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.
92 Recommendations helps pave a way forward on what needs to be changed. People centred opinions on a people centred program helps implement and recommend real solutions that can be applied on the crown solutions that speak to people‟s problems and frustration. The beneficiaries are the most affected by the programme this puts them in a position to mostly likely recommend solution that would work for them rather than a top down approach. Respondents were asked to recommend what they think should be changed within the programme. A series of questions were posed which were informed by a pilot study and related literature. Secondly the recommendation or rather the questions posed to the beneficiaries speak to the challenges which they identified.
4.12.1 Does the ME programme require alterations?
The majority (92.5%) of respondents believe that that the programme does need alterations. Such a high percent of respondents that believe that the programme needs alterations; indicates the level of dissatisfaction with the programme.
4.12.2 Who should be in charge of mechanization?
The issue of the regulation of mechanisation services have been in the spot light for a number of years. The control of mechanisation has changed hands a number of times since the inception of the programme. Mechanisation and its provision to farmers was firstly a responsibility of cooperatives due is unsatisfactory administration a service provider was appointed by the Department of Agriculture, rural development and land administration (Masibuyele Emasimini 2011).
Sadly, mechanisation is still under spotlight with reports of corruption poor service delivery and late arrival of production inputs. The study sought to find out what do the beneficiaries believe will be a solution to this problem, thus who should be in charge of mechanisation for the effective implementation of the Masibuyele Emasimini programme. Figure 31, summarises their responses.
93 Figure 31: Who should be in charge of mechanization?
The study found that the majority (67%) of respondents believe that if cooperatives were in charge of mechanisation or programme implementation less of their current challenges would occur despite the initial failure identified by the Department of Agriculture to implement the programme. None of the respondents indicated that they would like the service provider or other farmers control or administering the tractors. The results show great confidence in cooperatives and also did the great in satisfaction beneficiaries of the programme by service providers with is the current way of running things
4.12.3 Who should benefit from Masibuyele Emasimini?
The Masibuyele Emasimini policy document identifies two types of farmers who are eligible to be assisted by the programme for free (Masibuyele Emasimini 2011). However, there is a lot of bickering concerning who is a small holder and who is a subsistence farmer due to the fact that the policy does not recommend that subsistence farmers be assisted with mechanisation in the form of tractors. This study posed the question to the participating beneficiaries and their opinions are reflected in Figure 32.
67%
16%
15%
2%
Who should be in charge of mechanization services
cooperatives extension officers other
missing
94 Figure32: Recommended types of beneficiaries
Ninety percent (90%) of the respondents believe that all farmers should benefit from the programme taking into consideration the social economic factors currently occurring in the area it should be noted that there is currently no commercial farmers operating in the area so this response is more tailored to their world of experience where subsistence and smallholder farmers are the norm, secondly there farmers indicated that there is corruption within the irrigation scheme leadership which led to questionable selection processes when benefits are to be obtained from the program.
4.13 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SKILLS TRAINING AND GOVERNMENT