicine or accounting.
Higher education is also plagued by low graduation rates and high levels of degree non-
completion. A troublingly low gure of only 54% of students graduate within a six-year
period of enrolling in a three-year degree qualication, and 60% graduate from four-year
degree programmes. Although graduations from agricultural three-year degrees are
slightly higher than the average (59%), the absolute number of enrolments in agriculture
remains among the bottom ve subject-area enrolments. Agricultural graduations
from four-year degrees are on par with national averages (59%), but enrolments are
comparatively low (CHE, 2016).
AET in the University Sector
The traditional universities generally focus on training scientists and practitioners for the
commercial agricultural sector. In South Africa, there are ten universities offering AET
programmes from a rst degree level to PhD qualications. Degrees focus on disciplines
such as agricultural economics, agronomy, soil science, plant science and animal
science, and these can be pursued through to Masters and doctoral level. The location of
these disciplines in science-focused faculties at universities has resulted in the focus being

73
72
primarily on science and research and there has been a lesser focus on the human and
social dimensions of agriculture. Increasingly, however, there are more management and
community development-focused programmes and some universities have reoriented
their programmes to include issues such as food security, land reform and to focus on the
socio-economic complexities of the multi-functionality of agriculture.
Practically all universities of technology have agricultural programmes on offer. Many of
these programmes are offered through life sciences departments or faculties but there is
also a strong management focus to the diplomas and BTech degrees that are offered.
There are four universities of technology offering AET from NQF levels 6–10 namely:
Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), Central University of Technology (CUT),
Mangosuthu University of Technology (MUT), and Tshwane University of Technology (TUT).
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU), a comprehensive university, also offers
programmes of this nature.
The South African Agricultural and Life Sciences Deans’ Association (SAALSDA) was
formed in 2014 by the NRF with the aim, inter alia, to improve perceptions of agriculture,
create awareness around the science of agriculture as well as link agricultural faculties to
one another within South Africa and across the continent. The association also links South
Africa to key continental and international bodies and platforms through RUFORUM
and the Global Confederation of Higher Education Associations for Agricultural and Life
Sciences (GCHERA).
Agricultural sciences are covered by one CESM code, CESM 010 (DOE, 2008). CESM code
010 excludes agricultural engineering and veterinary medicine (covered in Engineering
and Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences, respectively). Table 3.5 indicates
the subcategories of CESM 010.
Table 3.5: Sub-categories of agricultural sciences CESM code 010
Agricultural Business and Management Animal Sciences
Agricultural Mechanisation Food Science and Technology
Agricultural Production Operations Plant Sciences
Applied Horticulture and Horticultural
Business Services
Soil Sciences
International Agriculture Forestry and Wood Sciences
Agriculture, Agricultural Operations and Related Sciences, Other
Source: Based on DoE (2008)
The CESM codes were reclassied in 2009 and thus the 2005–2009 data are not comparable
with the post-2009 data. Colleges of agriculture are currently excluded from HEMIS. The
following section provides a prole of the number of AET teaching and research staff by
degree, gender, discipline, race, age and by eld and university; as well as the number of
students registered and graduated by degree, gender, discipline, race and by eld and
university (CS5), focusing on agricultural sciences. Life sciences were excluded because
of the many elds not directly related to agriculture. It was also not possible to obtain
data for agricultural engineering. Also, Unisa was excluded from the data analysis below.
Prole of Staff in Agricultural Sciences
As is illustrated Table 3.6, compared to national statistics, the proportion of staff in
agricultural sciences with a PhD qualication was relatively high at 56% in 2014 – an
increase from the 50% in 2010.
Table 3.6: Staff in agricultural sciences by qualication level
Agricultural Sciences
2010 2014
Total FTEs 389 448
Share of
PhD 50% 56%
MSc 27% 26%
BSc 15% 10%
Other 8% 7%
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
However, closer examination of these statistics (Table 3.7) shows that the over-
representation of white and male academics in agricultural sciences is still prevalent.
The highest level skills are concentrated at four institutions namely: SU, UKZN, UP, and
University of the Free State (UFS), which combined accounted for 57% and 25% of total
staff with doctorate and Masters degrees in 2014, respectively.
The prole of academics in terms of race remains predominantly white, with at least ve
out of ten academics with a PhD in both science elds being white in 2014. However, the
share of whites has decreased during 2010–2014. Initiatives to enable and support black
academics to pursue their PhD in these elds thus remain a high priority.
Table 3.7: Prole of academics in agricultural sciences by race and qualication level
White Black, Coloured,
Indian
2010 2014 2010 2014
PhD 63% 55% 33% 35%
MSc 62% 37% 36% 60%
BSc 66% 52% 34% 48%
Other 59% 57% 41% 41%
Note: Shares do not add up to 100% because for a number of staff their race was unknown.
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
There are also distinct gender gaps in the agricultural sciences, with signicantly lower
numbers of female staff in this group, with women holding only about 30% of the doctoral
qualications in 2014. The gender disparity is smaller for other qualication levels and the
share of female staff has in general increased over the period 2010 to 2014. This trend is
illustrated in Fig. 3.3.

75
74
Figure 3.3: Share of female staff in agricultural sciences by qualication level, 2010–2014
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
Much has been written about the age prole of academics, and the importance of
preparing the next-generation. In 2014, 43% of staff with PhD qualications in agricultural
sciences, were older than 50 (Fig. 3.4). The share of PhD-qualied staff over 50 years has
declined somewhat. Surprising is that the share of staff with BSc qualications were also
relatively older than those with MSc or other qualications.
Figure 3.4: Share of staff in agricultural sciences by age and qualication level, 2014
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
Prole of Students in Agricultural Science
The majority of the agricultural science students were pursuing a degree in agricultural
business and management (27% of the overall total, as well as of the doctorate students),
whilst other popular elds were animal sciences, agricultural production operations,
50
40
30
20
10
0
Shares (%)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
PhD MSC BSc Other
Agricultural Sciences
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shares (%)
PhD MSC BSc Other
Agricultural Sciences
< 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 > 60
food science and technology, and plant sciences. The total number of enrolments and
graduations are reected in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8: Total number of enrolments in agricultural science by qualication level
Enrolments Graduations
2010 2014 2010 2014
Total 10 775 14 173 2 465 3 278
Share of
PhD 4% 5% 3% 2%
MSc 12% 11% 10% 10%
BSc 41% 44% 51% 54%
Other 43% 40% 36% 34%
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
As illustrated in Tables 3.9 and 3.10, neither the prole of enrolments nor graduates has
shifted over the period 2010–2014. In 2014, 44% and 40% of the students in the agricultural
sciences continue to be enrolled in BSc and certicate/diploma level qualications,
respectively.
In 2014, white students accounted for only 34% of the total enrolled students in agricultural
sciences. Their shares declined at all qualication levels during 2010–2014.
Table 3.9: Students enrolled in agricultural sciences by race and qualication level
White Black, Indian and
Coloured
2010 2014 2010 2014
PhD 34% 24% 66% 76%
MSc 29% 27% 71% 73%
BSc 28% 25% 72% 75%
Other 19% 13% 81% 87%
Table 3.10: Graduated agricultural science students by race and qualication level
White Students Black, White and
Coloured
2010 2014 2010 2014
PhD 39% 20% 61% 72%
MSc 40% 32% 59% 68%
BSc 34% 25% 66% 75%
Other 22% 15% 78% 85%
Note: Shares do not add up to 100% because for several students their race was
unknown.
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)

77
76
The enrolment and graduation gures are disaggregated by gender in the graphs below
(Figs. 3.5 and 3.6). In contrast to the prole of staff, the proportion of female students
enrolled in the agricultural sciences equals the proportion of male students, whilst
graduation of female students exceeds male students, albeit slightly, in 2014.
Figure 3.5: Enrolled agricultural science students by gender
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
Figure 3.6: Graduated agricultural science students by gender
Source: Based on HEMIS data (2016)
In 2014, female PhDs constituted 42% and 40% of all PhD enrolments and graduations,
respectively, in agricultural sciences.
Unsurprisingly, most of the doctoral students in agricultural sciences were enrolled at SU,
UKZN, UP, or the UFS. Combined, they accounted for 65% of the PhD student population,
56% of the total students pursuing a MSc degree and 42% for those enrolled in BSc degree
programmes.
2,000
1,600
1,200
800
400
0
Students (FTEs)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Female Male
Graduated, Agricultural Science
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Students (FTEs)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Female Male
Enrolled, agricultural sciences
Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET)
Public TVET colleges are the result of a series of reforms and mergers that were outlined in
the rst part of this chapter. There is a range of offerings and the quality of delivery varies.
Colleges have some degree of autonomy, with college councils controlling the budget.
However, staff members are now employed directly by the DHET and almost 90% of the
income is from direct grants or conditional grants (Wedekind, 2016). A few colleges can
bring in third-stream income through contracts with industry or via SETA grants.
Theoretically, these institutions should be playing an important role in the post-secondary
landscape as the sector continues to expand. Signicant growth in enrolments and high-
quality graduates is required in the TVET colleges for South Africa to ‘ip’ its inverted
triangle and train adequate numbers of graduates in vocational programmes as is
intended in the NDP. Regrettably the performance of these institutions has been poor.
International examples, such as Germany, illustrate clearly the potential of vocational
training to contribute to education, skills development and employment. Vocational
education tends to result in a faster transition into the workplace, and countries which
have prioritised vocational training – such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the
Netherlands – have been successful in maintaining low youth unemployment rates
(Subrahmanyam, 2014).
Intentional and systematic collaboration between TVET colleges and SETAs can amplify
the impact even further (Tsamela, 2016).
There are approximately 50 TVET colleges in South Africa – of which only 13 currently offer
agricultural programmes. Curricula offered are vocational in nature and extend from the
FET band, N1 to N6. Public TVET colleges in South Africa offer three types of programmes
in agriculture specically (Table 3.11) and indirectly through occupations that support the
agricultural sector or its downstream beneciation of agricultural products (Wedekind,
2016).
In total, there are no more than 1 500 students across the public TVET system registered
in agricultural-related qualications (Wedekind, 2016).
Table 3.11: Agriculture qualications offered by public TVET colleges
NATIONAL CERTIFICATE
VOCATIONAL IN PRIMARY
AGRICULTURE
NATIONAL DIPLOMA:
FARMING MANAGEMENT
SKILLS PROGRAMMES IN
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS
FROM EMPLOYERS OR SETAs
NQF Levels 2, 3 & 4 (three-
year programme).
This is an old qualication
at N4-N6 level.
The AgriSETA has partnered
with many colleges to offer
a range of short courses
and part qualications.

79
78
NATIONAL CERTIFICATE
VOCATIONAL IN PRIMARY
AGRICULTURE
NATIONAL DIPLOMA:
FARMING MANAGEMENT
SKILLS PROGRAMMES IN
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS
FROM EMPLOYERS OR SETAs
Aims to equip learners with
the necessary skills to enter
a mixed farming situation.
Focuses on farm managers,
extension ofcers,
consultants, inspectors and
other bureaucrats.
The AgriSETA has also
registered adult basic
education and training
qualications on the
NQF such as the General
Education and Training
Certicate (ABET)
Applied Agriculture and
Agricultural Sciences.
These qualications would
probably be offered
through community
colleges in future (Page 81).
Fundamental subjects are
compulsory and taken
across the years:
• Life Orientation
• Language
(usually English)
• Mathematics or
Mathematical Literacy
The remainder of the
curriculum:
• Agribusiness (across all
three years)
• Animal Production
(across all three years)
• Plant Production (across
all three years)
• Soil Science (at Levels 2
and 3)
• Farm Planning and
Mechanisation (Level 4)
• Management
(3 semesters)
• Data Management
(4 semesters)
• Maintenance
Management
(2 semesters)
• Financial Management
(3 semesters)
• Human Resource
Management
(1 semester)
• Dairy Production
(2 semesters)
• Vine Production
(2 semesters)
• Fruit Production
(1 semester)
• Mutton Production
(1 semester)
• Plant Nutrition
(1 semester)
• Applied Farming
Techniques (1 semester)
Source: Based on Wedekind (2016)
The NCV is a Level-4 qualication that is theoretically equivalent to the National Senior
Certicate, but it has been difcult for students with this qualication to access post-school
programmes. Some universities of technology have started addressing this blockage, but
one commonly reported difculty is the fact that the qualication has only one language
and thus does not meet normal entry requirements. To date, there have been only 170
graduates, with a completion rate of less than 32%. Clearly, in the case of AET, the TVET
system will need to undergo signicant transformation to increase the number of students
who are successfully graduated in agricultural-related qualications. This transformation
will require urgent attention to various problems including, rst, the lack of practical
training and equipment and second, the limited number of appropriately qualied
educators.
Agricultural Colleges: Where to Now?
Agricultural colleges are well known within the agricultural sector given their specialised
focus. However, because they have fallen outside the purview of the wider education
system they are not widely understood and there is almost no research literature on the
colleges.
Agricultural colleges have historically had a direct line function to DAFF and its forebears.
This has meant that the colleges have not been funded out of the education budget
but rather out of the agriculture budget. However, the qualications offered by colleges
need to comply with the SAQA and quality assurance processes. This process has only
recently been completed for all colleges and programmes are now aligned to the NQF.
Table 3.12 outlines the broad areas of focus at the various public agricultural colleges in
South Africa.
Table 3.12: Focus areas at public agricultural colleges
Eastern Cape
Fort Cox Crop and Animal Production; Animal Health;
Agribusiness; Marketing and Forestry
Grootfontein
Agricultural
Development
Institute (ADI)
Animal Production; Agricultural Management;
Pastures and Crops; Agricultural Technical Services
Tsolo Animal Production; Crop Production
Free State Glen Animal Production; Agricultural Management; Crop
Production; Agribusiness
KwaZulu-Natal
Cedara Crop Production; Animal Health; Mechanical
Engineering; Animal Production; Agricultural
Economics; Soil Science; Ecology
Owen Sithole Crop Production; Animal Health; Mechanical
Engineering; Animal Production; Agricultural
Economics; Soil Science; Ecology
Limpopo
Madzivhandila Animal Production; Plant Production and Mixed
Farming; Irrigation Management; Agribusiness
Tompi Seleka Animal Production; Plant Production
Mpumalanga
Lowveld
(Nelspruit &
Marapynane)*
Water Management; Crop Production; Soil Science;
Forestry; Agricultural Management

81
80
North West Taung Agricultural Management; Plant Production; Animal
Production and Irrigation; Engineering
Potchefstroom Agricultural Management; Plant and Animal
Production
Western Cape Elsenburg Resource Management; Research and Technology;
Veterinary Services; Plant and Animal Production.
* Now integrated into the University of Mpumalanga
Source: IGroDeal (n.d.)
The colleges generally offer diplomas at NQF Level 6. In many cases these diplomas have
been offered in partnership with technikons (now universities of technology). However,
the curriculum space is more uid, with some colleges offering their own programmes
through direct accreditation with the HEQC, while others are still collaborating with
universities. In a case like Cedara College, the partnership with UKZN has been extended
to include the offering of a Bachelor of Agriculture on the college campus.
Saasveld College which focused on forestry was incorporated into the Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University when that was established during the mergers, and Lowveld
College has been incorporated into the new University of Mpumalanga and forms the
core of the new university’s agricultural offering.
The status of colleges is contested. When the White Paper was nalised a small section
had signicant implications for agricultural colleges.
A government decision to shift responsibility for the agricultural colleges from
the Department of Agriculture to the DHET will be effected in the near future.
Following the transfer, the DHET will conduct an assessment of the colleges,
and then develop a strategy to ensure that they function effectively and
are integrated fully into the work and planning processes of the DHET. The
department will also assess whether further expansion is required. In time, the
agricultural colleges may be further integrated with other colleges – for example,
by offering non-agricultural programmes in areas where those programmes are
unavailable from another institution (DHET, 2013).
Despite this Cabinet-approved decision, there is still some uncertainty about the full
implications. The DAFF released a Green Paper in 2015 that proposed the establishment
of new entities that would effectively change the nature of colleges and keep them
under DAFF control. Both departments have been meeting to develop a plan for the
transfer of the colleges, but this process has not been nalised and there appears to be
some resistance from within the agricultural sector.
As such there is no clarity and consensus on exactly what the future of the colleges is.
Resolving the matter should receive immediate attention. The colleges have a clear and
important role to play in the development of the South African rural economy, and there
is a need to strengthen the responsiveness of the colleges to the full spectrum of skills
needed in the country in relation to rural development.
Currently, the sustainability of the agricultural colleges from an academic point of view
may be at risk, and there are questions which need to be answered around ensuring the
nancial sustainability of the colleges during and after the proposed transition.
Attempts were made by the study panel to meet with the respective parties in order
to understand fully the situation and to position the panel to make recommendations
with regard to this important component of the AET system. The engagement was not
sufciently robust so as to allow for such a recommendation to be made. A JTTT has
been appointed to investigate the situation in-depth. The JTTT will seek to identify an
appropriate governance, academic and institutional model that provides a conceptual
framework for the future functioning of the agricultural colleges. This model will inform the
process and approach of transferring the function.
Although the JTTT was appointed in early 2016 signicant progress had not been made
at the time of nalising the study report. The panel thus strongly recommends that the
activities of the JTTT be expedited and prioritised to resolve the situation, and that a
member of the study panel be appointed to the JTTT to ensure that the insights from the
study are taken into consideration during the task team’s activities.
Community Colleges: Opportunity for AET to Expand its Reach?
Community colleges are a new institution that is proposed in the White Paper for Post-
School Education and Training (DHET, 2013). The motivation in the White Paper for the
establishment of community colleges focuses on the need to deal with unemployed
youth, adult literacy and various other community needs that are not adequately
catered for in the general expansion of the colleges and universities.
There is not much detail in the White Paper as to the institutional form or the programme
and qualication mix. However, they will incorporate the former Public Adult Learning
Centres (PALCs) which generally focused on the teaching of adult basic education and
training certicate programmes. The new colleges will play a much wider role, offering a
new ‘adult matric’ – the National Senior Certicate for Adults (NASCA) – which is currently
under development as well as skills courses. Currently there are nine pilot colleges that
have been established (one in each province) that are starting to deliver programmes.
Simultaneously the DHET has a number of processes underway that are exploring different
models for developing the colleges.
At least three separate committees or task teams are looking at various aspects of the
new colleges such as infrastructure, funding and programmes. Key debates revolve
around whether the colleges focus primarily on formal qualications such as the National
Senior Certicate for Adults (NASCA), General Education and Training. Certicate (GETC)
and ABET certicates, or whether they should be more exible and community-driven.
Given current scal constraints it is unlikely that there will be funding for new infrastruc-
ture, meaning that the colleges are most likely to utilise schools, colleges and other infra-
structure and operate virtually.
The role of community colleges in offering agricultural programmes has not been nalised,
but they would be obvious vehicles for dealing with issues such as farm worker literacy,
community agriculture and food security programmes and training for new and small
scale farmers. There remains space for inuencing the process and the possible roles that
colleges could play.

83
82
The AgriSETA
AgriSETA was constituted on 1 July 2005 following the merger between the Sector Educa-
tion and Training Authority for Secondary Agriculture (SETASA) and the Primary Agricul-
ture Education and Training Authority (PAETA).
The problems confronting AgriSETA: The levy-grant scheme
South Africa currently makes use of a centrally administered uniform levy-grant scheme
as the main nancing mechanism for skills development and training. Employers
contribute 1% of their payroll into a central fund and are eligible to claim back a portion
for approved and accredited training via mandatory and discretionary grants (1999).
AgriSETA has a proven track record in serving the needs of the commercial agricultural
sector in South Africa. However, the current levy system was not designed to address
the needs of the informal sector, which makes up a large part of the agricultural sector
of South Africa. There is a clear danger, therefore, that unless AgriSETA is able to apply
its funds more strategically, the needs of neither of these two constituencies will be met.
Despite the signicant potential of the AgriSETA to contribute to skills development,
projects implemented to date are small in scale, piecemeal in nature and lacking in
coordination and coherence. The potential of partnerships between colleges, TVETs and
the private sector to create meaningful opportunities for practical training, internships
and employment has been grossly underexploited.
Tracing Graduates into Employment
Currently there are no systematic, national level statistics available on where agricultural
graduates (from any level of qualication) nd employment. It is thus not possible to
determine what proportion of students work in the production components of agriculture
versus the proportion who work in other components of the agricultural value chain or
who nd employment in completely unrelated sectors. Some statistics from a limited
number of institutions are available in an ad hoc form, but the data are scattered across
databases and are not readily available. Data are also difcult to compare as they are
not collected in a standard format.
Graduate tracer studies are important as they enable an accurate understanding of the
extent of graduate unemployment in society. Under ideal circumstances they should be
undertaken at regular intervals as part of government’s routine data collection on the
labour market; however, this is not the case in South Africa. The lack of tracer studies is
thus not unique to the agricultural sector in South Africa. Only two large-scale national
studies have been done post-1994 in South Africa (DPU, 2006; Letseka et al., 2010), and
the data used for these studies are more than ten years old.
The Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC) conducted a tracer study in 2013 among
graduates from institutions in the Western Cape (CHEC, 2013). The study has important
insights for conducting post-qualication tracer studies that could inform the design and
national level implementation of a tracer study in the agricultural sector.
The School System
The South African schooling system is large, comprising some 13 million enrolled learners
and 30 500 schools. This spans both the public and private system from Grade R (Reception
Year) through to Grade 12, at which point pupils write a national exit examination,
popularly referred to as Matric. There are over 448 000 teachers employed in the state
and private schooling system (DBE, 2016).
The curriculum structure varies across the different phases of the schooling system. Grade
R has a special school readiness curriculum that focuses on basic psycho-motor skills
and general socialisation in preparation for the formal schooling. The Foundation Phase
has three broad areas that need to be covered – literacy, numeracy and life skills. From
Grade 4 onwards until the end of the Senior Phase in Grade 9 the curriculum is common
for all children. It consists of eight learning areas which were originally conceptualised
as integrated cross disciplinary elds. They consist of languages (one main and two
additional), mathematics and mathematical literacy, social science (history, social
geography), natural science (biology, physical science and physical geography), arts
and culture (music, drama and art), economics and management sciences, technology,
and life orientation (physical education, guidance and counselling). While the overarching
structure of this curriculum has been retained, the various reforms and revisions discussed
earlier have resulted in the strengthening of some of the boundaries between subjects
within a learning area (for example, most schools teach history and geography and art
and drama separately) and also a relative weighting of time in favour of languages and
mathematics over subjects such as technology and life orientation.
In the FET Phase (Grade 10–12), the selection of subjects increases and pupils need
to select combinations of subjects. A learner is required to select two South African
languages (one of which must be the language of learning and teaching of the school),
must do either mathematics or mathematical literacy, and must take life orientation (half
the credits of the other subjects). The remaining three subjects are choices selected from
what is available at a specic school. There is a large selection of languages available in
the curriculum at three levels: home language, 1st additional language and 2nd additional
language. These include all eleven ofcial languages as well as many foreign languages
from Asia and Europe, including Latin.
Table 3.13 shows a non-exhaustive list of subjects offered. There are several other
subjects that are ofcially recognised by the department and offered at public schools
or privately. These include various music subjects, maritime and nautical studies, and in
the agricultural eld, equine studies.
One of the concerns with the range of subjects available at the FET level is the lack of
foundation in some of those subjects that is developed in the GET phase. For example,
if a learner wishes to take engineering graphics and design, they would need to have
developed skills in technical drawing that far exceed what is covered in the technology
learning area. This also applies to the agricultural subjects, particularly those that are
not science-based. This means that schools that offer those subjects must make extra
provision for laying those foundations at lower levels, either through private tuition or
through adjustments to the timetable and deviation from the gazetted norms. Very few
schools have the resources or the condence to do this and so many of the subjects

85
84
are offered primarily at private or high-fee state schools. This means that the curriculum
choice for the clear majority of secondary schoolchildren is very restricted, with choices
focused largely on a limited set: business studies, life sciences, history, geography and so
forth.
South African secondary schools can currently offer four specically agricultural subjects.
These are highlighted in orange in Table 3.13. They are agricultural management
practices, agricultural science, agricultural technology and equine studies. Of these,
only agricultural science is offered outside of the specically designated agricultural high
schools, as the other three require access to farms and equipment, which most schools
do not have. There is also no agricultural subject coordinator appointed at the National
Department of Basic Education.
However, it should again be noted that not all agricultural skills and occupations require
a foundation in agriculture at school level. In fact, agricultural subjects at high school
may ironically be a disadvantage to students trying to enter higher education. Only
agricultural science is recognised by a few universities, while agricultural management
practices and agricultural technology are not recognised.
In the agricultural sciences, the key gateway disciplines are mathematics, physical
science and biology (highlighted in blue in the table). Thus, subject choice at school
level does not necessarily bar young people from entering the agricultural-related
occupations, but mathematics is probably the biggest single blockage in the pipeline as
most science and commerce-related programmes, as well as vocational programmes
at colleges and universities of technology require mathematics passes. For example, in
2011, about half a million Grade 12 learners sat for the National Senior Certicate (NSC)
examinations. Of these, only 224 635 wrote mathematics, and only 67 541 passed it with
40% or more (2013). This is the absolute minimum requirement for progression into the so-
called STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects and is the
rst major constriction in the pipeline. Where progression requires physical science the
pattern is even worse. In 2011, of the 180 585 pupils that wrote, only 61 109 passed with
40% or higher (2013). Over subsequent years the situation has not improved. There are
still only 120 000 of the over 500 000 Grade 12 learners who pass mathematics at 30% or
higher (2016). For agriculture as a sector this is a major problem, as it does not share the
same cachet amongst the majority of youth as elds such as medicine or commerce.
Attracting top performing students from this small pool requires active intervention in the
form of bursaries and scholarships and marketing and career guidance.
Table 3.13: Subjects offered at FET level
Taught at
technical
schools
Taught only
at agricultural
schools
Strong
vocational
orientation
Accounting Yes
Agricultural Management Practices Yes Yes
Agricultural Science Yes
Agricultural Technology Yes Yes
Business Studies Yes
Taught at
technical
schools
Taught only
at agricultural
schools
Strong
vocational
orientation
Civil Technology Yes Yes
Computer Applications Technology Yes
Consumer Studies Yes
Dance Studies
Design Studies Yes
Dramatic Arts Yes
Economics Yes
Electrical Technology Yes Yes
Engineering Graphics and Design Yes
Equine Studies Yes
Geography
History
Hospitality Studies Yes
Information Technology Yes
Life Orientation
Life Sciences
Mathematical Literacy Yes
Mathematics
Mechanical Technology Yes Yes
Music
Physical Sciences Yes
Religion Studies Yes
Technical Mathematics (new) Yes
Technical Science (new) Yes
Tourism Yes
Visual Arts Yes
Source: Wedekind (2016)
Prole of Agricultural Subjects in Schools
Agricultural science (which is offered outside agricultural schools) is one of the most
popular subjects offered, with the tenth largest enrolment. In 2013, approximately 83 000
pupils wrote agricultural science, roughly 1 in 5 Grade 12s. The vast majority of the pupils
enrolled for agricultural science are from rural provinces: the Eastern Cape, Limpopo,
Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal. Over 91% of schools that offer agricultural science
as a subject were historically designated for black children. The majority of academic
schools offering agricultural science do not have any or very few practical facilities.

87
86
Historically the pass rate in this subject was low, at or around 60%. However, in 2013
the pass rate leapt to over 80% as the rst group of students came through a revised
curriculum. No analysis of the curriculum or assessment of the cognitive demand has
been undertaken to date, but one must surmise that the examination expectations must
have been adjusted to address the low pass rate.
The other three more specialised subjects have a completely different prole. They
are offered at the small number of specialised agricultural schools of which there are
between 30 and 35 in the entire country. In addition, another ten schools offer a part
programme in agriculture.
Currently, the DBE does not make distinctions between types of schools either in their
funding formula or in the way in which the data are reported, so it is not possible to easily
distinguish these schools at a systemic level, but they are a very small component of the
system.
Schools with a farm and farming equipment (including farm animals) for practical training
are responsible for their own funding to manage the farm, as well as the appointment
of staff skilled in agriculture because posts are not allocated or are frozen. The same
tendency repeats itself with the allocation of farm workers. In many cases, even if there
is a farm, equipment is outdated and not effective at all.
The majority of these schools have historically tended to cater to the white farming
community and have provided a form of integrated education and vocational pre-
paration for the sons (and occasionally daughters) of farmers. Within the new policy
frame of the DBE, agricultural schools are categorised as ‘focus schools’ alongside other
schools such as maritime schools or arts schools. The intention is to develop a different
funding and stafng model for these focus schools (DBE ofcial, personal communication,
2015). This shift is welcomed by the panel as it will allow for a more nuanced approach
to these schools, which should include consideration of the costs of running the schools,
the most appropriate teacher-student ratios, as well as the need for a policy on the
management of ‘focus schools’.
The fact that very few new teachers have been trained over the past 15 years will
undoubtedly result in a crisis of supply as the current ageing cohort of teachers retires. It will
take time for a new generation of teachers to emerge. Most teachers offering agricultural
subjects (at both academic and agricultural high schools) are often inadequately trained
– both in theory but especially in terms of practical farming experience.
Curriculum Content of Agricultural Subjects
The content of the curriculum for three of the four agricultural subjects based on the
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement 2011 is mapped out in Table 3.14. The
content for equine studies was not available at the time of writing the report.
Comments and recommendations for change within each subject are noted at the
bottom of the table.
Table 3.14: Curriculum content of agricultural subjects
Subject
Agricultural sciences
studies the relationship
between soils, plants and
animals in the production
and processing of food,
bre, fuel and other
agricultural commodities
that have an economic,
aesthetic and cultural
value.
Agricultural management
practices curriculum
focuses on the study
and application of
production, economic
and management
principles that are
used in the cultivation,
transformation and
marketing of food
and other agricultural
products. These principles
are used to produce and
add value to high-quality
agricultural products so
that these products have
economic, aesthetic,
social and cultural value.
Agricultural management
practices draws
knowledge and skills
from various disciplines.
The subject is designed
to provide learners
with a sound practice-
orientated base that
integrates theoretical and
practical competencies.
Agricultural technology
focuses on technology
used in agriculture.
The subject covers
the knowledge of
how processes, tools,
equipment, structures
and skills are utilised by
farmers, to cultivate
agricultural land and
produce food and
products, through various
production processes,
thus sustaining and
maintaining quality
of life and increasing
economic, aesthetic and
sound cultural values.
Primary content
• Soil Science
• Plant Studies
• Animal Studies
• Agricultural Economics
• Basic Agricultural
Chemistry
• Basic Genetics and
Biological Concepts
• Sustainable Natural
Resource Utilisation
• Agro-ecology
• Crop Production and
Crop Management
• Soil and Water
Management
• Product Harvesting and
Quality Control
• Animal Production and
Animal Management
Aspects
• Farm Management
and Evaluation
• Value Adding,
Processing and
Producer Organisations
• Agri-tourism, Business
Planning and
Entrepreneurship
• Safety
• Structural Materials
• Energy
• Construction Processes
• Tools and Equipment
• Irrigation and Water
Supply
• Communication
• Drawings
• Measurements,
Calculations and
Calibrations

89
88
Comments and recommendations
Clearly, at the level of
the curriculum topics this
subject has the potential,
if taught well, to provide
school learners with a
broad understanding of
modern agriculture and
its different branches.
However, given the
current makeup of the
learners, from rural,
former homeland areas,
there might be a case
for a stronger focus on
sustainable and small-
scale agriculture.
The specic production
enterprises that are
taught in practical
situations should be linked
to the agro-ecological
region in which the school
is located.
Extension and Rural Advisory Services (CS6)
In recent years new forms of extension delivery have started to emerge. Wallace (1997)
suggests that attention should be given to rationalisation, new aims and learning styles,
reaching new audiences, innovations in curriculum and teaching, developing learning
webs and networks, human resources development, and strengthening regional or inter-
regional organisations and networks.
Notwithstanding the concerns for cost, studies have shown that
“investments in extension services have the potential to improve
agricultural productivity and increase incomes especially in developing
economies”.
(Anderson and Feder, 2004)
Stemming from a World Bank-funded study into the factors affecting extension in sub-
Saharan Africa, three strategic challenges have been identied by Rivera (2008) based
on case studies in seven countries. These are the challenges:
• to advance the dual needs for science education and agricultural demand-driven
university research;
• to produce competent graduate students to take up available positions in
the agricultural labour market, but also to pursue entrepreneurial ventures in
agricultural business; and
• to catalyse institutions to foster national extension-type services and community
development by upgrading the skills of producers, professionals and communities.
Best-t Forward
A desktop study of international extension and advisory research revealed several
challenges facing the agricultural extension advisory landscape globally. The challenges
can be organised according to the ‘best-t’ framework set forth by Birner et al. (2009)
which is illustrated in Fig. 3.7. The framework clearly highlights the fact that there is no one
single extension methodology suitable for all situations and for all purposes.
It is important to realise that no single extension methodology is suitable
for all situations and for all purposes. A ‘one-size-ts-all’ approach to
sustainable extension and rural development programmes will not
work. The need to develop location-specic extension approaches
is essential and in line with developing situation-specic food security
strategies. The best-t approach embraces both the pluralism of
approaches used today and the diversity found within agricultural
innovation systems (GFRAS, 2012).
The framework for designing and analysing agricultural advisory services looks at the
impact pathways and inuencing factors for successful performance and impact of
extension services (Fig. 3.7). It starts with the contextual factors or ‘frame conditions’,
including the policy environment (A), the general capacity of service providers (B),
and the production/farming systems and community aspects (C & D). The framework
then looks at the characteristics of the advisory service system that must respond to the
frame conditions. These characteristics include governance structures (E), capacity (F),
management (G), and extension techniques or methods used (H). These frame conditions
and characteristics then affect the performance of the service (I). Additionally, the
response through capacity and decision-making of farm households (J) leads to impact
(K).

91
90
Figure 3.7: Framework for analysing advisory services
Source: Davis and Terblanché (2016)
Policy environment
• Political system
• Agricultural policy/
development strategy
-> Objectives of
advisory services
Capacity of potential service
providers
• State
• NGO
• Private sector
Production system & market
access
• Agronomic potential
• Types of crops and livestock
• Access to input and
output markets
Community aspects
• Land size/distribution
• Education levels
• Gender roles
• Capacity to cooperate
Governance structures
• Role of public- private-NGOs in
• Financing
• Provision
• Level of desentralisation
• Partnership/linkages
Other agricultural innovation
system components
Capacity
• Staff numbers
• Training level, skills
• Infrastructures
• Financial resources
Management
• Management style
• Procedures, M&E
Advisory methods
• No. of clients
• Specicity of content
• Technologies used
• Orientation(e.g.
adult education)
Extension services
Characteristics
FIT
Contextual factors
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Ability of exercise voice
Accountability
Performance
Quality of service provided
• Content (needs &
opportunity-driven)
• Targeting
• Feedback
• Timeliness
• Relevance
• Effectiveness
• Efciency
Farm households
• Capacity
• Decision-making
• Change of attitudes,
knowledge,
behaviour
IJImpacts
• Yields
• Productivity
• Income
• Employment
• Innovations
• Distributional
effects
• Environmental
effects
• Empowerment
• Gender-specic
impact
• Emergence/
strengthening of
value chains
Impact pathway
Inuencing factors
Feedback line
K

93
92
When taking a best-t approach, specic considerations for identifying the best-t model
for a specic context become important. Pye-Smith (2012) noted that the most success-
ful extension approaches achieve the following: empower farmers and communities;
consider local culture and tradition; and frequently target specic groups such as wom-
en and young people. The best approaches tend to be participatory and demand-led;
in other words, they respond to the individual needs of farmers and communities. They
also involve a constant dialogue between clientele and service deliverers, and a process
of continuous learning. Knowledge sharing is critical, and extension and advisory services
are a vital knowledge-sharing institution. Within this context, according to GFRAS (2012),
there are a number of opportunities to mobilise the potential of extension and advisory
service, each discussed briey below.
Focusing on best-t approaches: Best-t approaches imply using means that suit the
local conditions, as has already been introduced above.
Embracing pluralism: Pluralism is a given in modern society and extension approaches
must take this into account. In principle, a pluralistic extension network aims to promote
the advancement of ’mixed economies’ whereby public and private sectors cooperate
more closely. A pluralistic extension pattern demands that programmes/projects be jointly
planned, implemented and evaluated by all service providers, in active collaboration
with farmers (Rivera and Qamar, 2003). For pluralism to work, extension implementers,
especially national extension services, must ensure effective operational linkages
between extension and research and other key relevant institutions (Qamar, 2005).
Participatory approaches and decentralisation: Using participatory approaches for deci-
sion-making and decentralisation to lower tiers of government, allows for demand driven
extension and bottom-up planning. Decentralisation is taking place in more and more
countries – moving the responsibility for providing extension to lower administrative levels
(it can also include political and scal levels) (Rivera and Sulaiman, 2005). Decentralisa-
tion, if well planned, can also increase accountability to rural people through subsidiarity
– placing responsibility for activities at the frontline where extension services are closer
to farmers (GFRAS, 2012). Accountability to rural people also means knowing whether a
programme or organisational innovation worked or not and acting to respond to chal-
lenges (GFRAS, 2012).
Capacity strengthening: There is a need to develop capacity in such a way that will
enable changing eld extension staff from ‘technical advisors’ to more specialised
teaching-learning facilitators or extension educators. In terms of delivering successful
training, the focus needs to be on the learning and not only on the content of the
curriculum. Extension must build the farmer’s capacity to investigate, apply and share.
Clearly, extension should not only provide technological answers, but should provide a
learning base and skills to capacitate farmers to apply principles to new situations.
The South African Context
In South Africa, the current emphasis of public extension is on support to land reform
beneciaries almost to the exclusion of providing services to the total agricultural and
related value chains. This is not enough.
The predominance of the rights issues in the land reform programme created a gap in
the readiness of the agricultural extension system to deliver support services to settled
communities for an extended period following 1994. Resources from the budget were
allocated for the restitution and redistribution programmes early on in democracy,
whereas the resources for farmer support including agricultural extension reorientation
and training were only provided for in the 2004 budget year. This was further exacerbated
by the fact that land reform was planned for at a national level whereas agriculture
was a concurrent function requiring that the provision of farmer support services be the
responsibility of provincial departments of agriculture.
It was only in the 2003 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework where there was more
widespread acceptance that land restitution or redistribution without commensurate
support services in agriculture would not achieve the objective of creating a viable
smallholder agriculture sector. Following an expenditure review there was consideration
of a dedicated allocation to farmer support services to the former National Department
of Agriculture (NDA), now DAFF.
Whilst the allocation of funds was a positive development, for it to be fully effective it
required institutional arrangements that pose challenges for the existing constitutional
dispensation which disperses the agricultural functions across the three spheres of
government. The arrangement could only be effective if there was strong leadership to
drive coherence of policy and the establishment of systems coordination of delivery. This
has not been the case.
Most recently, the National Extension and Advisory Service Policy (Draft, March 2014) has
been developed, but is still in draft format and awaiting nal approval. The policy aims to
facilitate the establishment of an effective and efcient extension and advisory services
to ensure knowledge transfer and skills development as the foundation for equitable,
productive, competitive, protable and sustainable agriculture, forestry and sheries
sectors in South Africa.
Policies and strategies greatly depend on government priorities and the needs of clientele.
However, in formulating extension policy, and thus the roles of extension services and
extension agents, it is important to note that today, for better or for worse, extension
agents do more than just ‘traditional’ extension and technical agricultural outreach.
They play a much bigger role, brokering and facilitating links and relationships within the
agricultural innovation system, and thus require new strategies and capacities to perform
these roles (Sulaiman and Davis, 2012).
Taking a best-t approach, and considering the opportunities in pluralism, participatory
approaches, decentralisation and the need for a new ‘type’ of extension worker, the
new policy will require a multidisciplinary approach for the capacity development of
extension professionals. This will require that policymakers, extension managers, and
training institutions:
• review and develop multidisciplinary training curricula for extension practitioners;
• ensure continuous professional development; and
• contribute to the knowledge support system of government, offering accredited
in-service training to extension practitioners.

95
94
This is however not the reality; several disconnects remain pervasive across the system.
In terms of training, there is an over-emphasis on learning about technology and
remembering facts (in a complex and dynamic environment) and insufcient emphasis
on understanding the fundamental principles of production and ecology in real world
contexts.
The shortage of trained and experienced agricultural extensionists in South Africa has
been the subject of much debate in recent years. The DAFF has taken active steps to
address the shortage of extensionists in the country through the development and roll-
out of its Agricultural Extension Recovery Plan in all nine provinces.
Professionalising Extension Services
In 2005, the Standards Generating Body (SGB) for Agricultural Extension, through a
process of consultation and workshops, developed an Agricultural Extension Landscape.
The landscape indicated specic extension concepts, study elds and essential skills and
knowledge areas that every extension worker needs to successfully full his/her task in a
professional manner. Along with qualications come norms and standards. The Norms
and Standards for Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services in South Africa (2005)
document was a culmination of protracted discussions within the sector on the status
of extension services in South Africa, and a need to improve the system. The document
covers the competencies and skills required in extension’s human resources.
“It is therefore expected of every individual who performs the duties
of agricultural extension and advisory services to demonstrate
professionalism.”
All providers must accordingly be competent in the following areas:
client orientation and customer focus, communication, project
management, knowledge management, service delivery innovation,
problem solving and analysis, honesty and integrity, people
management and empowerment. (DoA, 2005)
DAFF proposed that agricultural extension be formally recognised as a profession,
governed by a legal framework and requiring formal registration and continuous prof-
essional development. DAFF requested the South African Society for Agricultural Extension
(SASAE) to undertake a study on the feasibility of establishing a professional body for the
registration of agricultural extensionists and advisors (Terblanché and Koch, 2012). The
study focused on the pros and cons of establishing a new professional council under
the auspices of DAFF or pursuing registration under the South African Council for Natural
Scientic Professions (SACNASP). Furthermore, it focused on the best practices regarding
establishing and managing a professional council. The study drew on experiences of
other professional bodies and aimed to:
• determine the levels for professional registration;
• identify specic qualications at each level necessary for registration; and
• determine essential elements of continuous professional development (CPD) and
mentorship.
The purpose of the Natural Scientic Professions Act (2003) was the establishment of the
SACNASP and the registration of professional, candidate, certicated, and associated
natural scientists (Terblanché and Koch, 2012). According to Schedule 1 of the Act, no
one may practise in any of the 21 listed elds of practice unless he/she is registered in
a category of the schedule. The latest elds of practice published under Government
Gazette Notice 36 of 2014 by the Minister of Science and Technology includes extension
science as a eld of practice.
Thus, only registered persons may practise in a consulting, and extension/advisory
capacity. There are certain requirements for registration. The extension science category
requirements for South Africa are displayed in Table 3.15. The process of professional
registration of extensionists with SACNASP was launched in the second half of 2014. At the
end of August 2015, SACNASP had received 2 778 applications from the nine provinces
(Davis and Terblanché, 2016).
The Act also calls for continuous professional development (CPD). Under this, persons
registered as professionals are required by their code of conduct to practise strictly
within their area of competence and to maintain and enhance this competence. They
therefore have the responsibility to keep abreast of developments and knowledge in
their areas of expertise to maintain their competence. In addition, to maintaining their
own competence, they should strive to contribute to the advancement of the body of
knowledge with which they practise, and to the profession in general. A committee has
been established to develop CPD for extensionists and the roll out of the process.
Table 3.15: Extension science professional registration category requirements
Category and Designation Requirements
Professional Extension Scientist
(Pr.Ext.Sc.)
4-year degree; 120 extension credits at Honours
degree level; 5 years’ work experience
Candidate Extension Scientist
(Cand.Ext.Sc.)
4-year degree; 120 extension credits at Honours level
Less than 5 years’ work experience
Extension Technologist Level A
(Ext.Tech.A)
Recognised extension qualication:
60-120 extension credits; 5 years’ work experience
Candidate Extension
Technologist Level A
(Cand.Ext.Tech.A.)
Recognised extension qualication:
60-120 extension credits; Less than 5 years’ work
experience
Extension Technologist Level B
(Ext.Tech.B)
Recognised extension qualication:
10-59 extension credits; 5 years’ work experience
Candidate Extension
Technologist Level B
(Cand.Ext.Tech.B)
Recognised extension qualication:
10-59 extension credits; Less than 5 years’ work
experience
Associate Extension Technician
(Assoc.Ext.Tech.)
At least 10 years’ work, lacks appropriate training
2 credible independent witnesses
Source: Davis and Terblanché (2016)

97
96
Research Context (CS7)
The ARC is a century-old institution which was amalgamated into its current formation
in 1990. The council has 11 institutes throughout South Africa employing 2 588 people,
including 823 scientists (ARC, 2014).
The ARC has the following four key divisions: Livestock; Crops; Agricultural Innovation
Systems (including climate and water, engineering, natural resources and biotechnology);
and Agricultural Economics and Capacity Development.
The animal sciences are concentrated at the Animal Production Institute (API) and the
Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute (OVI). These institutes are recognised as of strategic
value in animal agriculture and related industries.
The ARC also provides diagnostic and analytical services through high throughput ge-
nome sequencing, embryo transfer, biological safety level (BSL) three laboratories for
highly infectious agents, and satellite imagery for climate monitoring and Geographic
Information System (GIS) mapping.
The key points informing the discussion below are drawn from the ve-year institutional
review conducted in 2015 (Rukuni, 2015).
Strengths of the ARC
ARC is still relevant for both large scale and smallholder agriculture, although the council
is losing positioning with large-scale commercial agriculture and it is gaining ground with
smallholder agriculture.
ARC is still indispensable as a result of the fact that some of its services cannot be easily
provided by alternative sources: breeding; diagnostics and analytical laboratories and
some research facilities. In other words, without the presence of the ARC in the last
ten years there would have been a negative impact on the economy especially the
indispensable role in diagnostic and analytical laboratories, smallholder agriculture and
breeding.
The ARC is thus still a critical component of the AIS in South Africa and the region, and
the ARC is still a productive research and development (R&D) system even though an
innovation culture is not fully embedded in the organisation.
Plant breeding is a success story of the ARC with many excellent varieties being
introduced over the past ve years. According to industry players, the most important and
valued contribution the ARC has and continues to make is in the eld of plant breeding.
Furthermore, overall, animal sciences are engaging in innovative science, producing
highly valued vaccines, diagnostics and animal performance evaluations, and having
impact within selected food commodities value chains, e.g. meat.
Challenges
The ARC is however facing severe challenges that threaten its mandate and gains, and
the council is not perceived to be leader in the agricultural sectors despite recognition
of research quality.
The main threats include an imminent retirement of several key senior scientists in the
absence of successors; a depreciated and poorly maintained research infrastructure;
poor working relations with some key stakeholders; a declining nancial base; and a
culture that detracts from a climate of innovative science.
Partnerships have improved with provincial governments resulting in several success
stories with impact; however, there are poor relationships and partnerships with DAFF
and other key science entities – for example the NRF. Although the ARC is increasingly
positioning and engaging with the provinces, this could be more strategic and could
avoid overlap with extension. Industry was of the opinion that the ARC does not engage
sufciently with them.
The scientic culture can do more to enable innovation and transformation, and overall
the ARC lacks capacity for strategic and foresight analysis. The review analysed the ARC
as an agricultural innovation system and to start with identied that innovation is not
explicit in the value proposition. There is lack of clarity and understanding across the ARC
of the agricultural innovation systems concept.
It was found that the R&D processes within the ARC still largely focus on knowledge/
technology generation and validation rather than the entire spectrum of the knowledge
value chain.
Climate change is arguably the biggest issue that South African agriculture will face in the
next century. At a programmatic level, the quality of science is poor and fragmented for
natural resources management, especially in the priority aspects of climate change and
the environment. Under the existing organisational structure of the ARC, it is difcult for
cross-cutting themes to gain the prominence and resources these issues merit. Currently,
the climate and environment programmes and initiatives in the ARC enjoy low priority,
are not well coordinated and lack visibility in and outside of ARC.
Recommendations
The following strategic recommendations were highlighted as an outcome of the review
process.
There is a need to review and develop governance policies to address relationships
within the ARC, as well as between the ARC and its key stakeholders. The ARC should
collaborate with its strategic partners in the formulation and articulation of an innovation
system and in the process address issues of co-ordination, communication and infor-
mation management system, reward sharing mechanisms as well as a framework for
organisational capacity building of the different actors.
Strategy, governance, executive management. The current nancial model is inadequate
to meet current and future needs for research, innovation and technology transfer.

99
98
The ARC board and executive should actively engage regularly with key stakeholders
especially the shareholders to ensure alignment of strategy and actions to existing
agriculture, science and technology, environment, water and relevant health policy
frameworks of government and the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa within the
context of a systematic, multi-level, institutional strategic and business planning approach.
The ARC executive management, supported by the board, should re-position itself to
take up research funding opportunities that exist in all relevant commodity groups,
government departments, private companies and international research and donor
organisations.
Steps are needed to create and promote a scientic climate that is more conducive to
interdisciplinary research within the ARC and with strategic partners. The review found
ARC decient as an active ’learning’ organisation. The review recommended that the
ARC creates a planning group to identify climate and environment priorities and strategies
and to ensure that there is coordination of on-going initiatives. This planning group should
include strategic partners to ensure that a coherent and integrated approach to issues
related to climate and environment is developed that can provide useful guidance
to South Africans as the effects of climate change become more pronounced and to
prevent expensive duplication in data collection.
Continue to nurture the key agship research programmes and focus areas that the
ARC is known for, i.e. innovative production technologies, plant breeding, diagnostics,
management of alien invasive plants, maintenance of national assets (biosystematics)
and pest and disease clinics.
The ARC must invest in human capital and ensure effective succession and retention
planning, mentoring programmes and enable excellence. The review also recommends
that it is important to retain and grow the identities of key research and diagnostic entities
such as the API and OVI. The API and OVI have maintained a high level of science
output, but risk losing credibility through loss of capacity. The recommendation is that
the ARC considers ways and means to encourage scientists and veterinarians to join and
remain with the ARC, especially persons who know the local agricultural and academic
landscape and can communicate with farmers, academics and industry.
Following the review, the ARC established a Strategy Board Committee inclusive of the
executive, selected board members and external experts. The purpose of the committee
was to develop a vision and strategy to take the ARC forward. The strategy document –
Vision 2050 – is near nalisation and will be submitted to the newly-appointed board for
approval during 2017.
There is need to maintain, upgrade, expand and extensively invest in physical facilities
and infrastructure including equipment, laboratories, greenhouses and the experimental
farms.

101
Envisioning Agriculture (CS1)
Various frameworks for strategic thinking were considered as a basis for developing a
vision statement for the AET study panel. Ideally, the use of scenario (planning) option
analysis and or market future analysis could have been more accurate in terms of
creating a vision for the future of AET in South Africa as it is a complex challenge that has
been the subject of numerous reviews over the past two decades.
However, in the light of the time and resource constraints, envisioning draws on the
knowledge, experience and perspectives of the panel members, invited experts, a
literature review and a SWOT analysis that included consultative workshops with the
critical stakeholders.
In “solving real world strategic problems, one must nd not merely
novelty, but novelty in the context of constraints, trade-offs and
uncertainty, and that solution must be useful”.
(Loehle, 1996)
At its inaugural meeting, the ASSAf study panel on AET considered a range of preliminary
guiding principles for a future AET system that included (but are not limited to) the
following:
• The vision should be aligned with agricultural, scientic and other socio-economic
policies in South Africa, the SADC region and with the AU’s Comprehensive African
Agricultural Development Programme.
• A new vision should be forward looking, inspiring, attractive to and resonate with
young people and all the components of an integrative AET system.
• The future AET system should be responsive to the needs of intended users and
beneciaries of the system and be quick to react to the social, economic and
environmental and technological changes on an ongoing basis thus building
balance, predictability and resilience in all its components.
• There should be a managed transition from the current institutional arrangements
to a system that is comprehensive, inclusive, professional, entrepreneurial,
impactful and accountable.
At the core of a new AET system is a focus on human capital
development, innovative delivery, monitoring and controlling systems
supported by autonomous yet inter-connected institutions.
CHAPTER 4: A vision for the future

103
102
Beyond a new vision, mission, goals and objectives for the sector, an AET strategy will
need to be denitive about what needs to be done, by whom and by when.
A starting point in developing a vision for a future AET system was to reect on the
critical elements of policy and practice that potentially impact on the existing system.
A number of key questions were considered in the envisioning exercise, most pertinently
the following:
• How could effective working relationships between agricultural training colleges
be established?
• How could issues of articulation between colleges and universities be addressed
most effectively and efciently?
• What is the feasibility of the establishment of a dedicated agricultural university?
• To what extent and in what quantities should an AET system be producing PhD-
level specialists in the agricultural and life sciences in the context of growing the
knowledge economy?
In order to frame the future vision of the AET system, the National Department of Agriculture
vision statement for the agricultural sector was considered, “A united and prosperous
agriculture”. Whilst simple in its articulation, the statement captures the desired end state
and resonates with the ambition of the NDP 2030, as well as the AU Agenda 2063.
Within this broader vision for the sector, a vision for AET can be articulated, as ‘Accessible,
responsive, quality education and training for agriculture and rural development’. This
broad vision is not linked to specic time frames, and emphasises the requirement to
support land reform along with the continued support for the agri-food value chain.
The study panel proposed a vision for South African AET. By 2030, South Africa’s AET system
should be:
AN INTEGRATED, AGILE SYSTEM
DELIVERING EXCELLENCE
IN PURSUIT OF AGRICULTURAL GROWTH AND PROSPERITY
The AET system will be:
• A vibrant, cohesive, connected procient and robust AET system re-enforcing
agricultural prosperity, socio-economic development and well-being.
• Inclusive of farmers’ organisations, related education and training institutions, agri-
business rms, research organisations, consumer organisations.
• Purposefully integrated, coordinated and co-competitive.
• Adequately funded with high-performing institutions of higher education and
training.
Opportunities for Supporting the Science Agenda (CS8)
Post-democracy it has been asserted that South African AET and agricultural science
should play an important role in the SADC region. This position has been considered by
the panel, and it is agreed that whilst South Africa has a role to play in the SADC region,
it also has a role to play in the continental agenda, articulated in Agenda 2063. As noted
earlier, over the next ten years, the agricultural agenda within Agenda 2063 will be
primarily driven by the CAADP and the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural
Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods.
African solidarity for science, which is articulated in the Science Agenda for African
Agriculture (S3A), has been ratied as the main framework for driving science and
technology in the CAADP process. The S3A provides a collective vision for science in
agriculture in Africa, through a framework and set of guidelines to shape immediate
priority setting for implementing CAADP.
The core of the agenda is to connect science with end users in a more effective way for the
benet of society. The three primary strategies for operationalising S3A are: a) integrating
science (AET, AEAS, local partnerships; state and non-state actors); b) connecting
science (with farmers, producers, entrepreneurs, consumers); c) strengthening sciences
(basic sciences; skills, facilities and policy environments; and capacity to address new
and evolving challenges).
The following need to be enabled for the S3A to be operationalised and successfully
implemented.
Strengthened institutional systems of science for agriculture. In principle, effective national
systems are the building blocks for regional, continental and global partnerships which
are required to achieve the S3A goals. Sustaining basic science capacity at the national
level is thus the basis upon which the strategy can be achieved.
Each country needs its own strategy that denes its needs for science and agricultural
research. The poor linkages between research, extension, agricultural education and the
end-users of innovations need to be addressed by all countries – as in many cases there
is a tendency to consider these as separate stand-alone entities. Well-integrated systems
of education research and advisory services are ultimately the universal solution.
Strengthened partnerships for operationalising S3A collaboration for shared gains. It is
acknowledged that African science and education are chronically under-resourced.
Sharing knowledge and research facilities amongst countries will better address common
challenges, thus increasing African agricultural competitiveness. Africa’s partnerships in
science should be based on the principles of mutual benet, mutual responsibility and
mutual accountability.
Increased investments in public agricultural R&D. Investments in agriculture research
have increased by 20 per cent between 2001 and 2008 albeit from a rather narrow base,
following two decades of almost stagnant growth. This growth, however, was observed
in a few large countries and investment efforts in many African countries appear to be
inadequate and highly dependent on donors. It can be assumed that African countries
have domestic resources that could be mobilised and more funding for S3A should be
mobilised from the private sector. Countries should explore several nonconventional
sources of funding for science.
A reform agenda for Tertiary Agricultural Education and Training. Many efforts in this
regard are currently underway, including the work of Tertiary Education for Agriculture

105
104
Mechanism in Africa (TEAM-Africa) and the Agriculture Technical and Vocational
Education and Training (ATVET) initiative to develop the AESIF.
AET has been an integral part of national strategies in countries such as India, Brazil,
Malaysia, Chile, and the Philippines which have successfully developed their agricultural
sectors. The AET system in Africa therefore needs reforms and strengthening, particularly
as it relates to the lack of staff with PhDs, the aging academic workforce, the limited
number of researchers, and curricula that are obsolete.
From the above, it is evident that there are many opportunities for the South African AET
system to be responsive and contribute to the S3A. There are also potential partnerships
with continental institutions and actors that could enhance and strengthen potential
impacts.
One of the most promising potential partners on the continent is RUFORUM, who are
currently playing a leading role in dual spheres of capacity development and policy
inuence. The 5th Biennial RUFORUM Conference was held in Cape Town in October
2016. At the conference the collaboration between RUFORUM and the African Union
Commission to increase investment in higher education was formalised. Ten African
heads of state and government have been constituted into a committee to champion
higher education, science and technology in Africa, as part of the efforts to strengthen
the role of science and technology to enhance the realisation of economic growth on
the continent. A meeting with these heads of state and higher education partners will
be held in Mauritius during 2017. The meeting will explore the role of the private sector in
funding and supporting higher education.
There are several South African AET institutions with sufcient convening power to network
and support collaborative activities to assist with enabling the Science Agenda. Specic
opportunities for contribution are identied below.
1 Supporting capacity development at the national level. South African institutions
have experiences to share in terms of reforms and developments that craft a
well-integrated, self-productive, self-regenerating, system of education, research,
advisory services. AET in Africa need to better understand the special role of AET in
’reproducing’ the innovation system.
2 Promoting postgraduate training especially PhD level to invigorate research.
Capacity building of agricultural stakeholders and access to information through
improved training and extension, intensied agricultural research, and the use of
science and technology.
3 Promoting reform models for integrating higher agricultural education with research
and extension. The current consensus study is an exemplar in the respect that it
reects candidly on the system and envisions a transformed future. The very process
of conducting the consensus study can serve as a learning opportunity for other
countries seeking to undertake similar processes.
4 Seeking solutions for sustainable nancing. South African role players are called
upon to assist in the design and establishment of the African Solidarity in Science
Fund that promotes science mobility, sharing technologies, information, facilities,
staff, and engaging Africans in the diaspora.
South African AET institutions can gather lessons on how South Africa nances the
sciences including gleaning of best practices in competitive research management.
This includes sourcing and managing funding from public and private sources, as
well as public-private partnerships.
5 Collaboration for mutual benet. South African institutions can do more to support
and engage with regional centres of excellence to share knowledge and facilities.
This includes strengthening sub-regional research cooperation through sub-regional
groupings such as the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research
and Development (CORAF), the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research
in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) and the Centre for Coordination of
Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA).
South African institutions need to play a bigger role in partnerships at national and
regional level and are called upon to support the establishment of innovation
platforms aligned with CAADP.
6 Enabling environments. South African AET institutions should seek ways to enable
more open ow of people, knowledge and resources among other African countries.
7 Foresight studies and policy research. South African AET institutions have the
capacity to generate the agricultural research policy research and analysis needed
for creating a favourable policy environment for science. It is time this role evolved
from International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) to African research institutions
with greater efforts from South African institutions.
As local and external pressures exert themselves on Africa, mega trends and chal-
lenges for agriculture (such as population growth, urbanisation, climate change,
variability adaptation and mitigation, market access and trade) are some of the key
areas that African science needs to negotiate. This cuts across themes such as sus-
tainable intensication, modern genetics and genomics, and workforce develop-
ment. South African AET institutions have greater capacity for strategic and foresight
analysis in this regard, and these skills need to be developed for every region on the
continent.
Areas Where South African AET Could Learn from Other African
Experiences
The following are areas in which the AET institutions in South Africa could learn lessons
from the African experience:
• Promoting AET alignment with smallholder farmers through curricula reform and
improved linkages with agribusiness.
• Seeking more inclusive growth models for agriculture and rural development.
• Skills and models for community-based natural resources management.
• Reforming the science system to respond to needs of smallholder agriculture.
• Integration within sub-regional research entities such as CORAF, ASARECA and
CCARDESA.

107
106
Governance and Reform: An International Perspective (CS9)
Ensuring that the knowledge and educational needs of the food systems are met poses
organisational and structural questions across the globe. Making cutting-edge research
results available to practitioners, educators and entrepreneurs is a necessary, but not easy,
task. Engaging community members and university students in education programmes
that are relevant to current issues and responsive to ever-changing conditions is complex,
but imperative.
Various successful models have been identied and applied internationally to address
these challenges. Three outstanding international examples were examined as potential
models for application in South Africa – namely the US, Brazil and India.
These countries have been selected for several reasons:
• Each has made distinctive contributions to the organisation and delivery of food
system research and education and each faces problems similar to those of South
Africa and has relevant experiences from which South Africa can benet.
• India, Brazil, the US and South Africa are culturally and economically diverse
countries that face problems of inequality and discrimination, but have strong
commitments to democracy, inclusive development and improved livelihoods for
all citizens.
• All four countries have experienced marked failures and impressive successes in
generating knowledge and providing information to ensure that the food system
contributes to the economic, environmental and human health of these nations.
The goal of this component of the study is to explore how the agricultural knowledge
system, including formal and community education, and research can be structured
to deliver a safe, adequate and affordable food supply, while simultaneously providing
strong environmental stewardship and good livelihoods for those working in food
production, processing and marketing.
The comparative analysis is not intended to ‘shoe-horn’ South African institutions into
an agricultural education framework that evolved elsewhere, but rather to analyse the
successes and failures of several education, research and outreach systems to assess
what might be most appropriate for the South African context and goals through asking
the following critical questions:
• Are there historical lessons to be learned?
• What models have worked in other parts of the world?
• Do the approaches outlined in the case studies align with South African goals?
The goal is to promote discussion within South Africa on the strengths and weaknesses of
the current system and to develop a vision of what food system education and research
should look like 20 years from now.
Taken together these case studies sought to answer the question, how can the South
African agricultural research and education system realise the benets of integration
without institutional disruption and new legislation.
The discussion is divided into four broad sections. The rst section will provide a brief
description of the land-grant system of the US and of the social environments that led to
its creation and evolution. Studies comparing the land-grant system to other systems too
often focus only on the reporting relationships of ministries, university faculties, research
institutes and extension organisations, without considering why the institutions were
created and their underlying goals. The enabling conditions and social contexts which
stimulated these changes were much more important to their success and long-term
impacts than reporting hierarchies and curricula details.
The second section will involve the case study of India, which made a signicant effort
to implement the land-grant model starting in the early 1950s. Third, the development
and successes of Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (the Brazilian Corporation
of Agricultural Research)(EMBRAPA), a publically-owned parastatal, in Brazil which
transformed the Cerrado from a semi-arid wasteland to one of the most productive soya-
bean growing areas in the world will be explored.
Finally, there will be a discussion of what aspects of the case study systems should be
considered for inclusion in a forward-looking South African system that will provide new
knowledge and innovations, as well as a skilled work force for the food system of the
future, 20 or 30 years from now.
The United States Land-Grant System
The land-grant system in the US, which now includes 106 universities with mandates for
undergraduate and graduate education, research and extension, developed in the
middle of the 19th century, a time of rapid expansion westward and industrialisation in
the US. The legislation to create the land-grant system was passed during the middle of
the US Civil War when Abraham Lincoln was president (Pell, 2016).
The economy was in turmoil: the textile industry on which both the North and South
were economically dependent was severely disrupted. Many young men were in the
military, leaving women largely responsible for agricultural production. Slavery was hotly
contested and soon would be illegal, creating social upheaval and opportunity. Within
a few months of passage of the Morrill Act of 1862, which created the land-grant system,
two other very important bills also were signed into law by congress: the Emancipation
Proclamation, which freed the slaves, and the Homestead Act which gave settlers title
to 65 hectares of land at no or minimal cost if they tilled the granted land for ve years.
These three laws were transformative: they provided freedom to the slaves, made
sweeping changes in land access and tenure, and greatly expanded educational
relevance and opportunity. It is hard to believe that this was accomplished in the
middle of a bloody civil war, the outcome of which was very uncertain. Although much
racial discrimination persisted after the Emancipation Proclamation both legally and in
practice, the Homestead Act permitted grants of land to both freed slaves and women.
These social, economic and historical contexts strongly affected the evolution of the land-
grant system and inuenced its goals, as well as traditional educational considerations
like organisational structure and curriculum. The parallels between this tumultuous period
in American history and South Africa’s transition to a democratic inclusive government
are evident: there was no alternative to signicant social change to provide freedom,
political voice, equitable land tenure, educational access and economic development.
Both countries also had the benet of charismatic and visionary leadership.

109
108
Since 1862, massive technological changes in agriculture and industry have reduced
the proportion of the US work force involved in production agriculture from about 64%
to less than 2% (New York Times, 1988; US Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2012). The original
land grant institutions of the mid-19th century bear little resemblance to those same
institutions today. However, today’s 106 land-grant universities educate about 60% of
undergraduates in the US (Glossner, 2012) and retain their original mission that universities
must serve societal needs as well as educating the next generation. The initial vision and
structure of the land-grant system envisioned in the 19th century was sufciently robust to
permit its evolution to meet the needs of today’s very different society.
In the US land-grant system, undergraduate and graduate education, extension and most
research are integral parts of the university system. By including these three functions under
one administrative structure, cross-agency rivalries and budget battles are minimised.
In addition, research results are more likely to get into the hands of practitioners and
students are more likely to acquire a good balance between theoretical knowledge and
practical skills needed to succeed. An important consequence of strong links between
researchers and practitioners is that scientists are more likely to ask pertinent research
questions that result in information that is relevant to farmers and others in the food system.
With strong communication between academics and those involved food production,
processing and marketing, the problems of isolation and irrelevance of research and
education programmes are greatly reduced.
The 1862 Morrill Act profoundly affected the funding, access and curriculum of American
higher education with long-term consequences. Because the 1862 Morrill Act was passed
during wartime, funds to establish the land-grant institutions were unavailable. Congress
mandated that each state would be granted 30 000 acres of land (12 188 hectares) that
could be sold to fund the new universities, hence the title “land grant” (Wright, 2012).
These lands often were not in the same state as the land grant university: the land for New
York’s land grant institution was in Wisconsin. Over time, additional laws were passed that
established research and extension funding, which provided additional Federal support
to the new institutions. Until the middle of the 19th century, most universities in the US were
private, most with religious afliations but some secular. One of the consequences of the
Morrill Act was to make it easier for states to create state-supported universities.
Prior to the Morrill Act, most colleges focused on the classics and theology, not on soil
science and dairy production, but the Morrill Act explicitly mandated that the land-
grant institutions were to focus on practical subjects such as agriculture, science, military
science and engineering without exclusion of classical studies (Abramson et al., 2014;
Wright, 2012). The stage was set for the evolution of the land-grant institutions into
comprehensive universities.
The stark contrast between the goals of the old and young American colleges is reected
in their mottos: the Latin mottos of two of the oldest American universities, Veritas (Truth,
Harvard) and Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth, Yale) are quite different from Cornell’s English
maxim “Any Person, Any Study”.
Similar differences were evident in their curriculum and student bodies. However, it would
be incorrect to conclude that faculty members at some of the older colleges also were
not involved in research with agricultural importance.
While the university curriculum was changing, so was the student body. Enrolments
increased and access for lower-income students improved. The original Morrill Act was
explicit that people from all economic backgrounds should have access to the new
institutions, but this did not extend to race. It was not until 1890 that the second Morrill
Act was passed, which required each state to demonstrate either that race was not a
criterion for admission or to create a separate land-grant institution for people of colour,
an acceptance of a separate but equal doctrine that was in effect until it was overturned
by the Supreme Court in 1954.
In 1994, a third Morrill Act was passed to provide support for colleges with land-grant
mandates for native Americans. To ensure that technical education and research were
broadly available in elds other than agriculture, sea grant, urban grant, space grant
and sun-grant institutions have been established.
As we consider the attributes of the land-grant system that might be relevant for South
African institutions, it is important to recognise that in the US, the national department of
education does not control university curriculum. Curriculum is the domain of the faculty,
state departments of education, and regional accreditation and certication boards.
The result is a heterogeneous system with different requirements and standards, which
has permitted states to develop institutions that meet local needs.
Remarkably, despite the decentralised system, students are able to transfer credits to
universities across the country because of accreditation and articulation agreements.
Fig. 4.1 shows a simplied organisational chart for Iowa State University, the rst land-grant
university created in 1862. The board of regents is the governing board for the public
universities in Iowa (the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of
Northern Iowa, as well as a couple of specialised post-secondary programmes). Needless
to say, there has been considerable social and economic change in the ensuing 150
years.
Figure 4.1: Simplied organisational chart of Iowa State University
Source: Based on Iowa State University (n.d.)
Alumni
Association
Ofce of
President
Business &
Finance
Student
Affairs
Academic Affairs
(Provost)
Colleges
(Deans)
Outreach &
Extension
Research & Economic
Development
President
State Board of
Regents

111
110
The board of regents, whose members are nominated by the governor and approved
by the state senate, has responsibilities that are analogous to a board of trustees. The
state legislature approves an appropriation to the university which, coupled with tuition,
external funding, and donations, comprises the university budget. Although there have
been some prominent exceptions, generally the state legislatures do not meddle in the
day-to-day running of the universities. These university-government relationships differ
considerably from many African models in which the national government, through the
ministry of education or higher education, exerts considerably more direct control over
curriculum, academic programmes and management.
Under the American system, funding is the primary mechanism by which the national
government can inuence academic programming at universities. However, this nancial
inuence is tempered because public universities receive most of their budgets from
state funds, tuition and external sources, not from the federal government. Although the
federal government provides considerable support for nancial aid, research, extension
and infrastructure, these funds are administered by separate government agencies with
limited coordination.
With the state legislatures working through quasi-independent boards of regents and the
national government inuencing universities indirectly through funding, it is reasonable
to ask who is minding the store to ensure quality. The answer is that the regional higher
education accreditation boards, which are private, non-prot corporations, with strong
emphasis on self-regulations and peer review, play an important role. They coordinate
accreditation review teams, composed of faculty from similar institutions and assist in
articulation between secondary schools and higher education. In most countries, the
role of the accreditation boards is assumed by the Ministry of Education. Reliance on
the independent accreditation process is another example of American wariness about
government meddling in higher education and academic freedom. Accreditation
reviews are required every ten years, unless a review is required sooner due to previously
identied problems. Failure to gain accreditation has serious consequences on institutional
credibility and the ability of the university to attract students and external funding.
The organisational chart of Iowa State University (Fig. 4.1) also shows a second important
aspect of the land grant system. The Provost, who also is the Vice-President of Academic
Affairs at Iowa State, directly oversees research and economic development, the
colleges and academic programmes, and outreach and extension. This arrangement
makes integration of the three core missions of the university much easier than if these
functions were located in separate government ministries with several intervening layers
of oversight between the relevant players.
A third benet of the organisation of land-grant system is that county or local extension
staff are integral to university outreach programmes. Originally, each county had an
extension ofce with staff with skills needed to promote agriculture and economic
development for the region and a local advisory board to provide guidance on
programming. As budgets have become more constrained and the number of farmers
has declined, mergers between county associations have been common, leading to the
creation of multi-county consortia. The county agents’ salaries are paid by funds both
from the university and from local government, putting pressure on extension agents to
meet the expectations of both local and state constituents. This state-local connection
improves communication, which in turn improves the quality of both the local education
programmes and applied research at the university.
One of the primary strengths of the land-grant system is that it fosters bi-directional
communication between educators, researchers and practitioners. These interactions
ensure that community educators are familiar with new technologies and their
applications, while students and researchers are knowledgeable about eld problems
that require research or educational attention. As is the case in many parts of the world,
community education programmes in the US often are under-funded, with serious
consequences for small-scale farm operations. Producers now rely heavily on the internet
and on regional workshops for technical information and phone consultations with either
extension staff or with agribusiness personnel and veterinarians to solutions of immediate
problems. Today’s extension workers are more specialised and technically oriented
than their predecessors, but many US farmers have university degrees and considerable
computer savvy, both of which are essential for this evolving model to succeed.
Fifty years ago, most land-grant research focused on solving problems directly related
to agricultural production such as management of plant and animal diseases, soil
degradation and selection of varieties. Today’s applied research focuses more on
issues of the commons: management of water supply and quality, climate change
and land-use planning. These environmental and development problems have much
broader constituencies than the production-focused concerns of the past and often
embroil the research and education system in controversial issues. Procuring funding for
support of these contentious issues that affect most of the population, but often have no
clearly dened constituency, presents funding challenges, especially at the local level.
These “problems of the commons” are not unique to the US: they manifest themselves
somewhat differently in South Africa, India and Brazil.
The Indian Land-Grant Experience
The case of India, which developed its own land-grant system, closely following the US
model, provides evidence of aspects of the land-grant system which have worked and
failed in an emerging economy.
When considering the Indian case study, it is important to note that the US and Indian
relationships between the national and state governments differ signicantly.
The national ministries and institutions like the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) have considerably more academic, administrative and nancial inuence over
the Indian agricultural universities, than do the national departments of education and
agriculture over the land-grant universities in the US. The consequences of this political
reality were not considered carefully during the planning of the Indian land-grant system.
India, like the US in the mid-19th century and today’s South Africa, is undergoing profound
social and economic change. Because of denitional and methodological differences,
estimates of the Indian population dependent on agriculture vary from 30% to 75%. World
Bank (2015) data indicate that the percentage of the Indian population employed in
agriculture declined from 59.9% in 2000-2 to 47.2% in 2010-2, which underscores India’s
rapid urbanisation and possibly explains some of the wide variation in estimates of Indians
engaged in agriculture.
Other important changes in Indian agriculture also are underway. The proportion of
women in agriculture increased from 11.7% in 2005-6 to 12.8% in 2010-1, while the size

113
112
of operational farm holdings decreased from 0.07 ha to 1.16 ha over the same period
(Dhar, 2012). When the land holding area from 1970 (2.22 ha) is compared to the 2011-
2 information, we nd that today’s farmers have about half as much land to till as the
farmers of 40 years ago. Changes in the Indian diet and an increasing demand for food
mean that India’s food security will depend on changes in many aspects of the food
system, including the agricultural research and education institutions.
From approximately 1952-1972, India started to develop state agricultural colleges with
responsibility for education, research and outreach modelled directly on American land
grant universities. Initially, eight state agricultural universities (SAUs) were founded, but
eventually 28 institutions were created. During this period, there was extensive interaction
between Indian and American academics. In 1972, political differences led to an abrupt
halt to the US-Indian collaboration, but the Indians continued development of the new
system.
Busch (1988) and Herdt (2006) examined the successes and failures of this full-scale
importation of an educational approach from North America to South Asia. First, it is
important to note that predictably, the Indian land-grant system differs in many respects
from the American model, but all the SAUs have responsibility for education, research
and outreach.
The Indian land-grant accomplishments over the rst three decades were impressive:
1) India developed a postgraduate education system that enabled them to meet
their manpower needs in agriculture, 2) there have been increases in productivity of
many commodities including dairy, wheat, rice, sorghum, millets, and pulses, and 3)
dissemination of new technologies like articial insemination improved (Busch, 1988).
Within a single generation, the Indian agricultural education and research system met
many of its initial goals.
However, there also are areas where the SAUs have fared less well: they have not been
able to adjust nimbly to meeting new challenges. Debates on the success of the Indian
land grant system often have focused on whether a semester system is preferable
to trimesters, rather than on whether the system was appropriate for India and what
adjustments were needed (Busch, 1998).
Developing programmes on sustainable agriculture, globalisation of agricultural markets
and the need to use new educational technologies and approaches in programmes for
community members and university students has proved challenging in India. Moving
from commodity-based technical extension programmes to integrated interdisciplinary
initiatives that include crop management, environmental conservation, marketing and
entrepreneurship has been difcult (Busch, 1988).
Inadequate funding, lack of strategic planning, limited communication and collaboration
among SAUs and slow adoption of student-centred education for community practitioners
and university students are some of the reasons for slow progress in addressing complex
issues. Top-down lecture-based instruction has prevailed so too often research and
outreach programmes that are irrelevant to the needs of those involved in food
production, processing and distribution. This problem is compounded by the lack of
agricultural experience of many undergraduates at the SAUs (Busch, 1988). Incoming
students often lack essential agricultural eld experience and the SAU practical course
offerings are insufcient to make up the decit.
Creating institutions with integrated organisational charts that link
undergraduate and graduate instruction, research and extension
programmes is not sufcient to overcome poor communication and
management: an enabling environment, leadership and good policy
also are essential.
As has been the case in the US and many other countries, the SAUs have been under-
funded, forcing choices between research, undergraduate instruction and extension,
with community education often bearing the brunt of the lack of resources.
Development of cost-effective models for community education or extension has been
challenging in India, especially because, until recently, there was heavy reliance on the
‘local ofce-visiting agent’ model. In the SAU system, because of limited budgets, eld-
based agents still had tenuous linkages to researchers and educators, and did not have
the resources to reach enough potential beneciaries to effect signicant change. This
problem becomes especially severe when the needs of the smallholder farmers differ
appreciably from those who have access to more resources and better markets.
With limited government resources, stagnating extension budgets and rapid urbanisation,
development of new approaches to getting information to all farmers regardless of scale
is necessary. New virtual learning technologies hold great promise for providing needed
agricultural education to all groups of farmers. For example, Digital Green, an international
non-governmental organisation that works in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (http://
www.digitalgreen.org/) has taught farmers how to make short, low-cost videos to permit
sharing of effective and adoptable technologies among producers. The Digital Green
model combines social learning with technology in ways that are accessible to those in
need of a specic technology or knowledge.
If Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) can attract hundreds
of thousands of students and Wikipedia can render hard-copy
encyclopaedias obsolete in a decade, it is reasonable to assume
that in the next 20 years, farmers and others in the food system will get
needed information very differently from today.
The Brazilian Experience
Brazil’s agricultural transformation since the early 1970s when the Empresa Brasileira de
Pesquisa Agropecuária (the Brazilian Corporation of Agricultural Research or EMBRAPA)
was founded, has been impressive. The transformation of the Cerrado from a semi-arid
wasteland to one of the most productive soya-bean growing areas in the world has been
remarkable.

115
114
EMBRAPA, which has been at the forefront of Brazil’s agricultural development, is differently
organised and managed from the SAU system in India and the land grant approach in
the US. The mission of EMBRAPA, which is a publicly-owned parastatal housed within the
Ministry of Agriculture, is to “[p]rovide feasible solutions to the sustainable development
of Brazilian agribusiness through knowledge and technology generation and transfer”
(Correa and Schmidt, 1999). Approximately 95% of EMBRAPA’s budget is from the federal
government, but EMBRAPA has a decentralised structure with 54 units to ensure that
EMBRAPA can meet the diverse needs of Brazilian agriculture from temperate Santa
Catarina in the south, to the hot-dry Cerrado in central Brazil and Manaus in the steamy
Amazon basin.
EMBRAPA is responsible for both research and extension, but not education. The universities
are under a different ministry with national and state oversight and separate funding,
an arrangement that might lead to poor communication and lack of cooperation. The
opposite has been the case: relationships between the universities and EMBRAPA are
very good. The government has mandated that funds and personnel from both entities
are essential for project approval.
At the highest levels of the Brazilian government, support for EMBRAPA has been strong.
During the 1990s when the Brazilian economy was growing rapidly, the government
invested 1% of Brazil’s agricultural GDP in EMBRAPA, which is comparable to the
investments made by Australia (0.8%) and Canada (1.2%) (Correa and Schmidt, 1999).
The current budget decits in Brazil have led to threats of ination and a budget freeze.
Cuts to EMBRAPA and most other Brazilian government programmes, including pensions
and unemployment insurance, are very likely (The Economist, 5 June 2015a), even though
agriculture has been exemplary in its adoption of a technologically-based and market-
driven approach to agribusiness.
The agribusiness sector is projected to grow by 2.5% in 2015, while the rest of the Brazilian
economy is predicted to contract (The Economist, 27 June 2015b). Agribusiness would
not be growing during Brazil’s current economic downturn without the careful planning
and technology-based approach that EMBRAPA has fostered over the past 40 years.
EMBRAPA recognised from the outset that they required a strong media presence to
succeed and that new approaches to community education were required. They
invested in getting their information out through television, radio, the internet and print
media much more heavily than comparable institutions. The result is that stakeholders
are familiar with EMBRAPA and its programmes. Because these programmes focus on
local problems, the information that is aired is relevant to and appreciated by their
intended audience. The result is widespread adoption of EMBRAPA technologies like
transformation of the Cerrado and use of precision agriculture (Correa and Schmidt,
1998; The Economist, 2015a).
Although technically EMBRAPA is a parastatal within the Ministry of Agriculture, careful
planning and policy development took place early in EMBRAPA’s history to ensure that
they did not encounter the administrative and relevance problems that other parastatals
have encountered elsewhere. The EMBRAPA administration included agriculturalists
and business people who were familiar with the ecological and economic constraints
that they were working under and who were committed to a comprehensive planning
process. They recognised the importance of functioning markets and the need for
appropriate policies and functional institutions to support research and extension. They
knew that they had to develop an organisation that worked administratively and that
each unit had to have a critical mass so that it could meet the combined research and
community education agenda. EMBRAPA has been managed well and avoided the
pitfalls encountered by many other parastatals.
Which Options Should South Africa Consider?
Revising institutional arrangements to achieve direct reporting of those responsible for
research, education and extension is difcult to achieve in many African countries,
including South Africa. It likely would involve parliamentary action, with divisive and
complex politics in budget-constrained environments.
Focusing on why the institutions are dysfunctional and brainstorming various solutions is
likely a better approach to developing an innovative, competitive food system. As Brazil
and Kenya have demonstrated, different organisational structures are workable, if steps
are taken to ensure that needed communication, transparency and trust are in place.
Recent experiences of Kenya may be useful in developing a way forward in addressing
some of the difcult political issues inherent in food system reform.
In Kenya, through the writing of the new constitution and the Vision 2030 strategic planning
process, efforts are underway to improve institutional efciency and cross-agency
communication. Some bold steps have been taken to change both organisational
structures and the missions of the new institutions. The merger of the Ministry of Education
with the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology has created the Ministry
of Education, Science and Technology with a mandate for all levels of education from
pre-primary to postdoctoral and adult continuing education. The old Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute (KARI) has become the Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research
Organisation (KALRO) with a broader mandate to make policy, establish research
priorities, monitor on-going agricultural research and oversee research centres. The goal
is that KALRO’s new structure will enable it to administer Kenya’s agricultural research and
make needed linkages with education and training. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Fisheries also is undergoing similar reorganisation.
Although the extension system and the universities still are housed in different ministries,
their collaboration is stronger than in the past. Key to their success have been:
• Commitment of leadership in the ministries and in the highest levels of government
to effective collaboration.
• Funding of programmes that mandated planning and collaboration among
groups involved in research, education, and extension.
• The Kenyan ministries and universities have been given more latitude in raising
funds, but have also assumed greater scal accountability.
These reforms are in the early implementation stages so it is premature to evaluate
them, but these considerable efforts coupled with Kenya’s long history of investment in
education and research likely will result in a system that is more responsive and able to
provide integrated responses stakeholders’ needs.
All the case studies, including Kenya, underscore the need to act: planning to plan the
next stage of the planning changes nothing. After thoughtful consideration of the best

117
116
options, decisions must be taken and disruptive changes made. This involves leadership:
having vision and the will to act, involving and listening to others to develop a joint vision
and strategy with strong support for implementation, and being willing to evaluate
progress honestly and admit mistakes all are essential. Whether it is Abraham Lincoln,
Nelson Mandela, or those responsible for the development of the SAUs in India or EMBRAPA
in Brazil, leadership matters and lack of leadership often has serious consequences.
Social and economic context also matter. The changes to education, land tenure and
the emancipation of the slaves during the US civil war occurred because the existing
situation was untenable, as was the case in South Africa’s transformation. Continuing
on the same road was not an option in either the US or the South African case. In the
EMBRAPA situation, the situation was less dire, but strong and committed leaders with
the desire and vision to realise Brazil’s tremendous agricultural potential were willing to
step up and engage in the creation of an effective, well-managed system to manage
agricultural research and education. The benets of this approach are evident as the
Brazilian economy is slowing down: agriculture is ourishing. The EMBRAPA example is not
unlike the South Africa’s position as it reimagines its food system research and education
system. The opportunity to develop the agricultural sector with the production of high
value products is clear – critical decisions must be taken in order to move the system
forward.
Imagining Innovation at an Institutional Level
Across the world, including in Africa, innovative models of delivering education at the
institutional level are emerging and demonstrating impressive success. A few of these
examples are discussed below to illustrate the range of innovative models which can be
adopted at an institutional level.
EARTH University
In Costa Rica, EARTH University was created in 1990 to reach out to students with high
potential and motivation, but who would typically be excluded from educational
opportunities at the tertiary level (https://www.earth.ac.cr/en).
EARTH University is a non-prot, private, international university dedicated to contributing
to sustainable development through education in the agricultural sciences and natural
resource management. Its objective is, through innovative academic, research and
outreach programmes, to develop the new designers and implementers of solutions that
promote improvements in the quality of life globally.
The four-year programme is demanding but focused, aimed at developing agents
of change. It integrates technical and scientic skills, develops social awareness and
commitment, purposefully cultivates effective leadership, and develops entrepreneurship
capacities (Zaglul, 2016).
EARTH University is unique in several ways; in the context of this consensus study two key
features of the EARTH model are of particular relevance – a focus on experiential learning
and an inclusive admission policy.
Focusing on Student-Centred, Experiential Learning
Experiential learning focuses on process rather than content, making it particularly well
suited to agriculture. The learner, not the teacher or the discipline, is the focus of the
student-centred approach that EARTH University takes.
The study programme at EARTH is based on the principles of experiential learning and
there are extended periods of ‘hands on’ learning where students work on EARTH’s
3 300 hectare farm gradually enhancing their skills. In the third year of study, students
work directly with smallholder farmers through attachments.
All students also participate in a three-year Entrepreneurial Projects Programme where
they work in small groups to develop and sustain an enterprise.
Before they graduate, each student will complete a fteen-week internship in a real-
world context.
Broadening Access through Innovative Selection
EARTH recruits promising young people of limited resources from remote and marginalised
regions who show potential as future agents of change.
An extensive system of scholarships enables students who would not normally have
access to tertiary education to enter the institution. Approximately 80% of its annual
intake of over 100 students receives some level of support (Sherrard, 2014).
The second process to widen access is to enrol students who show a clear commitment
to rural development. At EARTH, motivation and commitment are core attributes in the
selection process – regardless of the academic background of the student. Although
traditional test scores are taken into account, the potential of the student to become a
change agent plays a vital role (Sherrard, 2014).
This dual approach of providing nancial support and selecting based on commitment
has paid off - EARTH has an above-average retention rate of 86% (Zaglul, 2016).
A generation of leaders in agriculture has to be cultivated. This requires
a focus on entrepreneurship, viewing and treating agriculture and
the environment as interdependent and compatible, constructing
knowledge and experience in the learning environment instead of
passively acquiring it, and accessing information based on inter and
multidisciplinary approaches (Sherrard, 2014).
The core principle from EARTH that is of critical importance in South Africa is ensuring
that fair access to the AET resources of knowledge and learning are made accessible to
motivated and committed students who have strong potential to become tomorrow’s
change agents.

119
118
The transformation of South African AET would be enhanced by learning from, enhancing,
and institutionalising the experiential learning initiatives pioneered by EARTH University.
Towards an Ideal AET System (CS10)
It has been generally accepted that agriculture will remain a fundamental instrument for
poverty reduction, economic growth, and environmental sustainability for Africa in the
21st century.
Appropriate and adequate education and training, at all levels and in many spheres,
are essential for a revitalised agriculture sector.
This section describing an ideal AET system borrows from a chapter in the recently
published book Towards Impact and Resilience: Transformative Change in and Through
Agricultural Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa edited by Swanepoel, Or and
Stroebel (2014).
Tackling Transformative Change
The many positive and negative inuences on and challenges to the AET system, as well
as its singular position in the AIS, appear to be well understood. Importantly, the need for
transformative change for success in the AET system is clearly recognised and is being
increasingly called for. Many mechanisms are proposed with various forms of linkages
across the AIS system; capacity-strengthening initiatives are at the centre of most.
As a result of its strategic position within the larger system, transformative change in AET
will in turn ripple across the AIS (Fig. 4.2). The results will be felt in all parts of the system.
Given the state of the agriculture sector, such changes are urgently needed.
Figure 4.2: The AET system embedded in the Agricultural Innovation System
Source: Birner and Spielman (2007)
Agricultural Value Chain
Actors & Organisations
Bridging
Institutions
Agricultural Research
and Educational System
Agricultural Educational
System
• Primary/Secondary
• Post-secondary
• Vocational training
Agricultural
Research System
• Public sector
• Private sector
• Non-governmental
Agricultural Extension
System
• Public sector
• Private sector
• Non-governmental
Integration in
value chains
Consumers
Trade, processing,
wholesale, retail
Agricultural Producers
• Different catagories
Input suppliers
Informal Institutions, Practices and Attitudes
Political channels
Stakeholder platforms
Policies
Linkages to other
economic sectors
Linkages to general
science and technology
Linkages to
international actors
Linkages to
political systems
The needed transformation can be achieved through grand plans, as well as incremental
change, as long as key levers or potential tipping points are identied. Interventions
can then be structured around these strategic areas. Amidst a plethora of proposed
interventions, it will be crucial to focus on what can activate the system to undergo
change that is radical and comprehensive enough to be transformative.
Dening Transformative Change. First, it is necessary to understand what is meant by
‘transformative change’. Transformative change is seen as profound, fundamental,
and irreversible. It is based on breakthroughs, on fundamental shifts in individual, group,
institutional, or societal values and perspectives. Such shifts involve changes in viewpoint,
vision, paradigm, life purpose, organisational direction, or socio-political reforms, which in
turn seed fundamental shifts in behaviour or performance. These shifts bring regenerative
moments and lead to radical redirections of efforts across a system (Hannum et al., 2006).
Transformative change is usually more or less unexpected, often achieved through
key ‘levers’ and sometimes through hard-to-predict tipping points. It is always more
profound in consequence than developmental or episodic change. It tends toward the
multidisciplinary and holistic, integrating a range of strategies that focus on people’s
beliefs, values, and attitudes. Strategies may also focus upon individual behaviours, as
well as the institutional and social systems and structures in which individuals operate.
A system can be transformed over time through a series of incremental changes;
transformation may also come about as the result of a shock or strong pressure on the
system. The transformation process can be accelerated by understanding what might
be ’transformative’ and by seeking to promote interventions that have a good chance
of bringing about fundamental change.
Activating Transformative Change. It is necessary to consider on the one hand the
balance between drivers and enablers (catalysts of change) and existing strengths in
the AET system, and on the other hand, drivers of vulnerabilities and constraints that
act as impediments to change. This balance will differ by context – that is, by province,
institution, or set of institutions.
Signicant or transformative change may come if the combined effect of the positive
inuences is more powerful and effective than the vulnerabilities and constraints in the
system. If change is to happen, these two types of forces on and within the system should
not be in equilibrium. Just a few strategic interventions over time may overcome the
constraining forces. Therefore, it is important to try to recognise which interventions might
be transformative for the whole system.
An understanding of what could shift the balance in critical parts of the AET system
will help determine the strategies needed to bring about the desired transformative
change. The challenge is to identify those factors and interventions likely to be most
pivotal for this purpose and those that might be poised to result in tipping points leading
to transformation. The interventions have to be combined and sequenced well for best
effect and to prevent disequilibrium. If the process is not properly managed, the whole
system might become ineffective or even disintegrate.
There is also a need for ‘best t’ solutions, i.e. solutions tailor-made for a specic set of
circumstances and able to evolve as the context evolves. Thus, the actual design and

121
120
implementation must be managed by leaders at all levels of the system – leaders who
truly understand the context within which the changes are to take place and who are
committed to working towards success over time – where necessary, in collaboration
with one another.
In addition, leaders should be in a position to predict, at least to some extent, the intended
and unintended effects – both positive and negative – of planned interventions and
ensure that capacities are in place to make fast adjustments as needed. Trajectories
towards transformation are hardly predictable, and without experimentation and
advanced modelling it is almost impossible to be certain that such strategies will succeed.
But informed leaders in each institution or set of institutions can at the very least establish
enabling conditions to improve the chances of success and develop an AET strategy
that emphasises those interventions likely to make the most effective and sustainable
changes.
As noted earlier, it will also be crucial to understand which actions could be catalytic
for transformation, whether through ‘big plans’ or incremental change. It is necessary to
determine which interventions denitely need central or ‘top-down design and activation
through national or provincial or local policies, strategies, and funding, and which may
best evolve ‘bottom-up’ as stakeholders’ interests, capacities, exposure, and linkages
with others grow. In this massive task, choices have to be carefully made.
The recommendations formulated in this study report are those which the panel has
determined have high potential for positive transformative change if managed and
implemented with due consideration and commitment.
Roadmap towards Transformative Change in the South African AET
System
The studies commissioned by the study panel discussed several critical challenges
that can be found in AET within South Africa. There are also many common drivers of
vulnerabilities and drivers for change, as well as enabling and constraining factors.
Through the deliberations of the panel, and based on literature it is possible to start
constructing an ‘ideal’ roadmap that can serve as a broad indication of which routes
might lead to change (Fig. 4.3). The construction of this roadmap has been informed by
Eicher (2006); Pal and Beyerlee (2006); Stroebel and Swanepoel (2008); and Stroebel et
al. (2011).
The proposed roadmap is not intended as a blueprint. It is general by design, intended to
be part of a process of rethinking, reframing, and reshaping structures and ideas to lead
towards radical reform of the AET system within the framework established by the AIS.
Figure 4.3: An ideal roadmap for the transformation of AET
Source: Based on Swanepoel et al. (2014)
The key components of the proposed roadmap are noted below.
The Supportive Environment
As a subsystem of the AIS, AET has particular characteristics. It is an open system,
and therefore maintaining an enabling external environment is very important. The
characteristics and quality of the external environment determine the level and type
of support and resources available to the individuals, institutions, collaborations, and
networks in the system, as well as the ease with which their work can be done.
Attention should therefore be on the economic, political, policy, sociocultural, environ-
mental, demographic, and technological conditions that affect institutions and their
inter-relationships. These conditions will reect the balance between the opportunities
and challenges that exist in the agriculture sector and beyond. It is strikingly evident that
a supportive environment is lacking in the governance of AET in South Africa.
Government policies, strategies, regulations, and protocols are of particular importance
for transformative change given the proliferation of actors, linkages, and markets in the
agricultural innovation system. Most importantly, the real needs of smallholder farmers
Inadequate
numbers to meet
sector deman
for
Academic
staff
Policymakers
& bureaucrats
Managers &
entrepreneurs
Extension
agents
Researchers
Academic
staff
Policymakers
& bureaucrats
Researchers
To ll needed
roles int he
sector with direct
benets for SHFs:
Research &
knowledge
creation
Policy
analysis &
development
... & indirect
benets for SHFs
Teaching &
training
Supportive
Environment
Strategic
priority for
agricultural &
rural
development
Sufcient &
sustainable
funding for
AET
institutions
Secondary
school supply
Graduates with
appropriate skill
mix and levels
PhD
MSc
BSc
Diploma/
Certiate
Right
institutional mix
Universities
Agricultural
colleges
Other
With adequate
resources
Academic staff
Relevant
curriculum
Facilities/
Resources
Research
capacity
Increased
agricultural
productivity
for SHFs and
the
agricultural
sector as a
whole
Policymakers
Extension
workers
Agribusiness
Researchers
SHFs
With strong linkages to and feedback mechanisms from:
Linked to and supported by regional and global institutions, networks and collaborations

123
122
should be fully included in development policies and strategies – including AET-related
plans – in tandem with rather than in opposition to or as a minor component of the sector
as compared to large-scale farming.
The paradigm shift from agriculture to agribusiness and entrepreneurial activity provides
both opportunity and challenge. It requires policies, strategies, regulations, and protocols
that will promote and catalyse the shift, while also providing protection against undue risk
and exploitation. Participation in giant international agri-food value chain networks, co-
existence and mutually benecial collaboration between large-scale and smallholder
agriculture, a bio-based green economy, and a focus on the agriculture–food–nutrition
nexus bring new and exciting opportunities, yet are accompanied by severe power
asymmetries that greatly enhance risk for the smallholder farmer.
Government must create an environment that promotes positive outcomes while
guarding and protecting the agricultural sector – in particular the smallholder farmer
– against any action that might hurt national, sector, or AET system interests. Institutions
across the AET system are well positioned to help identify and alert governments to such
opportunities and risks and should nurture relationships that will help ensure that expert
opinions are sought and heard.
Policy coherence is a critical issue. AET-related policies must be aligned with national
investment plans and policy regimes in the higher education, agriculture, and industry
sectors. Political support will be difcult to obtain if public support for agriculture is low.
Several sections of this report refer to the need to cultivate a positive public image of the
agriculture sector and of the AET system. If stakeholders are convinced of the economic
value of AET, they can help convince governments of the need to support it.
The government must also encourage linkages between education and training,
research and development, and extension, the so-called knowledge-triangle, in order to
allow the system to respond to demand.
Agricultural development is a national strategic priority, and the important role of the
AET system is articulated in national development goals. Resource allocations in both the
agriculture and higher education sectors, and in other relevant arenas, should reect
these priorities.
The National Mapping Study clearly showed the disconnect between the relevant
ministries as being of particular concern. This disconnect diminishes policy coherence
and the efcient and effective allocation of resources, demonstrating the importance of
structural linkages, i.e. land-grant-style institutions, to encourage the appropriate linkages.
Agricultural education is expensive compared to many other areas, making it difcult to
maintain research and training programmes and infrastructure. Therefore, it is important
to explore diverse and innovative investment opportunities offered by the private sector
through a programmatic rather than budget-centred approach and through South-
South collaboration (Amanor, 2013).
The Right Mix of Institutions with Adequate Resources
The challenges facing institutions have been well documented throughout this study
report. Fragmented and limited resources have compounded these difculties. The
increasing diversity across the AET system in terms of pedagogies, institutions, students,
expectations, and missions must be dealt with and made to work in synergy – a very
challenging task.
Importantly, insufcient institutional capacities continue to limit smallholder farmers’
access to knowledge and technologies, hindering their efforts to thrive. Although many
mechanisms exist for this purpose, institutional capacity strengthening programmes
will have to be primarily based on the formal and informal connections between
interrelated components within the AET system and the AIS. There is some evidence,
that the knowledge triangle within the innovation system supported by land-grant-style
institutional structures, where AET is closely linked to research and extension, are more
successful. Such connections expose individuals to new information and knowledge and
provide them with opportunities to test their own knowledge.
Funding sources are increasingly mixed, and the nancing of extension training can
draw from a wide variety of mechanisms outside the AET system. Catalytic and long-
term investments can both be used to direct strategic priorities. There is a need for more
concerted approaches and joint business plans involving donors, governments, and AET
stakeholders.
Appropriately Trained Graduates
New trends and paradigms likely to inuence the sector in coming decades and the
resulting demands for better and new types of graduates are challenging the whole
system. A new generation has to be prepared.
They have to be entrepreneurs outside of and across international and local value chains;
able to work effectively in systems with and as researchers, extension agents, farmers and
entrepreneurs; and adaptive enough to evolve with new demands and opportunities.
Institutions therefore have a series of issues to deal with as part of the transformation of
the AET system.
AET in South Africa must increase its understanding of farmers’ learning strategies,
approaches, and methods. Farmer study groups and learning circles are examples of
valuable learning approaches which allow for farmer-centred learning.
Producing such graduates will entail most, if not all, of the following aspects:
• Reorienting graduates towards a multidisciplinary, systems approach.
• Educating them from within African contexts and with African experiences and
solutions, but with international experience coupled to incentives to return to South
Africa.
• Focusing on holism and generalism.
• Embedding gender, sustainability, quality assurance, and other key concepts in
the underlying knowledge systems.
• Ensuring expertise to engage with old and new user communities, agribusiness, and
global value chains.
• Enabling the construction of knowledge and access to information based on
multidisciplinary approaches and on engendered approaches to learning,
research, and work.

125
124
• Encouraging organisational and social entrepreneurship with a mind-set that
favours proactive action, risk-taking, competitiveness, autonomy, and innovation.
• Cultivating the right set of values towards people and towards the
complementarity between agriculture and the environment.
• Understanding smallholder farmers and the rationale for technology development
and use, and being able to participate in shared impact-oriented progress
assessments that promote self-reliance.
• Developing extension agents who can act as agents of change among farmers
and in their relationships with other parts of the system. These agents should be
catalysts – initiating learning and being conduits for knowledge resources, while
respecting and activating ‘agency’ in the farmer.
• Institutional structures, processes and approaches need to facilitate and
encourage entrepreneurial and innovative programmes and strategies. At the
same time, hindrances to focusing on entrepreneurship and innovation should be
removed, for example by channelling funding for systems approaches through
departments as a means of stimulating such focus.
A more considered focus on all levels of education and training across the spectrum –
vocational, college diploma, undergraduate, and postgraduate education and training
– is critical. However, it is important ensure that postgraduate education and training
is not neglected in the pursuit of developing the entire system. It is also necessary to
attend to the supply pipeline – those who come through the school system as potential
candidates for post-secondary studies in agricultural elds. Rapidly urbanising young
people need to have the awareness and incentive to study and work in an arena that is
usually seen as less attractive for a prosperous future.
The AET system needs a specic type of leader at this juncture:
innovative, inspiring, willing to take calculated risks, and most
importantly, committed to working on common interests with the
web of actors and institutions in an AET system embedded in a larger
national system of innovation.
System-wide quality assurance and learning through appropriate and useful external and
internal monitoring and evaluation, supported by an effective accreditation system, these
are regarded as crucial for the regulation of the system. Importantly, quality assurance
and learning provide information for strategic and operational decision-making at
various levels within the system, and among those to which the various institutions in the
system are accountable.
Finally, curricula need to be modernised to include:
• updated systems, in particular farming systems approaches, with a strong focus on
local (social inclusion, environmental sustainability, resilience), regional, and global
(trade, climate change) challenges;
• integrating multi and interdisciplinary foci, thus cultivating both specialists and
generalists;
• synthesising and integrating knowledge in domains such as production,
environmental integrity, social benets, consumer requirements (health and food
safety), sustainability science, and others;
• supporting interaction with farmers – providing them with feedback for evaluation,
and exposing students to practical application in the eld;
• emphasising the implications of global and regional and national policies and
value chains, as well as the interface between political and technical issues
in areas such as trade, foreign direct investment, international protocols, and
controversial technologies;
• co-creating curricula to ensure gender responsiveness at all levels of the AET
system and the agriculture sector;
• maintaining entrepreneurship and innovation as central tenets for working both
within and outside of agricultural value chains, including work in the area of food
and nutrition.
Curricula for entrepreneurship and innovation require a systems orientation, multi and
interdisciplinary approaches, and experiential and work-integrated education and
training. Prerequisites for success are individual and collective capabilities in innovation
and entrepreneurial activities, supportive organisational cultures, external networks,
and tailor-made pedagogical approaches. In practice it is hard for those who are not
innovative and entrepreneurial to teach these characteristics and approaches to others.
Linkages and Collaborative Networks
Networks and collaborative ventures provide staff opportunities for participation in
knowledge-sharing as well as regional staff development programmes in areas where
there are otherwise not enough resources to support such opportunities – for example,
small nations without the critical mass needed to support AET institutions, specialised
technical elds, and emerging cross-disciplinary areas. This is further discussed below.
New mechanisms to access and share information and learning, facilitated by information
and communication technologies and social media, are widely recognised as having
signicant potential to leapfrog poor infrastructure and enable better scholarship.
Advanced ICT facilities can facilitate collaboration, for example by sharing expert
scholars among institutions and drawing upon non-university experts from various spheres
– government ministries, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, and think
tanks – to bring their knowledge into the higher education domain.
Feedback Loops
How will we know if it has worked? There should be support offered by an adaptive
management approach that can respond quickly to lessons learnt and changing
contexts.
Adaptive management is facilitated by effective monitoring and evaluation as part
of institutionalised quality assurance, i.e. ‘balancing quantity with quality’; supporting
accreditation and ensuring that information for decision-making and accountability is
available in a timely manner; and ensuring that curricula and programmes evolve as
sector needs change.

127
126
Impact on the AET System: Towards Resilience
The transformation foreseen in this consensus study report will also have a major impact
on the AET system. If well designed and implemented, it will lead to a more effective,
efcient, relevant, and respected national AET system, with the “ideal” attributes
described in the proposed roadmap. The transformation should also lead in the long
term to a more resilient system.
In the simplest terms, the resilience of a country, society, system, or institution depends
upon its ability to be exible and to adapt readily and effectively to slow or rapid change
– or to resist such change if resistance will bring better results in the long run. Similarly,
the resilience of individuals and the groups to which they belong is to a great degree
determined by their ability to adapt quickly and effectively or to resist shocks or evolution
in the environment.
Strategies and interventions should therefore not only transform the AET system to be
more relevant, efcient, and effective in its value addition to the AIS, but also make it
more respected and in the long term, more resilient.
The starting point for cultivating resilience is to identify the drivers for current vulnerabilities.
Although not explicitly mentioned as such in earlier sections, several issues have emerged
that can be designated as drivers of vulnerabilities in the AET system. They show that the
resilience of the system is dependent not only on forces from within the system itself, but
also on external forces in the agriculture, education, and other sectors, on a national,
regional, and global level. This issue needs to be further explored.
Policy and decision-makers at national sector, system, and institutional levels need to
understand drivers of vulnerabilities, as well as the hurdles to resilience in the AET system,
and these issues should be systematically addressed as soon as resources allow. Innovation,
nancial strength and access to information and knowledge are crucial. Methods are
needed to predict responses to interventions and possible negative consequences
during transformation, and a set of solutions should be in hand to alleviate or neutralise
negative effects. There should be a will to act and to invest resources in strategies with
the potential to counter the risk of negative consequences and dependence on others.
Cooperation – with an open platform for communication among different parts of the
system and with key external actors – is crucial. All systems should move in conjunction
with one another so that they can respond systematically and in synergy to any emerging
risk or failure.
AET is part of the AIS and interlinked with many other open systems. Its successful
transformation will therefore have impacts far beyond the system itself – on agriculture
value chains, on rural development, and in the higher education sector. Eventually
transformations in AET will impact society itself.
Using a ‘theory of change’ approach (Funnell and Rogers, 2011; Vogel, 2012), the
contributions expected from changes in the AET system can be aligned with national
policies and strategies. Although the contributions may be small and the impact pathways
hard to trace, planning within the wider strategic frameworks helps to direct the overall
approach and specic strategies towards change.
Of particular importance is the assessment and promotion of policies and strategies that
can lead to mutually benecial arrangements between smallholder and large-scale
agriculture. Whether in the same value chains or existing side by side, this dual track is
likely to persist. It is therefore crucial that both groups benet from each other and those
positive impacts are felt by both.
Accelerating Transformative Change
Strategies can be designed and implemented in a top-down or bottom-up manner, or a
combination of both, in order to arrive at a ‘best t’ solution for AET system transformation
in South Africa. The approach in each case will depend on specic decision-making
and governance systems, public and political interest, and institutional cultures and
capacities, as well as on the strength of connections to regional efforts in this regard.
It will be difcult to address all the issues proposed in the roadmap. Difcult choices must
be made, including between strategies for incremental or radical change, and top-
down or bottom-up evolution. Efforts towards transformation can be facilitated through
learning from the current situation, from the past, and from others’ experiences, as well
as through incremental learning as new strategies and interventions unfold. Such efforts
can also be bolstered through using complexity science, and if resources and expertise
allow, through forecasting, modelling, and experimenting with factors that could tip the
balance towards the desired transformative change.
As pointed out, quality assurance at various levels is needed in order to support successful
higher education programming. Monitoring and evaluation can also be valuable for
other purposes and can play a crucial role in accelerating transformation processes.
Understanding Transformative Change
Monitoring and evaluation provide for strategic and operational learning. They are crucial
to honing policies and strategies through incremental learning. They aid understanding of
change logic and development trajectories, save time and resources by enabling quick
adjustment after failures, and identify those aspects – incremental or radical – that are
potentially most crucial for transformation. Monitoring and evaluation can also enhance
the ability and motivation of key stakeholders to experiment, learn, assess, and rapidly
scale up successful interventions.
Monitoring and evaluation will not only help assess progress during the transformation
process itself, but will also provide evidence for the results (outcomes and impacts)
that it delivers at crucial points in the AET system and beyond, both during and after
transformation.
Planning, monitoring, and evaluation can be connected from the start of a strategy
or programme, using state-of-the-art techniques to combine monitoring and evaluation
with change logic or ‘theory of change’ (Funnell and Rogers, 2011; Vogel, 2012).
As transformation takes root, developmental evaluation – real-time monitoring of progress,
performance and impacts – can be combined with special external or independent
evaluation studies of progress, performance, impact, sustainability and resilience. This

129
128
adaptive management approach will assist in tracking and assessing changes as they
happen and will support the evolution of transformation strategies. Importantly, such
real-time learning coupled to evaluation will help identify unintended consequences of
interventions in a timely manner. Where such consequences are negative, monitoring
and evaluation can serve as an early warning system to help prevent ineffective action
and wasted resources. Monitoring and evaluation can also be a useful instrument on the
complex road towards building a more resilient AET system.
Throughout all monitoring and evaluation activities, the voices of smallholder farmers –
including their different groupings in society such as men and women, cooperatives, and
so forth – should be heard, respected, and used.

131
WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE?
Envisioning AET in the Future
The study panel proposed a vision for South African AET, namely that by 2030 South
Africa’s AET system should be:
AN INTEGRATED, AGILE SYSTEM DELIVERING EXCELLENCE IN PURSUIT OF AGRICULTURAL
GROWTH AND PROSPERITY
In order to deliver on this, the system will be:
• A vibrant, cohesive, connected procient and robust AET system re-enforcing
agricultural prosperity, socio-economic development and well-being.
• Inclusive of farmer’s organisations, related education and training institutions, agri-
business rms, research organisations, consumer organisations.
• Purposefully integrated, coordinated and co-competitive.
• Adequately funded with high-performing institutions of higher education and
training.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Key Finding 1: Continued Challenges Facing AET
Agriculture is a key component of the South African economy. Although the country
can maintain the ability to meet national food requirements, more than seven million
citizens experience hunger, while 22.6% of households have inadequate access to food
(Stats SA, 2016). In this context, South Africa’s agricultural sector faces several challenges;
among the primary challenges faced by the sector are the challenges experienced in the
broader AET system – including in the education, extension and research components.
The NDP has a clear focus on (i) job creation through the agro-food processing value
chain, (ii) an expansion in quality and provision of vocational training and (iii) training
and entrepreneurship for extension workers. The value of education is also prefaced in
the NDP – particularly high-level skills development is linked to the increased university
enrolment, PhD graduates, and of university staff with PhD, as well as the expansion of STI.
AET is thus rmly on the national agenda.
However, a key challenge in South Africa is identifying the policy objectives that should
be driving the evolution of AET in the country. Early on in democracy the following
imperatives were identied:
• The need for responsiveness of the system to the ongoing social, economic and
political changes.
• The need for rationalisation and greater integration and linkages between the
various components of the AET system – the system should be efcient, well-
coordinated and integrated at all levels.
CHAPTER 5: Main Findings

133
132
• Equitable access and meaningful participation.
• More equitable funding of programmes and institutions, and standardisation of
quality by site.
• Targeted training programmes enhancing the skills of the providers of extension
within the public sector.
• Greater contribution within the continent and the SADC region in particular.
By and large there is still a pressing need to address these issues. This must be done
cognisant of the fact that the public education and training system has been in a state
of fairly constant reform since 1994. Much has been achieved in transforming a highly
segmented system into a national system, and there has been signicant progress in
terms of access at all levels. Unfortunately, the quality of the expansion has at times
been poor, and most critically the foundations have not been strengthened. Now is an
opportune time for transformation (not more reform for the sake of reform) as the system
as it relates to AET is highly uid.
Key Finding 2: The (Dis-)Enabling Environment
Governance and Coordination (CS1&2)
The challenge of governing a system across multiple ministries and with multiple levels of
institutions is well known.
The national mapping exercise highlighted the urgent need for a greater level of
alignment, the removal of duplication and the removal of compartmentalised (silo)
structures that do not serve a coordinated and integrated AET system. The system is
in dire need of substantial governance reform directed towards greater integration,
cooperation and accountability to maximise the returns on available nancial, human
capital and physical infrastructure.
A coherent ‘vision’ of the future agricultural system(s) toward which South African
agriculture is needed to inform the focus and direction the future AET system and the
governance thereof. All stakeholders and inuential role players should contribute
towards such a futures/foresight exercise, while noting the importance of accepting a
wider denition of agriculture, inclusive of farming (large and small scale), agribusiness
and all related functions in the value chain and supporting network i.e. the ‘agri value
chain-network’.
The Case of the Agricultural Colleges (CS3)
The colleges have usually been administered and governed by the relevant line
department or provincial department, and have not been formally part of the higher
education system. This is being revised with some colleges being moved directly to the
DHET. Despite this Cabinet-approved decision, there is still uncertainty about the full
implications. As such there is no clarity and consensus on exactly what the future of the
colleges is. Resolving the matter should receive immediate attention. The colleges have a
clear and important role to play in the development of the South African rural economy,
and there is a need to strengthen the responsiveness of the colleges to the full spectrum
of skills needed in the country in relation to rural development.
Attempts were made by the study panel to meet with the respective parties to understand
fully the situation and to position the panel to make recommendations regarding this
important component of the AET system. The engagement was not sufciently robust to
allow for such a recommendation to be made. A JTTT to investigate the matter has been
appointed. The JTTT will seek to identify an appropriate governance, academic and
institutional model that provides a conceptual framework for the future functioning of
the agricultural colleges. This model will inform the process and approach of transferring
the function.
Although the JTTT was appointed in early 2016 signicant progress had not been made
at the time of nalising the study report.
Key Finding 3: Relevant Institutions and Adequate Resources
Articulation and Integration (CS3–7)
Although supported in principle and allowed for within the NQF, there is very little
articulation between the various components of the AET system, with key blockages
hindering the realisation of a fully integrated system.
The transition from school to post-school education is a key blockage point.
Not all agricultural skills and occupations require a foundation in agriculture at school
level. In fact, agricultural subjects at high school may ironically be a disadvantage to
students trying to enter higher education. Only agricultural science is recognised by a
few universities while agricultural management practices and agricultural technology
are not recognised.
There are minimum requirements for specic subjects in some elds, most notably
mathematics. These entry requirements mean that there is a smaller proportion of
students who meet the criteria to enter the system. Post-school AET is further affected by
these lower than desired translation rates because it is competing for the pool of students
with access to high-prole elds of study, such as medicine.
One of the concerns with the range of subjects available at the FET level is the lack
of foundation in some of those subjects that is developed in the GET phase. This also
applies to the agricultural subjects, particularly those that are not science-based. This
means that schools that offer those subjects have to make extra provision for laying those
foundations at lower levels, either through private tuition or through adjustments to the
timetable and deviation from the gazetted norms. Very few schools have the resources
or the condence to do this and so many of the subjects are offered primarily at private
or high-fee state schools. This means that the curriculum choice for the vast majority of
secondary schoolchildren is very restricted.
In the agricultural sciences, the key gateway disciplines are mathematics, physical science
and biology. Subject choice at school level does not necessarily bar young people from
entering into the agricultural-related occupations, but mathematics is the biggest single
blockage in the pipeline as most science and commerce-related programmes, as well as
vocational programmes at colleges and universities of technology require mathematics

135
134
passes. Agricultural curricula at school-level needs to feed into the system (mathematics
and science).
Relationships between colleges and higher education are not structured or regulated
and rely primarily on individual relationships among institutional leaders. There is no legal
framework to encourage or require systemic relations between universities and colleges
of agriculture. The lack of clarity and progress around the agricultural colleges and their
positioning within DHET (as opposed to DAFF) has signicant ripple effects on the quality
of educational provision and the potential for enhanced articulation.
Reversing the Inverted Pyramid
South Africa’s post-school inverted pyramid negatively impacts the delivery of AET in the
country. Too many institutions focus on academic programmes and too few prepare
people for the intermediate and lower levels of skills. This situation is unsustainable when
taking into consideration the NDP targets for increased enrolments.
Vocational training should be afforded a high priority. Farm workers, as well as all
worker/labourers in the agriculture and food value chains (AFVC), have become highly
specialised positions due to the ever-increasing need for greater productivity and
competitiveness. Signicant growth in enrolments and high-quality graduates is required
in the TVET colleges for South Africa to ’ip’ its inverted triangle and train adequate
numbers of graduates in vocational programmes as is intended in the NDP. Regrettably
the performance of these institutions has been poor. In total, there are no more than
1 500 students across the public TVET system registered in agricultural-related qualications.
This is an unacceptable status quo, which needs to be addressed. International models,
for example the vocational sector in Germany, provide frameworks and models which
can be studied in-depth and contextualised for South Africa to improve the efciency
and effectiveness of the TVETs, but also to increase the impact of the AgriSETA.
The important role of the colleges and the potential role of the proposed community
colleges are key levers in addressing the situation. Practical and feasible solutions, which
are innovative and forward-looking, should be encouraged to address the situation.
Solutions should address fundamental issues such as governance structures for TVET
colleges, colleges of agriculture and community colleges; as well as articulation and
mobility for students within the system.
Complex social and economic factors drive the current over-emphasis on university-
level training. Proposed solutions to address the matter must focus on ensuring quality of
education, exposure to cutting-edge practical training and employability of graduates
to be successful. This will require innovative collaboration between the components of
the AET system and the private sector.
Funding and Resource Allocation (CS3–7)
Funding for education is a highly contested issue across institutions in South Africa. The
need for greater funding for AET was raised at all stakeholder workshops, particularly
the need for increased funding to enable institutions to provide practical, vocationally
relevant training.
The capacity of schools to effectively deliver agricultural science as a subject is limited
by a lack of funding and the absence of appropriate infrastructure for practical training.
Funds which are available are not efciently distributed or effectively managed.
Funding support was identied as a major aspect to draw students into AET in post-school
education. At present various entities provide bursaries for both domestic and to a
limited extent for overseas studies and exchanges. It would be worthwhile, to investigate
the possibility of coordinating these efforts from a single desk/entity in order minimise
administration costs and ease applications due to a single contact point. This will also
enable better oversight over bursars. Access to funding for students, particularly in the
colleges where NSFAS are not accessible, is critical.
The AET system will need to engage in non-traditional approaches for funding for practical
level training, including building linkages to industry and the private sector. In the light of
the current turmoil and uncertainty with regard to funding from government the sector
cannot afford to be short-sighted in this regard.
Key Finding 4: An Adequate Number of Appropriately Trained
Graduates
Relevance and Responsiveness of Curricula
There is no shortage of registered qualications in the eld of agriculture on the NQF.
However, to date focus has been primarily on production; yet, skills for the agricultural
supply chain are drawn from all levels of the system and not just from the university sector,
and they come from a wider range of disciplines than the specic agricultural-focused
qualications. Like any other economic sector, agriculture requires a range of managerial,
nancial, marketing and a wide array of technical skills that are not agriculture specic.
AET thus needs to focus on strengthening capacities not only for production, but to equip
a broad range of professionals and practitioners to engage across multiple “points” in
the value chain. In other words, there is an urgent need for improved relevance in the
curricula.
Linked to the need for relevance, is the need for multi and transdisciplinary approaches
to curriculum that address modern day topics, to nd solutions to grand challenges, such
as climate change and drive economic development. Students are primarily educated
for commercial agriculture, with little focus on smallholder farmers – an inappropriate
bias given the context of the country. There are notable exceptions, for example the
Postgraduate School of Agriculture and Rural Development (PGSARD) – a research and
teaching unit established in 1991 within the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at
the University of Pretoria. Programmes with a similar focus and targeted at undergraduate
and postgraduate level are needed. Furthermore, there is little focus on the social and
human dimensions of agriculture. All the above need to be taken into consideration if
the curriculum offerings are to address current needs.
Training fails to meet the needs of industry and bridge the skills-knowledge-practice
gap. Navigating the modern-day world of work requires both students and educators to
become accustomed to and familiar with a broad range of skills. Training and education

137
136
require the development of the so-called T-shaped skills where depth in discipline-
specic knowledge is balanced by a breadth of soft skills – including communication,
management and nancial skills. Taking into consideration the important role that
entrepreneurship is expected to play in South African economic development, T-shaped
skills must be positioned as essential supplements to disciplinary knowledge – rather than
add on components.
Considering the above, the importance of the development of interpersonal and soft skills
should not be overlooked. A recent study evaluated the relative importance of various
skill sets within a management context. Respondents in this study assigned the highest
importance to interpersonal, communication, team building, conict management and
related ‘soft skills’ (Van Rooyen et al., 2012). The need to address depth in disciplinary
knowledge, as well as transferrable skills is evident across the full spectrum of qualications,
from school level to PhD level.
Industry stakeholders specically have expressed a clear need for the inclusion of more
practical exposure, internships and industry placements, the need for the development
of combined skill sets and improved communication between the industry and tertiary
education providers regarding AET programmes.
From industry’s side the need for more practical experience is directed primarily towards
university qualications and will have to be partially addressed in future, most probably
through the inclusion of compulsory internships/placement programmes within current
curricula. The success of such an initiative will depend on its ability to address practical
constraints, such as the availability of affordable and suitable accommodation, the
administration of the programmes and the legal status of interns from a workplace
insurance perspective.
In the attempt to expand opportunities for practical exposure, South African universities
need to reach out actively to smallholder groups and to small and medium-sized
businesses in order to engage them in the learning process. This can signicantly open up
opportunities for student experiential learning opportunities.
Student attachments need a formal structure, with proper feedback and follow up
between universities and industry. Attachments should be formally and collaboratively
assessed by both the universities and industry.
The matter of increased practical exposure demanded from the industry, specically
at university level, raises the question of the mandates of the respective institutions/
entities within the AET system. The underdeveloped college and TVET system results in
greater pressure on universities to deliver more technically/practically trained graduates,
a responsibility which is rather that of the (sectoral) colleges due to the greater research
focus of universities. It is essential that industry (the AFVC), both individual and organised,
is involved in this process of dening the respective roles and improving the relevance of
the education provided by the more practically orientated institutions (See also the Key
Finding raised above related to the inverted pyramid).
The AET System is in Dire Need of Quality, Qualied Educators
The quality of educators, as well as the number of teachers appropriately trained to teach
agriculture at school level is of serious concern. It will become increasingly impossible
to appropriately train adequate numbers of students without addressing the need to
replenish and build the cadre of agricultural educators.
The need for an increase in qualied educators is not limited to any one specic
component of the AET system; rather the needs for improved skills are critical across the
board from school level to PhD level.
Diversity and Transformation in the Context of Access and Meaningful
Participation
Within higher education, the prole of academics in terms of race remains predominantly
white, with at least ve out of ten academics with a PhD in both science elds being
white in 2014. However, the share of whites has decreased during the period 2010 to 2014
(HEMIS, 2016). Initiatives to enable and support black academics to pursue PhDs in these
elds thus remain a high priority. There are also distinct gender gaps in the agricultural
sciences, with signicantly lower numbers of female staff in this group, with women holding
only about 30% of the doctoral qualications in 2014. The gender disparity is smaller for
other qualication levels and the share of female staff has in general increased from 2010
to 2014 (HEMIS, 2016).
As is illustrated in Table 3.8 on page 75 (See section on The Educational Context (CS4)),
neither the prole of enrolments nor graduates in either elds has shifted over the period
2010-2014. In 2014, 44% and 40% of the students in the agricultural sciences continue to
be enrolled in BSc and certicate/diploma-level qualications, respectively.
In 2014, white students accounted for only 34% of the total enrolled students in agricultural
sciences. Their shares declined at all qualication levels between 2010 and 2014.
In contrast to the prole of staff, the proportion of female students enrolled in the
agricultural sciences has equalled the proportion of male students, whilst graduation of
female students exceeds male students, albeit slightly, in 2014.
Professionalisation of Extension Work
Within the framework of the Natural Scientic Professions Act (2003), the latest elds
of practice published under Government Gazette Notice 36 of 2014 by the Minister of
Science and Technology includes extension science as a eld of practice. Thus, only
registered persons may practise in a consulting, extension/advisory capacity. The process
of professional registration of extensionists with SACNASP was launched in the second
half of 2014. The study panel welcomes this development.
The Act also calls for CPD. Under this, persons registered as professionals are required by
their code of conduct to practise strictly within their area of competence and to maintain
and enhance this competence. They therefore have the responsibility to keep abreast of
developments and knowledge in their areas of expertise to maintain their competence.

139
138
A committee has been established to develop CPD for extensionists and the roll out of
the process. The study panel views this development as a key opportunity for the sector.
Use of ICT and Social Media (CS3)
Across all provinces and levels of education there was little evidence for the use of ICTs
and social media in education and extension, despite the numerous opportunities it
presents.
The lack of ICT engagement at educational level translates into poor skills and engage-
ment with these technologies in the professional workspace which is a disadvantage for
students.
Agriculture as First Choice and Career Pathways
Agriculture is not a career of rst choice. This creates challenges for effective sourcing of
high-quality students for post-school studies.
Within higher education there are very clearly articulated career pathways. There is
however, limited understanding or awareness of the vast number of agri-business/
entrepreneurship careers that exist along the entire food and nutrition value chain. This
lack of awareness is evident at both school and higher education level.
Key Finding 5: Strong Linkages and Feedback Mechanisms
The Knowledge Triangle
The linkages between research–teaching–extension are poor, and there is a need for
better coordination within this knowledge triangle.
Research and Research Support (CS2)
The ARC is still relevant for both large scale and smallholder agriculture, although the
council is losing positioning with large-scale commercial agriculture and is gaining
ground with smallholder agriculture. The ARC is thus still a critical component of the AIS
in South Africa and the region, and the ARC is still a productive R&D system even though
an innovation culture is not fully embedded in the organisation.
The ARC is, however, facing severe challenges that threaten its mandate and gains, and
the council is not perceived to be leader in the agricultural sectors despite recognition
of research quality. The main threats include an imminent retirement of several key senior
scientists in the absence of successors; a depreciated and poorly maintained research
infrastructure; poor working relations with some key stakeholders; a declining nancial
base; and a culture that detracts from a climate of innovative science.
Climate change is arguably the biggest issue that South African agriculture will face in
the next century. At a programmatic level, the quality of science is poor and fragmented
for natural resources management especially in the priority aspects of climate change
and the environment. Under the existing organisational structure of the ARC, it is difcult
for cross-cutting themes to gain the prominence and resources these issues merit.
There is a need to review and develop governance policies to address relationships
within the ARC, as well as between the ARC and its key stakeholders. The ARC should
collaborate with its strategic partners in the formulation and articulation of an innovation
system.
Greater cooperation between the ARC and NRF is urgently needed. These organisations
have a similar vision and mission with regard to human capacity development but a
greater level of cooperation towards a more focused contribution to AET is required.
One possibility is the creation of a dedicated Science Research Innovation Link that
coordinates and integrates efforts between these institutions towards achieving the
aforementioned goal.
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION TO EXTENSION
International evidence suggests that fostering agricultural innovation through enhanced
research support and entrepreneurship can become a key driver of development.
However, this cannot be realised without effective innovation transfer, diffusion and
uptake. In the context of AET, this process is facilitated in a very large part by extension
and rural advisory services.
The study panel considered the plausibility of implementing a land-grant-type model in
South Africa. Several case studies in the US, Brazil, India and Kenya were considered –
each case study was selected for the comparability of context to South Africa, as well
as to illustrate how various adaptions of the land-grant model have been implemented
globally. The goal of this component of the study was to explore how the agricultural
knowledge system, including formal and community education, and research can be
structured optimally in the South African context.
Key success elements of the land-grant system were identied
• a single leader directly oversees research, the academic programmes, and
outreach and extension. This arrangement makes integration of the three core
missions of the university much easier;
• ideally these functions are coordinated by government within a single ministry to
eliminate several intervening layers of oversight between the relevant players;
• a heterogeneous system with different requirements and standards, permitting the
development of institutions that meet local needs;
• students can transfer credits to universities across the country because of
accreditation and articulation agreements;
• local extension staff are integral to university outreach programmes;
• bi-directional communication between educators, researchers and practitioners.
These interactions ensure that community educators are familiar with new
technologies and their applications, while students and researchers are
knowledgeable about eld problems that require research or educational
attention.
Creating institutions with integrated organisational charts that link undergraduate and
graduate instruction, research and extension programmes is not sufcient to overcome
poor communication and management: an enabling environment, leadership and
good policy also are essential.

141
140
Revising institutional arrangements at governmental level to achieve direct reporting of
those responsible for research, education and extension is difcult to achieve in many
African countries, including South Africa. It likely would involve parliamentary action,
with divisive and complex politics in budget-constrained environments. The case of
Brazil provides an alternative scenario. EMBRAPA is responsible for both research and
extension, but not education. The universities are under a different ministry with national
and state oversight and separate funding, an arrangement that might lead to poor
communication and lack of cooperation. The opposite has been the case: relationships
between the universities and EMBRAPA are very good. The government has mandated
that funds and personnel from both entities are essential for project approval.
Focusing on why the institutions are dysfunctional and brainstorming various solutions
likely is a better approach to developing an innovative, competitive food system. As
Brazil and Kenya have demonstrated, different organisational structures are workable to
achieve the same level of coordination and relevance, if steps are taken to ensure that
needed communication, transparency and trust are in place.
Opportunities for Regional Partnerships and Collaboration
South African institutions have experiences to share in terms of reforms and developments
that craft a well-integrated, self-productive, self-regenerating system of education,
research, and advisory services. The current consensus study is an exemplar in the
respect that is reects candidly on the system and envisions a transformed future. The
very process of conducting the consensus study can serve as a learning opportunity for
other countries seeking to undertake similar processes.
Various opportunities for contribution and collaboration within the region were identied
in the study. The most outstanding opportunities are:
• Seeking solutions for sustainable nancing of the science. Specically assist in the
design and establishment of the African Solidarity in Science Fund that promotes
science mobility, sharing technologies, information, facilities, staff, and engaging
Africans in the diaspora.
• Incentivising investment in science. AET institutions can gather lessons on how
South Africa nances the sciences including gleaning of best practices in compe-
titive research management. This includes various public and private models. The
NRF’s experience with competitive funding models can be of value in this regard.
• Policy, research and analysis. AET institutions have capacity to establish agri-
cultural research policy research and analysis needed for creating a favourable
policy environment for science. It is time this role evolved from IFPRI to African
research institutions with greater efforts from South African institutions. FANRPAN
has played a leading role in this during the past ten years.
• Collaboration for mutual benet. South African institutions should seek to identify
ways in which they can participate in continental partnerships that can strengthen
AET in the country and contribute to African development. Key role players
with signicant reputation and leverage should be engaged. Networks, such as
RUFORUM, provide a platform for this type of highly impactful collaboration.
South African institutions can do more to support and engage with regional
centres of excellence to share knowledge and facilities. This includes strengthening
sub-regional research cooperation through sub-regional groupings such as CORAF,
ASARECA and CCARDESA. South African institutions need to play bigger roles in
partnerships at national and regional level and should support the establishment of
innovation platforms aligned with CAADP.
South African AET institutions should seek ways to provide spaces for more open
ow of people, knowledge and resources among other African countries.
• Foresight capabilities. South African AET institutions have great capacity for strategic
and foresight analysis and these skills need to be developed for every region on the
continent. As local and external pressures exert themselves on Africa, mega trends
and challenges for agriculture in Africa, such as population growth, urbanisation,
climate change, variability adaptation and mitigation, market access and trade
and livelihood resilience are some of the key areas that African science needs to
navigate.
Concluding Reection: Challenges in the South African Innovation System
Taken from the National Advisory Council on Innovation Strategic Plan 2016–20
and Performance Plan 2016/17 (NACI, 2016)
Since the adoption of the White Paper on Science and Technology (DACST, 1996), the
NSI has made progress in several areas. However, the following challenges still need to
be addressed:
• The creation of a responsive, coordinated and efcient NSI.
• The development of robust planning, monitoring and evaluation capacity.
• The expansion and transformation of human resources for STI.
• The commercialisation of the results of public research and development.
• The improvement of knowledge transfer and diffusion.
• The provision and maintenance of state-of-the-art STI infrastructure.
• Effective integrated management of the water, energy and food nexus to ensure
nutritional security.
• The nancing of the system, especially regarding increasing private-sector
investment in research, development and innovation.
• The uptake of locally developed technologies.
Like other national systems of innovation, South Africa’s NSI must deal with the following
global challenges:
• The effects of a scally constrained environment on STI.
• The need to demonstrate how public investment in STI benets the economy and
society.
• Better impact indicators and impact assessments required.
• How to strengthen the innovation capacity of small and medium enterprises.
• The rapid digitisation of the world through the development of information and
communication technologies, open science and big data.
• The globalisation and growing complexity of STI, which requires greater and
interdisciplinary cooperation.
• The role of STI in creating sustainable and inclusive growth.

143
142
• Growing societal engagement with science and technology, and the need to
ensure public trust.
Each of the challenges identied by NACI in the South African NSI is relevant to the AET
context, and in this respect the AET system represents a microcosm of the South African
NSI. Three further points must be noted. First, agriculture is a distinct sector and should be
recognised as such. The total diffusion of agriculture into related disciplines and thematic
areas should be avoided; although linkages and cross-cutting work is imperative and
should be encouraged. Second, sector agriculture (and the agri-food value chain) has
been identied by NACI as one of the key priorities in the NSI as it relates to the water–
energy–food security nexus. Working towards an efcient AET system is therefore an
urgent national priority. Third, the strong overlap between the key challenges identied
by the study panel and the NACI situational analysis afrms the ndings of the study
panel and enables prioritisation in addressing the current challenges. This is expanded
upon in Chapter 6: Recommendations.
The strategic outcomes, goals and proxy indicators identied by NACI to address the
challenges above are illustrated in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: NACI strategic outcome-oriented goals
Strategic outcome-
oriented goal 1
Improved efciency and
effectiveness in generating
advice (proactive and reactive). Goal area 1 is directly
related to the objective of
the consensus study, i.e. to
advise government on AET
in South Africa
Goal statement
To learn from previous experience
to improve efcacy, relevance
and ensure evidence-based,
condential and timely advice
to the Minister of Science and
Technology and, through the
Minister, Cabinet.
Strategic outcome-
oriented goal 2 Performance of the NSI assessed.
Recommendation 10
(Chapter 6) indicates the
potential of the panel
ndings to contribute to
Goal Area 2
Goal statement
To contribute to the building of
NSI monitoring, evaluation and
learning capability in order to
assess the health of the NSI and
its contribution to sustainable and
inclusive development.
Strategic outcome-
oriented goal 3
Governance and planning of the
NSI.
Goal Area 3 is
directly related to the
objectives, ndings and
recommendations of the
study panel
Goal statement
To contribute to the building of a
well-coordinated, responsive and
effective NSI.
Strategic outcome-
oriented goal 4
To transform NACI into a
smart, efcient and learning
organisation.
Recommendation 10
(Chapter 6) indicates the
potential of the panel
ndings to contribute to
Goal Area 4
Goal statement Transforming NACI into a
smart, efcient and learning
organisation.
Source: NACI (2016)

145
Based on the key ndings described in Chapter 5, these recommendations are identied
as those which are deemed most likely to have a transformative impact on the AET
system.
The study panel notes that Recommendations 1 and 2 are core and fundamental
to the transformation of the AET system. Without the implementation of these two
recommendations, change effected will be incremental, uncoordinated, and unlikely to
result in the scale of change needed.
On the other hand, the panel is of the conviction that should all the recommendations be
implemented the synergistic gains will be far greater than any individual effort. It therefore
stands to reason that the recommendations are closely related and highly integrated.
Recommendation 1
KEY ACTORS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE SEVERITY OF THE CONTINUED
CHALLENGES IN AET AND THE URGENT NEED FOR CHANGE IN THIS CRITICAL
SECTOR
Taking into consideration the pivotal contribution of agriculture to the NSI in the water–
energy–food nexus, the panel recommends that the ndings of the study panel must be
put forth by ASSAf to advise the Minister of Science and Technology to bring the urgent
need for change to the attention of Cabinet.
The panel further recommends that the ndings of the study be broadly communicated
to key stakeholders in government. These include (but are not limited to) the Ministries
of Science and Technology; Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Higher Education and
Training; Basic Education; Trade and Industry; as well as all the provincial departments of
agriculture.
This is important in the context of acknowledging agriculture as a distinct sector in the
NSI which is in need of focused attention, given its fundamental contribution to sustained
development and growth.
Recommendation 2
ESTABLISH A MINISTERIAL AET COMMITTEE
The panel believes that it is necessary to establish a National Council for Agricultural
Education and Training (NCAET) which ensures the inclusion and participation of the
linked departments whose policy and programmes need to be synergised with the AET
system. A similar recommendation was made in 2003, and has not been implemented
– with consequences to the system. The current consensus study has highlighted the
signicance and importance of the establishment of the council, particularly as the
overarching challenges identied in 2003 have proven pervasive and the broad national
goals for the system have not shifted substantially in the interim.
CHAPTER 6: Recommendations

147
146
However, the panel appreciates that there is currently a moratorium on establishing new
statutory bodies, and therefore recommends that a Ministerial Committee for AET be
established as a matter of urgency to look into the critical areas highlighted in this report.
The urgent and immediate establishment of the Ministerial Committee is timely in the light
of the work of the JTTT on the agricultural colleges, the work of the NETFAFF, the ndings
emerging from the ARC review, the recently approved Extension Policy and the broad
systemic challenges impacting the educational environment in South Africa currently.
The purpose of the committee will be to oversee activities related to AET for a period of
three years, with the goal of addressing the core challenges in the system – most specically
to guide the system towards greater integration, cooperation and accountability.
The Ministerial Committee for AET will have an important role to play in coordination to
ensure that the often-disparate activities are aligned. In this context, the JTTT and NETFAFF,
as well as any other AET-related task teams/committees will report to the committee.
After a period of three years, an evaluation of progress should be commissioned to
determine the effectiveness of the committee. If there is a lack of drastic and signicant
change, it may be necessary to give consideration to the establishment of the proposed
NCAET.
Additional responsibilities of the Ministerial Committee for AET are outlined in the other
recommendations.
Recommendation 3
EXPEDITE THE WORKING OF THE JOINT TECHNICAL TASK TEAM
The critical role of the agricultural colleges in the AET system necessitates immediate
and urgent action with regard to the current structural challenges. The panel strongly
recommends that the workings of the JTTT on the agricultural colleges be expedited, and
that sufcient resource allocations be appropriated to enable its progress.
Relationships between colleges and higher education institutions are not structured
or regulated and currently rely primarily on individual relationships among institutional
leaders. The JTTT should consider this matter in its deliberations.
The JTTT will report directly to and work closely with the Ministerial Committee for AET.
Recommendation 4
COMMISSION A DETAILED STUDY ON ARTICULATION PATHWAYS AND
CURRICULUM INNOVATION
Once the Ministerial Committee has proposed and approved a coordinated governance
framework which claries the role of the colleges, a clear matrix of human capital needs
and related qualications in the context of a well-structured AET Human Capital System
should be developed. An essential outcome of such a matrix will be the integration and
linking of AET offerings to ensure a more coherent context and to allow greater student
and professional mobility.
The study panel found that:
i Articulation is supported in principle, but not in practice (outside of a few
outstanding cases).
ii Curriculum alignment between institutional types is inadequate and governance
structures do not support articulation and mobility within the AET system.
iii Curriculum is focused too exclusively on agriculture, and not on the ‘big issues’ (for
example climate change or food security). The notion that a career in agriculture
only refers to farming and its direct service activities does not do justice to the
wide professional networks serving the full AFVC. An expanded view would include
scientists, technical artisans, knowledge workers, legal practitioners, engineers,
economists, nancial analysts, marketers, to just name a few. (Greyling et al., 2013;
Van Rooyen et al., 2012).
iv Curriculum delivery fails to leverage the power of ICTs and social media.
v Due consideration has not been given to the alignment of professional
requirements for registration with SACNASP for extension workers and the training
curriculum.
The study panel therefore recommends that based on the human capital needs
matrix, an in-depth case study on articulation pathways and curriculum innovation
be commissioned to demonstrate practically how a fully articulated system, which
leverages ICT innovations and a multidisciplinary conceptualisation of agriculture, could
be designed.
The study should examine the following: (i) curriculum content (including relevance
and professional registration requirements), (ii) curriculum delivery innovations, and (iii)
alignment of content across components of the system with the aim to promote mobility
and articulation. The study should consider the issue of articulation, curricula and delivery
innovation from the perspective of schools, colleges, TVETs and community colleges
(prospectively). Specically, the study should focus on the ideal roles of each of the
educational providers in a fully functional system.
A particular objective of the study should be to examine the potential for improved
translation from school to post-school education and the proposed curriculum and
structure of agricultural focus schools in line with the proposed norms and standards.
The outcome of the study will allow for a foresight and modelling exercise to be conducted
which should examine alternatives for implementation and pilot testing.
Recommendation 5
INVEST IN A PILOT PROJECT TO TEST THE FEASIBILITY OF AN ADAPTED LAND
GRANT MODEL WHICH EMPHASISES INNOVATIVE CURRICULUM DESIGN
AND DELIVERY
Given that the educational system has been in a constant state of reform since 1994, it is
neither wise nor efcient to institute widespread reforms that are unlikely to work. Careful
planning, detailed case study analysis and sophisticated modelling/feasibility studies are
required to inform change.

149
148
The outcome of the articulation pathways and curriculum innovation study will allow
for a foresight and modelling exercise to be conducted which proposes alternatives
for implementation and pilot testing of a fully articulated micro-AET system at provincial
level based on an adapted land grant model. The modelling exercise should include
a feasibility analysis, including full nancial projections for the implementation of a pilot
project.
The design and feasibility analysis of the pilot project must:
• Reect the structural and governance relationships proposed by the Ministerial
Committee.
• Address how key hindrances in the enabling environment will be taken care of (at
least in principle).
• Implement an adapted land-grant-type model after in-depth and careful case
study analysis of land-grant-type models internationally.
• Take on board the ndings of the detailed study on articulation and curriculum
innovation.
• Draw on key success stories in South Africa to date, for example,
i excellent linkages between agriculture high schools and farming enterprises in
Limpopo;
ii the North-West College of Agriculture with regard to the articulation of
curricula;
iii effective governance relationships between colleges and universities in
the Western Cape (Elsenburg/SU) and in the Eastern Cape (UFH/Fort Cox
College);
iv working partnerships between public and private extension systems in the
sugar industry in KZN and Mpumalanga.
Innovative approaches to curriculum design and delivery should be piloted within this
project, drawing lessons from successful international models (such as EARTH University)
and using cutting-edge ICTs.
The panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee for AET (or its successor, the
NCAET) be responsible for the oversight and coordination of the pilot study feasibility
analysis and implementation.
Recommendation 6
STRENGTHEN THE AGRICULTURAL (FOOD VALUE CHAIN) RESEARCH
ENVIRONMENT
Greater cooperation between the ARC and NRF is urgently needed. These organisations
have a similar vision and mission but a greater level of cooperation towards a more
focused contribution to agricultural education and training is required. The study panel
recommends the establishment of a joint working group to coordinate and integrate
efforts between these institutions towards achieving a strengthened agri-food value
chain research environment in the capacity strengthening domain.
Increased collaboration between these two entities will enable increased investment in
cross-cutting, multidisciplinary research that address challenges related to the water–
energy–food security nexus. This will more optimally position research and research support
entities to contribute to inclusive innovations that stimulate growth and development.
The centres of excellence and research chairs initiatives of the DST and NRF, and the
ARC centres of cooperation is a specic example of where activities in the research and
capacity development domains can be aligned to yield increased synergistic gains in
research and capacity development.
Continued investment in doctoral education is necessary to ensure an adequately
trained science workforce. Although gains in transforming the science workforce have
been made, a focus on diversity and transformation should be sustained. Collaboration
between the NRF and the ARC with regard to funding postgraduate education and
research through the development of a resource allocation model to support AET high-
level training will contribute positively towards this goal. Activities in this regard can begin
immediately.
There is a need to strengthen the link between research at universities and the activities
of the ARC. Increased engagement between the NRF-ARC joint working group and
SAALSDA can facilitate increased collaboration on high-relevance research projects.
The study panel therefore recommends that SAALSDA receive additional support to
strengthen their activities.
Recommendation 7
TRAIN THE TRAINERS
The quality of educators, as well as the number of teachers appropriately trained to
teach agriculture at school level, is of serious concern. Similar concerns have been raised
about the availability of high-quality educators in the college and TVET sectors. Training
the trainers is therefore an important priority in sustaining a strong AET system.
In addition, persons engaged in the extension and rural advisory services component of
the sector are inuenced by AET in multiple ways – they are beneciaries of AET through
the training they receive, but then themselves become educators and facilitators of
knowledge. For this reason, the training of extension workers should receive substantial
focus as they have the potential to be the primary agents through which innovation is
translated from the laboratory into practice.
In this context, the study panel recommends the following:
• Establishment of a bursary fund for persons training to be educators in the AET, with
an internship service component of at least two years to retain skills.
• More purposeful use of SETA funding for reskilling and upskilling extension workers in
line with the professional registration and for continuous professional development.
Recommendation 8
FOSTER LINKAGES THAT INCENTIVISE COLLABORATION, PROMOTE
INNOVATION AND DIVERSIFY THE FUNDING BASE
Linkages between stakeholders in the AIS are generally weak and in need of strengthening.
This statement is applicable to the linkages between actors in the knowledge triangle,
between AET and industry, as well as between AET and the private sector. Because of
these weak linkages, innovation potential is stied and funding owing into and within

151
150
the system is restricted. Taking into consideration the role that the agro-food value chain
is anticipated to play in the national agenda these linkages must be strengthened to
promote innovation and to encourage increased funding from diverse, sustainable
sources.
The study panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee constitute a special working
group to investigate and propose strategies to increase the collaboration and partnership
between AET and related industry and business partners to promote inclusive innovation
in the agri-food value chain.
“In simple terms, inclusive innovation is the means by which new goods
and services are developed for and/or by those who have been
excluded from the development mainstream.” (Foster and Heeks, 2013)
These partnership agreements should consider platforms for internships and practical
training opportunities for students in the AET system (Recommendation 9), and should
propose an incentive-based structure for industry and business partners to increase
participation. These partnership agreements should cut across all levels of AET and all
levels of business – including emerging entrepreneurs, and SMMEs.
The private sector and high-net worth persons can play an important role in funding
AET. Initiatives to stimulate this are gaining momentum on the continent. At the most
recent RUFORUM Biennial Conference the AU Commission Chairperson and the President
of the Republic of Mauritius invited RUFORUM to participate in the First Convening of
African Heads of State and Government with Private Sector and Academe to be held in
Mauritius during 19-21 March 2017. Opportunities of this nature should be explored and
pursued in the South African context.
Recommendation 9
INCREASE THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING THROUGH A
COMBINATION OF INCENTIVE STRUCTURES
Skills-based training, particularly around high-demand skills, clearly have a fundamental
role to play in economic growth, reducing (youth) unemployment, and improved
livelihoods. It is therefore particularly important to consider carefully how the TVET
system, the agricultural colleges and schools and the AgriSETA can be optimally aligned
and restructured to meet the demands of industry and to contribute to the national
development agenda. Despite recognition of the importance of vocational education,
inadequate attention has been given to creating an enabling environment in which a
functional vocational system can thrive.
Successful vocational systems in Europe (for example Germany and Switzerland) offer
insights and models that should be studied and contextualised for South Africa, and used
to propose a holistic approach to strengthening this component of AET.
The study panel recommends that the Ministerial Committee set up a task team to
develop a holistic model for vocational AET that takes into consideration successful
global models, as well as the governance reform required in South Africa.
Attention should be given to the following aspects:
• Establishing partnerships with the private sector and industry – including SMMEs
– for the delivery of vocational training in collaboration with AET institutions.
Internships and practical training are a key piece in the employment puzzle.
Vocational training which focuses on the transfer of high-demand skills that lead
to employment will quickly earn a reputation as a pathway into employment,
increasing the attractiveness of these programmes.
• Formalising linkages between AgriSETA, TVETs and the agricultural colleges to
ensure mutually benecial collaboration and synergistic contribution to training.
The role of the community colleges should also be taken into account here, and
the feasibility of structured partnerships with agricultural schools.
• Addressing concerns around the quality of educational delivery in TVET colleges
and investing signicantly in training equipment and infrastructure.
• Identifying strategies to attract high-quality educators and creating incentives to
retain their skills (for example, a bursary funding scheme with a linked internship –
Recommendation 8).
The study panel notes that the vocational training sector in South Africa needs urgent,
substantially increased investment and attention. Successfully facilitating transformative
change in this component of the AET system has the potential to inform the transformation
of vocational training more broadly. It is therefore recommended that the Ministerial
Committee take cognisance of the pressing priority in this regard.
Recommendation 10
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING FOR UNDERSTANDING
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
Up-to-date information is fundamental to understanding the contribution of agricultural
innovation systems to agricultural growth. Indicators derived from such information
allow the performance, inputs, and outcomes of agricultural innovation systems to be
measured, monitored, and benchmarked. Such data constitute a powerful resource
for research managers, policymakers, donor organisations, and other stakeholders.
Key indicators provide both a diagnostic tool for assessing the allocation and use of
resources and an advocacy tool for increasing resources and improving the efciency
and effectiveness of resource use.
In South Africa, there is an urgent need for the development of responsive informational
and monitoring data on the AET system.
The 2012 Ministerial Review Report on the South African NSI pointed out that progress in
improving the functioning of the NSI was still hampered by the absence of an assigned
responsibility for ensuring the availability, collation, maintenance and analysis of STI
indicators (quantitative and qualitative), needed for monitoring and evaluation, and for
planning and the management of the NSI as a whole. Although evidence is available
from several sources for some dimensions of discrete activity in the system, there is no

153
152
comprehensive synopsis available that reects the system in its totality, and that allows
an assessment of how it might full its contribution to national development. The Minister
has assigned NACI the task of developing and hosting an STI data portal for the NSI, a
central repository that will be important in the establishment of research and strategic
intelligence.
The panel thus recommends that the Ministerial Committee for AET collaborates with
NACI, as well as a monitoring and evaluation expert, to develop AET-specic indicators
which feed into and align with the broader national data portal. Collaboration with the
NRF’s new division for Strategy, Planning and Partnerships should also be explored to
enhance foresight capabilities, including strategic planning, modelling and analysis of
‘critical technology needs’ to support sustainable agriculture as a means of systematic
analysis and interpretation of data and perspectives to better understand trends and
future challenges to enhance AET.
An important component of this will be to design and conduct a national tracer study to
understand graduate employment in the sector.

155
Abramson, C.I., Daron, W.S., Dicks, M. and Sherwood, P.M.A., 2014. History and mission.
In Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.). The Modern Land-Grant University. Purdue University Press,
West Lafayette, Indiana.
Allais, S.M., 2007. Why the South African NQF failed: Lessons for countries wanting to
introduce national qualications frameworks. European Journal of Education, 42(4),
523-547.
Allais, S.M., 2012. Will skills save us? Rethinking the relationships between vocational
education, skills development policies, and social policy in South Africa.
International Journal of Educational Development, 32(5), 632-642.
Amanor, K.S., 2013. FAC Working Paper 54. South-South Cooperation in Context:
Perspectives from Africa. Brighton, UK: FAC (Future Agricultures Consortium).
ANC (African National Congress), 1994. The Reconstruction and Development
Programme: A Policy Framework. Umanyano Publications, Johannesburg.
Anderson, J.R. and Feder, G., 2004. Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard
realities. The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 41-60. Available online at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3986492
ARC (Agricultural Research Council), 2005. Draft Report of the Agricultural Research
Council Institutional Review for the Five-year Period 2000-4. ARC, Pretoria.
ARC (Agricultural Research Council), 2014. Legislative Mandate. Available online at:
http://www.arc.agric.za/Pages/About%20Us/What-We-Do.aspx
ASSAf (Academy of Science of South Africa), 2010. The PhD study. An Evidence-based
Study on How to Meet the Demands for High-level Skills in an Emerging Economy.
ASSAf, Pretoria.
ASSAf (Academy of Science of South Africa), 2011. Consensus Study on the State of
the Humanities in South Africa: Status, Prospects and Strategies. ASSAf, Pretoria.
Available online at: https://www.assaf.org.za/les/2011/09/2011-Humanity-nal-
proof-11-August-2011.pdf
AU (African Union), 2013. African Union Heads of State and Government Adopt
the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa. Available online
at: https://au.int/web/en/newsevents/27635/african-union-heads-state-and-
government-adopt-science-technology-and-innovation
AU (African Union) Commission, 2015. Agenda 2063. The Africa We Want. First Ten-Year
Implementation Plan 2014–2023. Available online at: http://www.un.org/en/africa/
osaa/pdf/au/agenda2063-rst10yearimplementation.pdf
Birner, R. and Spielman, D., 2007. A benchmarking tool for agricultural innovation
systems. Presentation at the World Bank Workshop, Enhancing Agricultural
Innovation Systems held in Washington, DC on 22-23 March.
REFERENCES

157
156
Birner, R. Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A.,
Spielman, D., Horna, D., Benin, S. and Kisamba-Mugerwa, W., 2009. A framework
for designing and analysing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. Journal of
Agricultural Extension and Education, 15(4), 341-355.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Johnson, J.C., 2013. Analysing Social Networks. SAGE
Publishing, London.
Busch, L., 1988. Universities for Development: Report of the Joint Indo-U.S. Impact
Evaluation. United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
Washington, DC.
Cape Higher Education Consortium (CHEC), 2013. Pathways from University to Work: A
Graduate Destination Survey of the 2010 Cohort of Graduates from the Western
Cape Universities. Cape Town, South Africa.
Chisholm, L., Volmink, J., Ndhlovu, T., Potenza, E., Mahomed, H., Muller, J., Lubisi, C.,
Vinjevold, P., Ngozi, L., Malan, B. and Mphahlele, L., 2005. South African Curriculum
for the Twenty-rst Century: Report of the Review Committee on Curriculum 2005.
Department of Education, Pretoria.
Christoplos, I., 2010. Mobilising the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension. Food
and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.
Correa, P. and Schmidt, C., 2014. Public research organizations and agricultural
development in Brazil. How did EMBRAPA get it right? Economic Premise, 145, 1-10.
World Bank, Washington, DC. Available online at: http://documents.worldbank.
org/curated/en/156191468236982040/Public-research-organizations-and-
agricultural-development-in-Brazil-how-did-Embrapa-get-it-right
Council on Higher Education (CHE), 2016. VitalStats: Public Higher Education 2014.
Available online at: http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/les/publications/
VitalStats2014%20-%20webversion.pdf
Davis, K.E. and Terblanché, S.E., 2016. Challenges facing the agricultural extension
landscape in South Africa. Unpublished paper. Study commissioned for the ASSAf
AET Consensus Study.
Dhar, V. 2012. Agricultural Census in India. [PowerPoint slides]. Presented at a Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) workshop on October 30, 2012. Available online at:
http://www.fao.org/leadmin/templates/ess/ess_test_folder/Workshops_Events/
APCAS_24/PPT_after/APCAS-12-31-Agri_Census_India_APCAS24.pdf
Development Policy Research Unit., 2006. Graduate Unemployment in post-apartheid
South Africa: Nature and Possible Policy Responses. Research compiled for
Standard Bank and Business Leadership South Africa. School of Economics,
University of Cape Town.
Eicher, C., 2006. The Evolution of Agricultural Education and Training: Global Insights of
Relevance for Africa. Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper Series No.
2006-26. Available online at http://purl.umn.edu/11816
FARA (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa), 2014. Science Agenda for Agriculture
in Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science” to transform Agriculture in Africa.
FARA, Accra, Ghana. Available online at: http://faraafrica.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/English_Science_agenda_for_agr_in_Africa.pdf
Farming First, No date. The Story of Agriculture and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Available online at: http://www.farmingrst.org/sdg-toolkit#section_1
Foster, C. and Heeks, R.B., 2013. Conceptualising inclusive innovation: modifying systems
of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income
consumers. European Journal of Development Research, 25(3), 333 355.
Funnell, S.C. and Rogers, P.J., 2011. Purposeful Programme Theory: Effective Use of
Theories of Change and Logic Models. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.
Gates, B. and Gates, M., 2015. Gates annual letter: Our big bet for the future. Available
online at: https://www.gatesnotes.com/2015-annual-letter?lang=en&page=2
GFRAS (Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services), 2012. Building Knowledge Systems in
Agriculture – Five Key Areas for Mobilising the Potential of Extension and Advisory
Services. GFRAS, Lindau, Switzerland.
Glossner, J., 2012. Penn State reps. talk land-grant universities in Washington. The Daily
Collegian, 28 June 2012. Available online at: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/
archives/article_6e41e837-03c2-5744-9c74-6a0f70b9b3d9.html
Greyling, J., Boonzaaier, J. and Van Rooyen, J., 2014. AET - Mapping study report (Phase
1). Stellenbosch University.
Greyling, J.C., Van Rooyen, J. and Vermeulen, H., 2013. Talent in the South African Fresh
Produce Industry. Research Report. Stellenbosch University.
Hannum, K.M., Martineau, J.W. and Reinelt, C., (Eds). 2006. The Handbook of Leadership
Development Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.
Harley, K. and Wedekind, V., 2003. A time for discipline: disciplinary displacement and
mythological truths. Journal of Education, 31, 25–46.
HEMIS (Higher Education Management Information System), 2016. New higher
education performance indicator data 2009 to 2014. Available online at: https://
chet.org.za/data/sahe-open-data
Herdt, R.W., 2006. Does aid to higher education contribute to economic development?
Applied Economics and Management Staff Paper 2006-4. Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY.
Herdt, R.W.,2012. People, institutions and technology: A personal view of the role of
foundations in international agricultural research and development 1960-2010.
Food Policy, 37, 179-190.
IGroDeal. No date. List of Agricultural Colleges in South Africa. Available online at:
http://igrodeals.co.za/index.php/igrocareers/6-list-of-agricultural-colleges-in-south-
africa
Iowa State University, No date. Fact Book 2012-2013. Available online at: http://www.
ir.iastate.edu/FB13/PDF/FB13-010.pdf

159
158
Jansen, J.D. and Christie, P., (Eds). 1999. Changing Curriculum: Studies of Outcomes-
based Education in South Africa. Juta Academic Publishers, Kenwyn.
Letseka, M., Cosser, M., Brier, M. and Visser, M., 2010. Student Retention and Graduate
Destination: Higher Education and Labour Market Access. Human Sciences
Research Council, Pretoria.
Loehle, C., 1996. Thinking Strategically. Power Tools for Personal and Professional
Advancement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK:.
McArthur, J.W., No date. Agriculture in the COP21 Agenda. Available online at: https://
www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/agriculture-in-cop21.pdf
New York Times, 1988. Farm population lowest since 1850s. 20 July 1988. Available online
at: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-since-1850-s.
html
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2007. OECD
Reviews of Innovation Policy: South Africa. OECD, Paris.
Pal, S. and Byerlee, D., 2006. The funding and organisation of agricultural research
in India: evolution and emerging policy issues. In Pardey, P.G, Alston, J.M. and
Piggott, R.R. (Eds). Agricultural R&D Policy in the Developing World. International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Pell, A.N., 2016. Linking agricultural education, research and outreach: key lessons
from countries with diverse organisational structures. Unpublished paper. Study
commissioned for the ASSAf AET Consensus Study.
Pye-Smith, C., 2012. Agricultural Extension – a Time for Change: Linking Knowledge to
Policy and Action for Food and Livelihood. CGIAR Technical Centre for Agricultural
and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Qamar, M.K., 2005. Modernising National Agricultural Extension Systems: A Practical
Guide for Policymakers of Developing Countries. Food and Agriculture
Organisation, Rome, Italy.
Rivera, M.R. and Qamar, M. K., 2003. A New Extension Vision for Food Security –
Challenges to Face. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Sustainable Development
Department, Rome, Italy.
Rivera, W.M. and Alex, G.E., 2008. Human resource development for modernising the
agricultural workforce. Human Resource Development Review, 7(4), 374-386.
Rivera, W.M. and Sulaiman, V.R., 2009. Extension: Object of reform, engine for
innovation. Outlook on Agriculture, 38, 267-273.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 1999. Skills Development Levies Act (No 9 of 1999).
Government Printer, Cape Town.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 2003. Natural Scientic Professions Act (No 27 of 2003).
Government Printer, Cape Town.
DACST (Republic of South Africa. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and
Technology), 1996. White Paper on Science and Technology. DACST, Pretoria.
DAFF (Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), 2014.
Agricultural Policy Action Plan (APAP) 2015-2019. DAFF, Pretoria.
DAFF (Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries), 2015.
Green Paper on National Agricultural Training Institutes. DAFF, Pretoria.
DAFF (Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2016.
DAFF Annual Report 2015/2016. DAFF, Pretoria. Available online at: http://www.
gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/les/DAFF%20Annual%20Report%202015%20-%202016_a.
pdf
DBE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education), 2013. Education
Statistics in South Africa 2011. DBE, Pretoria.
DBE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education), 2014. Report of
the Ministerial Committee to investigate the Current Promotion Requirements
and Other Related Matters that impact on the Standard of the National Senior
Certicate. DBE, Pretoria.
DBE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education), 2016. Education
Statistics in South Africa 2014. DBE, Pretoria.
DHET (Republic of South Africa. Department of Higher Education and Training), 2013.
The White Paper for Post-school Education and Training. DHET, Pretoria.
DoA (Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture), 1995. White Paper on
Agriculture. DoA, Pretoria.
DoA (Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture), 2001. Strategic Plan for
South African Agriculture. DoA, Pretoria.
DoA (Republic of South Africa. Department of Agriculture), 2005. Norms and Standards
for Extension and Advisory Services in Agriculture. DoA, Directorate – Scientic
Research and Development, Pretoria. Available online at: http://www.nda.agric.
za/doaDev/sideMenu/NationalExtensionSupport/docs/NORMS_AND_STANDARD_
BOOKLET.pdf
DOE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education), 2008. CESM – Classication of
Educational Subject Matter. DOE, Pretoria.
Ministry for Agriculture and Land Affairs, 1998. Agricultural Policy in South Africa: A
Discussion Document. National Department of Agriculture, Pretoria.
NDA (Republic of South Africa. National Department of Agriculture), 2003. Agricultural
Education and Training (AET) Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development in
South Africa. Report prepared by the NDA. Available online at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/
docrep/fao/010/ai228e/ai228e.pdf
NPC (Republic of South Africa. National Planning Commission), 2011. National
Development Plan 2030: Our Future - Make it Work. Government Printer,
Pretoria. Available online at: https://nationalplanningcommission.les.wordpress.
com/2015/02/ndp-2030-our-future-make-it-work_0.pdf
Rukuni, M., 2015. Institutional Review of the Agricultural Research Council for the Period
2007 – 2014. Volume 1: Main Report. Unpublished report. ARC, Pretoria.

161
160
SAQA (South African Qualications Authority), No date. Qualications and
Part-Qualications. Available online at: http://www.saqa.org.za/show.
php?id=7391#sthash.oQQsaVZC.dpuf
Sherrard, D., 2014. Shaping tomorrow’s leaders today: the EARTH University Model.
In Swanepoel, S., Or, Z. and Stroebel, A. (Eds). Towards Impact and Resilience:
Transformative Change in and through Agricultural Education and Training in sub-
Saharan Africa. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Soudien, C., 2007. The asymmetries of contact: an assessment of 30 years of school
integration in South Africa. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(4), 439–456.
Stats SA (Statistics South Africa), 2016. General Household Survey 2015. Stats SA, Pretoria.
Available online at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0318/P03182015.
pdf#page=195
Stroebel, A. and Swanepoel, F., 2008. Cultivating knowledge and skills to grow African
agriculture – An analysis and synthesis. Southern African Agricultural Education
Networking and Clarication Workshop, 3–4 October 2008, Manzini, Swaziland.
Stroebel, A., Swanepoel, F. and Eicher, C., 2011. Agricultural Education and Training
for Development (AET4D) in Africa. Paper presented at the Seventh Global
Confederation of Higher Education Associations for the Agricultural and Life
Sciences (GCHERA) Conference held in Beauvais, France on 27–29 June.
Subrahmanyam, G., 2014. Vocational education: Why the Finns do it best. The
Guardian, 15 January 2014. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/
global-development-professionals-network/2014/jan/15/youth-unemployment-
vocational-training-nland
Sulaiman, V. and Davis, K., 2012. The “New Extensionist”: Roles, Strategies, and
Capacities to strengthen Extension and Advisory Services. GFRAS (Global Forum for
Rural Advisory Services), Lindau, Switzerland.
Swanepoel, F. and Stroebel, A., 2016. Science can drive agricultural change in Africa.
Pretoria News, 14 December 2016. Available online at: https://www.google.co.za/
l?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj7
xsaxq6bSAhVpJsAKHSHyCvcQFggoMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressreader.
com%2Fsouth-africa%2Fpretoria-news%2F20161214%2F281818578469104&usg=AFQj
CNGpzwxkpyLR08DMzYPHiZtekKJHyg&sig2=kFZN5H4lNqc-RL8D9NnGdQ
Swanepoel, F., Or, Z. and Stroebel, A., (Eds). 2014. Towards Impact and Resilience:
Transformative Change in and through Agricultural Education and Training in sub-
Saharan Africa. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Terblanché, S.E. and Koch, B.H., 2012. The Feasibility of establishing a Professional South
African Extension and Advisory Body. Report for the Department of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries. DAFF, Pretoria.
The Economist, 2015a. Brazilian waxing and waning. A recent economic history of Brazil.
5 June 2015. Available online at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail
/2015/03/economic-backgrounder
The Economist, 2015b. Learning the lessons of stagnation. 27 June 2015:27-30.
Tregurtha, N., Vink, N. and Kirsten, J., 2010. Presidency Fifteen - Year Review Project.
Review of Agricultural Policies and Support Instruments in South Africa 1994-2009.
Available online at: https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0tsO--LnSAhXoKMAKHXPzAdsQFgga
MAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tips.org.za%2Fresearch-archive%2Fitem%2Fdownlo
ad%2F1100_114f3dd1e76c0088d76c1c4adeb08f&usg=AFQjCNEHondlBLsPGKNm4W
fAKleWFgby8A&sig2=nDTNMA7U4jcoB7Jy9zOE2g&bvm=bv.148747831,d.ZGg
Tsamela, D., 2016. German example for Setas, colleges. Sunday Times Business, 6
November 2016. Available online at: http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/
businesstimes/2016/11/06/German-example-for-Setas-colleges
UN (United Nations), No date. Sustainable Development Goals. Knowledge Platform.
Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics
US Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2012. May 2012 National Occupational Employment and
Wage Estimates: United States. Available online at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/
may/oes_nat.Htm
Van Rooyen, J., Barnard, R. and Van Zyl, J., 1996. Agricultural education and training in
South Africa: an overview. Development Southern Africa, 13(5), 713-731. Available
online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03768359608439927
Van Rooyen, J., Greyling, J.C. and Vermeulen, H., 2012. Agribusiness Management
Aptitudes and Skills Survey (AgriMASS). Research Report. Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch.
Vogel, I., 2012. Theories of Change in International Development. DfID (Department for
International Development), London, UK.
Wallace, I., 1997. Agricultural education at the crossroads: Present dilemmas and
possible options for the future in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of
Educational Development, 17(1), 27-39.
Wedekind, V., 2013. NSC Pass Requirements – A Discussion Document for Umalusi on the
NSC Pass Mark. Umalusi, Pretoria.
Wedekind, V., 2016. Agricultural Education and Training in the South African Education
System – An Overview of Policy and Landscape. Unpublished paper. Study
commissioned for the ASSAf AET Consensus Study.
World Bank, 2015. Urbanisation in Africa: trends, promises, and challenges. (Online
overview of conference titled Urbanisation in Africa: Trends, Promises and
Challenges, held in Accra, Ghana on 1–2 June 2015). Available online at: http://
www.worldbank.org/en/events/2015/06/01/urbanization-in-africa-trends-promises-
and-challenges
World Bank, 2015. World Development Indicators: Agricultural Inputs. World Bank,
Washington D.C. Available online at http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.2
Wright, B.L., 2012. Grand missions of agricultural innovation. Research Policy, 41(10),
1716-1728.

163
162
Zaglul, J.A., 2016. EARTH University educational model: perspective on agricultural
educational models for the twenty-rst century. Frontiers in Life Science, 9(3),
173–176. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2016.1193826

165
Prof Frans Swanepoel, Study Chairperson
Frans Swanepoel is Professor: Future Africa at the Centre for the Advancement of
Scholarship at the University of Pretoria, South Africa; and Visiting Fellow at the Institute
for African Development (IAD) at Cornell University, USA. He was the former Deputy Vice-
Chancellor Research and Innovation at the University of the Western Cape, Director of
the African Doctoral Academy at Stellenbosch University, and Dean of Agriculture at
the University of Fort Hare. He is an accomplished scientic leader in South Africa and
internationally, conrmed by his election during 2010 as a Member of ASSAf, in 2016 as
a Foreign Fellow of the Ugandan National Academy of Sciences, and his appointment
as Senior Fulbright Fellow at Cornell University. He is a former board member of the
Agricultural Research Council (ARC) of South Africa, and serves on the board of the
African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD) initiative, based in
Nairobi, Kenya. He was the lead consultant in the development of a continental framework
for agricultural education and skills development (AESIF), under the New Partnership for
Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2015. In 2016, Prof Swanepoel was recognised for his
signicant contributions to capacity development in support of agricultural transformation
and development in Africa during the 5th African Higher Education Week, organised by
the RUFORUM, a network of 66 African universities. He has published extensively, and
supervised 30 Masters and PhD students to completion. A former NRF-rated scholar, his
elds of specialisation include African smallholder agriculture, research and innovation
management, agricultural education and training, internationalisation of higher
education, and capacity develop-ment.
Prof Adipala Ekwamu
Adipala Ekwamu is a graduate of Makerere University and Ohio State University with
academic training and specialisation in plant pathology. He has successfully championed
several initiatives in higher agricultural education with signicant contribution to institu-
tional and human resource capacity building efforts. He is the Executive Secretary of
RUFORUM, a network of 66 universities with a mandate to strengthen postgraduate
training across the African continent. Prof Adipala is passionate about generating and
disseminating research information from Africa. In 2015, he founded the African Journal of
Rural Development (www.ajrd.info), an online open access journal to enable researchers
and development actors to share their research and experiences on rural development
issues in Africa. He also established primary and secondary schools that are beneting
over 2 000 pupils in an otherwise impoverished and marginalised society with limited
access to education.
Prof Felix Dakora
Felix Dapare Dakora is Professor and Research Chair in Agrochemurgy and Plant
Symbioses at Tshwane University of Technology. He was Dean of Research at the Cape
Peninsula University of Technology.
APPENDIX 1: BIOGRAPHIES OF STUDY
PANEL MEMBERS

167
166
Prof Albert Modi
Albert Thembinkosi Modi is the Dean and Head of School of Agricultural, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal. He is a crop scientist, with research
interests in seed science, agronomy and sustainable agriculture. He has 20 years
experience as an academic at tertiary level. He was the founding CEO of the Moses
Kotane Institute of Science and Technology. From 2014 to 2016, he was the Chairperson of
the South African Agriculture and Life Sciences Deans’ Association (SAALSDA). The former
President and Fellow of the South African Society of Crop Production and GreenMatter®,
in 2015, he was awarded the Mangosuthu University of Technology Fellowship. In the same
year, he received a Water Research Commission (WRC) award for Human Capacity
Development. In 2016, he received the Distinguished Teacher’s award of the University of
KwaZulu-Natal. He has trained 41 postgraduate students, of which 12 were PhDs. He has
published three books, three book chapters and 98 peer-reviewed articles.
Prof Voster Muchenje
Voster Muchenje is a Research Professor at the University of Fort Hare and the Editor-
in-Chief of the South African Journal of Animal Science. He is a Member of ASSAf. His
academic highlights include co-hosting the DST/NRF SARChI in Meat Science, a Centre
of Excellence (CoE) in Food Security research associate, and a founding member of
the South African Young Academy of Science (SAYAS) and its outgoing Co-Chair. He
holds an NRF C1-rating and has produced 12 PhD graduates and over 100 articles. He
serves on the editorial board of the Food Research International and was appointed as
managing guest editor for special issues on Food and Nutrition Security (2014 to 2015),
and Balanced Diets and Human Health (2016 to present). His accolades include the
South African Society for Animal Science (SASAS) President’s Award for exceptional
contribution to animal science and the University of Fort Hare’s (UFH) Vice-Chancellor’s
Senior and Emerging Researcher Awards. He is a member of the SASAS Council; ASSAf
Scholarly Publishing Standing Committee; and Fort Cox College of Agriculture and
Forestry Council.
Ms Bongiwe Njobe
Njobe is an independent consultant. She served as a Corporate Affairs Director at the
South African Breweries Limited, having joined in March 2004 and was responsible for
maintaining and upholding the South African Breweries’ corporate reputation and for
overseeing the implementation of its corporate relations activities and public policy
initiatives. She served as the Director-General at the National Department of Agriculture,
where she oversaw the implementation of agricultural development programmes
and facilitated trade negotiations on wine and spirits with the European Union. She
is a member of the board of directors of National Business Initiatives; Findevco (Pty)
Limited; SAB Ltd; Kagiso Trust Investment (Pty) Limited; Pan-African Capital Holdings
(Pty) Limited; Pan African Investment and Research Services (Pty) Limited; and Bigen
Africa Group Holdings (Pty) Limited. She serves as the Chairman of the South African
National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Ms Njobe served as a member of the board of
directors of various private organisations, NGOs and parastatal organisations. Ms Njobe
has served as an Executive Director at Tiger Brands Ltd. since August 2008. She served
as Non-Executive Director of The Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa
Limited. Ms Njobe has been afliated as a Vice-Chairperson of the Forum for Agricultural
Research in Africa; Commissioner for the Presidential National Commission on Information
Society and Development; member of the South African Reference Group on Women in
Science; and a panel member for the InterAcademy Council Study Panel on Science and
Technology; Chairperson of South African National Biodiversity Institute; and a Director
of Khomelela Women’s Development Businesses. She holds an MSc in Agriculture, Vassil
Kolarov, University of Bulgaria.
Prof Alice Pell
Alice Pell joined Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in 1990
and directed Cornell’s International Institute for Food and Agricultural Development
– a university-wide centre for sustainable agricultural and rural development in Africa,
Asia and Latin America – from 2005 to 2009. She has served on panels supported by the
Rockefeller Foundation, the African Academy of Sciences, the Gates Foundation, the
US Academy of Science and the MacArthur Foundation. Prof Pell was a STIAS Fellow
at Stellenbosch University in 2016 and is an Extraordinary Professor at the University of
the Western Cape. From 2008 to 2013, she was Cornell’s Vice-Provost for International
Relations. She is a cum laude graduate of Harvard University, has a Masters degree in
international education from Harvard, and MS and PhD degrees in animal nutrition from
the University of Vermont. She has been involved in research and graduate training
programmes in Botswana, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, India and Indonesia.
Dr Aldo Stroebel
Aldo Stroebel is Executive Director International Relations and Cooperation at the NRF
of South Africa, and Visiting Fellow at the Institute for African Development at Cornell
University, USA. He is a former President of the Southern African Research and Innovation
Management Association (SARIMA), and serves as South Africa’s National Contact Point
for the ERC to H2020, and on the boards of the WRC and the ARC. He is a former member
of the Research and Innovation Strategy Group (RISG) of Universities South Africa (USAf)
(2006-2016), and holds a Ministerial appointment to the National Education and Training
Forum for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (NETFAFF). Education credentials: University of
Pretoria (BSc and Honours degrees); University of Ghent, Belgium (Masters in International
Agricultural Development); University of the Free State and Cornell University, USA (PhD);
postdoctoral research at Wageningen University, The Netherlands. He is a founding
member elected to the SA Young Academy of Science (SAYAS), and has published widely
in smallholder livestock systems and sustainable agriculture. He has been acknowledged
as a leader in the internationalisation of higher education, in research and innovation
management, and partnerships and networking.
Prof Volker Wedekind
Volker Wedekind holds the Education, Training and Development Practices (ETDP) Sector
Education and Training Authority (SETA)-funded Research Chair in Vocational Education
and Pedagogy in the Centre for Researching Education and Labour, School of Education,
University of the Witwatersrand. Prior to that he spent almost 25 years at the University of
KwaZulu-Natal in various capacities, including Head of School and Deputy Dean. He
holds a PhD from the University of Manchester. His research has focused on teachers,
curriculum policy and most recently on vocational education. He has written numerous
articles and book chapters and has produced research reports for SETAs, the South
African Qualications Authority (SAQA), Umalusi, the Department of Higher Education
and Training (DHET), the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the United Nations
Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and the KwaZulu-Natal
(KZN) Treasury and KZN Education Department. He has been a member of two ministerial

169
168
committees at national level, and serves on committees for the Higher Education Quality
Council (HEQC), DHET, and Umalusi. He is an executive member of the South African
Education Research Association.
Prof Johann Kirsten
Johann Kirsten is Professor and Director of the Bureau for Economic Research (BER) at
Stellenbosch University (SU). Before taking up this position he was Professor in Agricultural
Economics and Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural
Development at the University of Pretoria – a position he occupied for 20 years until his
resignation in July 2016. He was born in Cape Town and matriculated from Hoërskool
Jan van Riebeeck in Cape Town in 1979. Subsequently he enrolled for undergraduate
studies at SU and completed the BSc Agriculture degree and a BSc Agriculture Honours
degree in Agricultural Economics. He started his career as an agricultural economist
in the Department of Agriculture in Pretoria and also enrolled for postgraduate studies
at the University of Pretoria. He obtained a Masters and PhD degree in Agricultural
Economics at the University of Pretoria (UP) and joined UP as lecturer in 1992. He served
as a council member of the National Agricultural Marketing Council in South Africa from
2001 to 2011 and was also appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to serve as Chair of
the Food Price Committee during 2003 and 2004. He also served as the Vice-President of
the International Association of Agricultural Economists for the period 2006 to 2009.
Dr Fanie Terblanché
Fanie Terblanché obtained his PhD in Agricultural Extension from UP, where he is currently
a senior lecturer and researcher in Agricultural Extension. He was the President of the
South African Society for Agricultural Extension, Chairperson of the Standards Generating
Body (SGB) for Agricultural Extension (SAQA) and member of the Minister’s executive
committee, National Agricultural Education and Training. He was a member of the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Regional Food Security Training
Programme representing Agriculture Colleges from 1999 until 2002. He was appointed as
a member of the South African Council for Natural Scientic Professions and registered as
Professional Natural Scientist in the eld of extension. He is a member of the South African
Society for Agricultural Extension (SASAE) and an Editor of the South African Journal of
Agricultural Extension.

171
i STISA-2024 is a multi-functional tool and a critical enabler for achieving continental
development goals. Further information available online from: https://au.int/web/
en/newsevents/27635/african-union-heads-state-and-government-adopt-science-
technology-and-innovation.
ii The map shows Grootfontein as a separate directorate. This stems from complications
from the restructuring of the respective provincial departments and sectoral colleges,
specically the objective to have one sectoral college within each province. At that
stage the Northern Cape did not have a sectoral college whilst the Eastern Cape
had two and it was hence decided to second Grootfontein to the Northern Cape.
This arrangement was not successful over the long term, however, and resulted in
the current arrangement. Presently the Northern Cape does not have a provincial
sectoral college.
iii Internship: Practical work required by tertiary institution in order to obtain the specic
qualication.
iv Temporary employment, fully paid or subsidised by AgriSETA, intended to improve the
permanent employability of a graduate after gaining practical experience.
v Programme that culminates in the acquiring of a NQF qualication, specied consist
of 30% theoretical and 70% practical work. Theoretical work provided by public
tertiary of AgriSETA accredited private training provider.
vi For example, there are unit standards registered that focus on nancing agricultural
projects from the banking sector and selling agricultural land from the estate agency
sector.
ENDNOTES