South African Extension

Provincial consultative workshops on the development of national policy on extension for agriculture, forestry and fisheries – October 2012

Structure of presentation

The Context Attempts to re-orientate extension

and advisory services The status quo in agricultural

extension Land reform Forestry Fisheries

The context

The context

Predominantly viewed as being characterised by duality.

Well-established large-scale farmers who farm almost exclusively for the market.

Smaller-scale farmers who farm primarily for home consumption.

In reality there is a wide spectrum of producers along a contuum

The context

Prior to 1994 the perception of duality was reflected in parallel systems of extension.

By 1994 there were 14 different extension services in the country, together with a network of agricultural colleges and university agricultural faculties which mirrored the apartheid divide.

The context

The challenge for the new government is to build a extension service that engages the full range of producers.

Deregulation of SA agriculture changed the landscape of SA agriculture – subsidies, single channel marketing, +av farm size, fewer bigger players etc.

Attempts to reorient extension In 1998 the NDA highlighted five

problems impacting on extension provision to smallholders:

The low qualification of agricultural extension practitioners serving the homelands.

The difficulty of delivering service to these farmers, due partly to the wide diversity of systems, needs and contexts they presented.

Attempts to reorient extension

In 1998 the NDA highlighted five problems impacting on extension provision to smallholders:

Poor communication within the extension service.

Lack of accountability to farmers. Lack of vision and focus about the

purpose and client.

Attempts to reorient extension In 2005, the NDA drafted Norms and

Standards for Extension.demand-driven, responding to farmers’

needs;relevant to the resource constraints and

market environment;pluralistic, flexible and co-ordinated, involving

a wide range of extension service providers.Focus on small-scale disadvantaged farmers.Accompanied by the National Agricultural Education and Training Strategy

Attempts to reorient extension Extension recovery plan - half a billion

rand from Treasury during the 2008/9 to 2010/11 1. Ensure visibility and accountability of

extension. 2. Promote professionalism and improve the

image of extension. 3. Recruit extension personnel. 4. Reskill and re-orientate extension workers. 5. Provide ICT infrastructure and other

resources.

Attempts to reorient extension

Evaluation Universal agreement on the need for a

public extension and advisory service. Need for extension policy that covers

public, private and NGO sector extension and advisory services

Attempts to reorient extension

Post-Polokwane – renewed focus on small-holder agriculture.

In 2009, reorganisation responsibility for agriculture, forestry and fisheries at national government level

Status quo

Mounting evidence that extension has not had the impact intended• vast numbers of people requiring

assistance• relatively few and inadequately trained

and resourced extension workers• Misguided - commercialisation of so-

called ‘subsistence’ and ‘emerging’ farmers

Status quo

Numerous agencies that provide research, extension, information sharing and economic development support to their paying and other members

Commodity-bases organisations and private consulting companies,NGOs

Status quo

There is inconsistency of policy or activity regarding extension and the interventions are uncoordinated – thereby reducing the impact of these interventions

Reinforces need for broad-based policy on extension and advisory services

Land reform

Seeks to redistribute 30% of agricultural land through restitution, redistribution and tenure reform measures.

Disappointing results.

Land reform

SLAG, LRAD, and then LARP was launched in 2008 – but poor alignment with CASP and other so no implementation.

Misalignment of competencies – turning lever in different directions.

Forestry policy

Prior to 1994 focus of SA and TVBC governments was on direct management of State forests: Commercial plantations Woodlots Indigenous forests

Advisory services limited to annual arbor day, later arbor week, and “greening” of rural and urban areas

Forestry policy

Vision for forestry extension in the 1998 Forestry White Paper, followed by a National Forestry Action Plan (NFAP)

Government to move out of direct management and focus on Forestry Policy, Regulation, and Advisory Services (Development)

Forestry – since 1994

Progress made with establishing the forest policy and regulations functions, but forestry development function has remained weak

Forestry – since 1994

The transfer of State Forests incomplete, and the majority of the budget is still consumed by direct management Category B plantations and woodlots to

community rights holders Indigenous State Forests-to conservation

agencies

Forestry: Target groups and support needs

Commercial Forestry Existing small growers (20-30 000) New afforestation community projects DAFF plantations transferred to

community Restitution projects on forestry

plantations (40% of commercial plantations under claim)

Technical, financial and managerial support

Forestry: Target groups and support needs

Agroforestry, PFM, CBNRM Rural communities in and around

forests and woodlands Rural/ urban communities CBNRM, SMMEs, agroforestry,

woodlots

Fisheries

Marine sector – quota (expanding to smaller-scale fishers) and non-quota sub-sectors (artisanal and subsistence fishers)

Freshwater sector – early stages of development of aquaculture and broadening of the inclusion of communities?

Fisheries

Small scale fisheries policy was gazetted in 2012.

National Development Plan in direct contradiction with fisheries policy.

26

Level of self-reliance

High

High

Priv

ate

sect

or

Public sector

Low

Low

Use b

y F

arm

er

Public-Private Sector Dynamics

27

Level of self-reliance

High

High

Priv

ate

sect

or

Public sector

Low

Low

Use b

y F

arm

er

Public-Private Sector Dynamics

28

Level of self-reliance

High

High

Priv

ate

sect

or

Public sector

Low

Low

Use b

y F

arm

er

Public-Private Sector Dynamics

29

Level of self-reliance

High

High

Priv

ate

sect

or

Public sector

Low

Low

Use b

y F

arm

er

Public-Private Sector Dynamics