Chapter 6 Research f"mdings
7.7 Loans and collateral
The ownership of land was to enable emerging farmers the ability to access loans and use their land as collateral (Wegerif, 2004; Lyne and Darroch, 2002). However, in practice this has not been possible for the Sibonginhlanhla Project. The Sibonginhlanhla members applied for a loan at Ithala Bank (represented in Figure 7: 17). However, their application was rejected on the grounds that they did not submit a viable business proposal and some of the members of the Sibonginhlanhla Project had been black-listed for failing to keep up with instalments at particular stores. This indicates that the requirements for a loan were not clarified on application by the financial institution concerned.
The rejection of their application for a loan felt like a huge failure to the Sibonginhlanhla Project members who were thoroughly disheartened. After this disappointment, the members have not attempted to obtain any further loans. Fortunately, the initiation of CASP enabled the Project to obtain necessary funds to initiate an ambitious business plan
drafted by the DoA Extension Support (explained in more detail in section 7.13).
However, loan possibilities for the Sibonginhlanhla Project remain limited as it also seems doubtful that the business plan developed by the DoA, on behalf of the Sibonginhlanhla Project, would be endorsed by financial institutions.
7.8 Work force
The issue of labour became an important issue in the event of the Project becoming productive and even producing for markets. Although the Loteni area has an active labour force and contracting in labour to work on the farm would be done easily, compensation for work done could be a problem. The likely possibility of a lack of cash flow for the Sibonginhlanhla Project may only make payment possible in the form of food rather than cash. Additionally, the impact of HIV/AIDS on the Sibonginhlanhla Project farmers could result in reduced productivity.
7.9 LRAD Policy at grassroots
The LRAD policy was poorly understood by the Sibonginhlanhla Project farmers. This may be indicative of the .educational level of farmers. However, an important consideration is the fact that the medium of communication in government departments is English. Policy documents in the Zulu language were not available on site (like the LRAD policy document, the CASP policy document, DoA agricultural assessments, business plans and applications for funding) and this limited the ability of LRAD farmers to make informed decisions. It also increased reliance on external support services to assist in decision making.
7.10 Reliance on external support for decision making
The lack of information provided to the Sibonginhlanhla Project farmers about factors that impact on them, like LRAD policy, has made farmers reliant on the authorities.
Dependence was shown in the way that the farmers rely on the authorities to support their decisions and sometimes take decisions for them. For example,the fact that the farmers are the owners of the land and yet were still required to obtain permission to build their residences from an external source is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, it
creates confusion over ownership of the Project. The owners of the Project should be the ones taking decisions as the government does not own the Project. Secondly, even though the fanners may have the title deeds to the land, the process of obtaining permission from an authority creates confusion over who owns the land and thus terms of tenure. There is research to show that if security of tenure is disputed then project sustainability may be compromised (Goebels, 2005). Thirdly, decisions that are taken by government departments and officials for the fanners perpetuates dependence on external sources without fostering independent collective action or sustainability of the Project in the long term. And lastly, this is a show of power from the state that is, in a sense, autocratic as they have the ultimate authority on any matter related to the tenure security of the fanners and project operation.
The issue of the broken down tractor shows (1)poor decision making over the acquisition of a tractor initially, (2) an absence of mechanical skills and (3) the inconsistency of government involvement in decision making. The reasons for purchasing such an implement are questionable especially when no training on its use or maintenance was considered. However, the fanners' view of agriculture was such that for fanning to be successful it must be mechanised. The absence of mechanical skill within the Sibonginhlanhla Project membership has led to the desire to rather sell the tractor at a loss than learn how to resolve the problem. The way in which the problem with the tractor was described to the research team, it sounded as if it could be something as simple as a flat battery and yet the fanners was immobilised by this. This has practical implications for training around ensuring that fanners do have some level of mechanical skill. Policy and extension have to react to what the fanners need and their capability to fulfil these needs as opposed to what the farmers' or the government want. Additionally, government needs to decide on their level of involvement in decision making within their areas of competency.
Over the two years that this research was conducted limited progress was made on the Sibonginhlanhla Project. The vision of the fanners to produce for markets has not been achieved. Although some of the inputs, like fencing and training, have been realised, with the support of the CASP grant, this is insufficient for emerging fanners to become productive. This was illustrated by the Sibonginhlanhla Project fanners' reliance on a contract farmer to plough and plant their fields for them.
Extension support may be implemented with the best of intentions. However, it perpetuates the development model of dependency on external organizations. In development work there has been a shift away from this for reasons of sustainability (Ziervogel,2006). In the case of the Sibonginhlanhla Project,CASP funding has provided the farmers with another chance to obtain financial resources to farm for profit. However, any agricultural production will be dependent on efficient external support that fosters the Project towards independence and sustainability.
7.11 Unrealistic expectations and lackof planning
The farmers' expectations of the Sibonginhlanhla Project and the perception of their own ability proved to be too high. Their expectation of achieving commercial production was unrealistic considering the resources available presently. The farmers' unrealistic expectations of their own ability may indicate their initial enthusiasm, but now they are tired and lack self-confidence. Their ability to utilise the Sibonginhlanhla Project land productively, even at a subsistence level,has been compromised. The farmers have land available at their homesteads for subsistence and household production that lies fallow after putting their energies into meetings, trainings and other work for the Sibonginhlanhla Project. This indicates the importance of clarifying LRAD farmer expectations prior to commencing farm operation. In the case of the Sibonginhlanhla Project,a food safety net project - at least for the short term - remains the most logical approach to the gradual improvement of livelihoods.
One member resigned from the Project due to the slow pace of progress and her different expectation of the Sibonginhlanhla Project. She wanted land for residence and household cultivation.
The members of the Sibonginhlanhla Project have been operating without a plan of action.
The vision exercise was the first time that the membership had congregated to discuss possible activities for their farm. As shown by the vision is can be concluded that the farmers are aware of the different crops and livestock options as well as the infrastructure necessary for producing these. Local knowledge of these agricultural products is apparent and planting seasons understood (where w=winter crop and s=summer crop). However, the farmers consider their indigenous agricultural knowledge inferior to commercial
agriculture and are thus openly unsure about implementing an agricultural project that produces for external markets.