It is important to understand the background on how beneficiaries came to firstly know about the programme, how they became beneficiaries, the number of years in which they have been beneficiaries and what exactly did they benefit from the program. From understanding this, one can then move on to assess what should be and what is. One key question posed in this study was whether or not the beneficiaries were involved in decision making process about the programme?
The study asked the respondents if they know off the Masibuyele Emasimini programme before addressing program and beneficiary specific questions. To this, all the respondents indicated that they know off the Masibuyele Emasimini programme, secondly they have benefited from the programme at one point or another.
4.4.1 Source of initial knowledge of the programme
According to Van den Ban and Hawkins (1988) farmers need to have a reliable source of information in order to improve their farming knowledge. Some of the most cited sources of information include; extension services, informative agricultural radio broadcast, fellow farmers, and research stations. The study asked respondents about their source of initial knowledge of the programme, and their responses are recorded in Table: 7.
Table7: Respondents Sources of Information about the Programme Respondents sources of information and the programme
Sources Number Percentage
Friend 2 1.7
Media 9 7.5
58
Extension Officer 2 1.7
Farmers Meeting 52 43.3
Other 55 45.8
Total 120 100.0
The findings indicate that farmers were formally informed of the programme either directly at farmers meeting or through already established farmer committees.
4.4.2 Number of years benefiting from the programme
When asked to recall the specific years in which they have benefited from the programme and aggregate those years, the majority indicated that they have been beneficiaries for four years. It is the writer‟s observation that the number of years one has been a beneficiary are not sequential due to inconsistency of service delivery with reason discussed under challenges; thus a 4 year beneficiary could have benefited in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012.
This finding is similar with Siyanga (2009) study of Zambia‟s fertilizer support programme where it was found that even after seven years of the programme running, the magnitude of its impact was still not clear indicating that the number of years might be insufficient to have a lasting impact on the beneficiaries, especially on the very poor.
4.4.3 Nominators of beneficiaries
The Masibuyele Emasimini policy guideline and implementation model 2011-2015 states that beneficiaries will have to apply through local structures that are part of the Masibuyele Emasimini user associations (Masibuyele Emasimini 2011). However, this criterion is open to interpretation.
Table 8: Nominators of beneficiaries
Nominator Frequency Percentage
Extension Officer 7 5.8
Committee 113 94.2
Other 0 0
Total 120 100
59 To become a beneficiary one needs to be nominated and included within the beneficiary data base. The initial stages of the programme were informal in its approach. However as financial departments demanded proof of work done, a more formalized system was introduced.
The question here is who nominated these farmers to become beneficiaries. Knowledge of this will indicate which party has played a huge role in the nomination of beneficiaries.
About ninety four percent of the beneficiaries indicated that they were nominated by established Masibuyele Emasimini committee, while 5.8% said Extension Officers nominated them. Thus it is clear that Masibuyele Emasimini committees were the main determiners off who is nominated to be a beneficiary. This shows that the decision making powers, on beneficiary nomination, were placed upon the Masibuyele Emasimini committees above any other party.
4.4.4 What does the programme assist beneficiaries with?
The Masibuyele Emasimini policy document has three key aspects it identified to help people with: firstly, mechanization (tractors & implements), secondly, seeds and lastly fertilizers (Masibuyele Emasimini 2011). The respondents were asked what they benefited from the programme and all indicated that at one given point in time, in their lives they have benefited from the programme (Figure 6).
Figure 6: What does Masibuyele Emasimini assist beneficiaries with?
It is apparent from the findings that the majority of the respondents benefited from mechanization and fertilizers services or all three promised inputs. Pointing out that the
57,5 38,3
4,2
0 20 40 60 80 100
mechanization and fertilizers all three mechanization
percentage
Type of assistance
type of assistance
60 programme does deliver the promised benefits to selected beneficiaries; however this does not factor into consideration elements such as delivery time and who benefits.
4.4.5 Frequency of assistance from the Masibuyele Emasimini programme
Most beneficiaries (Figure 7) indicated that they mainly receive input assistance from the programme once a year (86.7%). The fact that majority of respondents get assistance only once a year speaks to the shortages of tractors and secondly to the inability of the programme to meet the demand. The fact that the programme provides free inputs has led to a dependency problem with some of the farmers who wait for free mechanization and inputs from the programme and end up with late production or disappointment when the programme is unable to deliver.
Figure7: Frequency of assistance from Masibuyele Emasimini
Because of the inability to adequately provide mechanization services, beneficiaries from the irrigation scheme have started utilizing subsidized paid mechanization in order to reduce dependency on free Masibuyele inputs. The move towards doing this, though done out of dissatisfaction with the programme, has pushed farmers one step towards self-sustainability.
4.4.6 Number of hectares assisted with mechanization
Najafi (2003) states that farm size is a positive contributor to food security of sustenance farmers; the more land they have the more they can cultivate. Ayalew (2003) emphasizes the relationship between farm size and crop production the larger the cultivated area the bigger the produce which increases food security.The responses are indicated in Figure 8.
9%
87%
3%
Frequency of assistance
1%once per month once per year when i need help other
61 Figure 8: Number of hectares assisted with mechanisation
Most of the respondents (78.3%) indicated that they get assisted with one hector or less. None of the respondents gets assisted with more than five hectare. This also indicates that there is biasness, within the programme because some were assisted for 6 levies which is half a hectare.
The results depict that the majority of beneficiaries plough less than a hectare of land which might have an impact on the long term sustainability and growth of the beneficiaries if mechanisms are not put in place to expand the farm sizes along with production.