4 / 19
THE
GRAIN AND OILSEED INDUSTRY
OF SOUTH AFRICA – A JOURNEY THROUGH TIME
ႆ
CRITICISM ON THE KASSIER-COMMITTEE
The composition of the Kassier Committee attracted criticism from various
sources, including from NAMPO, particularly with respect to the known
prejudices of certain members of the Committee and a lack of in-depth
knowledge of the industry.
When the report was released, NAMPO as well as other experts believed
that the report was superficial, that several of the Committee’s findings and
recommendations had been based on conclusions drawn from preconceived
views and philosophies rather than practical market expertise, and that it had
not taken the influence of different interests properly into consideration, as
had been contained in the terms of reference.
The view was also that the report made certain generalised statements in
an unfair manner with respect to marketing councils, and reflected some of
the committee members’ philosophical views on a free market rather than
assessing the needs of the industry. Advocates of controlled agricultural
marketing pointed out that a completely free market existed nowhere in
the world.
Critics also stated that several in-depth investigations in the decade preceding
the committee’s report had found that the single-channel marketing systems
of agricultural products had to be retained, although it was acknowledged that
they had tobe adapted to changing circumstances in the course of time. The last
of these reports, that of the so-called Brand Committee, on which producers
as well as consumer groups had been represented, had been released in the
same year that the Kassier Committee was appointed. However, the latter
committee did not take the findings of these investigations into account.
• That the marketing councils for grain follow a more consumer-friendly approach
with respect to pricing.
• That in instances where the marketing councils used a unitary pricing policy, it be
abolished immediately and replaced by a pricing system that would better reflect
the comparable benefits, including location and quality differences.
• That statutory single-channel and price-supporting marketing schemes be
abolished and the existing marketing councils continue as private and volun-
tary organisations.
At the same time the Kassier Committee warned against the risk that deregulation
could lead to a loss in industry information, as the control boards were responsible
for this at that stage.
The Committee also believed that the government had to take greater responsibility
for ensuring food security in South Africa. This should not be integrated with the
agricultural marketing system, but funded from the central budget, with the neces-
sary assurance of transparency.
Early in 1993, shortly after the Kassier Committee’s report had been released,
Minister Van Niekerk appointed an Agricultural Marketing Policy Evaluation
Committee (AMPEC) and, with a view to developing a marketing policy for different
agricultural products, instructed it to propose a framework with guidelines for fu-
ture marketing systems for each agricultural product and, in collaboration with other
stakeholders, including the control boards, draft guidelines for an implementation
plan.
Although AMPEC consisted of representatives from a widely divergent number of
interest groups, it eventually provided the Minister with a consensus report. The
report recommended that the
status quo
be retained, but with less regulation and
greater transparency.
On 7 March 1995 a draft act to replace the 1968 Act was published. This was largely
based on the recommendations of the AMPEC report and elicited severe criticism
Sound bite: The free market is an illu-
sion – it is in truth a manipulated market
– Mr Crawford von Abo.
A copy of the Kassier Committee’s find-
ings. This report led to the final change of
maize marketing in South Africa.
Sound bite: The beginning of the move-
ment to a free market maize was due to the
maize of Mr Attie Swart, previous Deputy
Director General in the Department of Ag-
riculture.
