Original Research

The challenges faced by rural agricultural cooperatives in South Africa: A case of KwaZulu-Natal

Julius Chiwawa, Vannie Naidoo

Received: 11 Mar. 2026; Accepted: 15 July 2026; Published: 30 Sept. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: Food security in rural South Africa is constrained by climate variability, population pressure, and agrarian inequalities, limiting agricultural cooperatives and small-scale farmers’ livelihoods, market access, and value-chain participation.

Aim: This study examines the challenges constraining the development and sustainability of agricultural cooperatives and small-scale farming in rural South Africa.

Setting: The study was conducted in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, where agricultural cooperatives and small-scale farming are vital to household livelihoods and local food security.

Methods: A qualitative interpretivist design was employed. Data were collected from 47 cooperative leaders through 15 semi-structured interviews and four focus groups. Participants were purposively selected, and transcripts were thematically analysed.

Results: Findings show that cooperative underperformance results from interconnected livelihood and institutional constraints rather than isolated weaknesses. Key barriers include mechanisation and irrigation deficits, ageing membership, financial exclusion, membership instability, fragmented government support, and market exclusion. These constraints weaken productivity, resilience, and cooperatives’ ability to support viable small-scale farming.

Conclusion: Agricultural cooperatives and small-scale farmers face compounded structural, institutional, financial, and market-related barriers that undermine sustainable rural development.

Contribution: The study contributes theoretically by extending the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to cooperative development, demonstrating how asset deficits and institutional fragmentation interact to constrain small-scale farming sustainability.

Keywords: agricultural cooperatives; food security; institutional barriers; market access; rural livelihoods.

Introduction

Global food security is increasingly pressured by rapid population growth and intensifying shifts in agricultural productivity systems. As demand for food rises, governments are compelled to strengthen national food systems, not only by increasing aggregate production but also by improving the inclusivity and resilience of agrarian economies (Muzekenyi, Zuwarimwe & Kilonzo 2023). Within this context, small-scale commercial farming has been widely identified as a strategic sub-sector for advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 and 2; ending poverty and hunger because it can expand income opportunities while strengthening local food availability (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2017; United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] 2012). Small-scale commercial farming refers to agrarian production undertaken primarily for market exchange and profit. Its importance has expanded over the past two decades as rural economies become more market-oriented and as policy frameworks increasingly prioritise inclusive agribusiness development (UNDP 2012). This distinguishes small-scale commercial farming from subsistence production, where households produce mainly for consumption and only intermittently participate in markets. Consequently, the urgency of reducing extreme poverty, hunger, and unemployment positions small-scale commercial farming as a key pathway for strengthening rural livelihoods, particularly where farming remains one of the few viable economic activities (Chiwawa, Naidoo & Darwish 2025).

The developmental significance of small-scale farming is further demonstrated by its alignment with continental agricultural commitments and investment targets. In 2014, African countries renewed their commitment to agriculture, reiterating the need to allocate up to 10% of annual national expenditure or income to agricultural development, with a focus on improving productivity, market participation, and rural employment outcomes (Muzekenyi et al. 2023). Agriculture-oriented programmes, including the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), function as core policy vehicles under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and position small-scale commercial farming as integral to food security, income generation, and employment creation (FAO 2017). Moreover, small-scale commercial farming is increasingly recognised as a growth-enhancing rural enterprise that can support inclusive economic development by linking producers to value chains, stimulating local service economies, and broadening participation in agribusiness opportunities (Naidoo & Chiwawa 2026). As such, the sector is not merely a welfare-oriented intervention, but a practical domain for structural transformation in rural settings.

In South Africa, these commitments intersect with a historically dualistic agrarian structure and persistent rural inequality, making the performance of small-scale farming and agricultural cooperatives particularly consequential for development. Following the Malabo declaration in 2014, the South African government reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening agriculture as part of broader frameworks such as the Zero Hunger Challenge, Agenda 2063, the SDGs, and the National Development Plan 2030 (FAO 2017). Within this agenda, small-scale commercial farming has been positioned as an avenue for economic transformation, livelihood improvement, and expanded employment in rural areas. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) previously reported that approximately R10 billion had been channelled towards small-scale commercial farming finance through Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) since 2014 (DAFF 2017). However, despite these efforts, rural producers continue to experience barriers that constrain productivity, market participation, and sustainability.

Although agricultural cooperatives are widely promoted as instruments for rural development, collective action, and market inclusion in South Africa, many rural cooperatives continue to experience persistent challenges that weaken their sustainability and developmental impact. Existing literature provides important insights into South Africa’s dual agrarian structure, cooperative history, legislative reform, and rural development challenges. However, much of this scholarship remains fragmented. Some studies focus primarily on smallholder productivity and market access (Mathinya, Mushunje & Mafongoya 2022; Zantsi 2024), while others examine cooperative policy, governance, or historical development (Mkhize & Cele 2023; Mushonga, Arun & Marwa 2019; Ortmann & King 2007). Agricultural cooperatives are collective, member-owned organisational structures through which farmers mobilise resources, coordinate production, access support services, and participate in markets (Naidoo & Chiwawa 2026). Small-scale commercial farming, by contrast, refers to market-oriented agricultural production undertaken by small-scale producers to generate income and sustain livelihoods (Ndlovu & Masuku 2021). Despite this distinction, limited attention has been given to how interconnected organisational, institutional, resource, and market constraints affect the viability of rural agricultural cooperatives in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). Therefore, this study examines the challenges faced by rural agricultural cooperatives in KZN and analyses how these constraints affect their capacity to support sustainable rural livelihoods, market participation, and inclusive agricultural development.

Theoretical framework

Sustainable livelihood framework

The literature underpinning this study is the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA), which offers a comprehensive and people-centred framework for analysing the challenges limiting the development of agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming in rural South Africa. The SLA conceptualises livelihoods as the outcome of dynamic interactions between livelihood assets, the vulnerability context, and transforming structures and processes, all of which shape the livelihood strategies and outcomes of individuals and collective entities such as cooperatives (Department for International Development [DFID] 2000).

Within this framework, livelihood assets are categorised into five forms of capital: human, natural, financial, physical, and social. For agricultural cooperatives and small-scale farmers, these assets include access to arable land and water (natural capital), farming skills and managerial capacity (human capital), infrastructure and production inputs (physical capital), access to credit and markets (financial capital), and collective action, trust, and networks (social capital). In rural South Africa, access to these assets is often uneven and constrained by historical inequalities, limited institutional support, and inadequate rural infrastructure, thereby undermining productive capacity and cooperative sustainability (eds. Nunan, Barnes & Krishnamurthy 2022). The key components and relationships within the sustainable livelihoods approach are summarised in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: Sustainable rural livelihood framework.

The SLA further emphasises the vulnerability context, encompassing economic shocks, climate variability, market volatility, and social exclusion, all of which disproportionately affect rural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farmers. These vulnerabilities are mediated by transforming structures and processes, including agricultural policies, cooperative legislation, financial institutions, extension services, and market governance systems. Nunan et al. (eds. 2022) argue that where these institutions are weak, fragmented, or exclusionary, they limit farmers’ ability to convert assets into viable livelihood strategies.

By integrating asset constraints, institutional barriers, and risk exposure, the SLA provides a robust analytical lens for examining the structural and contextual challenges that constrain agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming development in rural South Africa.

Literature review

Agricultural sector and small-scale commercial farming in South Africa

South Africa’s agricultural sector remains characterised by a persistent dualism in which a highly capitalised commercial farming sector operates alongside a large number of small-scale and subsistence producers who remain weakly integrated into formal value chains (Vink, Conradie & Matthews 2022; Zantsi 2024). Although small-scale farmers play a significant role in rural livelihoods, food provisioning, and household income support, their contribution to national agricultural output remains constrained by limited access to productive assets, finance, infrastructure, irrigation, mechanisation, and structured markets (Cousins, Hall & Kepe 2022; Maesela, Senyolo & Belete 2023; Mathinya et al. 2022). This suggests that the struggles of small-scale commercial farming are not simply the result of farm size or limited production capacity, but are embedded in broader structural inequalities that shape access to agricultural resources and market opportunities.

Recent studies show that smallholder farmers often operate in areas exposed to variable rainfall, drought risk, and weak infrastructure, yet these agro-ecological factors alone do not fully explain their underperformance (Gumede, Durden & Govender 2022; Muzekenyi et al. 2023). Instead, productivity gaps are strongly associated with unequal access to finance, technical skills, extension services, market information, and institutional support (Ndlovu & Masuku 2021; Zantsi 2021). The SLA is therefore relevant because it enables analysis of how limited human, natural, physical, financial, and social capital interact with vulnerability contexts and institutional processes to shape agricultural outcomes (DFID 2000; eds. Nunan et al. 2022). Within this study, small-scale commercial farming is understood as a livelihood and enterprise activity whose sustainability depends on the interaction between resource access, cooperative organisation, institutional support, and market inclusion.

Agricultural cooperatives and rural development

Agricultural cooperatives are voluntary, member-owned organisations established to support collective production, processing, input supply, marketing, and distribution of agricultural goods and services (DAFF 2015; International Cooperative Alliance [ICA] 2015). Their relevance to small-scale commercial farming lies in their ability to pool resources, reduce individual risks, strengthen bargaining power, facilitate access to inputs and credit, and improve farmers’ participation in markets (Francesconi & Wouterse 2022; Wanyama, Develtere & Pollet 2009). In contexts where individual smallholders face high transaction costs and weak negotiating power, cooperatives can function as institutional mechanisms through which farmers overcome some of the limitations associated with operating independently.

However, the literature also shows that cooperatives do not automatically produce positive development outcomes. Their effectiveness depends on governance quality, member commitment, financial management, leadership capacity, market orientation, and the wider institutional environment in which they operate (Cele & Mkhize 2025; Moon & Lee 2020). Some studies emphasise cooperatives’ potential to improve livelihoods, access to markets, and productive capacity (Chiwawa et al. 2025; Francesconi & Wouterse 2022). Others caution that weak leadership, dependency on state support, limited entrepreneurial capacity, and poor internal accountability often undermine cooperative sustainability (Pansera & Rizzi 2020; Zwane & Mzanywa 2025). This indicates that agricultural cooperatives should not be analysed only as rural development instruments, but as organisations whose performance is shaped by both internal institutional capacity and external structural conditions. Collectively, the literature underscores the centrality of agricultural cooperatives as multifunctional organisations capable of addressing both economic and social challenges within agrarian systems.

Historical and policy context of cooperative development in South Africa

The historical development of cooperatives in South Africa provides an important basis for understanding current inequalities in cooperative performance. During the colonial and apartheid periods, formal agricultural cooperatives were primarily designed to support white commercial farmers through access to subsidies, credit, protected markets, and state-backed marketing systems (Mushonga et al. 2019; Ortmann & King 2007). In contrast, African cooperative initiatives were largely excluded from legal recognition, formal finance, and institutional support, forcing many black communities to rely on informal mutual aid systems such as stokvels and rotating savings arrangements (Raniga & Ringson 2021; Satgar 2011). This unequal historical trajectory strengthened white commercial agriculture while limiting the development of black-owned cooperative enterprises. Table 1 summarises the main Cooperative Societies Acts that shaped cooperative development in South Africa prior to 1994.

Post-apartheid reforms sought to reposition cooperatives as instruments for poverty reduction, employment creation, economic inclusion, and community empowerment (Department of Trade and Industry [DTI] 2004; Republic of South Africa [RSA] 2005). The Cooperatives Act No. 14 of 2005 and the Cooperatives Amendment Act No. 6 of 2013 created a more inclusive legal framework aligned with principles of voluntary membership, democratic governance, member economic participation, and concern for community (Christian et al. 2024; ICA 2005). These reforms expanded the formal visibility of cooperatives and encouraged registration across different sectors, including agriculture. Table 2 presents the key provisions of the Cooperatives Amendment Act No. 6 of 2013 and their implications for agricultural cooperatives and small-scale farming. However, recent studies show that legislative recognition has not been matched by adequate finance, training, monitoring, infrastructure, or market integration support (Gumede et al. 2022; Cele & Mkhize 2025; Zwane & Mzanywa 2025). Thus, the policy framework represents an important enabling condition, but not a sufficient mechanism for sustainable cooperative development.

Challenges facing agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming

The literature identifies several interrelated constraints that limit the development of agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming. Firstly, inadequate mechanisation, irrigation, storage facilities, and production infrastructure constrain productivity and reinforce dependence on rain-fed and labour-intensive systems (Mathinya et al. 2022; Muzekenyi et al. 2023). These constraints reduce competitiveness and discourage youth participation, particularly where farming is perceived as physically demanding, low-return, and technologically outdated (Cele & Mkhize 2025; Zantsi 2021). In this respect, physical capital deficits are closely linked to both production inefficiency and demographic instability within cooperatives.

Secondly, financial exclusion remains a major constraint. Many cooperatives and small-scale farmers lack collateral, credit histories, and formal assets needed to access finance from commercial institutions (Christian et al. 2024; Serra & Davidson 2021). This limits investment in inputs, equipment, irrigation, storage, and market compliance. Financial constraints therefore reinforce other livelihood vulnerabilities by restricting farmers’ ability to adopt improved technologies, diversify production, and respond to market opportunities (Francesconi & Wouterse 2022; Mamo et al. 2021).

Thirdly, weak governance and unstable membership undermine cooperative sustainability. Studies show that poor leadership, weak financial management, limited entrepreneurial capacity, and member dropouts reduce trust, collective commitment, and organisational continuity (Borda-Rodriguez 2016; Moon & Lee 2020; Pansera & Rizzi 2020). These internal weaknesses are often intensified by fragmented government support, unclear institutional responsibilities, and weak extension systems (Andrew 2023; Gumede et al. 2022). Finally, market exclusion remains a persistent barrier, as many small-scale producers lack access to aggregation systems, transport logistics, port facilities, quality certification, and high-value market channels (Hall & Kepe 2023; Mkhabela & Mngomezulu 2022; Ncube & Tabe-Ojong 2023). Collectively, these studies show that cooperative underperformance is produced by overlapping asset, institutional, governance, and market constraints rather than by isolated operational weaknesses.

Research methods and design

This study adopted a qualitative research methodology to investigate the challenges limiting agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming development in rural South Africa, with a specific empirical focus on KZN. A qualitative approach was appropriate because the study sought to generate rich, contextualised explanations of how cooperative leaders understand, experience, and respond to institutional, financial, organisational, and market-related constraints (eds. Denzin & Lincoln 2021). Rather than measuring predetermined variables, the study examined participants’ meanings, interpretations, and lived experiences in relation to cooperative performance, livelihood sustainability, and small-scale commercial farming development.

The study was guided by an interpretivist paradigm, which assumes that social realities are constructed through participants’ experiences, interactions, and interpretations. This paradigm was suitable because the research focused on how cooperative leaders made sense of resource constraints, governance challenges, fragmented state support, financial exclusion, and market barriers. The interpretivist orientation also enabled the study to capture variations across cooperative tiers and participant categories, thereby providing deeper insight into how constraints are experienced at grassroots, secondary, tertiary, and apex levels. This orientation aligns with qualitative research approaches that prioritise meaning, context, and social interpretation in understanding complex rural development processes (Given 2022).

Target population

The target population comprised agricultural cooperative leadership structures in KZN, representing multiple organisational levels from primary cooperatives to provincial and national apex structures. In total, 1877 board members were considered, including directors from 362 primary cooperatives, 8 secondary cooperatives, 1 tertiary cooperative, and 1 national apex structure. This population was appropriate because cooperative leaders occupy strategic positions in governance, resource mobilisation, member coordination, and engagement with government, financial institutions, and market actors. Their perspectives were therefore central to understanding both operational and institutional challenges affecting agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming.

Focusing on leadership structures was also methodologically relevant because the study examined constraints affecting cooperative functioning, sustainability, and small-scale commercial farming development. Cooperative leaders were considered information-rich participants because they were directly involved in decision-making, member mobilisation, institutional engagement, and the management of farming activities. Their experiences therefore provided insight into how challenges are encountered at both organisational and broader value-chain levels.

Sampling strategy and sample composition

Given the qualitative nature of the study and the dispersed location of rural agricultural cooperatives in KZN, a non-probability sampling strategy was employed. The study combined purposive, quota, and snowball sampling. Purposive sampling was first used to identify participants with direct leadership experience and first-hand knowledge of cooperative governance, farming operations, institutional support, financial access, and market participation. This ensured that participants were able to provide detailed and relevant accounts aligned with the study objectives.

Quota sampling was then used to ensure that the focus groups reflected different cooperative levels and social categories, including women, youth, and people living with disabilities. This was important because these groups are often marginalised in agricultural decision-making and may experience cooperative constraints differently. Quota structuring therefore strengthened inclusivity and ensured that the study did not rely only on dominant voices within cooperative leadership structures. This approach is consistent with qualitative sampling principles that emphasise relevance, diversity, and inclusion in participants’ selection (McCafferty & Taylor 2022).

Snowball sampling was used where necessary to reach cooperative leaders in remote areas or where formal membership information was incomplete. This was particularly useful in rural contexts where cooperative networks are dispersed and not all eligible participants are easily identifiable through formal lists. The combination of purposive, quota, and snowball sampling was therefore appropriate because it balanced information richness, participant diversity, and practical access in a geographically dispersed research setting (Kanaki & Kalogiannakis 2023).

The final sample consisted of 47 participants, comprising 15 semi-structured interview participants and 32 focus group participants. The interview sample included eight primary cooperative leaders, four secondary cooperative leaders, two tertiary cooperative executive members, and one national apex representative. The focus groups included 19 primary board members, 9 secondary board members, and 4 tertiary cooperative members. This sample size was considered sufficient because data saturation was reached during the later stages of data collection. Saturation was evident when additional interviews and focus group discussions no longer generated substantially new themes, but instead confirmed recurring patterns relating to mechanisation deficits, financial exclusion, ageing membership, fragmented government support, member dropouts, and market exclusion. Saturation was assessed through continuous comparison of emerging codes across interviews, focus groups, and documentary evidence.

Data collection and research instruments

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and document review. The use of multiple qualitative sources strengthened triangulation by allowing the study to compare individual narratives, collective group reflections, and documentary evidence from policy and institutional sources. This multi-method approach was appropriate because agricultural cooperative challenges are complex and operate across individual, organisational, institutional, and market levels (Morgan 2024).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to generate detailed individual accounts of cooperative governance, resource constraints, institutional support, financial access, and market participation. The semi-structured format allowed the researcher to ask core questions consistently across participants while also probing emerging issues in greater depth. Interviews lasted approximately 40–60 min and were conducted at participants’ workplaces or mutually agreed locations that ensured privacy and comfort. With participants’ consent, interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to preserve accuracy and analytic fidelity.

Focus group discussions were conducted to capture shared experiences, collective interpretations, and points of agreement or disagreement among cooperative members. Four focus groups, each consisting of eight participants, were held at the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA) office in Durban between April 2023 and February 2024. The focus groups were organised to encourage participation from different demographic and cooperative categories, particularly women, youth, and people living with disabilities. Each session lasted approximately two hours thirty minutes and followed a semi-structured guide that explored cooperative operations, leadership challenges, resource access, government support, youth participation, finance, and market linkages. Focus groups were particularly useful because they allowed participants to build on, challenge, or clarify one another’s experiences, thereby enriching the depth of the data (Flynn, Albrecht & Scott 2018).

Documentary sources, including government reports, annual plans, South African National Apex Cooperative (SANACO) documents, newspaper reports, and parliamentary oversight materials, were reviewed to contextualise participants’ accounts and support triangulation. The integration of interviews, focus groups, and documents enabled the study to distinguish between individual experiences, collectively shared patterns, and wider institutional conditions affecting agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming. This strengthened the study’s ability to interpret findings beyond isolated participant accounts.

Data analysis

Data were analysed using thematic analysis, supported by NVivo Version 14. The analysis followed systematic stages involving transcription, familiarisation, initial coding, theme development, theme review, theme refinement, and synthesis (Castleberry & Nolen 2018). Interview and focus group transcripts were read repeatedly to develop familiarity with the data. Initial codes were generated inductively from participants’ accounts, while also being sensitised by the SLA, particularly its focus on human, financial, physical, natural, and social capital, as well as institutional processes and vulnerability contexts.

Interview and focus group data were first analysed separately and then integrated during theme development. The interview data provided detailed individual accounts from cooperative leaders across different organisational tiers, while focus group data revealed collective experiences, shared interpretations, and areas of consensus or disagreement. After separate coding, the two datasets were compared to identify convergences, differences, and recurring patterns. For instance, limited mechanisation, financial exclusion, ageing membership, fragmented state support, and market exclusion appeared consistently across both interviews and focus groups, strengthening the credibility of these themes.

Documentary evidence was used to triangulate participants’ accounts with policy documents, government reports, and institutional materials. Codes were grouped into broader categories and then refined into final themes (Castleberry & Nolen 2018). NVivo Version 14 was used to organise transcripts, manage codes, retrieve coded extracts, and support systematic comparison across participant categories and data sources. Coding verification was conducted by revisiting coded extracts against the original transcripts to ensure that interpretations remained grounded in participants’ meanings. Themes were retained only where they were sufficiently supported across the dataset and clearly linked to the study objectives.

Trustworthiness and ethical considerations

Several strategies were used to enhance the trustworthiness of the study. Credibility was strengthened through methodological triangulation involving interviews, focus groups, and document review. The use of multiple data sources allowed the researcher to compare individual accounts, collective discussions, and documentary evidence. Theme validation was undertaken by checking whether emerging themes were consistently reflected across interviews, focus groups, and documents. This process helped to ensure that the findings were not based on isolated statements but on recurring and analytically meaningful patterns.

Dependability was enhanced by maintaining a clear audit trail of the research process, including sampling decisions, interview and focus group procedures, transcription processes, coding steps, and theme development. Confirmability was supported through systematic comparison of interpretations with direct participant quotations and documentary evidence. Transferability was strengthened by providing detailed descriptions of the research context, participant categories, cooperative tiers, and data collection procedures, enabling readers to assess the relevance of the findings to similar rural cooperative settings.

Researcher reflexivity was applied throughout the study to strengthen qualitative rigour. The researcher recognised that prior knowledge of cooperative development, rural livelihoods, and agricultural policy could influence how questions were asked, how responses were interpreted, and how themes were constructed. To minimise this risk, open-ended questioning was used during interviews and focus groups, allowing participants to describe their experiences in their own words. Probing questions were used to clarify meanings rather than lead participants towards expected responses. Reflexive notes were kept after data collection sessions to record emerging impressions, contextual observations, and possible researcher assumptions. These notes assisted in separating participants’ meanings from the researcher’s interpretations during coding and theme development.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Ethics Committee, reference number HSSREC/00004467/2022. Participants provided informed consent before taking part in the study. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed of their right to withdraw without penalty. Confidentiality was maintained through anonymised reporting, secure storage of research data, and removal of identifying information from transcripts and published findings.

Results

The findings illuminate the lived experiences, institutional realities, and structural constraints shaping the functioning of agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming in rural areas. Through thematic analysis, several interrelated challenges emerged, reflecting how demographic dynamics, resource limitations, governance arrangements, financial access, and market structures collectively influence cooperatives and small-scale farmers’ performance and the sustainability of rural livelihoods.

Equipment and mechanisation deficits

The majority of participants highlighted that limited access to tractors, irrigation systems, and modern farming machinery forces cooperatives to rely on labour-intensive and rain-dependent production methods. The focus group discussions supported the same notion that this places agricultural cooperatives at a competitive disadvantage compared to well-resourced commercial farmers. The lack of mechanisation also discourages youth participation and exacerbates financial vulnerability, thereby undermining cooperative viability and limiting their capacity to contribute meaningfully to local economic development. Some participants stated that:

‘We depend only on manual labour and rainfall because we do not have tractors or irrigation systems. This makes our production very slow and unreliable. Commercial farmers are far ahead of us because they use machines and can farm throughout the year.’ (Interviewee 8, F 46, 2023)

‘The absence of tractors and modern equipment forces us to rely on rain-fed farming, which is risky. When drought comes, we lose everything.’ (Participants; Focus Group 1 and 4)

The evidence suggests that mechanisation deficits are not merely technical production challenges, but structural constraints that reproduce inequality between small-scale cooperative farmers and well-capitalised commercial producers. Participants’ reliance on manual labour and rainfall reflects limited physical and natural capital, which weakens productivity, increases exposure to climate variability, and restricts the capacity of cooperatives to meet market requirements consistently. This finding aligns with Mathinya et al. (2022), who link rain-fed and labour-intensive production to low productivity, and Vink et al. (2022), who show that access to irrigation and machinery remains a key source of competitive advantage among commercial farmers. However, the present evidence extends this literature by showing that mechanisation deficits also affect labour motivation, youth participation, and cooperative viability. While Zantsi (2021) and Francesconi and Wouterse (2022) associate low youth participation with unattractive farming conditions, this study suggests that youth disengagement is also shaped by the absence of modern, technology-enabled production systems. The findings further reveal a policy contradiction: cooperatives are promoted as vehicles for collective empowerment and commercialisation, yet they are expected to compete without access to the productive assets required for commercial farming. Inadequate equipment also deepens financial exclusion, as cooperatives lacking assets struggle to secure credit for technological upgrading (Christian et al. 2024; Serra & Davidson 2021). The interviews and focus groups evidence align closely, confirming that mechanisation and irrigation deficits are a shared concern across participants. From a Sustainable Livelihoods perspective, limited mechanisation constrains physical capital, intensifies vulnerability, and prevents cooperatives from converting collective action into sustainable livelihood outcomes.

Ageing membership and youth exclusion

The dominance of elderly members, with minimal youth participation, threatens the continuity, innovation, and long-term sustainability of agricultural cooperatives and agricultural sector in general. Participants reveal that inadequate support for youth, combined with the absence of modern farming equipment, discourages younger generations who are unwilling to engage in labour-intensive, manual farming practices. Some participants concurred:

‘Most people who are agricultural cooperative members are getting older; for example, I am now 72 years old. The oldest member in our group is 90 years old, and the youngest member is now 51 years old. We are not supporting youths to form cooperatives as much as possible.’ (Interviewee 11, M 26, 2023)

‘We have no equipment and we cannot use hoes to work on our 5 hectares. We need tractors and advanced machines. As young generations, we don’t want to do manual work, we want machines.’ (Participant; Focus Group 4)

The dominance of elderly members within agricultural cooperatives signals a succession crisis that threatens organisational renewal, continuity, and long-term sustainability. While youth participation is often discussed as a matter of motivation, the findings suggest a deeper structural problem: younger people are unlikely to remain in cooperatives where farming offers limited income prospects, weak career progression, and little institutional support for enterprise development. This aligns with Zantsi (2021), who links youth disengagement to low returns and unattractive agricultural conditions, and Muzekenyi et al. (2023), who show that rural farming remains constrained by limited incentives for younger participants. However, the present findings extend this literature by showing that ageing membership weakens cooperatives’ human capital base, reduces intergenerational knowledge transfer, and limits leadership succession. Mkhize and Cele (2023) similarly argue that weak governance and limited capacity undermine cooperative sustainability, while Vink et al. (2022) highlight the broader structural conditions shaping agricultural transformation in South Africa. The interview and focus group evidence align closely. Together, these accounts validate youth exclusion as a shared sustainability concern. From a Sustainable Livelihoods perspective, youth exclusion reflects deficits in human and social capital, not only individual disinterest. The key tension is that policy frameworks encourage youth inclusion, yet many cooperatives lack structured succession plans, youth-focused training, and viable pathways for younger members to become future cooperative leaders.

Financial exclusion and collateral barriers

This finding highlights a critical constraint undermining the sustainability of agricultural cooperatives and agricultural sector in KZN. Participants reveal that access to finance is severely restricted by collateral requirements that marginalised farmers are unable to meet. The absence of assets, particularly among women and historically disadvantaged groups, excludes cooperatives and smallholder farmers from formal credit systems and limits their ability to purchase inputs, invest in equipment, or adopt improved production practices. Some participants elaborated:

‘I do not have money to buy inputs, yet accessing assistance requires collateral that poor African women simply do not have. This makes support inaccessible and discourages participation in agricultural activities.’ (Interviewee 8, F 46, 2023)

‘Accessing financial assistance is one of the biggest challenges. Without capital you are going nowhere.’ (Participants; Focus Group 2 and 3)

Financial exclusion operates as a structural mechanism through which inequality is reproduced in agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming. Participants’ accounts show that collateral-based lending systems disadvantage farmers who lack formal assets, secure property rights, or accumulated capital, particularly women and historically marginalised groups. This supports Zantsi (2021) and Serra and Davidson (2021), who identify limited finance and collateral requirements as persistent barriers to cooperative sustainability. However, the present findings extend this literature by showing that finance is not an isolated constraint but a gateway resource that determines whether cooperatives can access inputs, adopt improved practices, strengthen governance, and participate in higher-value markets. While Christian et al. (2024) link financial exclusion to low productivity and continued vulnerability, Mamo et al. (2021) show that weak capital access reduces resilience and discourages cooperative participation. The gendered nature of collateral exclusion is especially important because conventional credit systems often privilege asset ownership, thereby reproducing the very inequalities that cooperative development policies seek to overcome. This creates a policy contradiction: cooperatives are promoted as instruments of inclusive rural development, yet formal finance systems continue to operate through requirements that many cooperative members cannot meet. From a Sustainable Livelihoods perspective, restricted financial capital weakens other livelihood assets, including human capacity, productive investment, social networks, and market participation, thereby limiting the transformative potential of agricultural cooperatives in rural development.

Member dropouts and instability

The theme reflects a critical organisational challenge affecting agricultural cooperatives in KZN. Participants reported high attrition rates, with declining membership undermining collective strength, labour availability, and operational continuity. Given the labour-intensive nature of agriculture, reduced member participation weakens productivity and limits cooperatives’ ability to exploit available opportunities. Member dropouts also erode trust, shared responsibility, and economies of scale, increasing the risk of cooperative failure. One interviewee provided the following commentary:

‘Agriculture depends on collective labour, yet our membership has declined from twelve to five. Without active and committed members, cooperatives lose strength and struggle to operate effectively.’ (Interviewee 14, M 66, 2023)

Member dropouts should not be interpreted only as weak commitment among cooperative members, but as a sign of deeper organisational and livelihood insecurity. While Ortmann and King (2007) identify member attrition as a long-standing challenge in agricultural cooperatives, the present findings suggest that declining membership often reflects unmet expectations, limited income generation, and uncertainty about the value of continued participation. This aligns with the findings of Pansera and Rizzi (2020), who argue that members may withdraw when cooperatives fail to deliver expected economic returns or demonstrate effective internal governance. However, the current evidence extends this view by showing that attrition is also a livelihood response: members disengage when cooperative participation does not improve access to inputs, markets, finance, or stable income. This creates a tension within cooperative theory, because collective action depends on trust, shared responsibility, and active participation, yet these social assets weaken when members experience persistent economic insecurity. Chiwawa et al. (2025) similarly note that unstable membership erodes commitment and increases the risk of organisational failure, while Borda-Rodriguez (2016) emphasises that cooperatives require stable membership to mobilise resources and sustain operations. From a Sustainable Livelihoods perspective, member instability weakens social and human capital, reduces labour availability, undermines economies of scale, and limits cooperatives’ ability to negotiate with external actors. Thus, cooperative sustainability depends not only on governance structures but also on whether members experience tangible livelihood benefits.

Fragmented government support systems

Participants described uncoordinated and overlapping responsibilities among government departments, resulting in confusion, delays, and unfulfilled promises of support. The lack of clear accountability and consistent guidance discourages smallholder farmers and wastes scarce financial resources as they navigate multiple offices without tangible outcomes. Insufficient engagement from public officials further limits access to training, awareness programmes, and technical assistance. Consequently, some participants stated that:

‘Government support is very discouraging because responsibilities are unclear and spread across many departments. You are sent from department of agriculture to the municipality and then to different sections, yet nothing materialises. You spend money travelling between offices, but there is no support or accountability in the end.’ (Interviewee 11, M 26, 2023)

‘Lack of support from public office bearers is another setback, we need those awareness intervention, support, education, and trainings in order to thrive.’ (Participants; Focus Group 1, 2 and 3)

Fragmented government support systems reveal a persistent gap between cooperative policy intention and implementation. Although post-apartheid policy presents cooperatives as instruments for empowerment, rural development, and inclusive agricultural transformation, participants’ accounts show that support remains dispersed across departments, poorly coordinated, and difficult to access. This finding aligns with Gumede et al. (2022) and Cousins et al. (2022), who identify overlapping mandates and institutional ambiguity as barriers to rural agricultural support. However, the present evidence extends this literature by showing how fragmentation imposes direct costs on cooperatives, including wasted travel expenses, delayed assistance, weakened trust, and reduced willingness to engage with formal institutions. Cele and Mkhize (2025) similarly show that weak interdepartmental coordination undermines access to extension, training, and financial support, while Andrew (2023) argues that bureaucratic fragmentation increases transaction costs and discourages sustained participation. Christian et al. (2024) further emphasise that limited institutional engagement weakens cooperative resilience. From a Sustainable Livelihoods perspective, government institutions form part of the transforming structures and processes expected to enable livelihood strategies; yet in this case, they constrain cooperatives’ ability to convert collective effort into sustainable outcomes. The evidence from interviews and focus groups strengthens this interpretation, as both data sources consistently reported unclear responsibilities, unfulfilled promises, and limited public-sector engagement. Therefore, cooperative underperformance should not be attributed only to internal weaknesses, because fragmented state support actively limits capacity-building, resource access, and long-term sustainability.

Structural market exclusion

This theme highlights systemic barriers that restrict agricultural cooperatives and smallholder farmers’ access to high-value markets. Participants indicated that export infrastructure, such as port space and freight containers, is dominated by established associations, effectively excluding smaller cooperative farmers from international trade. In addition, historical advantages enjoyed by commercial farmers continue to shape control over land, capital, and value chains, limiting smallholder farmers’ ability to compete in high-value markets and expand beyond local trading spaces. This unequal access limits market expansion, reduces income potential, and weakens competitiveness. According to one interviewee:

‘Even if you intend to export your products, obtaining space at the port is difficult as it is often reserved for members of certain associations. It is not easy to secure a container for your products from any freight company, as they frequently claim to be fully booked.’ (Interviewee 7, F 65, 2023)

‘After independence, commercial farmers who benefited from pre-1994 government support continue to dominate agriculture. They still control land, capital, and value chains, making it difficult for agricultural cooperatives to compete.’ (Participants; Focus Group 3)

Structural market exclusion operates as more than a marketing constraint; it reflects the continued influence of unequal power relations within South Africa’s agrarian economy. Participants’ accounts show that access to export channels, port space, freight containers, and high-value markets is mediated by established associations and commercial networks that favour historically advantaged producers. This finding aligns with Mkhabela and Mngomezulu (2022), who link logistical bottlenecks to smallholder exclusion, and Ncube and Tabe-Ojong (2023), who show how unequal control of transport and export infrastructure restricts small-scale producers’ market participation. However, the present evidence extends this literature by showing how exclusion is experienced practically through denied access to containers, association-based gatekeeping, and limited entry into formal value chains. This challenges policy assumptions that market liberalisation, cooperative registration, or post-apartheid reforms automatically produce equitable market access. As Hall and Kepe (2023) argue, unresolved land, capital, and value-chain inequalities continue to shape agrarian transformation, while Agholor, Ogujiuba & Shongwe (2023) emphasise that such exclusion limits income diversification and competitiveness. From a Sustainable Livelihoods perspective, market exclusion weakens financial and social capital by restricting income opportunities, institutional networks, and bargaining power. Evidence from interviews and focus groups strengthens this interpretation, as both sources confirmed that cooperative market participation depends not only on production capacity but also on equitable access to logistics, procurement systems, institutional networks, and value-chain governance structures.

Recommendations

Firstly, researchers think that the first step should be to establish an integrated ‘one-stop’ cooperative and smallholder support platform at the district level to coordinate extension, finance facilitation, land support, and market linkage services, with clear accountability across departments. Secondly, introduce asset-light and blended finance instruments (e.g. guarantee schemes, group-based lending, and grant–loan packages) that reduce collateral barriers, especially for women- and youth-led cooperatives. Thirdly, expand mechanisation access through shared equipment hubs, cooperative-owned service centres, and irrigation support to reduce rain-dependence and improve competitiveness. Fourthly, implement a youth succession strategy that combines targeted incentives, training, and modernised production models (digital tools, mechanised operations) to make cooperative farming more attractive. Fifthly, strengthen cooperative governance and member retention through compulsory governance training, transparent benefit-sharing rules, and support for conflict resolution. Finally, improve market inclusion by developing cooperative aggregation, cold-chain, and logistics partnerships, and by reserving fair access windows for emerging cooperatives in procurement and export facilitation programmes.

Conclusion

This study examined the challenges constraining the development of agricultural cooperatives and small-scale commercial farming in rural KZN, South Africa. While the two concepts are closely related, they represent distinct but complementary dimensions of rural agricultural development. Agricultural cooperatives function as collective organisational platforms through which farmers mobilise resources, coordinate production, and access markets and support services, whereas small-scale commercial farming refers to the productive farming enterprises operated by individual or grouped farmers with market-oriented objectives. The findings demonstrate that the sustainability of small-scale commercial farming is closely influenced by the institutional effectiveness of agricultural cooperatives, which serve as key facilitators of resource mobilisation, market participation, and collective action. Anchored in the SLA, the study shows that cooperative and farming constraints are interconnected rather than isolated. Deficits in physical, financial, human, social, and institutional capital reinforce one another through limited mechanisation, ageing membership and weak youth succession, financial exclusion, unstable membership, fragmented government support, and structural market exclusion. These interacting constraints reduce productivity, weaken resilience, and limit farmers’ participation in profitable value chains. The study therefore contributes to knowledge by demonstrating that the underperformance of small-scale commercial farming cannot be understood independently of the institutional capacity of agricultural cooperatives or the broader policy and market environment within which they operate. Rather than presenting these challenges as isolated operational deficiencies, the study provides an integrated livelihood-based explanation of how structural inequalities, institutional fragmentation, and livelihood asset deficits collectively constrain rural agricultural transformation. The findings highlight the need for coordinated institutional support that simultaneously strengthens cooperative governance and enables small-scale commercial farmers to participate competitively in sustainable agricultural markets.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by South African National Apex Cooperative (SANACO), the cooperative movement in KZN province, the participants, and all cooperative leaders who contributed towards the completion of the research project.

This article stems from the author, Julius Chiwawa’s doctoral thesis entitled, ‘The influence of agricultural cooperatives on the sustainability of rural livelihoods in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’, for the Doctor of Management degree at the Graduate School of Commerce at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, with supervisor Vannie Naidoo. The thesis was reworked, revised, and adapted into a journal article for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

CRediT authorship contribution

Julius Chiwawa: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft. Vannie Naidoo: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. Both authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

Funding information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available because of confidentiality and are available from the corresponding author, Julius Chiwawa, upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References