Gauteng’s Agriparks are meant to be places of hope. They are meant to help emerging farmers move from survival to sustainability. They are meant to link small producers to markets, create jobs, improve food security, support agro-processing, and turn public agricultural infrastructure into engines of local economic growth.
That is the promise. But the reality is that, after ten years and more than R155 million in public investment, there is little to no progress in assisting small farmers, which is far more troubling.
In response to questions from the DA to the MEC for Agriculture and Rural Development, Vuyiswa Ramogkpa, the department confirmed that R141.5 million has been spent on capital expenditure and R13.5 million on operational expenditure across Gauteng’s Agriparks over the past decade.
Yet the same response states that comprehensive financial reports showing revenue, operational expenses, and profit-or-loss statements per Agripark are unavailable because they are not generated. This should be of concern to every resident of Gauteng.
The government can report its spending on maintaining the Agriparks but fails to disclose whether any funds were ever recovered or which Agriparks are financially sustainable.
The department also admits deeper governance weaknesses, unclear roles and responsibilities, and major security and asset management gaps. The situation is not only a financial failure. It is a design failure.
The DA is not against Agriparks. We are against a model that traps emerging farmers in dependency instead of building them into agricultural entrepreneurs.
Gauteng does not need to abandon the Agripark concept but needs to rescue it.
The first step is to stop treating public support as a blank cheque.
The government should provide a platform that includes land access, bulk infrastructure, basic services, water systems, security, training, technical support, and initial incubation. But after the incubation phase, every operator must move onto a performance-linked pathway.
The DA proposes a simple and powerful turnaround model where every Agripark operator should sign an Agripark accountability contract. This contract must include clear production targets and other maintenance responsibilities.
The second reform must be a graduated lease and payback model.
During the first incubation phase, rental could be minimal, but training, reporting, and participation must be compulsory. Once production begins, operators should contribute a small maintenance levy. This approach protects emerging farmers in the early stages but prevents permanent dependency.
The third reform is to move away from weak, fragmented operating models.
The aggregator entrepreneur model, where a lead enterprise links smaller producers into value chains, means surrounding them with the commercial systems they need to succeed. A small farmer cannot be expected to succeed if the government gives them a tunnel but no reliable market, no working cold chain, no business reporting system, no enforceable lease, and no maintenance plan. Infrastructure alone does not create farmers, but effective systems do.
The fourth reform is professional management.
Agri-parks should be run as productive agricultural platforms with professional management, such as a public-private management company or independent agri-park management units. Government must retain oversight and ownership of public assets, but day-to-day management must become more disciplined, transparent, and business-like.
The fifth reform is a public Agripark dashboard.
Every Agripark must report regularly on daily input and output, including maintenance costs. If an Agripark is working, the public should be able to see it. If an Agripark is failing, the public should be able to see that too. Transparency is the beginning of accountability.
The sixth reform is consequence management.
Emerging farmers who work hard and produce consistently should be supported and linked to better markets. In the same way, operators who struggle should receive targeted support and a clear turnaround plan. But repeated non-performance cannot be ignored. A model without accountability is not compassionate but unfair to the very farmers it claims to help.
The DA believes that Gauteng’s Agriparks can still succeed, but they must not function as political showpieces. They cannot work as free infrastructure without financial discipline. They cannot work if the department measures spending but does not return. They cannot work if the government provides support but never requires responsibility.
The DA has a clear plan to support small farmers. To support farmers to produce, help them sell, and reinvest those contributions into maintenance, and pay it forward to the next farmer.
Gauteng must stop planting public money without measuring the harvest. After ten years and more than R155 million, residents deserve Agriparks that work, not excuses, not dependency, and not another decade of unmeasured promises. Our hopeful farmers and supportive residents deserve to see a true harvest.
DA member of the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, Bronwynn Engelbrecht
Bronwynn Engelbrecht
iol.co.za
