Browsing by Author "Ndlela, Sithembiso."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Agricultural extension, sustainable livelihoods and self-reliance: the case of Illovo's small-scale sugarcane farmer development programme (Noodsberg, South Africa).
(2015) Ndlela, Sithembiso.; Worth, Steven Hugh.
Small-scale Sugarcane Grower Development Programmes implemented in rural communities have become very popular in South Africa because sugarcane contributes substantially to both local and national economies. Illovo Sugar has adopted such development programmes with an aim of improving rural livelihood and option and also improving the South African sugar industry. In most cases, however, it appears that sugarcane development programmes are primarily driven by the pressure to meet the demand for sugar which has focused the programmes on developing sugar through small-scale farmers. This study then seeks to investigate and unravel the role that extension could and should play in sugarcane development programmes to refocus such programmes on the farmers (rather than on the commodity), to build their capacity, and to make their livelihoods more sustainable in the face of change and opportunities for improvement. This investigation was conducted with three groups of participants; small-scale sugarcane farmers, extension worker and enablers. Enablers, in the context of this study, refers to stakeholder/s or structure/s involve in making, suggestion of changes and alteration of policies, law and processes that shapes the impact of the Small-scale Sugarcane Grower Development Programme on the programme’s target farmers. In the case of this programme, the enablers are the Illovo development manager and SASRI extension specialist who were selected purposively as key informants of the study. The other participants (including farmers and extension providers) were selected using a Snowball Sampling. Thirty-five farmers participated in this study, sampled on the principle of saturation. The investigation with farmers was carried out using semi-structured interviews as basis for developing themes and focus group discussion for surfacing in-depth data. Semi-structured interview was also employed to gather data from extension workers and enablers. From the perceptions of small-scale sugarcane farmers the study discovered that extension is primarily involved in technology transfer, particularly in the production aspect of the programme. From the perceptions of farmers, extension workers and enablers the study found that the programme is intensively focusing on ensuring that all small-scale farmers supply sugarcane to Illovo at the end of each season. The study determined that the role of extension assumes that, through transferring technology and ensuring technical support, the livelihoods of small-scale farmers will be enhanced and sustained and self-reliance will be achieved. The study also found that the development programme focuses on building farmer knowledge to run the farm and ensure sustainability, but does not facilitate the acquisition of skills by farmers to engage with scientific enquiry. Farmers are given a limited opportunity to participate in all the activities of the programme which jeopardise their chances of being selfreliant in their farming operations. This also has adversely impacted on farmers’ ability to own their development and be accountable for what they achieve. The study essentially found that the programme focuses more on developing the enterprise (sugarcane) through farmers than on building farmer capacity to improve the enterprise while sustaining their livelihoods – which is the antithesis of both theory and intention of development and extension. In the light of this, the study suggest that in the production, finances and marketing aspects of the programme, the role of extension should be extended to engaging farmers in an extension conversation with the aim of building their capacity to engage with scientific enquiry. The agenda for improving farmer capacity can be developed around the idea of advancing farmer skills and knowledge, and creating opportunities within the programme to enhance farmer aptitude. The study further recommends a shift in the programme from technology-oriented toward more farmer-centred development that places farmers in the centre of the programme and encourages farmer participation in all the processes of the development programme. This will include adoption of a learning-based approach that suggests a learning process of investigation, assimilation and sharing to be used by all the role-players (farmers, extension and enablers) in facilitating an intervention relevant to farmers’ livelihood.
The role of agricultural extension and landcare policy in building farmer capacity to manage natural resources: the case of landcare programmes in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa = Indima edlalwa abeluleka abezolimo neNqubomgomo ye-Landcare eKwakheni Isisekelokusebenza Sabalimi Ukuze kulawulwe Imithombo Yezemvelo: Ucwaningo Lwezinhlelo Ze-Landcare KwaZulu-Natali, eNingizimu Afrikha.
(2022) Ndlela, Sithembiso.; Worth, Steven Hugh.
Agriculture is an important element of the South African (SA) economy. However, increasing pressure to produce food has exacerbated pressure on natural resources (NR). The deteriorating state of NR is caused by multiple factors that vary from farm to farm. SA LandCare was established specifically to address this. However, LandCare programmes are perceived to focus primarily on relief and rehabilitation of NR rather than addressing the underlying fundamental complex causes. This study sought to explore the extent to which: LandCare attempts to mitigate core problems rather than symptoms; LandCare works to ensure long-term natural resource management (NRM) by farmers; and extension is contextualised in building farmer capacity to manage NR. This study also sought to provide a theoretical model depicting the positioning of extension within the LandCare programme to improve the sustainability of NRM while maintaining its goal of improving household food security. Primary research comprised semi-structured interviews with 45 key respondents selected using purposive sampling. The respondents included 20 farmers, 20 provincial extension workers and five LandCare officials in the National Department of Agriculture (NDA). These three groups of respondents were selected deliberately as they could provide more accurate information to fulfil the study objectives and help answer the underlying research question. This study had four central findings. First, the role of extension is not adequately contextualized in LandCare in terms of building farmer capacity to manage NR. Extension, in its NR-related work, is mainly involved in training farmers in specific technical skills and not in building learning and problem-solving capacity. This capacity would put farmers in the position of making informed decisions about the intended LandCare development and thereby make them more equal partners in the LandCare initiative. Second, the way the role of extension in LandCare is carried out in practice undermines the significance of local knowledge and experience and effectively dismisses them as not being credible because they are not “scientific” – not informed by recognised scientific theories and methods. This is inconsistent with capacity building theory that posits that true capacity is built starting with what farmers know and have. Third, farmers have limited opportunity to command structures and systems, and limited freedom to participate actively in all the LandCare processes, putting them on the passive receiving end of the programme. Further, LandCare implementation focuses less on empowering and building problem-solving capacity amongst farmer that is relevant to dealing with NR problems (during and post-project life) and more on enforcing change in farmers current practices to practices that are deemed to have less negative impact on NR. This runs a risk of making farmers constantly dependant on external support in addressing their NR challenges. Fourth, while the physical rehabilitation work is generally successfully achieved, there is a disconnection between the LandCare policy and its implementation on the ground. LandCare practice focuses more on rehabilitation of NR and introducing more conservation-friendly farming systems to farmers and gives less attention to building farmer capacity to be selfreliant and resilient in solving their own problems and better manage their NR – which is the antithesis of both the capacity theory and the intention of LandCare programme. Ultimately, the study proposes a framework for unifying the currently disparate processes to ensure that LandCare is simultaneously well administered, rehabilitates land and builds farmer capacity for sustainable NRM. Within the framework is a capacity-building ladder which helps maintain focus on the goal of sustainable NRM through the actions of the farmers on the land. Iqoqa EzoLimo ziyingxenye ebaluleke kakhulu emnothweni waseNingizimu Afrikha. Kodwa, ingcindezi ekhulayo yokukhiqiza ukudla sekukhulise kakhulu ingcindezi emithonjeni yemvelo (iNR). Umumo owehla kabi kwe-NR udalwa yizimo eziningi ezingefani ipulazi nepulazi. I-SA LandCare yasungulwa ukuze ibhekane ngqo nalokhu. Kodwa, izinhlelo ze-LandCare zibhekwa njengezigxile ekusizeni nasekuphuculeni i-NR kunokubhekana nezimbangela ezingelula nezibalulekile. Lolu cwaningo luhlose ukuthola ukuthi ize ifikephi imizamo ye-LandCare ukubhekana nezinkinga ezisemqoka kunokubuka izimpawusifo. I-LandCare isebenze ukuqinisekisa nokulawula i-NR esikhathini eside (i-NRM) okwenziwa abalimi; nokunweba okufakwe ekwakhiweni komthamokumumatha wabalimi ukuze balawule i-NR. Lolu cwaningo luphinde lwahlosa ukuhlinzeka imodeli yenjulalwazi eveza umumo wokunwebeka ohlelweni lwe-LandCare ukuphucula ukusimama kweNRM ngesikhathi kusimamiswa inhloso yokuphucula ukuba khona kokudla endlini. Ucwaningo olusemqoka lufaka izimposambuzo ezingahleliwe ngokugcwele kubalethilwazi abangama-45 abakhethwe kusetshenziswa ukusampula okunenhloso. Abanikilwazi abasemqoka babefaka abalimi abangama-20, abasebenzi basesifundazweni abangama-20 nabasebenzi abayisihlanu bakwa-LandCare emnyangweni kazwelonke wezolimo. Ucwaningo lwathola ukuthi umthamo wabalimi usemqoka ekubhekaneni ne-NR eyehlayo. Lwaphinde lwathola ukuthi nakuba inqubomgomo i-South African LandCare ifukamela ukwakha ingqalasizinda njengomongo, kodwa okwenzekayo kuveza okunye. Ukugxila kusekulungiseni umhlaba, hhayi ekwakheni uhlelokusebenza epulazini. Lokhu kwesekwa wukuthola ukuthi cishe ama-90% ababambiqhaza be-LandCare abalimi bemfuyo abajoyine uhlelo lokusebenza nokulungisa amadlelo okuklaba – okungekho nokukodwa okuyizinhloso zokwakha izinsizakusebenza. Ngaphezu kwalokho, ngesikhathi ukunwebeka kuqalisa ukusebenza i-LandCare ayibonakali inenjongo yokwakha insizakusebenza edingekayo nezoba nokungaqondi okwenhlaliswano-namasiko lapho kukhona khona izinkinga eziphezulu. Kunokuxhumana okunqamukile phakathi kanye nokungabi nokuhambisana kwabanesabelo kwa-LandCare; kodwa basebenza ngabojwana. Ekugcineni, ucwaningo luphakamisa ukuthi uhlaka oluhlanganisa izinhlelo ezehlukene njengamanje ukuqinisekisa ukuthi i-LandCare ilawulwa kahle, ibuyisela umhlaba nokwakha umthamokukwazi komlimi nge-NRM esimeme. Ohlakeni lwelada yokwakha umthamo osiza ukugcina olusiza ukugcina ukugxila ekusimamiseni inhloso yama-NRM ngezenzo zabalimi emhlabeni.