Agriculture is undergoing a quiet but radical transformation across the globe. Technologies once viewed as futuristic, such as drones, are rapidly becoming integral tools on modern farms. According to DJI Agriculture’s 2024 Agricultural Drone Industry Insight Report, over 300 000 agricultural drones are now in operation across more than 100 countries, contributing to higher yields, reduced chemical usage and notable water savings. However, in South Africa, the adoption of this technology in agriculture remains somewhat limited.
Image by Herney Gómez from Pixabay
Agricultural drones are already proving their value globally. Their real-world applications include labour-intensive tasks like precision fertiliser spraying, aerial crop health monitoring, field mapping, and even seed dispersal. In countries such as Brazil and China, drones have become embedded in routine agricultural practice.
In South Africa, agriculture has always found ways to adapt to difficult conditions like droughts, stricter international standards and regulations, and global competition. There’s a history of resilience, of using innovation to figure things out when conditions get tough. However, when it comes to adopting high-impact technologies such as drones, progress has been disappointingly slow.
So why the hesitation? What does the Agricultural Business Innovation Survey (AgriBIS) 2019–2021 dataset tell us about the extent of drone adoption and use across the sector? Which firms are using them? What distinguishes these adopters? And most importantly, from a policy point of view, what can be done to empower more agricultural businesses to adopt and use drones to modernise operations and improve farming?
Figure 1. Weighted drone adoption in farming enterprises (animal and crop farming only) by age band
Source: HSRC
Looking at innovation-active firms in the animal- and crop-farming subsector (SIC 11), the data show that younger firms were driving drone adoption compared to the older, more established firms (Figure 1). Over 33% of younger firms reported using drones, compared to just 18.7% of older ones. Start-ups and middle-aged firms were also adopting drones at a steady rate, while mature and older firms appeared more hesitant. This suggests that younger and newer enterprises were more willing to embrace emerging technologies, possibly due to fewer legacy systems, stronger digital orientation, or a strategic push to differentiate themselves in a competitive sector.
Firm size also played a defining role (Figure 2). Among innovation-active animal- and crop-farming enterprises, medium-sized enterprises stood out, with nearly half (49.2%) reporting drone use. This was significantly higher than large firms (28.6%) and small firms (20.7%), while very small farms trailed far behind at just 13.1%. This finding complicates the assumption that only large, well-capitalised farms adopted drones. Instead, it points to a sweet spot where medium-sized firms (agile but resourceful) were leading the charge in tech-enabled agriculture, potentially because they balanced scale with flexibility and were actively seeking productivity gains through innovation.
Figure 2. Weighted drone adoption in farming enterprises (animal and crop farming only) by firm size
Source: HSRC
In terms of reported benefits or innovation outcomes, among innovation-active farming firms, those that adopted drones consistently reported higher levels of both environmental and cost-related benefits compared to non-adopters (Figure 3). A striking 91.6% of drone adopters reported cost reductions, compared to 79% of non-adopters. Similarly, drone adopters reported significantly higher outcomes in water preservation (86.4% vs. 73.3%), biodiversity preservation (77.2% vs. 62.4%), and increased output (85.7% vs. 61.3%).
These differences suggest that drone technology was contributing to improving productivity as well as enabling more sustainable and cost-efficient agricultural practices. The fact that all comparisons favoured drone adopters, despite all firms being innovation-active, suggests the complementary role of advanced technologies, like drones, in realising the full returns on innovation investment.
Figure 3. Environmental and output benefits by drone adoption (innovation-active farming enterprises)
Source: HSRC
Elsewhere globally, the approach to drone adoption in agriculture has been far better coordinated. In countries like Australia, farmers can operate commercial/agricultural drones without special authorisation. In Brazil, regulatory frameworks were simplified through stakeholder engagement, and in China, manufacturers are authorised to train and license drone operators, reducing friction and accelerating adoption.
Meanwhile, in South Africa, the analysis of barriers reported by innovation-active firms suggests that the slow uptake of technologies like drones was less the result of a lack of demand or market interest, and more the absence of a well-coordinated strategy and systems to support adoption. Technology does not spread on its own. To accelerate wider adoption requires appropriate structures, intent, and the kinds of support that turn willingness into action.
DJI’s report makes one thing clear: the global drone revolution is already underway. If South Africa is serious about building an agricultural sector that’s competitive, sustainable and inclusive, then the time for hesitation is over. We need smart regulation, well-funded pilot programmes, and stronger training and support systems to match the ambition already shown by many of our firms. Without that, we’ll keep playing catch-up, while others set the pace.
Acknowledgements and research contacts
This article was written by Dr Yasser Buchana, a senior research specialist in the HSRC’s Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII). For more insights and detailed findings, refer to the full AgriBIS 2019–2021 report available on the HSRC website.
The AgriBIS 2019–2021 was undertaken by the HSRC on behalf of the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation. The research team included Dr Yasser Buchana (project lead); Dr Moses Sithole (research director); Pilela Majokweni (fieldwork manager), Gerard Ralphs (advocacy lead), Viwe Sigenu (AgriBIS team member) with executive oversight from Dr Glenda Kruss (executive head). We are grateful for the contributions and support from Dr Amy Kahn; the field work team (Lungani Mvelase, Tintswalo Baloyi, Anelisiwe Mcewukana, Lazola Lekker, Norman Engelbrecht and Xitshembiso Minyuku), as well as the CeSTII data team (Dr Atoko Kasongo, Tlangelani Makamu and Mbali Bongoza).