88 problematic picture over 50% of the beneficiaries indicated that they have had no visits from Extension Officers while, 37.5% that they sometimes get a visit from Extension Officers. Just 2.5% indicated that they seldom get visits from Extension Officers and only 4.2% indicated that they are often visited by Extension Officers and 0.8% indicated that Extension Officers visits are very often. Clearly indicating that, extension servicers play a role in the poor performance of beneficiaries.
4.11 IMPACT OF MASIBUYELEEMASIMINI TO BENEFICIARIES
89 Seeds and fertilizers are sometimes allocated to young farmers only, by extension officers, and indicate that he wants to encourage them to go back and till the land. Tractors are not available when required, planting time is affected. Seedlings dried –out while farmers waiting for tractors which one is not sure when it comes.
About 27, 5 % said they are fairly satisfied and about 20 % are happy with the programme. Their rationale was that despite the challenges they incur the programme has allowed them to grow as farmers. They can plant larger areas at lower costs, has provided them with free seeds and fertilizers where it could therefore they are grateful.
4.11.2 Improvement in yield
The development of small holder enterprises is said to be an effective strategy to stimulate economic growth and reduce poverty. Small holders usually produce in no more than two hectares of land however they constitute about 85% of the world farmers (Chand, Prasanna and Singh 2011. The problem is that majority of them lack the knowledge of mechanisms that would help them maximise income and production. Secondly, most smallholder farmers especially in developing countries lack access to training and education. The lack of these elements prevents them from achieving their true potential. Equipping smallholders with the said elements usually leads to more than double of their initial yields (Chand, et al 2011) Farmer‟s opinions‟ regarding the improvement in yield is summarised in Figure 28.
Figure 28: percentage of respondents reporting improvement in yield since initiation
Improvement in yield according to most beneficiaries is seasonal. Overall, for most beneficiaries the yield is average (34%) going on low (36%). Most of them said that the challenges they face
3%
34%
36%
27%
Percentage of respondnets reporting improvement in yield
high yield avarage yield low yield no yield
90 are some of the causes that have contributed towards getting an average to low yield. The biggest challenges inhibiting the attainment of higher yield according to respondents are; that they only receive mechanisation assistance in a portion of their farms. Secondly the production inputs such as seeds and fertilizers they received were inadequate; sometimes they do not receive them at all.
Lastly poor tilling methods by tractor drivers led to soil compaction and erosion.
4.11.3 Whether farmers will continue with farming when government withdraw its services?
Chirwa et al. (2011) define independence or as they term it “graduation” as the departure from benefiting from food security programmes towards self-sufficiency without damaging ones lively hoods. In this study, 80% of the beneficiaries indicated that they will continue with farming even when the government withdraws its services (refer to Figure 29). They said farming is their way of life; they were farming even before the programme started. However, the majority indicated they will continue with farming in small quantities, others also indicated even now they have not been assisted by free tractors quite some time.
Figure 29: Continuation after withdrawal
Two aspects appear(can be deducted) from these findings, according to Chirwa et al,(2011) definition one reaches graduation if they are self-sufficient when benefits are withdrawn; which the results depicted in Figure 29, seem to suggest that majority of the beneficiaries will be able to do so. Chirwa et al. (2011) moreover state that this should not be at the expense of their current level of lively hood. Majority of the beneficiaries reported that their capacity would drop if the programme is to be removed at this stage.
4.11.4 What Level of service are beneficiaries receiving from service provider?
0,0 50,0 100,0
yes no dont know
80,0
6,6 13,3
percentage
Continuation
continuation
91 Here the researcher aimed at assessing the level of service received from the service provider (Figure 30) from the beneficiaries‟ point of view. The service provider was in charge of the rolling out of mechanization services and delivering inputs, while extension officers were responsible for their distribution.
Figure30: Level of service from service provider
When asked to rate the programme Masibuyele Emasimini services, (52.5%) indicated (Figure 30) that the services are poor. The majority of beneficiaries are not happy about the services.
When asked why they classified the service as poor, they said they don‟t get services when required. Sometimes they are told that there is no diesel and they have to wait for 4 months.
Those who said the programme is good, indicated that it is the administration of the programme that is not running the programme well, but the programme itself is good and helpful.
4.11.5 Does the programme Improve beneficiaries socio economic life?
The study discussed the socio economic status of beneficiaries which showed that the majority of beneficiaries are poor unemployed elderly people with little education and dependents to feed.
However, respondents were asked if the condition they are in has improved from before the programme started? More than half of them responded positively (53.3%) further elaborating by stating that their lives have improved since they have not paid anything for the intervention. The money they were supposed to pay for tractors they have used for other things at home. The other 44.2% indicated that they have not seen any improvement since they are still struggling to get money for children‟s education, they have no decent houses.