This step necessitates the identification of keywords and search queries to utilize while searching for relevant material (Cooper et al., 2024). Therefore, a literature search was directed by the study’s aim and the phenomenon under study; the search terms consisted of “local food system,” “small-scale farmers,” “exclusionary value chains” and “food security” in South Africa. The search terms utilized played a vital role in gathering relevant and accurate information to tackle the research question. The search yielded limited results, highlighting the under-researched nature of the local food system phenomenon in South Africa, thereby significantly contributing to the existing body of knowledge. Following the examination of beliefs and topics, the investigation began by analyzing data sources by extending the search terms to “exclusionary barriers,” and “small-scale and large-scale or commercial farmer inequalities” for more relevant information related to the study. Therefore, a total of three hundred and thirty-six (336) scholarly peer-reviewed articles including government documents were retrieved, and duplicate entries were removed, resulting in the inclusion of sixty-one (61) articles for the final analysis.

The study examined seven (7) academic databases: Google Scholar, Springer Nurture, Science Direct, Sabinet, Sage, Research Gate and Taylor and Francis. These databases were relevant in providing access to peer-reviewed international and local journals, high-impact multidisciplinary studies, and regionally specific research findings. Due to limited data, governmental reports and media articles were examined to supplement academic research. The seven (7) databases effectively gathered relevant literature on local food systems and food security in South Africa. To gain a thorough understanding of the inequalities within local food systems, the researcher reviewed the literature from 2012 to 2024, which covered a period of systematic injustices concerning the current local food system. During the search, the researcher used filters to focus on the subject’s context as well as the country of origin (South Africa) and the language used in English. This process resulted in a collection of sixty-seven (67) analyzed research papers, media articles, and government documents.

The selected data was organized and stored using Microsoft Excel form systematically created as an approach to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Articles were categorized according to research methodologies, resulting in thirty-four (34) qualitative studies, eighteen (18) quantitative studies, (5) mixed methods studies and four (4) conceptual papers. In addition, six (6) reports came from government sources and media outlets. The data storage in this approach allowed the authors to meticulously extract information that aligned with the study’s objectives, allowing for a well-informed critical analysis of local food systems that improve food security.

The data included in the analysis ranges from 2012 to 2025. During this period, South Africa implemented and revised a number of food security interventions to ensure an inclusive local food system that is responsive to society, despite socio-economic backgrounds. The National Development Plan (National Planning Commission, 2012) gained traction between 2010 and 2015 during this time and government programs such as the Micro Agricultural Financial institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) and Farmer Support Programme (FSP) were evaluated and critiqued (Mokgomo et al., 2022). The papers analyzed shared a focus on small-scale farming, continued exclusion, policy flaws, historical continuity, market access barriers, the role in household food security and a call for a transformed and inclusive food system. The inclusion of studies from these periods bridged historical legacies with current realities, demonstrating how food security dynamics have evolved over the last several decades. Additionally, sixty-seven (67) studies, including research articles, government reports and media articles, were selected for analysis based on the predetermined inclusion criteria. The selection criteria were only articles based in the South African context, as well as government and media reports considered for analysis.

In the screening process, academic papers that did not answer the research question: How exclusionary barriers in South Africa prevent local food systems, particularly small-scale farmers from effectively contributing to household food security were not considered. These included papers on gender disparities in local food systems, urban food marketing in high-income countries, non-agricultural livelihood strategies and food security theory with insufficient empirical evidence. The study analyzed exclusionary barriers that hinder small-scale farmers’ participation in the formal value chain. This study considered research on small-scale farming, formal value chains, food security and local food systems in South Africa. Moreover, this paper excluded pre-2010 studies to avoid an overemphasis on apartheid and immediate post-apartheid land redistribution debates. Phuhlisani (2017) argued that avoiding overemphasis on pre- and post-colonial regimes ensures that the analysis is grounded in current and relevant policy evidence. Additionally, any paper not written in English was excluded because English is the main language of academic publishing, government reports and policy discourse in South Africa. It is noted that limiting a review to English-language studies prevented translation errors and foreign data from distorting the findings (Onwuegbuzie and Frels, 2016).

This research utilized various sources as far as going beyond the traditional database. Media articles and secondary data were used as part of MODES (media, observations, documents and secondary data) (MODES) because the study area has not been extensively explored. Morris (2023) recommend that the conventional scope of CLR is expanded by integrating any form of MODES. This enables detailed analysis from governmental and media sources related to local food systems, small-scale farming, food value chains and food security.

This phase necessitates explicit and rigorous criteria to evaluate and synthesise the literature relevant to the study’s topic and objective (Abu Hatab et al., 2019). Thus, Table 1 represents a compilation of various studies from which data were extracted for analysis. The results were analysed using thematic analysis; each article or document was carefully read to identify patterns and recurring themes. This step clarified the review’s scope and boundaries, ensuring that only studies that met research objectives were kept for analysis. Moreover, text from the articles’ results and discussion sections was coded into meaningful categories that met the objective of the study. The researcher paid attention to shared categories which included studies on household food security trends in the local food system, participation in formal value chains, exclusionary barriers such as land ownership, credit access and road infrastructure. Themes were critically reviewed for convergence, divergence and contradiction across studies. In this stage, raw data were managed into coherent patterns that revealed the research problem, affirming that the local food system is not inclusive of small-scale farmers. Themes were combined and presented as a clear and coherent narrative. This allowed for careful literature review and synthesis, resulting in a thorough discussion of the study’s findings, conclusions and recommendations.

The third and final phase of the seven-step process involves the researcher presenting the findings of the comprehensive research review (Owuegbuzie and Frels, 2016). In this phase, the researchers present the findings of the final section of this research paper, deriving insights from analyzed articles. Furthermore, this research paper exemplifies one of Onwuegbuzie and Frels’ four AVOW (Analysis, Validation, Organizing and Writing) methodology. The AVOW framework enables researchers to systematically manage, validate and present qualitative data, thereby enhancing rigor, clarity and coherence in qualitative and mixed-methods research. This section communicates the critical role of small-scale farmers in ensuring that food travels from “soil to stomach.” The findings explore various systematic challenges that affects the economic potential of small-scale farmers within the local food system in South Africa. This study intentionally addresses the urgency to establish an inclusive local food system that ensures no one falls behind (Cherry, 2016). The following sections explore the specific trends of household food security and systematic barriers that sustain the exclusion in local food systems.

The study indicates that locally produced food by small-scale farmers not only boosts household income but also directly improves access to fresh, self-grown food. This aligns with findings by Simane et al. (2025), which show that household participation in small-scale farming significantly increases income and access to healthy food. However, at the household level, South Africa is considered food insecure, with low productivity among small-scale farmers being a major factor. These farmers face structural underdevelopment, especially in rural areas, which greatly restricts market access and formal food supply chains. Ngumbela et al. (2020) argued that the potential of small-scale farmers in South Africa remains underutilized due to weak infrastructure and policy neglect. The presence of both commercial and small-scale farmers creates a dual agricultural economy in the country, with large-scale commercial operations dominating national food production. Findings reveal that the primary reason many low-income households struggle to find affordable and nutritious food is the poor performance of small-scale farmers in the local food system.

The dual agricultural economy that characterizes the local food system makes it difficult for small-scale farmers to successfully and fairly connect their produce from the farm to the consumer markets. Therefore, small-scale producers primarily produce for domestic consumption, whereas large-scale producers use modern technology to generate market surpluses in commercial agriculture, which is more advanced (Muzekenyi, 2020). This study claims that the role of small-scale farmers in the formal market remains systematically marginalized due to minimal to no negotiating leverage to penetrate the formal value chain (Shayanowako et al., 2021). The World Bank highlights that in 2021, the agricultural sector accounted for about 3.2% of GDP, noting that 15,000 large-scale farms were responsible for the bulk of food supplied to commercial markets (Statistics South Africa, 2021). These large-scale farmers, unlike small-scale farmers operate within a vast and increasingly complex environment influenced by the movement of capital managed by banks, insurance firms, retailers, millers, and traders (von Loeper et al., 2016).

Thus, without the economic benefits experienced by large-scale producers, small-scale farmers function within informal value chains which are overlooked by the government (Berti and Mulligan, 2016). An examination of households in uKhahlamba, KwaZulu Natal, and Mangaung, Free State province, indicated that small-scale farming fails to act as a catalyst for economic growth within the communities and contributes only a minimal share to the income of most households (Mathinya et al., 2022). This is a result of restricted engagement in commercial activities and policies that fail to address the specific needs of small-scale farmers.

Moreover, a case study conducted in Chabelane Village, Limpopo revealed that 52% of small-scale farmers manage to harvest sufficient food for their consumption, while 27% produced more than enough for commercial purposes (Ramakgasha et al., 2024). Thus, small-scale farmers are deemed unfit or not capable of contributing significantly to household food security. Scholarly debate exposes that the local food system is driven by economic and social exclusionary factors that affect the productivity of small-scale farmers within formal value chains (Clapp et al., 2022). The results show that over 80% of small-scale farmers produce at the subsistence level, whilst the 20% is engaged in commercial production alongside large-scale producers (Kamara et al., 2019). The vast majority of small-scale farmers are producing primarily for subsistence rather than for profit, which restricts their ability to generate sufficient income to improve their livelihoods or access broader markets, as a result of their limited participation in commercial production.

The General Household Survey reveals that household food insecurity arises from issues that extend beyond basic shortages in food production. Consequently, household food security is connected with broader economic and structural challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, restricted market access, increasing production costs and economic strains within the food system (Tripathi et al., 2021; Bjornlund et al., 2022). The notable increase in food insecurity among agricultural households, rising from 6.9% in 2019 to 10.0% in 2023, underscores the vulnerability of local food producers within the food value chain (Statistics South Africa, 2025). Although South Africa is food secure at a national level, it is evident that the food value chain does not meet the food needs at a household level. On the contrary, Figure 1 shows that households that are not engaged in agriculture experienced a lower rate of food insecurity from 2019 to 2023, indicating that they can afford and access sufficient food. Unlike agricultural active households, their only challenge is the fluctuation of food prices caused by external economic influences such as inflation (Weideman, 2024). The study points out that the formal value chains must not only provide support to small-scale farmers through production but also establish effective pathways for their economic participation in the local food system.

Findings assert that the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few continues to perpetuate economic inequalities, undermining the overall goal of developing a local food system that meets the needs of all South Africans. Despite the introduction of the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development Programme (LRAD) in 1994, the largest population of previously disadvantaged black farmers still do not have adequate access to land. Based on census the white South Africans account for 7.3% of the country’s population, while black South Africans account for 81.4% (Friedman, 2025). The study found that colonial and apartheid-era land policies displaced black communities, limiting land ownership.

Evidently, white farmers in South Africa own a sizable portion of the land, totaling 26,663,144 hectares, which represents 72% of the total 37,031,283 hectares of farmland. This is followed by colored people (15%), Indians 5%, Africans 4%, others 3%, and co-owners 1% (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), 2017). The stark racial disparities in land ownership are a direct result of historical colonial land policies that engrained racial inequality in terms of land access and ownership (Uzodike, 2014). These policies not only marginalized black South Africans but also concentrated land ownership in the hands of a few, exacerbating the current land distribution issues and the ongoing struggle for equitable access to land among previously disadvantaged communities Mamabolo (2017). The barriers to land ownership hinder the development of a more diverse and inclusive local food system (Mabhaudhi et al., 2019). The study asserts that black farmers are often forced into informal or subsistence farming due to limited access to land.

Therefore, it is noted that lack of ownership to land severely limits the ability of black farmers, often referred to as small-scale producers, to provide adequate food (Zantsi et al., 2021). Access to productive land resources not only affects household food security but also has broader implications for overall economic growth in South Africa (Motsoari et al., 2015). Land is more than just a factor of production, it is a key determinant of economic opportunities, including employment both on and off the farm. However, the dualistic structure of the local food system highlights that the government has paid little attention to addressing the land ownership gap between small-scale farmers and large-scale farmers. This gap still hinders the ability of small-scale farmers to expand their operations, increase food production, and effectively contribute to the local food system, exacerbating inequality and food insecurity.

Findings highlight that South Africa has abundant land available for small-scale farming. However, underutilisation remains a common issue in rural areas. It is estimated that South Africa has 35 million hectares of agricultural land in the country’s black areas, with only 14 million hectares currently under cultivation, highlighting the significant underutilization of land in the small-scale farming sector (Mabhaudhi et al., 2017). This translates to roughly 40% of the land being used for farming. In line with the findings, Thulamela Local Municipality reveals a decline in agricultural land, with a 69% reduction in grassland and a 26% decrease in agricultural fallow (Lidzhegu and Kabanda, 2022). This decline is linked to an ineffective land use management system that fails to protect land for subsistence and small-scale farming. As a result, small-scale farmers continue to produce more with less. For example, in 2020, small-scale farmers accounted for 50% of food calories on only 30% of agricultural land (International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2020). Findings from a study conducted by Herforth et al. (2020) confirmed that low productivity in small-scale farming results from poor access to arable land for production.

Moreover, other reason for this underutilization is that, despite having access to production inputs and financial resources, traditional land tenure practices have made local chieftains the sole guardians of community land. These chieftains have the authority to allocate large tracts of land to their allies, leaving the remaining land underutilized or unavailable to small-scale farmers (Abegunde et al., 2020).

This view is supported by Zembe et al. (2023), who suggest that policies such as land reform and expropriation without compensation may make it impossible to address the structural causes of household food insecurity and inequality.

Small-scale farmers are systematically excluded from mainstream markets due to difficulties in producing marketable surpluses. The participation of small-scale farmers in formal value chains such as retail and supermarkets is limited and it depends on their ability to meet market expectations (Woodhill et al., 2022). These study argues that small-scale farmers in remote areas lack sufficient market information and knowledge about formal market entry requirements which poses a challenge in improving their livelihoods. The lack of market information, formal agreements and financial resources prevents small-scale farmers who are disproportionately black from participating in established agricultural value chains (Hlatshwayo et al., 2021).

Moreover, without formal contracts or market information, small-scale farmers face higher transaction costs which limits their ability to compete with larger or more established commercial farmers (Kapari et al., 2023). While large commercial farmers continue to dominate the formal market, small-scale farmers remain stuck in low-income and low-productivity farming (Morakile et al., 2022). This systematic exclusion of small-scale farmers from mainstream markets is evident in provinces such as the Northwest and Eastern Cape, where food insecurity is most severe (Ndhleve et al., 2013; Mokgomo et al., 2022). Small-scale farmers who produce fresh produce such as bananas, oranges, avocados, pawpaw’s, and tomatoes frequently suffer a 43.3% loss in quantity caused by overripping for those that lack market contracts and market information (Sibanda and Workneh, 2020). This has a significant impact on the price and profits, as the majority of small-scale farmers produce perishable goods that either do not reach the market or reach the market in a compromised condition. Thus, isolating small-scale farmers from participating in value chains that could generate income and making the large-scale producers a market preference (Mathinya, 2024).

Furthermore, interconnected organizational factors make it difficult for local food systems to produce marketable surpluses (Mkhize, 2016). For instance, small-scale farmers within the local food systems lack organizational frameworks such as producer groups which are commonly seen among commercial producers (National Agricultural Marketing Council, 2024). These frameworks provide a structure that enables credit advantage, facilitates collective bargaining and enhances market access by strengthening the negotiating power of producers. However, the absence of producer groups in the local food systems, particularly small-scale farmers affect their ability to navigate market requirements, access resources and ultimately improve household food security.

Small-scale farmers overlook market entry regulations and certification processes that could ease their access to formal markets. Agricultural compliance certification programmes such as the South African Goods Agricultural Practices (SA GAP) capacitate small-scale farmers to meet the food safety, quality and sustainability standards required for mainstream markets (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2019). Unlike small-scale producers, large-scale producers have an advantage in formal markets because of contractual agreements acquired using certifications such as SA GAP (Nyawo and Mubangizi, 2021).

Small-scale farmers are declared credit unworthy by microfinance institutions such as banks. The study argues that small-scale farmers do not have credit to invest in essential equipment for packaging, processing and distributing their produce. The provision of credit has been identified as an important instrument for improving the welfare of small-scale farmers directly and for enhancing productive capacity (Baiyegunhi and Fraser, 2014). Therefore, without credit local food systems cannot invest in both human and physical capital. Small-scale farmers face credit access constraints such as credit which affects the overall investment in local food systems (Ojo et al., 2021).

Credit access significantly influences household livelihood indicators such as food security and technological adoption (Sinyolo, 2020). Approximately 80% of agricultural credit goes to larger commercial farms, leaving small-scale farmers with limited financial resources (National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC), 2020). The study found that creditworthiness is heavily influenced by a variety of factors in local food systems, including the risk tolerance, distance between lender and borrower and their asset value (Chauke et al., 2013). Land is one of the valuable assets used as collateral when applying for credit in microfinance institutions. Small-scale farmers lack information regarding collateral requirements or even financial advisors to oversee credit applications (Chisasa, 2019). As a result, commercial farmers with adequate collateral, years of creditor experience and good credit history are more likely to be approved for agricultural loans or credit (Henning et al., 2019). Thus, access to credit is highly skewed, with larger farms having easier access than smaller groups. These credit barriers limit the ability of local food system, particularly small-scale farmers to invest in resources and improve their annual turnover Lukhalo (2017).

Interventions to enhance credit availability for South Africa’s small-scale farmers have previously failed due to a lack of transparency in most funding allocations, inefficient distribution methods and insufficient monitoring (Mtombeni et al., 2018). In 2004 and 2005, three provinces experienced the first phase of the Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) scheme (Aliber, 2020). The program aimed to improve local food systems and create equitable economic possibilities for rural populations (Pott et al., 2016). This programme offered short and medium-term loans to small-scale farmers in the Northern Cape, Northwest, Free State, and Western Cape, at low interest rates. Despite the low interest rates, MAFISA demonstrated a lack of sustainability, as small-scale farmers struggled to repay loans (Ramashia, 2019). There is an uncertainty about how the small-scale farmers who participated in this programme benefited, mainly because of lack of transparency in how the funds were distributed. The study points out that credit access, despite challenges is crucial for enhancing household food security and livelihoods in local food systems.

Findings indicate poor infrastructure in rural areas makes it difficult for small-scale farmers to deliver their produce to formal markets. Small-scale farmers are faced with high transaction costs and are restricted in their capacity to engage in formal markets, forcing them to rely on local, informal marketplaces with lower pricing. A comparison of Nigeria and South Africa affirms that small-scale farmers in South Africa encounter more significant road infrastructure challenges than those in many other sub-Saharan countries (Ojogiwa and Mubangizi, 2023). They face challenges such as poor road conditions, long travel distances and insufficient storage facilities, which lead to increased transportation costs. As a result, inadequate road infrastructure hinders access to markets, complicating the ability of small-scale farmers to transport their produce efficiently and cost-effectively (Selepe et al., 2014; Mashego, 2024).

Consequently, small-scale farmers allocate a larger portion of their income to transportation rather than enhancing their production methods, acquiring quality inputs or growing their farms Ndlovu and Masuku (2021). The greater the distance to the nearest town or market, the higher the transaction costs, which can deter small-scale farmers from participating in formal markets (Hlatswayo et al., 2017). The study argues that due to high transportation costs, most of these small-scale farmers tend to depend on intermediaries (middlemen) who purchase their produce directly from the farm at low prices (Sibanda and Workneh, 2020). Alternatively, small-scale farmers prefer to sell their produce informally at their farm gates instead of transporting it to urban markets (Bisaga et al., 2019).

Small-scale farmers in some of the poorest provinces like the Eastern Cape travel over 1,000 km to reach proper roads, this indicates that the costs of accessing markets and other productive resources are high (Ngcobo et al., 2024). This long distance reduces the effectiveness and profitability of the local food system in rural regions. Additionally, around 26% of small-scale farmers do not have access to cold storage facilities, which restricts their capacity to preserve and market perishable products (Mthombeni et al., 2022). The lack of storage facilities shortens the lifespan of produce and hinders farmers from reaching more lucrative markets, constraining their income potential and growth opportunities. Small-scale farmers are forced to sell their produce right away after harvest, frequently at a discount (Kekana, 2017). Consequently, unlike commercial farmers who can afford to build storage facilities, small-scale farmers do not have this competitive advantage to fulfil the formal market’s food quality and quantity standards (Mosia, 2022). Moreover, access to cold storage safeguards produce against spoilage, thereby prolonging its shelf life. and enabling farmers a broader selection of products, which encompasses both raw and ready-to-eat food items. The study contends that insufficient infrastructure results in limited investment in local food systems as more money is spent on transportation.