South Africa Facts By Last Moyo

Here are some about south Africa. Last Moyo have presented them. Zimbabwe is a landlocked country in southern Africa. The country is a multiparty democracy currently governed by a Government of National Unity (GNU) following disputed elections in 2008. The power-sharing government has led to some economic stability but some political uncertainty lingers on and this has resulted in little real growth.

The power-sharing government also resulted in the end of hyperinflation through the suspension of the use of the Zimbabwe dollar as official currency. Currently the United States Dollar, South Africa Rand, Botswana Pula and the Pound Sterling are all used.

According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), Zimbabwe scored 0.140 in 2010, up from 0.118 in 2009. The country is ranked last in the HDI rankings. Zimbabwe’s current HDI is lower than it was in 1980 (0.241). Major contributors to Zimbabwe’s low HDI include low life expectancy and low Gross National Income per capita.

On Education, Zimbabwe remains one of the few countries in Africa with an adult literacy rate above 90%. The country also has a reasonable percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on education in comparison to neighboring countries.

Zimbabwe’s telecoms sector experienced exponential growth since 2009. From a less than 13% tele-density in 2008, the country’s 2011 tele-density stands at 47%

Zimbabwe Country profile of human development indicatorshttp://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/ZWE.html

Background And Context

South Africa is generally regarded as one of the biggest and strongest economies in the African continent. However, inequalities that cut across the race, gender, class and geographic location remain very much a part of the fabric of the society. Many people in urban areas still lack basic needs, such as shelter and clean water and rural poverty still remains largely unattended. This action research focuses on agriculture and rural livelihoods in Jozini municipal area and seeks to establish the extent to which communication and public participation are integrated in development. Human development requires a minimum level of community participation in planning stages, decisions about the nature of development, as well as how to prioritise projects and shape the policy regime, so that communities develop not simply as consumers of policies but also with sustainable development outcomes in mind.

Participants in various research groups in Jozini reiterated the importance of communication in the development process. The definitions of poverty and development they offered indicate that they consider their lack of capacity to articulate their own situation and be understood by officials and those with power over resources, who are mostly outsiders. They are frustrated by the lack of access to communication about resources and the roles and duties of office bearers. The perception that officials in positions of power and authority spend most of their time pursuing personal comfort at the expense of service delivery often results from the lack of information about resources and duties. Some community members say that although development projects are implemented, often this is done without consultation of the community and this they find unacceptable. One of the fundamental characteristics of poverty is the fact that it marginalises communities leaving them vulnerable and lacking the capacity to hold officials accountable.

South African case study: Jozini

The Jozini area is administered by the Jozini local municipality, one of the five local municipalities within Umkhanyakude District Municipality, located in the North of KwaZulu-Natal, bordering Swaziland and Mozambique. The dominant population (as defined in the census) is Black African (99.2%). This means that the node is predominantly rural, which is consistent with it being historically part of the apartheid-era bantustan, KwaZulu. Apartheid era forced removals led to over-population and strain on an already fragile environment. To deal with this congestion, the apartheid regime introduced the Betterment Act. Betterment projects were aimed at land re-organisation and the resettlement of people in the name of social, economic and environmental sustainability, but were resisted by the people as being imposed and lacking community voice. The apartheid regime sidelined former homelands from investment, leaving them with a massive infrastructure deficiency and poor capacity to generate economic livelihoods for the communities. The result is a general lack of roads, electricity, schools, hospitals and clinics, water and sanitation services, among other basic services. High levels of poverty have also contributed to the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the area. Jozini is located in an area demarcated as a Presidential poverty node, and this makes the area highly dependent on social grants leaving little capacity for income generation and employment creation.

These legacies combined have impacted in the post-apartheid era and the democratically elected government has found that rural communities remain sensitive to policies, plans and projects that do not involve public participation. Although there is evidence of commitment to and understanding of the urgent need for service delivery and poverty reduction on the part of government, serious concerns about lack of co-ordination poor planning and communication abound. Where resources have been made available, the implementation of development programmes has been done with little consultation with beneficiary society and as such lacked community support.

The Jozini are continues to record very high levels of illiteracy and few opportunities for education. The majority of young people are not only unemployed, but unemployable outside the rural agriculture sector. Consequently the agriculture sector is one in which there exists potential for growth. However youth have not been sufficiently lured into agriculture and rural life is seen as a dead end. Therefore, Jozini finds itself with the shortage of labour to drive productive agriculture and caught in the paradox of food shortages and nutrition on the one hand and under-utilised land and water resources on the other.The majority of the rural poor in Jozini are women. They suffer double oppression – from economic and socio-cultural perspectives. In the context of a patriarchal (both, traditional or modern capitalist system) women’s voices are usually suppressed. As such, the focus on agriculture and rural livelihoods (a women dominated sector) in Jozini also brings to the fore the issues of gender mainstreaming and the capacity of women to communicate in a gendered terrain. With a female-headed household average of 50.6, the district is lower than the national ISRDP average of 54.9 but higher than the KZN provincial overage of 45.5. This is high enough to be an important factor regarding vulnerability and thus in need of specific poverty alleviation interventions.

It is already common knowledge that in the subsistence sector, women constitute the majority of the producers. Notwithstanding, the formal marketing channels are mostly male dominated. and although many men in rural areas face similar challenges to women, we focus more on women because of the special circumstances in which women are exploited as producers and reproducers.
It is not coincidental that the majority of the interviews and discussions upon which this report is based were with women. The development of the agriculture sector’s capacity to produce food and extra income for the participants is therefore with no doubt at the heart of the improvement of the rural material conditions of women.

Policy Issues In Agricultural Development In Jozini

Government and community policy clash in the Jozini area around food security versus food sovereignty. Historically, societies have produced most of the food they consumed within and to their (changing) environments. This alternative to the neo-liberal reading of agricultural and food policies is described as food sovereignty, a concept developed and popularised by Vía Campesina (the Latin American peasant movement) and introduced into the public debate during the World Food Summit in 1996. Food security involves prioritising local agricultural production to feed the population and promoting access for small scale farmers to land, water, seeds and credit. The discourse emerged in response to threats to food security posed by the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which undermine free access to seeds, and promote the neo-liberal agenda of the privatisation of resources and reduced government support for small scale producers.

The South African government supports the proliferation of GM technology, and promotes it as part of the new green revolution. The actual impact of GMOs, however, is a negative one for small farmers, undermining their capacity to produce food and the rights of consumers to food that is not genetically modified. With the support of NGOs, Jozini communities have come to believe that this technology is not about advancing humanity, but a profit driven device that privileges fast growing, high producing and disease resistant seeds over ecologically friendly sustainable and health-enhancing food. The capacity and right to control and distribute seed at the local level, is a pillar of food sovereignty. Biowatch, (an NGO supporting local food sovereignty) supports these initiatives through seed banks, while the government on the other, pushes GM seeds. Mainstream agriculture development policy has exposed Jozini to both the international food market as well as the GM technology in BT cotton, with disastrous results on food sovereignty as well as food security. This has placed local communities, NGOs and the government on a collision course. The exposure of local communities to the international food supply chain, undermining the right of smaller nations to protect themselves from excessively cheap agricultural and food imports (dumping), is underwritten by the dominance of trade liberalization and the chosen neo-liberal policy regime adopted by the South African government in 1996. This policy was declared non-negotiable (Bond 2000).

The Vía Campesina movement has demonstrated the power of the rural poor to articulate positions that challenges the neo-liberal practices that undermine food sovereignty by giving precedence to international trade over peoples’ food rights and failing to eradicate world hunger. The same cannot be said for the subsistence and small scale agricultural sector on the African continent. Instead of articulating their policy disagreements, the rural poor tend to migrate to urban areas in search of jobs. This results in the mere transfer of rural poverty to the urban areas, creating further strain on the capacity of urban administrations to meet service delivery demands (interview with the LED Officer, Umkhanyakude District Municipality 2010).

Key issues affecting smallholder producers in Jozini include the lack of access to irrigation water, fencing off animals from arable land, small land holding and poorly developed market access for agriculture produce. A very small area of Jozini, Makhathini flats, receives irrigation water from the Jozini dam. Irrigation has not been widely developed to provide access for the majority of the peasant producers. Those with access to irrigated land put emphasis on cash crop production (cotton and sugar, at the expense of food production) in response to existing market demand. The remainder and majority of the rural producers occupy rain-fed land and practice seasonal agriculture which increasingly fails to meet the local demand for food. As in many parts of South Africa and the continent, smallholder agriculture in Jozini remains subsistence oriented, technology averse, disarticulated from the local market and maligned in policy, practice and in the eyes of the fiscus. Deborah Bryceson (1999,

2 Statements like these require caution though as they are more than often misconstrued to mean that only farming is what is needed to improve rural livelihoods. This often leads to an approach that suggests that agriculture is the be all and end all of rural development efforts. Agricultural support should be one in a basket of well coordinated interventions that support improved socio-economic conditions.

Farmer experiences with development initiatives in Jozini

An organised group of small holder farmers in Makhathini called Dlan’ Uphile Ezaleni Garden Project chaired by Mr Zwelibanzi P. Sithole of eMkhonjeni articulated the major concerns with government approaches to agricultural development. These farmers produce primarily for consumption and through the support of Biowatch (a development NGO) they prefer traditional methods that resemble organic systems and shun fertilisers and pesticides. This is always in direct conflict with the government’s green revolution oriented extension systems, which promote the use of fertilizers and pesticides. These farmers produce food crops such as gusha (okra), green pepper, brinjal, tomatoes, carrots, beetroot, king onions and shallots, spinach as well as fruit, such as mdoni, organic peaches and avocado trees on home gardens. Mr Sithole emphasises the fact that while fertilizer-grown king onions could have bigger heads when compared to traditionally (organically grown) ones, the later are much tastier and have a stronger aroma. Dlan’ Uphile group has a 14 ha piece of land which is currently not usable as it is neither fenced nor irrigated. The organic production focus of Biowatch and the green revolution approach of government supported schemes often leave communal farmers torn between the two.

Government officials simply dump seeds and fertilisers on farmers without training them about their use and explaining the potential side effects. Makhathini Flats was developed into irrigation schemes in the 1980s as the downward beneficiation project from the Jozini dam that led to the diversion of the Phongola River. The small growers in the irrigation schemes have each an average of 1ha of land, but often farm in co-operatives. Some lease out land to those with capacity to grow and enter into various production and marketing arrangements. This requires government support in drafting contracts with agribusiness and business (big or small) to protect these communities from potential abuses. The Dlan’ Uphile project members suggest that their production at the domestic level has not been satisfactory owing to land shortage, lack of fencing and water. However, during times when they produced satisfactorily, the market has always been the biggest problem. Market is the lifeblood for successful farming and rural advancement. As one farmer put it:‘We do not have land, seedlings and water. When we try to grow our vegetables, they are eaten by goats and cattle. We do not have extension officers. We have not received help from government. This is our 6th year as organised farmers. We are still waiting for government. NGOs also come and promise to help us, they record our problems and take our details. They go away and make money for themselves from our stories and problems. We see nothing’ (interview with Ms Mabaso of Makhathini).

The farmers of the Dlan’Uphile applied for cattle and goats under the government’s drought relief restocking programme but never received them even after being told that their stock was delivered. Cattle and goats manure would be very useful in improving the quantity and quality of the produce by rural farmers. However, with government projects such as the one mentioned above failing to address the stocking requirements of these farmers, agricultural produce remains severely compromised.  

KwaZulu-Natal is known to have intermittent droughts with the last recorded major droughts occuring in 2002/2003. The effects of climate change will also worsen the impact of droughts for rural communities. Jozini farmers suggest that they are still to recover their stock lost in the most recent drought. The government needs to engage the smallholder and subsistence farmers in such issues as how to manage, reduce the impact of these natural occurrences. Rural development is seen as the line function of the Department of Social Development (DSD). The municipalities, which are the local delivery arms of government, also run local economic development-oriented projects. The Department of Health run projects aimed at nutrition and so food-related projects are prioritised. The Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs (at the provincial level) has rolled out a ‘one home one garden’ project to improve food security at the household level. This programme is knee-jerk in its orientation. It is a response to the 2008 global recession and fuel-hike-associated food shortages and is not informed by a wider social and economic upliftment agenda.

One home One Garden Programme

The provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal woke up to the fact that rural communities had the resources they needed to mitigate food security threats emanating from increasing food prices during the economic downturn. The departments of social welfare, health, agriculture and environmental affairs, as well as the municipalities, were urged to support the growing of food crops, especially vegetables to ensure that poor people did not starve. The manner in which this programme was initiated meant that there was no scope for community consultation or the opportunity to understanding the challenges communities faced in food production. As a result, the communities’ responses to the programme’s bad planning only came after the fact, when most of the funds allocated to the programme had been exhausted.

The timing of the food price hikes also had political implications because South Africa held elections in 2009. Politicians and government officials were sent throughout the province with seed packs, fertilisers and chemicals to support food production. In other areas the food security packages included fencing for rural groups that had access to land and facilities to harness irrigation water. This programme proceeded on an adhoc basis with very limited consultation with beneficiary communities. In Jozini, the farming community of Makhathini spoke of some of the waste associated with this programme: government officials would simply dish out packages to people who had identity documents and whom they encountered in shopping centres. This meant that some people who had no use for agricultural assistance received this input and were found to be selling the materials to the highest bidding farmer.

The municipality’s integrated development plan (IDP) was also seen as a potential vehicle for the engagement of the community in rolling out the one home one garden project. The municipality’s projects had to be re-aligned with those of the department of agriculture, which was mandated to drive agriculture projects. The DSD also had social workers and development practitioners who laid claim to community projects. The department of health, on the other hand, promoted home gardens so that families with Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVCs), child-headed households and those with members taking HIV and TB treatment would have access to nutritious food. The result of this was that different government departments came into the communities rolling out the one home one garden programme. This caused confusion and lack of co-ordinated effort in some communities, a situation that some community based organisations and NGOs took advantage of to maximise their production capacity. 

Gender And Women’s Policy Concerns In Agriculture And Rural Livelihoods

As previously stated, women make up the majority of the rural poor and are arguably the most marginalised of the population in these areas. However, through progressive producer clubs and self-help organisations women find that they are able to engage government officials as groups and through the registration of clubs. The government departments working at the local level encourage women to form production and working groups so that they can receive assistance. The IDP in particular calls for communities to register co-operatives and then places them on the municipal database. The DSD houses the registrar of co-operatives, who ensures that these groups are properly organised.

Some of the policy issues that women bring to the attention of officials include: tenure and related issues, access to credit and access to extension services. Land is still owned by men in traditional rural Jozini. Women find it difficult to access land in the irrigation schemes. Working through groups, women are able to approach the traditional authority for land they can use as project land. However, they do not own this land and there is always the feat that it can be taken away from them. Access to inputs and markets are also policy issues that require more attention according to women.

Communication Channels Used By The Jozini Community

The community does not only express itself through the limited government channels of communication. Jozini has a number of creative means of ensuring that its voice is heard. These include community radio, meetings with traditional authorities, elected ward councillors, producer clubs, co-operative groups, religious/church groups, through researchers/extension officers, as well as through channels made available by civil society/NGO type organisations operating in the Jozini area.

The agency of rural communities is important in the process of development communication. Women’s clubs, youth co-operatives, village gardening and chicken projects are among the communication channels through which rural communities find voice. The gap between rural dwellers and policy makers, often located in big cities far from rural communities, is a big one. Extension officials and fieldworkers provide an important bridge between communities and officials and their roles have been grossly underestimated. In their daily interaction with communities, extension officers and field workers are able to capture the policy choices and challenges faced by these communities. The regular (often monthly) visits by these officials are vital to improving communication between communities and policy makers. The challenges in this regard, are associated with the reporting templates that these officials are required to use, which do not allow for the inclusion of quality data about the various problems encountered by communities.

During interaction with extension officers, fieldworkers and local councillors (attended by the author) rural communities clearly articulated their development challenges and suggested policy alternatives. In the interaction with these officials, communities suggested the type of programmes and projects that need to be considered. Some of the channels open to communities for discussing pressing policy challenges as well as development opportunities include NGOs, church, the IDP and parliamentary imbizos, among others. A trend associated with rural community report backs is that community members tend to be critical of government when in discussion with NGOs and CBOs, but shy away from speaking vociferously when government officials are present. One interviewee suggested that this is the result of people fearing that if they are too critical they could be targeted and considered to be against the government or the party of the attending official and their access to resources thereafter restricted or cut off altogether.