Your levy. Your questions. The evidence. Examine SAPPA’s reported results, the criticism and the law for yourself — rather than taking anyone’s word for it.
Not a SAPPA project • No account needed • Your harvest volume stays on your device.
per kilogram of in-shell pecans, excluding VAT
Move the slider or enter your harvest volume. This shows the levy cost, not an unsubstantiated promise of profit.
More than a levy debate: find practical region-specific resources and work through the figures yourself. Your figures stay in your browser.
Enter a hypothetical selling price. This illustrates an equivalent price difference — not a proven financial return delivered by SAPPA.
This is a mathematical scenario only. There is no evidence here that SAPPA increased prices by 1%. Gross revenue excludes production and export expenses.
Original datasets and reports, not unverified Facebook claims.
Select a market to separate documented actions from future possibilities. Statuses come from SAPPA’s report and do not independently confirm contract values or profits.
Tap the markers or select a country. This schematic is not a trade-flow chart.
Not every meeting results in a sale, and not every harvest record is thanks to SAPPA. We distinguish reported activities, outcomes and industry statistics.
SAPPA reports that its market-development work contributed to the first container shipment to India. A processor handled the commercial export. The contract and its value have not been independently verified here.
Read SAPPA’s report ↗SAPPA shared potential US buyer contacts and export requirements with local processors. This is market-access groundwork, not yet verified sales.
Read SAPPA’s report ↗In June 2025 SAPPA reported 26 active research projects and partnerships with three universities. Current status and individual outcomes require separate confirmation.
See the 2025 report ↗Participating processors reported approximately 57,719 tonnes, roughly 19% more than at the equivalent point in 2025. That is industry growth, not evidence by itself of a direct SAPPA return.
Read the harvest figures ↗The 2026 report indicates export volume of approximately 41,691 tonnes. This describes the market and must not be presented as SAPPA-generated exports.
View the original data ↗SAPPA reports engaging stakeholders on EU nickel residue limits and local GAP standards. No final regulatory outcome has been independently confirmed here.
Read the progress report ↗OFM reports that SAPPA brought ten South African processors to the Hefei exhibition under Pecans from South Africa. It explicitly says price negotiations among exhibitors were prohibited. This shows promotional activity, not proof of additional profit.
Read OFM report ↗According to SAPPA, NAMC’s Transformation Review Committee visited 19 farm projects in areas including Vaalharts and Groblershoop–Keimoes. This documents oversight activity, not a verified audit of each rand.
Read the report ↗Regulations set spending conditions. But a prescribed allocation is not the same as independently verified expenditure. A public evidence portal should show audited figures by year and by project.
Open the official source ↗Actual numbers from SAPPA’s published summary of audited financial statements. Compare 2024 and 2023; later, current figures have not been independently confirmed here.
This simplified voluntary-contribution model compares a hypothetical participation share with full participation at the same rate per kilogram. It is not a forecast and does not describe any legal outcome.
60%
At the same crop volume and rate, 60% participation would mathematically yield 60% of the funding pool. Actual grower participation is unknown here.
Choose a claim you hear in the pecan industry. The page separates what the original document states from what still needs independent verification.
Clause 2 of the Government Gazette lists “trade and market access” among the levy’s permitted objectives.
Any specific joint-selling or price-setting arrangement may raise other legal requirements; the levy regulation does not automatically authorise everything.
Documents supporting or challenging these findings are welcome. An independent contact mailbox will be added once the domain is active; no private email addresses are collected here.
An important distinction: general market development is not the same as competitors agreeing on prices.
The levy regulation expressly includes trade and market access as permitted purposes for levy funding.
SAPPA’s published legal summary describes possibilities for a common South African pecan brand, subject to applicable legal requirements.
Competing exporters coordinating prices may create significant competition-law concerns. An exemption is not automatic.
No. Regulation R4131 lists market information, trade and market access among its permitted objectives. Specific sales or pricing arrangements must be assessed separately under competition law. Read clause 2.
Not simply because they cooperate. A legal opinion publicised by SAPPA in September 2026 warns against coordinated sales prices. Any applicable exemption requires legal review and potentially formal confirmation. Read the summary and opinion.
Not necessarily. Mandatory statutory registration does not necessarily mean voting membership of the organisation. The current corporate and membership documents should be checked.
No. The page shows public activities, certain reported outcomes, industry statistics and the levy cost. Proving a financial return requires verification of actual expenditure, net industry benefit and a credible counterfactual.
A complete public portal needs SAPPA’s latest audited spending, project budgets, outcomes, contracts where disclosable and formal answers to disputed questions.
Independence and evidence: SAPPA’s reports are clearly attributed to SAPPA. Historical figures come from its published audited summary; PekanBewys did not itself audit the accounts. Claims for and against the levy should be source-backed.
Sources are listed with original publication dates. SAPPA’s claimed achievements are identified as its own statements; independent verification is separate.
Official documents, dates and direct links accompanying important factual statements.
We present relevant evidence both for and against the levy, and clearly mark corrections.
We will disclose material funding, sponsorships and potential conflicts of interest. Private contributors’ names are not published on the site.