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.

The Role Of NGOs/Civil Society In Communication

There are many NGOs operating in the Jozini area and the Umkhanyakude district more widely. Their work focusses on many areas of concern: health, education, gender-based violence, child welfare, the environment and agriculture/rural development, among others. For this study, an NGO, Biowatch, is highlighted for its work on agriculture and rural development. The second NPO selected for analysis is the Maputaland community radio station (MCR), because at the heart of its work is communication.

Biowatch: A Mini Case Study

Biowatch is a small South African NGO that campaigns in the public interest for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, bio-safety and farmers’ rights. It has successfully challenged the South African government’s speedy adoption of GM technology as leading to health and environmental risk, as well as diminishing food security and food sovereignty. In 2000, Biowatch was able to successfully challenge the government through a constitutional court case.

Jozini farmers associated with Biowatch clearly articulate their preference for local seed over imported GM seed. This comes through in the various workshops and extension services provided by NGO development/field workers in the communities. One of the unintended results of this type of engagement is that it seems to divide communities between those who place their faith in what NGOs suggest and others who adhere to government policy. In addition to its advocacy work, Biowatch runs a traditional seed bank in Jozini area, where communities bring and circulate traditional seed so they can remain independent of the seed companies that sell seed varieties that are not always appropriate for the region.

Where rural communities have been unable to articulate their concerns against GM seeds and the undermining of their food sovereignty, Biowatch has used its wealth of research and advocacy tools to successfully challenge pro-GMO policies as they relate to agriculture in the area and to support small scale farmers who choose to do the same.

Maputaland Community Radio (MCR) As A Communication Vehicle

A community radio station is an important vehicle of promise in rural development communication. Community radio can be of great value in places where literacy levels are low and populations are isolated and lack basic services. The MCR is the only radio station based in the Jozini area. It has the potential to be an important vehicle for community expression and participation in decision making. As MCR (2010) notes, ‘the idea of community radio is to overcome the challenges of communication in the area given the fact that the communication infrastructure like telephone, cell phone coverage, roads…’ is poorly developed. The role of the community radio is also articulated by MCR, in its mandate as one that ‘seeks to address the socio-economic challenges facing our areas. Our programming is designed in a way that educates, develops, empowers, mobilizes and uplifts the social and economic lives of individuals, families and the community at large’ (MCR 2010).

The MCR also provides an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which community radio can be used as a communication vehicle in communities affected by poverty. The focus group discussions and interviews show that, the poorer and more remote the community/individual, the more marginalised they are from many aspects of daily life. This serves to undermine individual dignity. The fact that poor people have unequal access to decision-making and policy influence means they experience greater levels of exclusion in the development process. They (and the organisations that work with them or on their behalf) have to work that much harder to be heard and to influence public attitudes and policy opinion.

Maputaland community radio has a constituted board whose members come from a cross section of the community. It also has a listening club, the purpose of which is to facilitate communication in helping MCR to meet its mandate for broadcasting within the context of the community social and economic challenges. However, MCR is self funded and is forced to sell airtime to survive. This is a major drawback for community access. The operation of a formal radio station that allows for greater flexibility within a rural context often leads to exclusion of some rural voices. The phone-in programmes require that people have money to call and those who might well benefit and/or contribute valuable insight to such programming are excluded on this basis. Younger audiences tend to make use of the phone-in facility – usually for entertainment and social programmes rather than those with a purely development focus. It could be concluded that, the MCR is an important vehicle for communication in Jozini, however its potential for promoting communication among those who need it most is affected by the same structural factors limiting access to other channels.

Official Communication Approaches And Strategies

The first democratic elections in South Africa in 1994 ended official apartheid and ushered in a democratic dispensation under the guidance of a government of national unity. To facilitate the transformation of the economy and country at large, an array of policies and strategies that emphasized democratic governance and the inclusion of the previously disadvantaged communities in their own development and in shaping policy were promoted. These policies have gone through major shifts from the immediate post-apartheid agenda of a more inclusive and broad-based trajectory to one in which market forces dominate and the majority of South Africans remain poor and mere recipients of services of varying quality.

The results of the most recent election indicated the demand for a more people-oriented system, in which the government is more active in the developmental state. Appendix 5 provides snippets of the policies/strategies, the intentions and implications for community engagement in this regard. South Africa is a constitutional democracy with clear institutional and administrative lines of service delivery responsibility from national to local level. These are supported by a regime of service delivery policy and government strategies . The IDP is a key mechanism for policy dialogue at municipal level, where the voices of citizens are meant to be heard and to influence policy.

The Municipal Systems Act (MSA) is the legislation that governs local government and guides the communication processes between municipal government structures and the public. Specifically, the municipal manager is mandated to ensure that he or she communicates to the local community:

• Whenever necessary to ensure that the community remains informed of local government business.

• In the local newspaper/s of its areas and in an appropriate language for its area.

• Through radio broadcasts covering the area of the municipality.

• Through distribution of flyers and pamphlets at such points as might be determined by the ward committee.

• Through posturing posters in all ward information centres.

• Through the municipality’s official website.

However, communication can be a challenge in isolated and poor serviced rural communities. In Jozini, for example, the internet connection is unreliable, service is erratic and the number of households with internet, let alone domestic telephone lines, is next to none. Newspapers and flyers also require high literacy rates and a culture of reading – both lacking in many rural areas, including in Jozini When and where pamphlets might be used, the transport and road network, as well as transport budgets, create major challenges to distribution. The only viable means of interaction between local government and the community remains the IDPs, but implementation of these plans remains problematic as we discuss in the following section.

The IDP As A Communication Tool

The IDP was initiated as a tool by which local economic development (LED) could be achieved. In essence, the IDP is a platform for local communities to channel their development needs and priorities for inclusion in municipal service delivery strategies and targets. The IDP was designed to give effect to section 16 of the Municipal Systems Act, which requires that the municipality to create conditions for the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, including:

• the preparation, implementation and review of its IDP;

• the establishment, implementation and review of its performance management system;

• determination, consideration and adoption of by-laws;

• the monitoring and review of its performance, including the outcome of such performance;

• the preparation of its budget; and

• strategic decisions relating to the provision of municipal services.

The IDP has been linked/aligned to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Reducing poverty by half by 2015 requires that at least half of the population in the poverty node will be gainfully employed; education will have reached more people; and improvements in education, employment and access to food and clean water will turn around the social and health factors that make HIV/AIDS and other chronic illnesses so prevalent in the community. But, it is evident that should the neo-liberal macro-economic framework prevail, these conditions of poverty will remain a permanent feature of rural life in South Africa generally and in Jozini particularly. Such areas have been historically underdeveloped and lack infrastructure, so cannot be expected to benefit from private-sector-driven growth, which has proven of benefit in and to communities in which infrastructure already exists and is functioning well and where middle class, educated and healthy people constitute the market. An attractive market presupposes such a community and clearly Jozini cannot attract investment on this basis.

One of the frustrations with development articulated by some people involved in implementing projects, as well as by members of rural communities, is that policies/strategies are formulated at the national level in South Africa but implemented at the local level resulting in a rather ineffective three-tiered system of governance. At the very top is national government, which is mandated to develop policy. At the middle level is the provincial government, which transforms policy into operational strategy. Then at the local government level is the municipality, which is at the coal face of development facilitation and implementation. This division of labour in governance in South Africa makes the ideal of participation in policy making for local communities far fetched. Officials at the provincial and municipal levels also complain that they are excluded from policy formulation. They feel like the passive consumers and implementers of policy from above, and say that a top-down approach is a persistent theme. National government officials point to the IDP mechanism as a vehicle for community involvement in policy making. Local government officials however, view the IDP as a compliance tool and as such, a burden.

It is clear that in theory, the municipality, through the IDP should be a space of government and governance, as well as policy making shared by officials and the citizenry. The IDP is intended to be a platform for consultation and participation where municipal officials and community groups interact to shape the development agenda for a particular year. Municipalities are allocated a budget from national government while richer metros are able to raise their own revenues. National government allocates the money to municipalities through the IDP process which forces municipal authorities to comply with the requirement to consult and include communities. In terms of the Municipal Systems Act, the municipal manager must ensure that public and open sessions are held to discuss the business of the municipality to invite their views and comments as well as the identification of the needs of the community including the prioritization of those needs.

The reality is that some municipalities continue to decide development projects without the involvement of communities. Poorer municipalities however are under the pressure to comply as they do not have alternative sources of development funding. The IDP process requires that municipal officials hold imbizos (consultative forums) in every ward (local area) to find out the development priorities of the community, as well as to communicate budget and policy to them. The IDP process unfolds as follows:

• Once the council has formulated a process plan setting out a guide for the planning, drafting, adoption and review of its IDP, the municipal manager must through appropriate mechanisms, process and procedures set out in the Municipal Systems Act, consult the local community before adopting the process;

• The notice must inform the community about their rights and duties for input required on the integrated development plan as well as how to go about commenting on such a process;

• The municipal manager must ensure that the publication does specify a date, time and/or place or where the input from the community may be submitted; and

• Once the municipality has finalized its IDP, it must within 14 (fourteen) days of the adoption of such plan, give notice to the public in a manner provided for in the Act as well as make available copies of or extracts for public inspection at specified places and publish in the local newspaper a summary of the plan.

This process is conducted once a year and takes between two and four months to complete. In the rural municipalities it requires that municipal officials move from one village to another in what is referred to as IDP road shows. During this process, the communities will register all their development initiatives, co-operatives and businesses. The municipal authorities match these with the funding available and compare with areas and groups funded in the previous year. In theory, the IDP should provide officials with the opportunity to monitor and evaluate the progress of projects that have been supported before and find ways of assisting them further, while providing the community with the opportunity to suggest why some projects are not successful.

The IDP has not been the most successful vehicle for communication for many reasons. Municipal officials view the IDP as another compliance requirement from national government. It is seen as an evaluation tool, rather than as a communication tool. An effective IDP requires an outlay of resources – time and money – which municipalities rarely have. It also requires that the community be in attendance and this in turn requires that they view the process as relevant and credible. In the case of the IDP in Jozini, apathy is the order of the day. This apathy stems from a number of factors including (but not limited to):

• lack of trust and confidence in municipal processes;

• disappointment with earlier efforts that brought nothing to them;

• the perception that these meetings are a waste of time;

• the failure of officials to create an atmosphere in which community members can communicate their interests freely;

• the perception that those who are critical of the municipality are silenced, ignored or not taken seriously;

• the fact that the IDP meetings are often events in which community frustration is expressed but no solutions or follow up are offered;

• the perception that community members use the IDP platform to undermine the political party running the municipality;

• inconsistent and poor attendance, which leads to repetition of issues and lack of clarity in discussion; and

• IDP forums are held in different locations each time, which leads to lack of follow-up on discussions.

The context of poverty and the infrastructure backlog has a negative impact on discussions about development. The development forums such as the IDP or any meetings with government officials or political representatives concentrate on service delivery issues, such as water, roads, transport and energy. This means that channels for communication are rarely used as forums for policy engagement. The failure of municipal official to utilise other communication vehicles, such as the MCR to communicate IDP-related information and other development issues is also a major concern according to Mr Ntsele of the MCR. In an interview, Mr Ntsele also said that the municipality uses community radio only as a tool to announce meetings and make public notices, rather than to open a channel for community feedback on its work.

Political Champions And Parliamentary Imbizos

South Africa does not have a constituency based parliamentary system, which means that the members of parliament are not seen as a means of direct access to policy. However, the revolving parliament and cabinet legkotla’s provide parlimentarians access to the goings on in communities. However, these occur infrequently and do not address many issues because of budget and time constraints. As a result of this, the parliament does not always perform the function it does in other countries: of allowing for community participation in policy development.

Community representation takes place at the ward level, where elected councillors represent the community. At a national level, each district is allocated a political champion. This is a cabinet minister who supposedly concerns himself/herself with the development issues from that particular area. Many communities are unaware of who their political champion is and others report never seeing them, this also applies to people interviewed in Jozini.

The Role Of Traditional Authorities

South Africa’s policy about the place and role of traditional authorities in rural development is conflicted and, at best, patronising. Although the constitution acknowledges the role of amakhosi (chiefs), the development process does not really assign them a budget with which to exercise their role. The tendency is to advance the place of councillors over that of amakhosi. However, in the context of Jozini, which falls within the Ingonyama Trust Lands (controlled by the Zulu Monarchy) amakhosi continue to assert themselves as part of the development equation by insisting that councillors, field workers and government officials acknowledge through consultation that they are part and parcel of any development that takes place on their land.

Traditional authorities still engage with the people in their areas through cultural functions, imbizos and organising development projects, such as community gardens and other activities. However, some people seem to view amakhosi as an institution that is no longer relevant, though they will still consult the chiefs should they want land for their children or to resolve a dispute between neighbours.

Conclusion

The extent of poverty in Jozini demands that Poverty Reduction Projects (PRPs), such as the agriculture and food security initiatives of government be designed and implemented democratically through community participation to achieve meaningful change and sustainable results for the beneficiary communities. Poor rural people are locked in a vicious cycle of deprivation that leaves them silenced. Rural communities suffer the most marginalisation and exclusion from service delivery, yet they do not exercise political voice as do their urban counterparts. This lack of political response has often left government officials complacent and relaxed about the way they deal with rural communities. Rural communities have a majority female population and the tendency is for youth and largely men to go to urban areas to look for waged employment opportunities.

The lack of support for agriculture and land-based economic initiatives has left rural communities disillusioned and despondent about the prospects of land based economic upliftment. As such most people view employment creation as the only way out of the punishing poverty in which they currently find themselves. Rural communities often are ambivalent about their circumstances – they describe their situation in terms of discomfort resulting from the lack of basic amenities, such as water, electricity, energy and good health for instance, rather than according to how much money they spend per day. They relate their poverty to indicators such as the number and quality of meals they can eat per day, their ability to send a child to school, the type of houses they stay in, their ability to access energy, water and produce a good harvest, among other things.

Asked what interventions they expected from government, participants suggested that government should support them with fencing, adequate land, water supply and marketing for their produce. What is common in these areas, as in many rural areas of South Africa, is the heavy reliance on the state for social assistance (through grants). There is also an indication that the extended family system is under immense pressure and no longer a reliable source of support. Agricultural development in rural areas should be linked with small, home-based businesses, such as Bed and Breakfast, tourist ventures, social services such as luncheon clubs and drop-in-centres to create an integrated rural livelihood and to contribute to economic growth.

Key indicators of vulnerability identified include: lack of skills and education; lack of employment opportunities, exposure to HIV infection and cyclical drought. Food garden producers are aware of the links between their work and the potential to intervene in mitigating these vulnerability factors. Many households use the money from their vegetables and animals to support the education of their children. They also identify their traditional food as an important source of nutrition for people living with HIV/AIDS. The skills level for agriculture production could be enhanced and increased. Farmers have a wide range of skills that could be used to increase local capacity. A farmer such as Mr Sithole from Makhathini for instance, is a natural extension officer and his skills could be shared to increase the capacity of the agriculture department. However, there is little evidence to suggest that there exist the opportunities or the infrastructure for such skills to be translated into wider benefits for the local communities and work that generates adequate household income.

Rural communities would benefit greatly from acquiring skills and that could facilitate income-generating projects or entry into gainful employment, access to technical and business skills training, and better access to land. Small producers suffer because they lack financial management support. Development projects supported by various government departments and the municipality are poorly integrated, as are local municipal structures. Shortages of extension and development staff (LED, CDW, and CLOs), lack or shortage of working transport and insufficient support from national government also add to the isolation and marginalisation of rural communities like Jozini.

In summary, the key themes arising in Jozini on social and economic development highlight the importance of addressing the participation potential of local communities and their involvement in development on one hand, and addressing the infrastructural development backlogs, unemployment, endemic poverty and general vulnerability of the communities, on the other hand. Notwithstanding the lack of investment and coherent agricultural development policy for smallholders, policy makers still acknowledge the potential for agriculture to drive rural development.

Political focus in agriculture as a panacea of the rural development backlog stems from a number of assumptions, among which are, the perceptions that land in the rural areas is in abundance; that rural people are already engaged in food production of some sort at varying levels; that agriculture is a natural rural activity which with a bit of encouragement could lead to livelihood improvements; and that food crop production could continue with minimal government intervention and resource injection. Closer interaction between policy makers, development practitioners and the NGO sector supporting such initiatives with the beneficiary communities, would actually indicate the extent to which these assumptions are largely erroneous and contribute to low levels of rural change.

Communication challenges are numerous: there is a distinct lack of information about how to start community projects and small businesses; language and geographic location (and isolation) impact on how communities receive and process information; there are also perceived barriers, such as political affiliation and the politicisation of development programmes. The IDP has been touted as an important communication vehicle, but officials at local government level see it as a control mechanism imposed by national government and not as an effective tool for monitoring and evaluation or for encouraging community participation. The IDP is therefore not properly used either by the municipality or by the community it serves to effect necessary change. The MCR is an important aspect of any attempt for development communication in Jozini which could foster and assist in many other areas, if properly harnesses.

Recommendations

To address the communication gap in rural areas such as Jozini requires that a communication strategy be adopted that considers the social, economic and cultural material conditions in the area. Some of the things that must be done to ensure better communication include (but not limited to):

• Investment in mass education to increase literacy rates;

• Support for communication channels such as the community radio stations that play a vital role in getting information to the communities where transport and other communication channels are limited;

• Increased enthusiasm in public participation through the IDP;

• Ensuring that needs articulated in one IDP are addressed so as to reduce apathy in the fIDP process;

• Improving the level and quality of information gather by field workers in their reports and monthly returns, as well as responding to the issues raised;

• Successful community radio stations such as the MCR need the support of government as they are already at the heart of the governance and development communication system in Jozini and beyond;

• Increasing NGO, government and private sector participation in the communication process