Latest news with #AgriSA
The Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- The Herald
AgriSA and community leaders warn of economic fallout from tobacco legislation
Thousands of rural households could lose their livelihoods if the Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill is passed, AgriSA has warned. In its parliamentary submission, AgriSA said the bill, in its current form, neglects to consider the broader implications on agricultural livelihoods. It said tobacco farming remained a vital income source for thousands of rural households, especially in provinces where alternative crops were not economically viable. 'We feel that good legislation is necessary to avoid harmful consequences that might not be foreseen in terms of the present bill. Our emphasis is on fixing what is wrong before we progress to further statutory requirements, the consequences of which have not been fully explored. 'We don't have a vested interest in smoking. We have a vested interest in a constructively regulated, purposeful, evidence-based bill that doesn't create the unforeseen consequence whereby we're supporting illegality through regulation, which is not appropriate to achieve the objective we all want to see achieved,' said AgriSA's Janse Rabie. Rabie said tobacco production dropped by about 50% in five years. 'Why? Because illicit trade has eaten their market away. That's the bottom line and farmers ask the honest question to government: why has government allowed our market to be eaten away by illicit trade? 'If you want to really address the harm, you need to properly legislate the ability to enforce. We absolutely need to make sure that what is in place is properly enforced and that we don't carry on a system that is not working and is allowing for additional illegality to take place.' Nedlac Community Trust CEO Nhlanhla Ndlovu said the issue of the Tobacco Bill was 'misguided from the point of view of not quantifying the impact to producers like farmers, with potential significant implications for the farmers, workers and communities they support'. 'It looks like there's an economic impact that will result in an inability, among affected farmers and communities, to make an income, but there's no viable replacement programme. You are taking away livelihoods in a context where crime stats are showing an increase across the board.' ActionSA MP and harm reduction advocate Dr Kgosi Letlape added his voice, saying the bill seemed to condemn adult smokers to death while 'concentrating solely on issues of youth uptake, which are important, but the deaths don't come from the youth'. He was also concerned about the impact on agriculture in SA. 'Should our agricultural sector be looking beyond our borders to progressive markets where their products could be used for less harmful sources of nicotine? 'My fear is not that the industry will die, it'll just be driven into the wrong hands.' TimesLIVE
TimesLIVE
4 days ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
AgriSA and community leaders warn of economic fallout from tobacco legislation
Thousands of rural households could lose their livelihoods if the Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill is passed, AgriSA has warned. In its parliamentary submission, AgriSA said the bill, in its current form, neglects to consider the broader implications on agricultural livelihoods. It said tobacco farming remained a vital income source for thousands of rural households, especially in provinces where alternative crops were not economically viable. 'We feel that good legislation is necessary to avoid harmful consequences that might not be foreseen in terms of the present bill. Our emphasis is on fixing what is wrong before we progress to further statutory requirements, the consequences of which have not been fully explored. 'We don't have a vested interest in smoking. We have a vested interest in a constructively regulated, purposeful, evidence-based bill that doesn't create the unforeseen consequence whereby we're supporting illegality through regulation, which is not appropriate to achieve the objective we all want to see achieved,' said AgriSA's Janse Rabie. Rabie said tobacco production dropped by about 50% in five years. 'Why? Because illicit trade has eaten their market away. That's the bottom line and farmers ask the honest question to government: why has government allowed our market to be eaten away by illicit trade? 'If you want to really address the harm, you need to properly legislate the ability to enforce. We absolutely need to make sure that what is in place is properly enforced and that we don't carry on a system that is not working and is allowing for additional illegality to take place.' Nedlac Community Trust CEO Nhlanhla Ndlovu said the issue of the Tobacco Bill was 'misguided from the point of view of not quantifying the impact to producers like farmers, with potential significant implications for the farmers, workers and communities they support'. 'It looks like there's an economic impact that will result in an inability, among affected farmers and communities, to make an income, but there's no viable replacement programme. You are taking away livelihoods in a context where crime stats are showing an increase across the board.' ActionSA MP and harm reduction advocate Dr Kgosi Letlape added his voice, saying the bill seemed to condemn adult smokers to death while 'concentrating solely on issues of youth uptake, which are important, but the deaths don't come from the youth'. He was also concerned about the impact on agriculture in SA. 'Should our agricultural sector be looking beyond our borders to progressive markets where their products could be used for less harmful sources of nicotine? 'My fear is not that the industry will die, it'll just be driven into the wrong hands.'
Eyewitness News
22-05-2025
- Business
- Eyewitness News
AgriSA hopes engagement between Ramaphosa and Trump yields positive trade deal
JOHANNESBURG - AgriSA says it hopes the bilateral engagements between President Cyril Ramaphosa and United States (US) President Donald Trump yield a positive trade deal. Ramaphosa is set to meet Trump later on Wednesday. AgriSA CEO Johann Kotze said America is a significant market in the farming business, and it would be a blow to the sector if trade deals between the two countries fall through. 'I think trade in general for us as agriculture, is a major thing for us and America is a significant market. So, the first thing is if we are talking general, we would love to see that there's a trade deal where agriculture and mining and manufacturing are in, what we had in AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act].' Kotze said they stand behind Ramaphosa as he represents the country, including any deals he may walk away with. 'So, when we went to America a few weeks ago, and I think what came to mind while being there is that we may not lose focus of what we are good in as agriculture. And whatever the outcome is going to be, if we lose AGOA or the principles of trading under AGOA, it doesn't matter what we lose or what we're going to win. We may not lose this hope and this faith that we represent as agriculture in South Africa.' He also added that farmers in South Africa are often painted political corner, whatever the outcome is, if they lose AGOA or the principles of trading under AGOA. ALSO READ:
TimesLIVE
19-05-2025
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
So what exactly does Trump want? South Africa is about to find out
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation to the US must not harbour any illusions about the treacherous path they have to walk and the difficult task they face. If Ramaphosa and his ministers want to eke out some victories from their meeting with US President Donald Trump then they need to be very clear-eyed about what the meeting is, who Trump is, what the people around him represent and what the meeting can achieve. It will not be a rational meeting, because nothing is rational about the assault on South Africa. The meeting's chances of ending in a detente of some sort are very slim. Very possibly, after the meeting, there may be more measures to further punish South Africa. This is not to be negative. All South Africans must wish Ramaphosa and his delegation luck. The delegation itself must travel with the hope, optimism, goodwill and self-belief that the president used to display when he was the ANC's chief negotiator at the democracy talks in the 1990s. Yet this is also realpolitik, and that demands that there be a clear appreciation of what the delegation faces. It faces, first and foremost, a Trump administration (and its friends) who have become evangelical proponents of the lie of a white genocide in South Africa. Not only have members of the US administration swallowed this lie, but they are also happy to stand beside a man such as Elon Musk, who has weaponised this lie and is now blatantly and openly changing his Artificial Intelligence product Grok to tarnish and besmirch South Africa. Last week's exposé of how Grok had, in previous instances, debunked the claim of 'white genocide' while quoting credible sources and statistics and then how it had, after being fiddled with by its creators, started obsessively and crazily spewing 'white genocide' lies in unrelated conversations, showed just what the people around Trump are prepared to do to besmirch the country's name with lies and gain the upper hand over South Africa. Trump, who regularly plays golf with South Africans such as Gary Player and others who enjoy the golf courses of the country daily and are not subject to any genocide, repeated the 'white genocide' lie as recently as last week. Immediately after that his administration withdrew from all participation in the G20 summit's activities. This came after a relentless blast of actions that started on January 20 when Trump was sworn into office. It continues unabated. So what does Trump want? This is crucial for Ramaphosa to work out. Trump has ranted about 'white genocide', but how exactly does he want South Africa to respond when there is objectively no white genocide in the country? Does he want policy change on land? How is the ANC government going to do that when it has objectively not expropriated a single square metre of white-owned land without compensation since 1994? On this 'genocide' and land expropriation point there is no rationality. The facts do not matter to the Americans. Even if the folks at AgriSA shout and rant that there is no genocide of white farmers, the Trump administration won't accept it because they are not about the facts. They will merely shout at and humiliate Ramaphosa before the White House press corps the way they tried to humiliate Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky. Is this animus towards South Africa about its International Court of Justice case against Israel? Has the US said explicitly that South Africa should withdraw it (can South Africa do this now and how would it explain to the court that suddenly it believes there is no alleged genocide in that region)? If this is the US demand, then at least there is room to talk, as this is a tangible demand. South Africa can say yes or no. If the South African delegation did not know it, then last week's trip by Trump to the Gulf states should have shown it that the US president is about deals for himself, his family, his allies, then the US. He has been showered with gifts and his family has shamelessly signed deals while close associates have seen deals accrue to them. Second, as his tariff agreement with China demonstrated, he makes a whole load of belligerent noise and then settles and claims 'the art of the deal' has triumphed once again. Even a bad deal is, for him, something to crow about. Without compromising South Africa's moral core and the fact that the country's defeat of apartheid and the installation of democracy in South Africa was a victory for all humanity, Ramaphosa and his delegation must find a way to strike a deal with Trump. A starting point would be to make Trump understand that he is not the US, that he won't be around forever, and that his assault on South Africa will unravel with his legacy in years to come. Then perhaps he will be incentivised to strike a deal of some sort.
The Citizen
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Expropriation Act panel discussion sparks debate at Nampo 2025
The signing of the Expropriation Act into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa earlier this year sparked lively debate on land reform and property rights, with agricultural leaders and legal experts unpacking its potential impact during a Nation in Conversation panel at Nampo 2025. A panel of experts examined the signing of the Act's potential effects on property rights, land ownership, and the broader agricultural landscape, Farmer's Weekly reported. Different interpretations of the law Waldimar Pelser led the discussion that aimed to provide clarity on the Act's provisions and its anticipated impact on commercial farming operations. Although the topic of the discussion was understanding the implications of South Africa's Expropriation Act on agriculture, it was clear that amongst the panel members and also the general public, there is no consensus on the understanding of certain aspects of the new law. The panel members were Willem de Chavonnes Vrugt, deputy president of Agri SA; Dean McPherson, Minister of Public Works, and Infrastructure; Jaco Kleynhans, head of international liaison at Solidarity; Hermann Pretorius, Head of Strategic Communications at the South African Institute of Race Relations (IRR); and Theo Boshoff, CEO of Agbiz. According to McPherson, the new Act standardised the procedures in which expropriation could take place. 'The Act provides a uniform procedure that must be followed whenever expropriation takes place. It is an improvement on the 1975 Act which did not have the clauses and procedures guiding these processes. The Act exists to drive the economy and infrastructure development. It must be seen as a tool for economic development and growth.' He also referred to the 'nil-compensation' provisions in Section 12(3), and said that in reality, nil compensation would be lawful under the Act. Compensation is a delicate balancing act According to Boshoff and De Chavonnes Vrugt, the 'nil-compensation' provisions are not as clear-cut as other elements contained in the Act, and are rightly the most controversial part of the law. Its impact is also the most difficult to predict, as compensation is not a simple equation; it is a delicate balancing of rights that will differ from case to case. 'Agri SA remains dedicated to protecting private property rights and fostering the growth and stability of South Africa's agriculture sector. Agri SA actively participated in the Expropriation Bill drafting process, including Parliamentary and National Economic Development and Labour Council discussions, from 2013 to 2020. We have been involved in the process from the start and what we have now is a better option than what we started with,' said De Chavonnes Vrugt. The Act facilitates the expropriation of land with no compensation under specific conditions in the public interest. 'While Agri SA is supporting the need for transformation and land reform in the agriculture sector, it must not come at the expense of the economy and investor confidence,' De Chavonnes Vrugt said. Expropriation not an exception of property rights According to Boshoff, Section 25 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the property clause with the aim of safeguarding property rights from arbitrary deprivation. The same rules apply to expropriation. Where the state requires private property for a public purpose or in the public interest, there must be a legitimate reason, and the reason must be contained in legislation. 'Expropriation is therefore not an 'exception', nor a 'watering down' of property rights because no expropriation can take place outside of the law or for an arbitrary reason,' Boshoff explained. 'The Act is a means to an end and not the end itself,' Boshoff said. 'The Act provides that the state can only expropriate [property] if it has failed to buy the property on reasonable terms. It's a deadlock-breaking mechanism that can only be used as a last resort. Expropriation is certainly not a 'shortcut' for the state to acquire property, as the procedures that the state must follow are far more onerous than buying the property in question.' He further explained that in the case of expropriation, the normal verification process would still need to be followed to prove a valid claim before expropriation can take place. 'If it does, the provisions of the Expropriation Act will apply.' According to McPherson, if the Expropriation Act was not enacted, the authority to expropriate property for various reasons would still exist. 'The difference is that the procedure contained in the old, 1975 Act would then be applied. This act predates the Constitution, and the process it prescribes is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.' The ministers pointed out that the Constitution requires compensation to be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public's interest and that of the affected parties. 'All relevant factors must be considered, but the overriding standard is still that the compensation must be just and equitable.' If the reaction to the Act is anything to go by, there are clearly very different expectations surrounding this Act. According to Boshoff, the real risk does not lie in nil compensation but in protracted and expensive litigation. 'The possibility exists' Kleynhans however, expressed concern with the wording in the Act and said that Solidarity does not like the processes described in the Act. 'It leaves the possibility that farm land can be expropriated and that litigation in this regard can take long to the detriment of the farmer.' He said that according to Solidarity's knowledge, South Africa is already experiencing disinvestments due to the Act. Kleynhans stated that South Africa did not need expropriation for land reform. 'There is land available to cater to those needs.' 'Court has been 'innovative' with water and mineral rights legislation' Pretorius noted that there were a number of legal uncertainties in the current Act and referred to sections 8 and 13(2), while also pointing out the uncertainty around the 180 days allowed for the Constitutional Court to become involved. He also said that he did not have confidence in the Constitutional Court, and described the court as being 'innovative' in its application of water and mineral rights legislation. 'As far as we are concerned, that could be the same situation with land ownership.' He also referred to the alternative Act that the IRR has created and invited the public to read it and give their comments. McPherson concluded by acknowledging that there were aspects of the Act that are contentious and that created uncertainty. 'The contradictions can be addressed and solved. We can have discussions and provide answers and solutions that can be satisfactory to the vast majority of people. I encourage discussions and hearing the different points of views as these opens up the floor for finding common ground and working towards finding solutions.' At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
